livin

How Much does a family

need to live decently in
Canada? :

vamceoent Study by the Social
ai; oe Council of Metropol-.
be yoronto, issued in Decem-
ae has come up with a
- Westio ures in answer to this
iG; ae The study, called
Sts id for Family Budgeting,”
COstg ut weekly and monthly
Sizes ae families of various
to in @sed on prices in Toron-
a" February, 1964.

.. F

| ae family of four, consist-

| hig ay man doing heavy work,
“and 4." Who is not employed,

tos children, a boy aged 13

Guides’ 2 Bitl of 16 to 19, the
mm. » Show a total of $4,319.

is

the ne; 2¢ Should be noted, ‘is
Boss ; “Mount to be spent. The
Which OMe before income tax
leave eed be required to
ing 9 4,319 is $4435, Assum-
Year hours worked per

Woulge® employed family head

an hove to make about $2.22

More *
Im
ntaineg portant,

] the figures
Family Boat,.the “Guides for
® mhinim Udgeting” are based on
| lg whiew’ type standard of liv-
| toda ch is hardly acceptable
nN Canada. The report
Soca budget items in

& 7

} te BS Various categories in this
7 Mclude all consumer
7 Services identified as
ahd... OnVentional necessities
Monn 3 €ction from those com-
"Portan, Wants which are so
a ont to the social and
Flies | al Well-being of fami-
| Sitieg they rank with neces-
; UXuries are included.”

lt i

Family: worth noting that the
lade 5 Udget items do not: in-
pibit Me things as an auto-
“Vetape ®er or other alcoholic
Paiq aha Pension plan, pre-
eRe ator insurance. The
Wea, Allows Only $35 for one

a Not 5
tSerinea is the family budget
n the council’s report

Co Minimum,” but it
Tot MPlete, Housing costs are
; for home ownership,

only for rented apartment or
flat.

In effect, the Social Planning
Council’s family budgeting
guides are very carefully pre-
pared and are useful for the
purpose for which they were in-
tended — as guides to families
working out their budgets, espe-
cially those in the lower income
brackets.

Whether the council’s report
provides a sound basis ‘for wage
negotiations by trade unions is
another matter. Certainly, it
can be useful where wage rates
are very low, and to support
labor's demand for a_ $1.50
minimum wage by law.

In our view, a more realistic
basis for determining family liv-
ing costs is found in the pic-
ture of what families actually
spend. A report called “Urban
Family Expenditures, 1959” con-
tains a detailed breakdown. of
average spending by families of
two or more in the income
range $2,500-$7,000 (total fam-
ily income in 1959).

Practically all wage and sala-
ry earners were in this group,

and while the figures include
families of non-wage or salary
earners, they should provide a
reasonable approximation of ty-
pical spending patterns by work-
ing-class families in major Can-
adian cities.

The spending figures in this
DBS survey include all the
items excluded from the Toron-
to Social Planning Council’s
budgets — automobile, home
ownership costs, pension plan
and medical insurance pay-
ments, costs of consumer cre-
dit and many others.

We have taken the 1959 DBS
figures for five major cities and

have adjusted them to the end -

of 1964 to reflect changes in liv-
ing costs since 1959. We have
also adjusted the DBS figures,

costs?

which are based on average
family sizes ranging from 3.4 to
3.97 persons, to reflect the costs
for a family of four in each case.
This hypothetical “average”
family we have assumed to con-
sist of a man, his wife who is
not employed, and two children,
a boy of 13 and a girl of eight,
for whom family allowances are
received.

The adjustment for family
size was made only for food,
clothing and health and person-
al care. The adjustments for
changes in prices since 1959
were made by using the DBS
consumer price index changes
for each city in the various sub-
groups (food, clothing, housing,
transportation, health and _ per-
sonal care, tobacco and alco-
hol). Payments for pension
plans, gifts and life insurance
were adjusted by the change in
average wages and salaries in
each city.

While the adjusted figures
are rough approximations, we
think they serve to show at
least what a “reasonable” stand-
ard of living costs at the pres-

CITY
(metropolitan region)

MONTREAL
TORONTO
WINNIPEG
EDMONTON

VANCOUVER

CITY
(metro region)

MONTREAL
TORONTO
WINNIPEG
EDMONTON

VANCOUVER

Table |

TOTAL FAMILY SPENDING

{including payments for Pension,
Insurance, etc.)

$5,300
5,526
5,262
5,447

5,444

£ Approximate totals, including Family Allowance,

Table Il

Average Annual Earnings
of wage or salary earner
family head

$4.707
5,027
4,660
4,765

4,832

TOTAL INCOME REQUIRED*

Gross Income (before Income

(before deductions for
income tax)

$5,600
5,900
5,550
5,850

5,800

Tax) required for total
family spending
$5,600
25,900

5,550

5,850

hy,

ent time, based on the average

_ Spending patterns of families in
the income bracket of the vast
majority of wage and salary
earners.

Table I shows the results of
our calculations.

How close do most families
come to these income levels?
One indication can be found in
the figures from the 1961 Cen-
Sus On “average annual earn-
ings of wage-or-salary earner
head of families” in the cities
listed.

If the 1961 figures are adjus-
ted to September, 1964 by ap-
plying the percentage increase
in average weekly wages and
salaries in all industries com-
bined (“industrial composite”)
in each city between 1960-61
and September, 1964, the \pic-
ture shown in Table II emerges.

The difference between the
estimated earnings and required
income ranges from about $800
to $1,000 per year. How is the
deficit made up? The principal
way, evidently, is by additional
income earned by the wife. In
fact, the 1961 Census shows
that average family income was
about $800 to $1,000 more than
the average earnings of the
family head or breadwinner.

Of course, part of the wife’s
earnings are taken by extra ex-
penses (transportation, care of
children etc.) and part will be
offset by higher income taxes.

Another way of meeting the
gap between income and spend-
ing is by going ‘into debt,
through loans, consumer credit
or otherwise. This again entails
interest charges which, as we
know, can be very steep.

Even with all due reserva-
tions as to the approximate na-
ture of the figures shown in
Tables I and II and what they
stand for, they do point to an
“income gap,” a sizeable dis-
tance between the earnings of
the family breadwinner and the
income required to support the
kind of living standard which
is considered normal and desir-
able uner present-day Canadian
conditions.

—tshor Facts

May 28, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5