their budpet compared with workers elsewhere (the 'expenditure approach'?
On most questions including the key one of bousing the Pay Board concedes lac cotrectaess of the former, acceptin: the argument thar: * people have 1o cur thes coat Booordine to thair cleth and their compensation should not he based on such factors as the poorer standard of accommodation enforced by higher prices in Eondon.' Unfortunately, the Board explains, it Hically impossible to measure exactly what equalent boosing is. So London weighting must be based po the 'expenditure approach!
It may be workade to look at the logie at this approach. Sice the London workers under scrutiny are all on national pay structures, they cara, on avorape, the samo as workers elsewhere, with the addition of their meagre current London allowances. The extra they spend (excluding parl-time alchermists and forgeist compared with workers clashore must be equivalent to their extra income -the present London allowance.
Thus the 'expenditure approach offees definitive proof that the present allowances are oxacdy sufficient, and London warkers don't need a peony mate! Only the prospost of Landon collepsiog under the impact of deserting workers and revoltine trade unionists can have prevented the Pay Board following this logic to its conciasion continued on page 2