The Post Office Department increased in four years from 250,885 to 279,072, a difference of 28,187 or 11.2 per cent. The War and Navy Departments, War Risk Insurance, Shipping Board, Railroad Administration and other boards included in the military group had increased from 63,612 to 260,869, an increase of 197,257 or 310 per cent. The departments of Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Panama Canal, Government Printing Office, Justice, State, Labor, Interstate Commerce Commission and miscellaneous (taking them in the order given on the figure) increased in the aggregate from 113,052 in 1916 to 150,975, a difference of 37,923 which is 33.5 per cent. Omitting the Treasury and State departments from the list, the civil departments which have had the greatest permanent increase due to the war, all the other civil departments named increased from 81,376 to 84,825, a difference of 3,449 or 4.2 per cent. Meantime the population of the country has increased more than five per cent. That is, all these civil departments and commissions, aside from the two which have had large increases in order to take care of increased war activities, have increased their personnel in four years at a rate less than the rate of growth of the population of the country. The Department of Commerce had an appre

ciable increase almost entirely due to the decennial census of 1920, which, however, is temporary and many of these extra employes have already gone. On the other hand, the Panama Canal had a decrease of about the same number. Considering the very moderate increases in the expenditures of the civil departments and the considerable increase in the cost of supplies and labor and in the miscellaneous expenses of doing business, it should not be surprising to find so small an increase in the personnel of the civil departments outside of the two exceptions named. It is, however, apparently quite different from the general opinion, and in justice to the departments concerned, it seems worth mentioning.

The Cost of Living and the Pur

chasing Power of Salaries

During the last eight years there have been great changes in commodity prices and the cost of living and in the general scale of wages, salaries and charges for professional service; and some branches of the government service have readjusted their salaries accordingly. But many could not do so, and the result, taking the government as a whole, is an inconsistent and irrational system that makes a high standard of efficiency and good service practically impossible.

Figure 20 shows the results of investigations by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Industrial Conference Board, the latter consisting of representatives of a number of large manufacturing corporations. The curves show the trend of wholesale commodity prices and retail food prices since 1913, and the cost of living as calculated by these two organizations. The cost of living increased during 1920 to more than 200, on the basis of 100 for 1913, and

Statistics for the same period are somewhat higher (see Fig. 20) and would accentuate the decrease in purchasing power of salaries shown.

PURCHASING POWER OF SALARIES 1914-20

PREPARED FROM NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD DATA

This figure represents the change in purchasing power of salaries during the period 1914-1920 as determined by the changes in the Cost of Living. The figure is based on the cost of living data of the National Industrial Conference Board reports. The cost of living figures of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the same period are somewhat higher (see Fig. 20) and would accentuate the decrease in purchasing power of salaries shown.

then declined to about 180 by January 1,1921. There may be further declines in living costs, but there seems little prospect of getting back to the 1913 level or anywhere near it. Nobody proposes a reduction back to pre-war figures of wages or salaries that have already been advanced, although many that have been advanced 100 per cent or more may be reduced. The very moderate advance proposed for government salaries generally will still leave a wide margin between this advance and the relative increase in the cost of living, so that the latter may fall considerably further without falling below the new salary scale.12

Living in Washington is still relatively expensive. Houses are scarce and rents are high, and government employes with families find it difficult to live on their incomes. The purchasing power of salaries has fallen greatly since 1913, and still more since 1901 when many government salaries were substantially the same as now. Figure 21 shows graphically how salaries shrank between 1914 and 1920. Although justice and fair play would dictate a readjustment of government salaries, that is not the only reason for urging it, nor is it the strongest reason. If the government could continue to underpay a large proportion of its employes, and could permanently obtain good service at inadequate salaries, and thereby save money and reduce taxes by so much more than would otherwise be possible, that might be regarded as sufficient reason to adopt that policy and keep the wage scale permanently low. But that is

12 It is estimated that the average increase in salaries provided by the Jones and Lehlbach bills is about eight or ten per cent above present salaries including the war bonus now paid. Many would get no increases, many would get five per cent or less, and many of those who now get no bonus would get larger percentage in

creases.

impossible except for a relatively few positions. A limited number of men with independent incomes or without families may always be secured at inadequate salaries, and of course many others who use the government service as a stepping stone to something better.

But a high average of ability and experience can not be maintained without adequate salaries, and for lack of it recently the service has, to a large extent, been demoralized. Discipline and good service are impossible unless men and women are well-paid and contented. Efficiency is impossible without competent and experienced administrators. Low salaries and an excessive turnover in the higher officers is not economy but wastefulness. Giving a bonus of $240 only to employes with salaries not above $2,500 per year, and no increase of compensation to those above, assumes either that living costs have not increased to those in the more responsible positions, or that their services are less important and their resignations a less serious loss to the service, or that they have independent incomes to fall back upon, or that they may properly use up their savings laid by for an emergency or for old age, and will willingly do so. These are unwarranted assumptions, and because this problem has not been met the government service in some departments has been seriously crippled, and will take years to recover. It is hoped that the public will take an active interest in this question, and urge that in the interest of economy and efficiency, and good administration, the proposed readjustment of salaries may soon be made.

Figure 22 prepared from Bureau of Labor Statistics data gives a comparison of the wholesale prices of commodities for the years 1910-1920, and the net per capita cost of all the civil activities of the government. This shows