“To Live in Health and in General Conformity with the Mores of Her Group”: Defining a Minimum-Adequate Standard of Living

In 1937, the Supreme Court reversed a position taken in 1923 that a state minimum wage law was unconstitutional. The following year, the Fair Labor Standards Act was signed into law outlawing child labor and guaranteeing covered workers a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a maximum 40-hour work week. Although more than 22 million workers benefited, conservative forces in Congress saw to it that the Act exempted many others from its provisions. Due to the persistence of low wages during the Depression, the Federal government charged three agencies, including the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, to recommend procedures to determine cost-of-living budgets so that adequate minimum wage legislation could be written. In the following document, the Women’s Bureau devised budgets for self-supporting women without dependents living in a variety of states and defined a “minimum-adequate standard of living” distinct from a subsistence or luxury standard. In doing so they took into consideration specific cultural, sociological, and psychological factors. They reasoned that wage standards should enable “conformity with group-approved habits or behavior patterns” in the area in which an individual lives so that persons affected can feel that they “belong” to their group. The document was included in the record of Senate hearings in 1949 to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act.

WORKING WOMEN’S BUDGETS IN TWELVE STATES . . .

WHAT IS MEANT BY A MINIMUM-ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING

To evaluate properly the cost-of-living budgets in this compilation requires a clear understanding of what the concepts “standard of living” and “minimum-adequate standard” involve. It is not easy to define “standard of living.” It is closely allied to the cultural and economic development of a country, and, as far as the individual is concerned, it is strongly influenced by the customs of the particular group to which he belongs and the area in which he lives.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that as a general rule people tend toward conformity with group-approved habits or behavior patterns, which to the individual serve as a measure of decency and order. By conforming with the pattern of his group, an individual can show himself and others that he “belongs,” that he is as “good” as his associates, and that he has a “right” to be accepted on equal terms with his fellow men. These patterns for any given group are basically associated with its “standard of living.”

A minimum-adequate standard is one which enables a person to have the minimum of those things that will permit conformity with the set of values of the group to which he attaches. Any appreciable deduction from the allowance of a person living on a minimum-adequate standard would require him to sacrifice some essential in order to keep up the appearance of meeting group standards.

The standard of living of a group and of a society changes over a period of time. The more highly industrialized the society, the more quickly the standard of living changes. An acceptable standard as reflected in a cost-of-living budget of 40 years ago would not be considered acceptable today. To translate a worker’s current living standards into a list of specifically defined goods and services is the job of the budget maker. Because of the individual’s tendency to conform to a group pattern, this pattern can be depended upon to indicate the basic things that should go into such a list. . . .

PERTINENT FACTS ABOUT THE BUDGETS INCLUDED IN THE COMPILATION . . .

Each of these 12 budgets is based on the concept of minimum-adequacy, rather than on a subsistence or a luxury standard. Also, each is based on the principle of self-support and therefore attempts to provide sufficiently for the minimum needs of an employed woman (or, in one State, a person) so that subsidies from the family, from organized charity, or from other sources are not necessary. Nevertheless, the budgets do vary somewhat as to the commodity-quantity content; the food and lodging categories of the budgets are built around different living arrangements, each of which involves a separate set of cost factors; the savings, private insurance, and tax allowances differ; and, finally, their money totals reflect price levels for different dates.

Since the concept of a “standard of living” involves so much that is subjective and since each of the available budgets represents the thinking of the particular group of people who made it up, the variations in the commodity-quantity allowances that cannot be explained by variations in known factors, such as climate, can be regarded as due to the honest differences of opinion among the groups which constructed the budgets. In spite of their variations, however, the data do lend themselves to many interesting and useful analyses on cost of living of a working woman.

None of the commodity-quantity lists is meant to prescribe the way in which each woman worker should spend her money. Their purpose is to provide the things that will assure minimum adequacy insofar as an individual’s standard of living is concerned. A particular woman may choose to buy two $30 dresses instead of four $15 dresses which might be provided for. She may not buy the cosmetics that are used by the majority of workingwomen but, instead, may prefer to buy books or phonograph records. This in no way depreciates the value of the commodity-quantity list as set up by the budget makers. It has served its purpose if it provides an adequate pattern which, when priced, allows sufficient money for a workingwoman without dependents to live in health and in general conformity with the mores of her group.

Item of expenditure:		Estimated annual average cost1
Housing (furnished room)		$201.00
Food (3 restaurant meals a day)		589.00
Clothing		261.00
Other living essentials		393.00
Clothing upkeep	$31.00
Personal care	55.00
Medical, dental, and optical care	47.00
Recreation, including vacation	80.00
Education and reading material	34.00
Transportation	61.00
Miscellaneous expense	85.00
Total commodities and services		1,444.00
Federal income tax 2		194.00
State income tax 2		6. 75
Social security tax		16.92
Savings and private insurance		30.29
Total cost of budget		1,691.96

Source: Industrial Commission of Colorado, Minimum Wage Division. Unpublished data, 1937.

CONNECTICUT

Annual cost of a minimum budget for a single working woman living in a furnished room and eating meals in restaurants in cities and towns in Connecticut, March 1946

Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, the Bureau of Statistics and the Minimum Wage Division, An Annual Minimum Budget for Working Women in Connecticut, March 1946. Mimeo.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Estimated annual cost of a budget for an employed woman living in a boarding house and buying lunches in a restaurant in the District of Columbia, February 1948

 

Item of expenditure:		Average annual cost6
Housing and Food: (furnished room in boarding house where 2 meals a day are served; lunches bought in restaurants)		$862.51
Clothing		277.18
Other living essentials		281.42
Clothing upkeep	$44.84
Personal care	44.27
Medical, dental, and optical care	37.11
Recreation, including vacation	45.23
Transportation	78.00
Miscellaneous expense	31.97
Total commodities and services		1,421.11
Federal income tax7		167.00
District of Columbia income tax7		7.80
Social security tax7		17.93
Savings and private insurance8		179.32
Total cost of budget		1,793.16

Source: District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Washington, D.C.

KENTUCKY

Annual cost of living for a self-supporting woman living alone in Kentucky, March-April 1946

Source: Kentucky Department of Industrial Relations. Evidence and Information Pertaining to Wages of Women and Minors in Laundry and Dry Cleaning, Hotel and Restaurant, and Other Industries. July 1946. Mimeo.

STATE OF WASHINGTON

Annual cost of a minimum budget for a single employed woman living in a furnished room and eating meals in restaurants in the State of Washington, May 1947

1: The original budget was based on prices prevailing in Denver and in 12 other Colorado cities in October 1937. The March 1947 figures are revised estimates made by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Back to text.

2: Federal and State income taxes were not provided for in the 1937 budget. However, as the increased incidence of these taxes has made them significant in any cost-of-living figure, they have been incorporated in the 1947 estimate. Back to text.

3: Based on prices obtained by the State of Connecticut in 11 cities and towns during February and March 1946. Back to text.

4: The State of Connecticut does not levy an income tax. Back to text.

5: The Connecticut budget does not make an allowance for this item. Back to text.

6: In 1937 a budget amounting to $884 annually to cover the cost of maintenance and protection of health of a woman worker living alone in the District of Columbia was approved by a conference called by the District Minimum Wage Board, and this has been the basis for estimating the current cost of living for such a woman in the District. The February 1948 revision was made by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Back to text.