THE COST OF HIGH LIVING.
On the 16th day of December, 1873, the last spike was driven to
complete the Northern Pacific Railway between Kalama and Tacoma.
This was then, and is yet, considered a great event in the history of
the Northwest country, not because of completing railroad connection
between the two towns, but because of the binding together with bands
of steel the two great arteries of traffic, the Columbia River and
Puget Sound.
Kalama, situated on the right bank of the Columbia forty miles below
Portland, was then simply a construction town of railroad laborers, and
has remained as a village to this day. Tacoma, which then could boast
of four hundred inhabitants—mill hands, terminal seekers and railroad
laborers—has now fully one hundred thousand permanent inhabitants,
engaged in the usual avocations of industry incident to civilized life.
On the 16th day of December, 1913, the Tacoma Commercial Club
celebrated "The Fortieth Anniversary of Train Operation to Tacoma," in
the form of a railroad "Jubilee Dinner." In consideration of my having
been a passenger on that first train, and "possibly the only survivor
of that passenger list", the writer received a cordial invitation to be
the guest of the club, which was accepted. He occupied a chair at the
banquet table, sat as a mute spectator, and listened to the speeches
that followed the banquet, and saw the many devices arranged for
entertaining the company.
It would appear unseemly for the writer, as a guest, to criticize
his host, the Commercial Club, for the manner of his entertainment,
particularly considering the cordiality of the invitation. "We hope
that you can be here, but if you cannot there will be at least one
vacant chair at the banquet table, and it will be held in memory of
Ezra Meeker, the pioneer of the Puget Sound country", this following
expressions of concern as to my health. So, whatever criticism may
follow will be as a friend of a friend and not in a facetious spirit.
Let us now consider the banquet, so intimately connected with the
subject of the high cost of living, or perhaps in this case might
I not better say, "cost of high living", or for what might be more
appropriately known as the woeful waste cost of living. Covers were
laid for 344 in the large banquet hall, and every seat was occupied. In
addition a large number were fed in overflow, improvised dining halls,
the participants coming into the main hall to hear the speeches after
the feast was over. Seven courses came upon the board, including wine
in profusion. Fully one-third of the viands of these seven courses was
sent off the table and to the garbage cans, destined to soon reach the
incinerator or sewers of the city, and later the deep sea waters of
Puget Sound, save one item, the wine, all of which was consumed. As
I sat and mused, to me it seemed a pity the wine did not follow the
waste into the sea. The tables and hall were profusely decorated with
flowers. In one corner of the hall soft strains of sweet music would
issue from a band half hidden from view. Alternately with these, in a
more central position, gifted singers would entertain the assemblage
with appropriate songs.
In one angle of the room was a booth, "The Round House" of one of the
transcontinental lines; at another point, "The Terminals", and so on
through with the four transcontinental railroad lines centering in
Tacoma, with "conductors" as ushers, dining and sleeping car porters as
waiters, each appropriately decorated to point the line to which they
belonged.
As I sat and mused between courses, it gradually dawned upon my mind
that this was in fact as well as in name a "railroad jubilee dinner"
and celebration, and not an assemblage to commemorate pioneer deeds
as pioneer days; that the "Anniversary" date had been seized upon
to attract the widest possible attendance to accomplish another
purpose—that the object of the meeting was to obtain a hearing for
a "square deal" for the railroads, in a word, to build up a public
sentiment favoring the increase of freight rates. This fact became
more manifest and more apparent as the program was unfolded in the
introduction of five railroad magnates as the principal speakers of the
evening, followed by the young governors of the States of Oregon and
Washington, but not a pioneer was called or heard. In fact, less than
half a dozen of the pioneers of forty years ago were present—a whole
generation had passed in these eventful years since 1873.
We come now to the consideration of the high cost of living as outlined
by the railroad magnates in their plea for an advance in freight rates.
The high cost of living had advanced wages; the cost of operating
the railroad was greater, while the rates from time to time had been
lowered until the receipts had almost reached the vanishing point where
dividends might be declared; and to the point where more capital could
not be enlisted for betterment and extension of the lines to keep
pace with the vast increase of traffic. The burden of these speeches
for an hour and a half was for a higher freight rate and a plea for a
more friendly feeling on the part of the general public towards the
railroads.
I had expected to hear something said about some method of reducing
the cost of living, but nothing whatever was said on that point; or
of economizing in the cost of operating the railroads, but on that
point the speakers were silent. These five speakers were together
probably drawing a hundred thousand dollars annual salary, but no hint
was given of expecting to take less. However, many of the points were
well taken, and ably stated by the speakers, and received the serious
consideration of the four hundred business men who were present, and
of thousands that read the account of the proceedings published in
the current issues of the newspapers of the day. I mused. If because
of the high cost of living wages advanced, and because wages advanced
freight rates advanced, how long would it be until another advance for
all hands round would be demanded? This in turn brings to the front the
question of whither are we tending? Some honestly, while others with
better knowledge insolently, charged the "Robber Tariff" as the cause
of the high cost of living. The tariff has been revised downward and
yet the cost of living advances. The demand for labor has lessened and
bread lines for the unemployed threatened, and with it the cost of _low
living_ has become a vital question.
Referring again to the banquet room and to the woeful waste going
into the sewers of Tacoma, may we not pause for the moment to ask,
How many of these banquet rooms, great and small, hotels, kitchens of
the idle rich as well as the improvident poor, are pouring like waste
into the sewers and the deep sea in the United States? If all were
collected in one great sewer, the volume would stagger the imagination.
One authority would have it the volume would equal that of the water
pouring through the channel of the Ohio River. Whatever the volume, all
will realize that could this wilful waste of food be stopped, that food
would become more abundant, the general public better fed while the
cost of living would be lowered. The American people have this sin to
answer for, and the question will remain with them until answered and
atonement made.
May we not properly ask the railroad magnates to look inwardly and see
if some methods of economy can not be introduced in their management
that will reduce the cost of operating while not lessening the
efficiency of the services. Not one word was said by the speakers on
this point. I do not allege that much can be accomplished in this
direction, but I do say that it is incumbent upon railroad managers to
search the way and come before the American people with clean hands and
they will be met with hearty response for the square deal. Some of the
speakers emphasized the fact that once the people eagerly welcomed the
railroads until they got them, and then turned against them apparently
as enemies. The speakers seemingly forgot the time when the railroad
managers had become arrogant and acted, some of them, somewhat as
expressed by that inelegant phrase, "the public be damned", and treated
the railroads wholly as private property the same as a farm or a
factory or the home. One might easily read between the lines of some of
the speeches that this doctrine of ownership without restriction as to
the duties due the public was still lurking in minds of the men making
them.
These speeches and kindred efforts, however, will do a good work,
will clear the way for a better understanding, and will in the end
accomplish the coming together of the people and railroads. More than
once in the banquet speeches, government ownership was spoken of as the
result of present tendencies, and one might almost say welcomed by the
speakers, anyway, flippantly spoken of as a possible if not probable
event. I could not help but feel that there was a vein of insincerity
running through these expressed opinions, and that the words were
intended for effect to hasten the day of reconciliation as between
the public and the railroads. To my mind such expressions coming from
such a source were ill advised. One can scarcely imagine a so-called
railroad man that in his heart would welcome government ownership of
railroads in this great nation of freedom. These lines are penned by
the hand of one born before the advent of railroads in the United
States. Perhaps, to be exact, we might note that at that time (December
29, 1830) twenty-eight miles of a so-called railroad (a tramway) were
in operation in the coal mining district. Now we are told there are
over two hundred and sixty thousand miles, requiring a tremendous army
to operate and maintain. The day the policy of government ownership
of railroads in the United States is adopted, that day will see the
germ planted that will eventually grow to open the way for the "man
on horseback" and the subversion of a free government. The reader may
conclude this belief comes from the pessimistic mind of an old man,
and not worthy of serious attention. The writer will cheerfully submit
to be called elderly, but will emphatically disclaim being a pessimist
and will claim this thought expressed as to government ownership of the
railroads deserves very serious consideration as fraught with great
danger. But this is a digression and now let us get back to the subject
of the high cost of living.
A few weeks ago much was written and published about the high cost of
eggs. Finally the ladies of Seattle hired a theater and more than a
thousand of them assembled to listen to speeches made and to vote for
resolutions presented denouncing alleged speculation in eggs by the
cold storage people, forgetting the fact there was no surplus and that
the law of supply and demand governed. As before written, I hesitated
to criticise mine hosts, the Commercial Club, and how shall I dare
brave the danger of the displeasure of this particular thousand ladies
and of millions more of the same mind to be found in other parts of the
land? Notwithstanding all these resolutions and denunciations, the hens
refused to cackle and the price of eggs advanced. If these same ladies
had, during the season of abundance and reasonable prices of eggs,
provided themselves with suitable earthen jars and a small quantity
of water glass they might have had a supply in their own larders so
near in quality that only a connoisseur could tell the difference,
just as healthful and at moderate price, and thus contribute one
factor to keep down the high cost of living. God bless the fifteen
million housewives of our nation. It is with diffidence I venture,
even in a mild criticism, and so let me assume the role to question
and leave conclusions to the ladies themselves. How many of these
ne'er-do-well housewives look closely to the garbage cans? I would
ask, what percentage of the food that comes on to the table is carried
off and not eaten—in a word, wasted? If this waste, even to a small
degree, was stopped, the effect would be instantly felt, not only in
each particular household, but likewise in the larger way to cut off a
portion of the demand in the markets, and this would tend to lessen the
general cost of living.
Again, we hear much charged against the "middlemen", as not only
conducing to the high cost of living, but as being the real cause; that
the producer gets scarcely fifty per cent. of the price paid by the
consumer, hence a great wrong is being perpetrated upon a suffering
public by a class who are unmercifully denounced for their alleged
wrong conduct. Indeed, here is one factor that gives us most trouble,
that is, I mean to say the gap between the consumer and the producer,
not the middlemen.
As with the ladies and the eggs, where words had no effect,
denunciation of middlemen is ineffectual. A sufficient answer to
clear the middlemen's skirts is, that as a class they do not build up
great fortunes, and in fact a large percentage of them either fail in
business or barely make a reasonable living.
It is the system we must look to for the real cause of our trouble and
not the instruments carrying out the mandates of the public demand. If
we insist upon having the products of the farm in season and out of
season, some of which must be transported for long distances, cared
for, much of it in refrigerating cars and in cold storage, all of
which costs money, of course we must expect an increase in the cost of
living. I am not decrying against this so much as simply noting the
fact, to point the way to one real cause of our complaint. A more real
cause of this great disparity lies with the consumers who demand their
supplies delivered in small portions, always wasteful and expensive,
put up in attractive, costly packages—all of which must come out of the
pockets of the consumers. If the good lady of the household telephones
to her grocer to send her a pound of some new named stuff (and which
comes in a neat but expensive package), how can she expect to get the
same value at the same cost as if bought in original form and at the
counters? She must not only pay for the cost of delivering but often
for the new name of an old-time material in a different dress. It is
the demand of the consuming public that makes possible the waste of
small purchasers and incidentally the additional cost of delivery.
There is another phase of this question of high cost of living that
has so far received scant attention, which we may properly write
as Fast Living. I do not mean this in the sense of the profligate
spendthrifts, the joy-riders, the senseless wanderings of the idle rich
traveling thousands of miles to drive away the ennui incident to the
sin of indolence, although this has an appalling effect upon the vital
question under consideration and of the welfare of the nation, and must
be treated in another chapter. What I mean now is the legitimate fast
living which adds so greatly to the general cost of living. If, for
instance, the physician using an automobile can visit twenty patients
where before he could only see ten; or the business man utilizing this
rapid transit means for quick dispatch of business can transact as much
business in a day as otherwise would take a week; travel thousands
of miles where before he could make but hundreds, then he becomes a
fast liver and with this a high cost liver. If a locomotive hauls a
train but twelve miles an hour (the original standard of high speed)
manifestly if the speed is increased to sixty miles for the same period
of time, the cost of coal must be much more than at the lower speed.
And so with the fast liver; his expenditures for a given time will be
far greater than if content to move at lower speed. This principle
as applied to individuals is equally applicable to communities, and
becomes a factor in accounting for the high cost of living. We are as a
nation fast livers, and to an extent high livers, and must needs suffer
the penalty of higher cost of living than our forbears who led the
simple life and practiced frugality as a cardinal virtue.
Another factor we are apt to lose sight of, and it is a large one,
that of withdrawing so many from the field of food production and
moving them over to the side of consumers. Take the army of automobile
builders as one instance; these men, with their dependent families
become consumers, while engaged in an occupation that aids measurably
in the opportunity for fast living, which, as we have seen, adds to
the high cost as compared with the ordinary methods in life. Many such
instances might be named, but this one must suffice.
Another far-reaching cause—in fact worldwide—is the vast increase
in the volume of gold within recent years and consequent decline in
purchasing power, which of course carries with it the high cost of
commodities exchanged for it measured in dollars and cents. Space will
not permit following this feature of the question further, but it is
one of the things that must be reckoned with in reviewing the whole
question. This, however, is more apparent than real and is entirely
without our control.
And so, in summing up, we can see that high cost of living is with us
to stay; that, as compared with the simple life, it is a thing of the
past; that so long as we practice fast living we must expect a higher
cost; so long as any part of a community insists on high living, the
inevitable corollary follows that the average cost is advanced.
Are we then helpless to combat this upward tendency in the cost of
living? By no means; but if we miss the mark in our effort we lessen
the chance of success. We must discriminate and not be led astray by
false prophets teaching false premises. When demagogues, for political
effect, allege that the "Robber Tariff" is the cause, one can easily
see the fallacy of the assertion; when honest people inveigh against
the middlemen as the cause, instead of joining in the denunciation of a
class, they should look inwardly to the system and try to correct the
abuse within. If we are wasteful as alleged, then strive to stop the
waste; if we are extravagant, then let us stop it; if we are heedless
in the method of making our purchases, then let us turn over a new leaf
and begin anew and each do his or her part and the combined efforts
will have effect. While we will not get back to all the old-time ways
of the simple life (and it is not desirable that we should) yet the
effort will correct some glaring defects in our present system. While
we may not get the cost of living down to the old standard (and again
it is not desirable we should), yet all will agree that a combined
popular effort would work a wonderful change for the better in the
direction of reducing the cost of living.