2 BULLETIN 1214, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
efforts at material, personal, or social ig wee, paying little or 
no attention to the specific provisions for food, housing, and th 
other economic goods on which health and satisfaction depend. 
Others think it should represent the sum of the economic goods, 
each accurately indicated by quantity or value, required to mee 
normal physiotogical and social requirements, though as yet no 
means has been found of measuring most of these requirements. 
Still others in describing the standard of living would add to economic 
goods actually consumed for food, clothing, and shelter, such less 
tangible needs as maintenance of health, facilities for education, 
recreation, and social relationships. It is in this last sense that the 
term has ordinarily been used by the economists on whose studies is 
based such information as is now available regarding standards of 
living. 
In ices of these economic studies the standard of living has been 
measured in terms of cost. Statistics have been gathered regarding the 
money value of the food, fuel, house furnishings, and clothing provided | 
for a given family; the cost of renting or owning a house and its opera- 
tion and upkeep; the money spent for health, education, religious ac-— 
tivities, recreation, and for various other personal, family, and social 
needs; and the amount laid by for future use. In other words, these. 
studies of the standard of living have been largely studies of the cost 
of living and show little as to the degree of welfare and satisfaction 
obtained in return for the money spent. They have furnished much 
valuable information for students and for the practical guidance of — 
legislators, wage boards, and social workers; but those who use it 
most are the first to admit that it is mcomplete and often misleading. © 
For example, it is obviously incorrect to assume that the same 
proportion of the total family expenditure is to be attributed to each — 
individual in a family regardless of age, sex, and occupation, but so 
far no satisfactory basis has been found for comparing families of 
different make-up. Another source of error is that the cost of living 
as measured by expenditures in money shows nothing of the con=_ 
tribution made by the unpaid labor of members of the family. If 
this labor were paid for at current rates, it would add appreciably to 
the family expenditures. Closely related to this question of unpaid 
labor is the managerial ability of the home maker. This can hardly 
be indicated in dollars and cents; yet purchasing ability, for example, 
may make a noteworthy difference in the quantity and quality of 
food or clothing obtained for a given sum. 
Cost-of-living studies give a somewhat more definite picture of 
living conditions when expenditures are grouped under such heads 
as food, clothing, rent, operating expenses, and those miscellaneous 
but significant items often lumped together as advancement, or 
higher life. So many records of family living have been analyzed | 
in this way that there are widely accepted generalizations as to the 
proportion of the total expenditures devoted to the different items. 
The earlier work of this kind was based chiefly on records of — 
families of European industrial workers, many of whom had such 
low incomes that nearly the entire amount was required to meet the 
physical necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. Comparison of © 
such studies and those made with groups on somewhat higher 
economic levels have led to the generalization that as the income 
increases the proportion spent for advancement increases and that 
- 
