20 COST OF LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES 
criticized on the ground that the bulk of American wage 
earning women are not living in this manner but as integral 
parts of family groups, where their cost of support is lower 
than for a woman living independently.! Its use has been 
retained because it is the simplest measure of the cost of 
living for a single woman, and because many persons believe 
that the cost of the complete support of such a woman at 
home is little if any less than it would be if she were living 
independently. 
Wage Implications 
The significance of estimates of the actual cost of living 
based on conditions contrary to fact, both as regards the 
prevailing standard of living and as regards the unit of meas- 
urement, appears, of course, chiefly when related to wages. 
This problem will not be discussed here,* beyond pointing 
out that the assumption that every adult male wage earner’s 
cost of living requires support for four dependents, and that 
every female wage earner needs enough to support her cost of 
living apart from a family group would result in a total an- 
nual wage bill in excess of the national income when allow- 
ances are made for taxes and capital improvements. If the 
principle of equal pay for equal work were recognized, based 
on the wages of a man, the deficit would be still greater. In 
the meantime, men with larger families would be inade- 
quately provided for, and women with dependents would 
find their single standard wage insufficient to care for these. 
Recognition of the shortcomings of these standards has 
resulted in new proposals for measuring the cost of living. 
One of these is that the unit shall be a man and woman, 
whose needs would be covered by a basic wages? another is 
that the standard should be a single man’s needs with enough 
in addition to permit saving for marriage.* Both of these 
include provision for increasing allowances for increased 
1 See, for example, Arkansas, Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Third Biennial 
Report, 1915-1916, Little Rock, 1917, pp. 15-16; Massachusetts, Department of 
Labor and Industries, Division of Minimum Wage. Men’s Furnishings Occupation 
Decree (Revised) No. 23, 1922, p. 2. 
2 For criticism of certain uses of family budgets see Stecker, op. cit. 
® Australia, Royal Commission on the Basic Wage, Report, Melbourne, 1920. 
t Douglas. “Wages and the Family.” op. ¢it., pp. 191-199,