sight, without considering the cost of maintaining such an establishment.
With a probable income of $2000 a year the young man does not hesitate to
pay $500 for a house, not realizing that at least half as much more should
be spent on wages for the care of the nineteenth-century house, and as
much more on incidentals, car-fares, and unexpected demands. What wonder
that the young people find themselves in debt by the second year?

The parents are quite as much, if not more, to blame for encouraging this
extravagance. The father and mother are entitled to their ease and to the
use of their income for it, but the newly married pair have, in this age,
no right to assume the same attitude. They have their way to make, their
work to do in the years ahead of them. They should not mortgage the future
for the sake of the present luxury; and because of the uncertainties of
occupation and of health it is wise to take out of the expected income one
fourth or one third for a reserve fund and divide the remainder for
expenses. For instance, from $2000 a year subtract $500, then divide the
$1500 into $300 for rent, $300 for food, $300 for operating expenses, $200
for clothing, $200 for travel, leaving $200 for the other expenses. If
unlooked-for expenses must be incurred, there is the $500 to draw upon;
but do not court the extra outlay: save the nest-egg if possible.

The ideals of the home are said to rule the world. The young business man
who does not take the sane view of his own expenses will not rightly
consider his employer's interests. It is more than probable that the
much-deplored laxness, to call it by no harsher name, in business circles
is directly traceable to this falseness and dishonesty in standards of
home life. This moral effect is what makes the housing problem so serious.
It leads to an outward show not balanced by an ability to maintain an
inner life in harmony. It leads to an attempt to carry on a four-servant
house with two servants, or a three servant establishment with one.