Retail Prices of Food Supplies in New Jersey. Retail Prices of a Selected List of Food Supplies, Reported Each Year by Representative Dealers in the Principal Centers of Population. Prices Quoted are those that Prevailed During the Month of The compilation which follows is for the purpose of showing the retail prices of a bill of table supplies drawn up with a view to having it include only such articles of food as are in general use and for which there is the most constant demand. Care has been taken where there are two or more quantities of an article, to select for this list, neither the highest, which is within reach of wealthy people only, nor the lowest, which is generally purchased by people of small means or of unusually frugal habits, but rather the medium qualities used by families the circumstances of which are between these two extremes. The steadily advancing cost of food supplies continue to hold its place as an economic fact, which, notwithstanding the numerous investigations of the subject, still awaits a satisfactory explanation. The remedies suggested as a result of these inquiries are numerous and in their character reflect merely the character of the various theories regarding the origin of the trouble. For years after the advance in prices had become a matter of profound concern in this country, the belief was quite general that elsewhere throughout the civilized world food prices remained normal and satisfactory. That this was far from being the case, however, was conclusively shown by an investigation of food prices abroad made by this Bureau in 1910, when prices here were much lower than they are at the present time, which showed that throughout the nations of Continental Europe and in Great Britain, the cost of all kinds of food, but more particularly meats of equal quality, were at least as high as they were here, while wages earned by the great majority of working people were never more, and in many instances less than one-half the amounts earned by workmen in the United States. Milk and vegetables only were cheaper in Germany than in this country, because, as explained by the American Consul in a large German town, "farm labor is almost entirely performed by women." To insure uniformity of conditions, so far as possible, the individual reports which form the basis of this compilation, are made by the same dealers each year, and the prices quoted are those that prevailed during the month of June. The fairest possible conditions for making comparisons of the prices of one year with those of another, and noting the most minute changes that occur, are thus assured. The presentation consists of three tables which follow the forms standardized by many years of use, as the best for carrying out the purposes of the inquiry. Table No. I gives the aggregate cost of the entire test bill of goods by localities; No. 2 gives the average prices for each particular article in standard quantities, the prices of 1915 being placed in comparison with those of the next preceding year, and No. 3, which is the same in form as No. 2, except that the comparison is between the prices of 1915 and 1898, when the first food price inquiry was made by the Bureau, will show the changes that have taken place in prices over a period of seventeen years. The test bill of goods consists of fifty articles, included in which are practically every variety of foods usually purchased by families of average incomes. No fancy groceries which have only a limited sale at high prices are included in the list, although the quality of each article, where not otherwise specified, is that which is rated in the trade as the best. Whether, in fact, every article really is the best to be had anywhere, or only the best the particular dealer reporting has in stock, is a question not easy to determine. The difference in prices quoted by a few dealers for articles supposedly alike in every respect, may be reasonably accounted for as the result of these misunderstandings regarding the quality of the goods. However that may be, the substantial accuracy of these average prices cannot be doubted, seeing that they are calculated from figures quoted in seventy-two price lists furnished and vouched for in the matter of accuracy by dealers in as many localities. This table is so arranged as to show the comparative costliness of the entire test bill of goods in the sixty localities represented in the compilation, the place showing the lowest cost appearing first on the table, and the others following in order as the price increases, the highest, as a matter of course, being at the end of the list. Seventy-two localities covering all parts of the State are represented on this table and the prices quoted for the entire bill of goods range from $10.842 at Califon, Hunterdon County, to $17.020 at Rutherford, Bergen County. These towns stand exactly the same with regard to prices as they did in the investigation of 1914. Two places report prices ranging between $10 and $11; one reports a price between $11 and $12; seven places show prices ranging between $12 and $13; sixteen show prices ranging between $13 and $14; twenty-five report totals ranging from $14 to $15; seventeen report prices ranging from $15 to $16; three are in the class between $16 and $17, and in only one place, Rutherford, does the price quoted exceed $17.00. The aggregate average price of the bill of goods for the entire State is shown by the table to have been $14.267. In 1914 the average cost of the bill of goods throughout the State was $14.601, a decrease in 1915 of 33.4 cents, or a little more than 2 per cent. in the average cost of the bill in 1915, as compared with that of the next preceding year, is thus shown. The reduction of 33.4 cents in the total cost of the bill is distributed over thirty of the fifty articles included in the entire list. The aggregate amount of these reductions is $1.060, and the falling off in the price of the two varieties of potatoes-new and old, accounts for 81.0 cents of this sum. Sixteen articles show increases, that with the exception of flour per 25 pound bag, first and second quality, are so small as to average only a fraction of a cent per article. The table shows only four articles, the prices of which are the same for both years. All the varieties of meats, with the exception of mutton, leg and breast, show reductions, but in only a few instances do they exceed a fraction of a cent per pound. Table No. 3 is the same in form as Table No. 2, but the prices compared are those of 1898, the year the first of these annual inquiries into food prices was made, with the prices of 1915. Some changes in the table were necessary in order to secure a comparable basis in the articles and quantities for both years. For instance, with regard to flour, the basis of quantity is changed from twenty-five pound bags to barrels, and seven of the articles in the 1915 list are excluded from the comparison altogether, because of their not having appeared in the 1898 bill. In 1898 the cost of the forty-three articles included in the bill of goods was $16.901, while in 1915 the cost is $26.258, an increase in seventeen years of $9.357, or 55.36 per cent. Flour has advanced 74.5 per cent., and 83.9 per cent. respectively, for the first and second grades; other strikingly large increases are: Butter, 83.02 per cent.; cheese-medium, 66.36 per cent.; corned beef-round, 70.83 per cent.; fresh and salt pork, 81.05 per cent.; bacon, 98.35 per cent., and shoulder, 78.57 per cent. All three varieties of tea-black, green and mixed, show for 1915 a considerable reduction below the prices prevailing in 1898. the forty-three articles compared on this table, five show decreases and thirty-eight show increases, the largest, as before stated, being for flour and meats of various kinds. Of The table which follows is intended to show the shrinkage in the purchasing power of one dollar in 1915, as compared with 1898. The comparison is limited to a few of the principal staple articles of food supplies for which prices are quoted on tables No. 2 and 3. The above table shows the actual shrinkage of the purchasing power of one dollar as regards the articles named thereon. These were not selected for this illustration because of their representing extremely large advances in prices, for as a matter of fact, an examination of the table will show that practically all the articles showing increases have advanced as much or more. During the seventeen years covered by the comparison, the price of practically every article included in the table has experienced alternations of increase and decrease, the increases, however, being almost invariably higher than the decreases, with results as shown on Table No. 3. In 1898, $1.00 would pay for 38.0 pounds of the best quality of wheat flour, while in 1915 a dollar would only buy 21.8 pounds, a clear loss to the purchaser of 16.2 pounds. In 1915, one dollar will buy only 4.5 pounds of rib roast beef, while in 1898 it would buy 6.4 pounds, a loss of purchasing power of the dollar of 1.9 pounds. One dollar would pay for 13.3 pounds of corned beef brisket in 1898, and only 7.5 pounds in 1915, a loss to the family larder of 5.8 pounds. One dollar would buy 4.0 pounds and 4.7 pounds more in 1898 of fresh and salt pork than it will in 1915. Of bacon, $1.00 would pay for 8.3 pounds in 1898 and only 4.2 pounds in 1915. The remarkable contrast between the purchasing power of $1.00 in 1898 and in 1915 is the clearest and simplest possible demonstration of the increase in food prices presented in a form that appeals most readily to the understanding. The results justify the generally prevalent anxiety to learn something of the causes of the upward movement on the one hand and how far it is going to carry us, on the other. In connection with the presentation bearing on the growing cost of food supplies, which, as shown above, is 55.36 per cent., it is interesting to note that during the seventeen years, from 1898 to 1915, the average yearly earnings of wage earners in the factories and workshops of New Jersey have increased only 30 per cent. ($434.02 in 1898 and $563.61 in 1915), thus leaving the wage earner a very considerable loser in the race between wages and food prices. |