But this limits his desires in other directions, so that it becomes a pertinent question, when is it right to give as much as one third of the moderate income for housing?
As every heart knows its own bitterness, so every man knows his own business and what proportion of his income he is _willing_ to spend for a house, for the comforts of life pertain largely to bed and board.

It must be acknowledged, however, that comfort and discomfort are so largely matters of habit and personal point of view that education as to ideals is an important duty of society in its own defence.
If two people without children prefer to spend more on shelter than on any other one thing, then with $3000 a year, $1000 may be given for rent if that covers heat, light, and general outside care.

But the _family_ with children to consider must not think of allowing one third for rent under our very highest limit of $5000 a year, and it is unwise even then.

In fact the ratio must be governed by circumstances.

It is true, however, that the conditions must be interpreted by a fixed principle in living and not by any mere fashion or prejudice of the moment.
The one question every person asks when these suggested improvements are discussed is, but how much will it cost?
Thus confessing that cost, not effectiveness, is the measure; that old ideals as to money value still rule the world.