133 
1916-17.] Labouring Class Dietaries in War Time. 
Although the average income of these ten familes had materially 
increased — from 28s. 9d. to 36s. lOd. — this increase was chiefly confined to 
two, the first (M. 112) being that of a dock labourer whose earnings varied 
week by week, and amounted to 55s. 6d. during the second study instead 
of 30s. as in the former. The most marked change in circumstances was in 
M. 65, the family of a man who at the first study was earning 30s. weekly 
and at the second was absent in the motor transport. This family, from 
separation allowances, additional allowance from the father and a weekly 
proportion of the father’s former wage, had 7 Is. weekly. Family H. 38, 
although the income was unchanged, owing to the father’s habits was 
much better off in consequence of his enlistment. S. 84, the family of the 
soldier who was discharged, found it more difficult to live at the time of 
the second study on 30s. which the father earned than during the former 
study on a separation allowance of 27s. As the increase of the separa- 
tion allowances had only been paid in one monthly instalment when the 
studies were made, and so far had not affected the weekly expenditure, 
it has been omitted in calculating the incomes. Six of the ten families 
had practically the same income as in 1915, and four were in a better 
position. 
Omitting the family whose income had so markedly increased (M. 65), 
the average income was 33s. 6d. weekly. 
Expenditure. 
The average expenditure of the nine families (omitting M. 65) on food 
was 23s. ljd., or 69 per cent, of income. As these families were equal, on 
an average, to 3A6 men per day, this is equivalent to a daily expenditure 
of lid. per man per day on food. The amount spent on rent was 
practically unaltered. 
An average of 6s. IJd.. or 18’3 per cent, of income, remained after rent 
and food were provided. Thus, in spite of the considerable advance in 
income, the proportion remaining for other expenses had decreased since 
the first study owing to the rise in food prices. 
This “ remainder of income ” was unevenly distributed, being under 
2s. in the three families with the smallest incomes. Three had a 
large surplus. 
Owing to a further rise in the price of coal and tea, the purchas- 
ing power of this portion of income has fallen since the first study 
was made. 
