|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
|
I' (I) ~ MICS EW Institute of Home Eeonomirs, Agricultural Research Service_, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGR ICULTU RE Prepared for home demonstration agents and home economics specialists of the Agricultural Extension Service, this publication reports current developments in family and food economics, and economic aspects of home management • CONTENTS ~ TEE COST OF LEAN IN SELECTED CUTS OF MEAT.................... 1 NEW FOOD STANDARD. . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . • • . • . . • . . • • . . • • . • • . • . • • . . • • . 4 TRENDS IN PRICES OF CLOTHING................................. 4 CHANGES IN BLANKET PRODUCTION................................ 6 TEXTILE FIBER CONSUMPTION.................................... 8 CHANGES IN THE U. S. HOUSING SUPPLY, 1950-1956............... 8 CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS IN 1956......................... ll RECENT TRENDS IN HOUSING. . . • • . . • . . • . . • • . . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . • • . . 14 SPENDING OF SINGLE CONSUMERS. . . . . . . • . • • . • . • • • . • • • • . . • • . • • . • • . 15 ACCIDENT REroRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . 18 CONSUMERS OPTIMISTIC IN 1959································· 20 ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD............................ 20 CONSUMER PRICES • . • . . . . . . • . . • • . . • . . . • • . • . . . • . . . • . . • . • • . • . • • . • . 22 ARs 62-5 June 1959 Washington, D. C. THE COST OF LEAN IN S~TEO CUTS OF MEAT Food consumption studies show that :families spend more money :for meat and meat alternates than for any other major group of foods. For instance, in the spring of 1955 the average U. S. family spent about 24 cents of its food dollar for meat. .Another 14 cents went for poultry, fish, eggs, and dry beans, dry peas, and nuts. With such a large proportion of the food budget for meats, the homemaker has an opportunity for savings i:f she makes economical. choices. Three factors ini'luence the economy of different cuts of meat ••• the nutritional value of the meat, the price per pound, and the amount of edible meat obtained. The nutritive value of meat depends in part on the amount of fat interspersed with the lean. The fat has a diluting effect on the protein, vitamins, and minerals provided by the muscle. Cuts with more fat in them are somewhat lower in these nutrients than the leaner ones, but higher in calories. Thus cuts higher in fat may not give as good nutritional returns for the money, except in calories. There are only small differences in the food value of the lean, fat-free muscle of different kinds of meat animals except for vitamin content. Pork, for example, provides more tbi.mn1ne than other meats. Organs and glands are generally higher in iron and vitamins than other parts of an animal. There is wide variation in the amount of bone, fat, and lean meat furnished by different cuts, and in prices per pound. Many cuts include parts not eaten such as bone and gristle. And the outer rim of fat on meat may be trimmed before cooking or at the table. Hence 1 to rate meats as economical buys, comparison is best made on the basis of cost per serving or the amoun,t of lean meat provided by a cut. The experienced homemaker may know how many servings can be expected per pound :from certain cuts and, taking price into consideration, she can determine which is the thriftiest to purchase. Others, and perhaps even the experienced homemaker, may benefit from a guide which shows the cost of the lean of various cuts of meat at a given price per pound. Such a general guide follows :for selected retail cuts of choice grade beef and lamb and of pork. The table is based on the percent of lean meat provided on an average by the listed cuts • !/ The table is easy to use. To illustrate: Suppose both the heel of round and. T-bone steak are selling for $1.05 a pound, and you want to know which is the more economical to buy. A glance down the left-hand column to heel of round and across to the column headed 105 shows a value of $1.23 per pound. This means that the amount of lean meat you get from this cut costs at a rate of about $1.23 a pound when heel of round sells for $1.05 a pound. In a similar manner we find that the cost of the lean in T-bone steak at $1.05 a pound is $1. 79, nearly half again as much as for the heel of round. --:Wuise Page. Y Adapted from "Meat for the Table," by Sleeter Bull. 24o pp. New York. 1951. Table 1. --Cost per pound of raw lean meat Price per pound of retail cuts~ bone-in (cents) Kirld and cut of meat 25 30 35 4o 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 so 85 90 3eef, choice grade: Blade rib - 6th., •••••••...•..•••••• 39 46 54 62 69 77 85 92 100 108 116 123 131 139 Brisket . .....•...........•......... 49 59 68 78 88 98 ~OS 117 127 137 147 157 166 176 Chuck rib - 5th •.••.•.••.....•.•..• 39 47 55 63 71 79 86 94 102 110 118 ~2.6 134 142 Chuck rib- 3rd and 4th .••.•....... 37 45 52 6o 67 74 82 89 97 104 112 119 126 134 Chuck rib- 1st and 2nd •••..••.••.. 34 40 47 54 61 67 74 81 87 94 101 108 114 121 Club steaks . ..........•............ 43 52 6o 69 77 86 95 103 ll2 120 129 138 146 155 Fla.Ilk s te a.k.s ••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 30 35 4o 45 50 ' 55 6o 65 70 75 so 85 90 Hind shBllk • ..........•.......•..... 86 103 12.1 138 ~55 172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310 Porterhouse steaks .•••.•....••.•... 41 50 58 66 74 82 91 99 107 116 124 132 140 149 Ribs- lith and ~h ••..••.•••.•.•. 49 59 68 78 88 98 107 ll7 127 137 146 156 166 176 Ribs - 7th and 8th ....•..•......••• 43 51 60 68 77 85 94 102 111 119 128 136 145 153 Round, heel . ....................... 29 35 41 47 53 59 65 70 76 82 88 94 100 106 Round steak . .••.••.•.•...•.•••..•.. 30 36 42 48 54 6o 66 73 1 79 85 91 97 103 109 Rump, knuckle out •...•..•.••.•...•. 43 51 6o 68 77 85 94 102 ill 119 128 136 145 153 Sllort plate . ....................... 47 56 66 75 84 94 103 112 122 131 l4o 150 159 169 Sho~der arm roast ..•.....•..•..... 36 44 51 58 65 73 so 87 94 102 109 116 124 131 Sirloin, double bone •....•........• 41 49 57 65 74 82 90 98 106 114 123 131 139 147 Sirloin, round and wedge bone ..•... 36 44 51 58 66 73 so 87 95 102 109 116 124 131 T-bane stea.lts ........... ............ 43 51 60 68 77 85 94 102 lll 119 128 137 145 154 p ork, fresh: fuston butt . ....................... 30 36 42 48 53 59 65 71 77 83 89 95 101 107 Picnic ............................. 41 49 57 65 73 81 90 98 106 114 122 130 138 147 Hazn. • •.•••••. • •• • •••• • •.•••••• • ••••• 4o 48 56 64 72 so 88 96 104 112 120 128 136 144 Loin, roasts and chops .........•... 38 45 53 60 68 75 83 90 98 105 113 120 128 135 Spareribs . ......................... 42 51 59 67 76 84 93 101 110 118 126 135 143 152 L runb, choice grade: I..eg . ••.••.•...•.••••••.••.••••...•. 38 45 53 61 68 76 83 91 98 106 113 121 129 136 I.oin cllops ......................... 47 56 66 75 84 94 103 113 122 131 141 150 159 169 Rib c'bops ••••.•••••••••••••.•••.••• 50 6o 70 So 91 101 lll 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 Shoulder .••.••••.•••..•.•.•••.•.... 42 51 59 68 76 84 93 101 110 118 127 135 144 152 95 146 186 149 141 128 164 95 328 157 186 162 112 115 162 178 138 155 138 162 113 155 152 143 160 144 178 191 160 100 154 196 157 149 135 172 100 345 165 195 170 118 121 170 187 145 163 146 171 ll9 163 160 150 169 151 188 201 169 I 1\) I Table l.--Cost per pound of raw lean meat (Continued) Price per pound of retail cuts, bone-in (cents) Kind and cut of meat 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 Beef, choice grade : Blade rib - 6th .................... 162 169 177 185 193 200 208 216 223 231 239 247 254 262 Brisket .........................•.. 205 215 225 235 2 ~5 254 264 274 284 294 303 313 323 333 Chuck rib - 5th .............•...... 165 173 181 189 197 204 212 220 228 236 244 252 259 267 Chuck rib - 3rd and 4th ...........• 156 164 171 179 186 193 201 208 216 223 231 238 246 253 Chuck rib- lst and 2nd ............ 141 148 155 162 168 175 182 188 195 202 209 215 222 229 Club steaks ...............•..•..... 181 189 198 207 215 224 232 241 250 258 267 275 284 293 Flank steaks ...............•....... 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 Hind s ha..YJ.k ......... ..... ........•.• 362 379 397 414 431 448 466 483 500 517 534 552 569 586 Porterhouse steaks ........• , ......• 173 182 190 198 206 215 223 231 239 248 256 264 272 281 Ribs- llth and 12th ..........•..•• 205 215 225 234 244 254 264 273 283 293 303 313 322 332 Ribs - 7th and 8th ................. 179 187 196 204 213 221 230 238 247 256 264 273 281 290 Round, heel ....•.....•............. 123 129 135 141 147 153 159 165 170 176 182 188 194 200 Round steak . ........................ 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 200 206 Rump, knuckle out ..... . ............ 179 187 196 204 213 221 230 238 247 255 264 272 281 289 Short plate .. . ..................... 197 206 215 225 234 243 253 262 272 281 290 300 309 318 Shoulder arm roast ........ . .. .... . • 153 160 167 174 182 189 196 203 211 218 225 233 240 247 Sirloin, double bone ..............• 172 180 188 196 204 212 221 229 237 245 253 261 270 278 Sirloin, round and wedge bone ...... 153 160 167 174 182 189 197 204 211 218 226 233 240 247 T-bone steaks ...............•...... 179 188 196 205 213 222 230 239 247 256 264 273 282 290 Pork, fresh: Boston butt .. . ................. .... 124 131 137 143 148 154 160 166 172 178 184 190 196 202 Picnic ........................ ..... 171 179 187 195 204 212 220 228 236 244 252 261 269 277 Hanl. . ...• • ..• • .••...•. • • . . • ... • •..•. 168 176 184 192 200 208 216 224 232 240 248 256 264 272 Loin, roasts and chops ........ ; .... 158 165 173 180 188 195 203 211 218 226 233 241 248 256 Spareribs . ......................... 177 185 194 202 211 219 228 236 245 253 261 270 278 287 Lamb, choice grade: Leg . ................•...•.......... 159 166 174 182 189 197 204 212 219 227 234 242 250 257 Loin chops .................•..•.... 197 206 216 225 235 244 253 263 272 281 291 300 310 319 Rib chops . ..........•.............. 211 221 231 241 252 262 272 282 242 302 312 322 332 342 SlJ.oulder ... .................. . ..... 177 186 194 203 211 220 228 236 2 5 253 .262 270 279 287 -- -- -- - - - --- -- L_ --- --· - 175 270 342 275 260 236 301 175 603 289 342 298 206 212 298 328 254 286 255 299 208 285 280 263 295 265 328 352 296 I w I -4- NEW FOOD STANDARD Special standards developed by the Food and Drug Administration will make food buying easier for persons on sugar-restricted diets. Under the new standards, the words "artificially sweetened" will appear on canned fruit labels as part of and ahead of the name of the fruit. For example, a label may read 11 artificially sweetened peaches 11 (or apricots, pears, cherries, fruit cocktail, or figs). It will also give the common name of the artificial sweetener used, its percentage by weight, and the number of calories in an average serving of the fruit. This standard is to become effective about July 1, 1959. TRENDS IN PRICES OF CLOTHING Retail prices for clothing, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, have changed relatively less since March 1953 than prices of any of the other major categories of goods and services. The cost of apparel increased about 3 percent, compared with 10 percent for housing and 23 percent for medical care, for example. But though the overall clothing index remained q_ui te stable, prices of some of the items that enter into it changed considerably. The chart below shows the diversity of movement since March 1953 in prices for four of the subgroups of items that make up the clothing index. Shoes.--The greatest increase among the subgroups of items in the apparel index was for shoes. (See table 2.) Shoe prices increased about 15 percent ' between March 1953 and December 1958. Women's street shoes were responsible for more of the increase than men's, the two rising 17 percent and 9 percent, INDEX PRICES FOR APPAREL ON A RECENT BASE Index (1953-54 = 100) 110 Cotton Apparel -------- 100 -, '"'""""' ,....- - - ·-....... / - .......... - ....... - Manmade Fil;-;,rs ApParel ~~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~-L~~~~~~~~ 1953 1954 1955 1957 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics -5- ~able 2.--Changes in Consumer Price Index for apparel, March 1953-December 1958 Item Total apparel ........ . Shoes .•...........•. Manmade fibers ..•... Cotton ............. . Wool ........•....... Other .............. . Relative importance in Index, December 1957 100.0 14.4 21.1 25.6 27.8 ll.l ~Change from Dec. 1953 to Dec. 1958. Indexes of wool apparel prices are compiled only for September and December each year. respectively. These figures relate to shoes of specified kinds and qualities-those bought in largest quantities by city wage-earner and clerical-worker families in 1950. The Bureau of Labor Statistics prices the same kinds and qualities of goods each month, so the Index reflects changes in prices but not changes in consumer preferences and standards of living. But there have been some changes in shoe preferences and production since 1953. Census Bureau reports show that manufacturers increased the production of sandals, play shoes, and athletic shoes substantially more than other types of shoes. They also show that the average factory value per pair of shoes shipped by manufacturers decreased somewhat. These facts suggest that the average consumer may have changed his shoe buying habits, so that he is buying more of the lower-priced casual shoes rather than paying the higher prices to maintain a shoe wardrobe of the kind and quality he bought in 1950. Apparel of manmade fibers.--Prices of clothing of manmade fibers as a group changed during the period, too, but downward instead of upward. By the end of 1958 these prices were 6.6 percent lower than in March 1953. Prices of nylon hose--an important item in the average woman's clothing budget-dropped 14 percent, and prices of girls' Orlon sweaters decreased 20 percent. Prices of women's rayon underwear changed little between 1953 and 1958, but Prices of men's rayon suits increased about 8 percent. Cotton and wool apparel.--Prices for cotton apparel were quite stable from early 1953 through mid-1955, rose about 4 percent between then and March 1957, and have remained steady since. The chart shows wide seasonal swings in prices for wool. Prices were relatively high in September when the new fall woolens came into the stores, dropped in December with the end-of-season sales. Aside from these seasonal shifts , prices of wool apparel increased less than 2 percent between December 1953 and December 1958. --Janis Moore . -6- CHANGES IN BLANKET PRODUCTION Will you choose a blanket made of cotton, wool, a synthetic fiber, or a combination of these the next time you buy1 If you look for the familiar "100 percent wool" blanket that used to be considered a standard household it~ you may find fewer of them in the retailers' stock than formerly. Information given in Facts for Industry 1/ shows that production of 100 percent wool blankets, which amounted to I4 million yards in 1948, was only 6 million yards in 1956 and 1957. Midway in this period, in 1951-1953, allwool blanket production increased sharply to fill Government orders placed to supply the Armed Forces during the KOrean crisis. (See chart, page 7 . ) The number of all-wool .blankets made for other uses dropped in 1951 as the Government contracts piled up, returned to the 1950 level in 1953, and declined after that. ?) During the period 1948-1958, production of "chiefly wool" blankets (50-99·9 percent wool) also tended downward after rising in the early fifties. Cotton blankets.--Production of cotton blankets exceeded, by quite a lot, that of wool blankets for each year in the 10-year period. (See table 3 . ) Production of all-cotton blankets was consistently higher than that of wool blankets. Chiefly cotton blankets (50-99·9 percent cotton) were made in smaller quantities than the all-cotton. Production of these chiefly cotton blankets increased during the early 1950's, partly, perhaps, to compensate for decreased production of all-wool blankets for civilians. It dropped abruptly again after 1954. Manmade fibers.--It is evident from these figures that wool and cotton blanket production was not keeping pace with the rapid population growth. Other fibers were coming along to supplement them, however . Rayon blankets have become an important part of the total. The industry-Census reports don't tell us when rayon was first used in this way. In fact , they don 't mention rayon blankets as such until 1956. Before that they were probably included with rayon yard goods. In 1956, 44 million yards of rayon blankets were reported, almost as many as the combined amounts of wool and cotton blankets. Manmade fibers other than rayon -- Acrilan, Orlon, Dynel, and others-- are also being used in blankets now. Reporting on blankets of these fibers started in 1956, when about 4 million yards were produced. Quantities produced in 1957 and 1958 were 5 and 6 million yards, respectively. Electric bed coverings increase.--Another development that may have had a part in the leveling off of production of all-wool blankets is the increasing p~pularity of electric bed coverings. According to the trade magazine, Electrical Merchandising, electric blankets and sheets sold by manufacturers increased steadily from 0.7 million in 1948 to 2.4 million in 1958 . }/ Since electric blankets don't have to depend on fiber for warmth, they can be made from manmade fibers or cotton, frequently in combination with varying amounts of wool. ~U.S. Bureau of the Census, Facts for Industry, Series M15A,G,H,L, and 22T· gj Blankets for Government order are reported separately only when abnormallY high. Otherwise, blankets bought by Government are part of the general total. ~ Electrical Merchandising, January 1959. 25 -7- WOOL BLANKET PRODUCTION, 1948-1958 (Excludes crib blankets) 50-99·~ Wool ...... ......-.--- --._,Jt - - -...- _., ' ' .., ... --... v ---- Table 3.--Blanket production, 1948-1958 (Excludes crib blankets) Cotton Wool Manmade Year All- Chiefly All-wool Chiefly Rayon, Acrylic cotton cotton Government wool acetate and 50-99·9~ orders Other 50-99·9~ other Linear yards (millions) 1948 •.. 35 8 y 14 4 y y 1949 ... 23 13 2 13 4 y y 1950 ... 33 18 y 14 4 Y. Y. 1951 ... 33 28 17 8 6 Y. Y. 1952 ... 28 22 9 10 5 Y. Y. 1953 ... 28 19 8 14 5 Y. Y. 1954 •.. 27 15 1 9 2 Y. Y. 1955 ... 32 7 1 7 4 y 44 y 1956 ... 31 8 y 6 3 4 1957 ... 27 7 Y. 6 2 39 5 1958 ?) 24 6 ~I y 2 44 6 ~ Data not available. gj Preliminary, from quarterly figures. --Lucile F. Mark. -8- Natural and Synthetic Fibers FIBER CONSUMPTION PER PERSON POUNDS Others* - :::: Cotton -~ 30 Synthetics• - 20 10 0 .L...l:a~ll.....tiz2 1930-34 1940-44 1950-54 1925-29 1935-39 1945-49 1955-58° • WOOL. FlAX, ANO SILK 0 ,.fliMINA.Y U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. • 91-591]) AGRICULTURAl MARKE TING SE RVICE TEXTILE FIBER CONSUMPTION Tbtal consumption of textile fibers per person in the United States in 1955-58.averaged about 37 pounds. This was below the 1950-54 average of nearl y 42 pounds per person, and continued a downward trend that began in 1945-49. Cotton and wool consumption in 1955-58 was below the 1950-54 average, but the use of manmade fibers increased, maintaining the long-time upward trend. This information is based on Agricultural Marketing Service data obtained from the Bureau of the Census and the textile industry. CHANGES IN THE U. S. HOUSING SUPPLY, 1950-1956 Dwelling units in this country numbered 55.3 million in 1956, about 9 million more than in 1950 when the last previous count was made. Of the 55·3 million, 75 percent existed in 1950 in essentially the same shape and form, except that some may have had such changes as the addition of a room or installation of a furnace. Twenty percent had been built since 1950, and the remaining 5 percent were the net result of converting and merging structures existing in 1959, or were added from other sources. These estimates are based on a housing "inventory" done late in 1956 by the Census Bureau. ~ This is the first nationwide survey describing the types of changes occurring in the housing supply over a period of time. ~U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1956 National Housing Inventory. Vol. I. Components of Change, 1950 to 1956; Part 1, United States and Regions. 1958. -9- Housing units added--where they came from New construction was by far the most important single factor of change between 1950 and 1956. Dwelling units built during that time numbered 10.9 million, an average of 1.6 million a year. (See table 4.) Another 0. 7 million dwellings were added to the housing supply by the "conversion" of structures existing in 1950 into a larger number of units--as for example, cutting a house up into apartments. About 0. 7 million of the 1950 dwellings were subdivided to form 1.4 million, resulting in a net increase of 0.7 million. Still another 0.9 million units were added from other sources. Some, for example, had formerly been nonresidential buildings such as garages and stores, but were being used as residences in 1956. Units lost Over 3 million dwellings were lost by one means or another between 1950 and 1956. More than l million .....-ere demolished--tom down by the owner or a public agency. Another 0.7 million disappeared as separate units as a result l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Table 4.--Changes in the stock of dwelling units, 1950-1956, United States and regions United I North- North Item States east Central South Thousands Units existing in 1950 ...... 45,990 12,050 l3,750 l3,66o Units lost, 1950-56 •........ 3,220 560 Boo 1,300 By demolition ..•.........• l,l30 210 260 520 By merger ..•..•........... 670 180 210 230 By other .•.•..•.......•... l,4lO 180 34o 560 Remaining from 1950 stock !/ 42,770 ll,490 l2,94o 12,360 Units added, 1950-56 .......• 12,570 2,720 2,900 4,280 Built new ........•..•..... 10,920 2,360 2,420 3, 770 Net gain by conversion ...• 710 210 24o 190 Other ..................... 940 140 240 320 Units existing in 1956 .•.... 55,340 14,200 l5,84o l6,64o Percent increase, 1950-56 ... 20 l8 l5 22 l/ Item l minus 2. gj Item 3 plus 4. NOte - Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of rounding. West 6,530 550 150 6o 330 5,990 2,670 2,360 60 250 8,660 33 -10- of "mergers" which reduced 1.3 million units to 0.6 million. "Merging" means making two or more units into one, as when a person stops renting out part of his house as an apartment and takes it all for his own use. losses by merger offset the gains through conversion. Various other events, such as fires, floods, tornadoes, and the shifting of structures from residential to nonresidential use, took 1.4 million dwellings out of use during the six-year period. Regional differences Considerable difference existed among regions in the changes that occurred in the housing supply between 1950 and 1956. The greatest relative increase in number of homes was in the West. One-third of the West's 1956 housing inventory either didn't exist at all in 1950, or existed in some other form. Least change was noted in the North Central region, where 15 percent of the 1956 inventory was new or changed. New construction accounted for 27 percent of the 1956 inventory of houses in the West, 23 percent in the South, 17 percent in the Northeast, and 15 percent in the North Central region. In actual number of dwellings built, however, the South topped the list with 3.8 million, compared to about 2.4 million in each of the other regions. Relatively more of the 1950 dwellings were lost through demolition, fire, tornado, etc. in the South and West than in the other regions. Differences by size of place The amount and kind of change in the inventories of dwellings were also markedly different in communities of different size. Outstanding for growth in number of dwelling units were the suburban areas surrounding large cities. This is shown in the following: Area: Inside standard metropolitan areas gj In central cities ................ . Not in central cities ............ . Outside standard metropolitan areas. Percent increase in number of dwelling units, 1950-1956 23 8 46 17 2/ A standard metropolitan area is defined as a county or group of contiguous counties containing at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more at the time oi the 1950 Census. The contiguous counties were included if they were metropolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city. In New England, towns and cities were the units used in defining standard metropolitan areas, and a population density criterion was applied rather than that relating to metropolitan character. -ll- In the part of the metropolitan areas lying outside the central cities, one-third of the units existing in 1956 had been built new since 1950. New homes were only ll percent of the 1956 inventory in the central cities, and 18 percent in places outside the metropolitan areas. Housing improved by changes The net result of the additions to and subtractions from the housing supply between 1950 and 1956 was an upgrading of U. S. housing quality. T,he units lost by demolition or other means during the 6 years were, on the whole, the poorer dwellings. For example, 73 percent of them were reported to be dilapidated or lacking facilities in 1950. They were mostly small (3.3 was the median number of rooms), occupied by renters (72 percent), with median rental of $27 per month . In contrast, the newly built units had only 9 percent lacking facilities, were mostly larger (4.8 rooms the median), occupied by owners (76 percent), and the tenant-occupied ones had higher rental values ($70 median). But not all the new dwelling units were top-notch. Some were poor enough to be classified as "dilapidated" in 1956. These may have been poorly built to begin with, or may have been neglected and allowed to run down. Some units built since 1950 were structurally sound but lacked facilities like running water and bathrooms. New houses that were dilapidated or without facilities were relatively more common in the South than in other regions. They were also more common outside the standard metropolitan areas than in either the central cities or their suburban areas. --Emma G. Holmes and Lucile F. Mork. CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS IN 1956 The 1956 housing survey mentioned in the preceding article -also describes the dwellings of U.s. families, and compares them with those of 1950. ~ In 1956, 54 percent of the dwelling units were occupied by their owners, 36 percent by renters, and lO percent were vacant. Corresponding figures for 1950 were 51 percent owner-occupied, 42 percent renter-occupied, and 7 percent vacant . The vacant ones were mostly places that were up for sale or rent, or Were seasonal dwellings like summer homes. The majority of dwellings (68 percent) were single-family detached houses. As in 1950, something less than 1 percent of the units were trailers. Size.--In general, families were probably better off with regard to space in l95b'"than 6 years earlier. Relatively more of them had 4, 5, or 6 rooms, Y U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1956 National Housing Inventory. Vol. III, Characteristics of the 1956 Inventory; Part l? United States and Regions. 1959. -12- fewer were living in 3 rooms .pr less. The smaller units were occupied mainly by renters, as the following shows: Number of rooms : 3 or less ..•................. 4 'to 6 ......................• 7 or m:::>re ................... . Percent of Owners 1956 1950 6 10 75 68 19 22 dwellings Renters 1956 1950 37 41 57 52 6 6 Facilities.--Housing was better in 1956 than a~ mid-century with respect to structural quality and installed facilities, too. The extent of improvement is summarized below: Facilities in unit: Piped running water ..•......••.•• Hot running water .•..•..•...•.. Private flush toilet ......•...... Private bathtub or shower •...•... Good structural condition and all the above facilities ..•.•...•.. Percent of dwellings 1956 1950 91 83 82 70 83 71 81 69 76 63 Values.--The value of homes was considerably higher in 1956 tha~ in 1950, due partly to the upgrading in quality, partly to the increase in the price level. One-fifth of the owner-occupied nonfarm single-family houses were valued under $6,000 in 1956, almost two-fifths in 1950. At the high end of the scale, 30 percent had values of $15,000 or more in 1956, compared to 12 percent in the earlier year. Comparable changes took place in the monthly rent for tenant-occupied units. For example, 39 percent of the renters were paying $60 or more a month in 1956, but only 15 percent were paying this much in 1950. MOvers were many.--A sidelight on the mobility of U. s. families is the fact that 29 percent of the dwellings in use at the time of the 1956 survey were occupied by households that had moved in during 1955 or 1956. Fortyfive percent of the renters and 18 percent of the owners came as recently as 1955 or 1956. Only 1 in every 4 dwelling units was still occupied by a familY that moved there before 1945. Regional differences As in earlier housing surveys, there were considerable differences in the characteristics of housing in the four regions. Home ownership was highest in the North Central region, lowest in the Northeast. About three-fourths of the nonfarm dwellings were 1-family detached houses in all regions except· the Northeast, where only one-half were. Older houses were more common in the -13- Northeast and North Central regions than elsewhere. In these two regions 65 percent of the dwellings were of pre-1930 construction; in the South and West, about 4o percent were that old. On the whole, homes in the Northeast and West were most adequate with regard to installed facilities. The proportion of dwellings in good structural condition and provided with all facilities (hot running water, bath or shower, and flush toilet) varied among regions as follows: Region: Northeast .....•..........•..•• North Central .•......•.....••. South •.......•...•.•.•...•.••. West . ......•.....•.••.......•. Percent in good condition and with all facilities 1956 1950 86 78 75 61 63 45 88 78 All regions made progress toward better housing between 1950 and 1956, but the South, starting at a lower level, made the greatest relative gains. Differences by urbanization ~ae figures for areas of different degrees of urbanization reflect the tendency for city living to be largely in rented apartments. In the central cities relatively fewer units were one-family detached houses, fewer were occupied by owners, more were l to 3 rooms, and more were built before 1930 than in suburban and nonmetropoli tan areas . (See table 5.) Table 5---Characteristics of dwelling units, by location, 1956 Inside standard metropolitan areas Outside Characteristics In central Not in stanaard All cities central metrop...,li ta..J cities areas Percent Percent -Per-ce-nt Percent Owner occupied ...•.....•.•. 55 43 67 54 Single-family detached •.... 57 38 76 83 Pre-1930 construction ...... 54 69 37 55 With l-3 rooms ............. 21 27 14 2l With private flush toilet .. 93 93 92 69 With private bath or shower 91 91 91 66 Good structural condition, with all facilities ...... 87 86 88 62 --Emma G. Holmes and Lucile F . .Mork. -14- RECENT TRENDS IN HOUSING NEW NONFARM DWELLING UNITS STARTED Mil. units 1.0 - 8 ~~~~19~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates Source: U. S. Department of Commerce The number of new privately owned nonfarm homes started rose sharply after early 1958, following a 3-year drop. Nonfarm dwelling units are being started at the rate of about 1 .4 million a year. VAWE OF NEW NONFARM RESillENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Bil. dollars 1.8 Source: Commerce NONFARM IDRIDAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING Bil. dollars 115 105 95 1- to 4-family houses 75 Source: Federal Reserve Board Though the number of privately owned nonfarm dwellings started in the last few months is about the same as in the corresponding period 4 years ago , the value of this construction is considerably higher. The higher value reflects changes in characteristics of the dwellings, as well as higher building costs . Mortgage debt outstanding on l- to 4-family nonfarm houses continues to rise . Mortgages being paid off are more than offset by those being taken on . Factors in the steep upward trend are the increasing home values, the rising rate of home ownership, and smaller down payments . -15- SPENDING OF SINGLE CONSUMERS Spending patterns of single urban consumers are described in a recently published report of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. !/ Hitherto single consumers-- that is, persons living apart from family groups--have had relatively little attention as spending units. They are of considerable importance now numerically, however, a..11d are becoming more so. More single men and women are maintaining separate households than ever before. More older people are continuing to live alone rather than to move in with the younger generation. These trends reflect the increasing financial independence of individuals, due to higher wages, salaries, and retirement incomes. In 1950, the latest year for which urban spending figures are available, 6.9 million single consumers were living in urban areas. Of these, 3.6 million (52 percent) were heads of households, and 3-3 million (48 percent) were living as lodgers or resident employees in hotels, households, and rooming houses. Three-fifths of the single consumers were women and about one-fourth were 65 years old or over. Their median age was 54 years (by 1957 it had increased to 57 years). ?) The average income after personal taxes of single consumers in 1950 was $1,895. Since a majority of those over 65 were not employed many had low incomes--nearly 60 percent of this older group had less than $1,000 income for the year. The distribution of single consumers by after-tax income in 1950 was as follows: 1950 income after tax: Under $1, 000 .......•.............. $1,000- $1,999··················· $2,000 - $2,999 ...........•....... $3,000- $3,999··················· $4, 000 - $4, 999 ........•.......... $5,000 and over ...••..•.•..• -•..••• Percent of single consumers 29 32 23 10 3 3 Approximately three-fifths of the single consumers "kept bouse" all year-that is, they ate or prepared 10 or more meals at home each week. One-third d.idn 't keep house at all, and the remainder changed from one type of living arrangement to the other during the year. A considerably larger proportion of women than of men kept bouse--seven-tenths and one-third, respectively. Evidently this has much to do with the spending pattern of these persons. Spending patterns of single consumers Income differences.--Single consumers spent an average of $1,812 for current consumption in 1950. Like families, they spent a larger proportion of Y Marsha M. Froeder. "Single Consumers' Spending Patterns in Three Periods." ~nthly Labor Review, February 1959, pp. 142-150. g/ Data in this paragraph are based on Census Bureau reports. -16- their current consumption dollar for food than for any other major category of the budget. (See table 6.) Housing was next in importance, and (except for the under $1,000 group) transportation and clothing followed in order. As with families, also, the single consumers spent a smaller proportion of the consumption dollar for food and for housing as income increased. Food, for example, took 36 percent of the living expenditure of persons with incomes under $1,000, and 30 percent that of persons with $6,000 or more. Single consumers with higher incomes put a larger proportion into transportation (particularly automobile transportation) and into recreation than did those with less to spend. Age differences.--Young consumers tended to put a larger proportion of what they spent into clothing, less into food than older ones. Proportionate expenditures for personal care, recreation, reading, and education also decreased with age. Spending for housing was highest in the middle years, while that for medical care continued upward as age increased. Sex differences.--Single men and women differed considerably in both income and spending. Women had lower average incomes than men. About one-third of them received less than $1,000 in 1950, compared to one-fifth of the men. The women's lower incomes were partly because they were older as a group than the men and had less employment. Among single persons 65 years old or over, for example, two-fifths of the men, but only one-fifth of the women reported some work for pay in 1950. Income differences were also due to differences in living· arrangements of men and women, and to differing preferences related to sex of the individual. On the average, men spent proportionately more for recreation and tobacco, food and beverages, and transportation than women did. Women spent a larger proportion of the current living dollar for clothing, housing and furnishings, and medical and personal care. These patterns hold quite consistently at the various income levels. The men managed to save an average of $45 during the year, while the women had an average deficit of $170--which probably means that many dipped into savings to supplement income. This difference in savings reflects the fact that men had higher incomes than women, not that they were more frugal. Comparisons with family spending The average urban family (consisting of 3. 3 persons) had an after-tax income in 1950 of $4,224. Its expenditure for current living was $4,118. The family's division of the consumption dollar among the major categories of the budget was similar to that of single consumers, except that single consumers tended to spend more for housing, less for furnishings and equipment and for transportation. But there were marked differences for certain components of the major categories. For example, single persons spent much more :for "eating out" (52 percent of the food dollar, compared to 17 percent for families). Single consumers also spent more for recreation outside the home. They allocated 55 cents of their recreation dollar to admissions to places of entertainment and 23 cents for radio and television. The corresponding figures for -17- Table 6 . --Income and distribution of expenditures by families, and by single consumers by income, age, and sex; urban United States, 1950 Single consumers Item All By income By sex families All Under :3,000- $6,ooo $1,000 3,999 and over Men Women Money income after tax (dollars) .....•. 4,224 1,895 6o8 3, 395 9,466 2,351 1,644 Percent distribution y Expenditures for current consumption. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Food and beverages •• 31 33 36 30 30 39 30 Housing gj .......... ll 18 23 16 15 15 2l Fuel and household operation •..•.•••. . 9 9 13 7 8 6 ll Furnishings and e~uipment •..•..... 7 4 3 5 6 2 5 Clothing ....•....... 12 10 5 12 ll 9 ll Transportation ...•.. 14 ll 6 16 16 14 8 Medical care ••..••.. 5 4 7 4 l 3 5 Personal care ....•.• 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Recreation, reading, education ....••... 6 5 3 6 8 6 4 Tbbacco, misc •..••.• 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 ~ Detail may not necessarily add to 100 due to rounding. W Includes rent, lodging away from home, and (for homeowners) current operation expenditures (including interest, taxes, insurance, repair and upkeep). Does not include principal payments on owned homes. families were 24 cents and 37 cents. Differences in age, living arrangements, occupations, and social activity of single persons as compared to families Were reflected in their expenditures. ~ifts, contributions, and insurance Expenditures for current consumption, which we have discussed above, do not include money used for gifts and contributions to persons outside the family, nor for personal insurance premiums. Single consumers gave an average of $165 in gifts and contributions in 1950, and paid insurance premiums amounting to $63. Both increased with income. For sillgle men and -women, average gifts and contributions amounted to $196 and $148; average insurance payments to $76 and $57, respectively. -18- ACCIDENT REPORT Accidents cost money, both in terms of what it costs to provide care for the injured person and in reduced income because of time lost from work. During the year which ended June 30, 1958, about 47 million persons in the United States (more than 1 in every 4) received injuries that required medical attention or restricted their activities for at least one day. Men and boys had 27 million of these injuries, women and girls 20 million. These are estimates based on a study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service in cooperation with the Census Bureau, in which inte~views were taken in 36,000 households made up of 115,000 persons. !/ Home accidents were more numerous than any of the other three classes reported, which included (1) motor vehicle; (2) while at work; and (3) other and unknown types • About 41 percent of the persons injured were in "home" accidents; 10 percent were in motor vehicle accidents; 17 percent were injured at work; and 32 percent were in other or unknown types. More males than females were hurt. --Men and boys had more accidental injuries than girls and women. The accident rate for males was 331 per thousand population; for girls and women it was 229 per thousand. Relatively more males than females were hurt in each class of accident except home accidents, as this summary shows: Number injured per 1,000 per year Class of accident: Males Females All classes .•..•.....•.... 331 229 Mbtor vehicle ..•........ 35 21 While at work ......•..•• 80 18 Home • •••.••.•..•.•••••.• 110 117 Other or unknown •..•...• 105 73 Higher accident rates for males than for females occurred in every age group except 65 and over. (See chart, page 19.) Young men 15 to 24 years old had proportionately more accidental injuries than any other age or sex group, with almost 1 accident for every 2 males of these ages. The motor vehicle accident rate was higher for boys 15-24 than for any other group, but these young people also had more "other and unknown" injuries, as well as a rate of accidents at work that was exceeded only by men 25-44 years of age. Among females, older women (65 years old dent rate, with 319 injuries per 1,000 women. for safety, with only 192 injuries per 1,000. and over) had the highest acciWomen 25-44 had the best record · Farm people fare best.--Farm people had a somewhat better accident record _than others during the year, rural nonfarm residents a poorer one. Farmers were particularly low in home accidents. (See table 7.) !/ U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Persons injured1 by class of accident, United States, July 1957-June 1958. Health Statistics, Series B-8. February 1959. -19- NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED PER l, 000 PERSONS PER YEAR, BY SEX .AND AGE Number per 1,000 persons -Male ~Female Table 7.--Number injured per 1,000 persons per year in various types of accidents, by residence All Rural Rural Class of accident areas Urban nonfarm farm All classes ....•.•..•.. 279 276 291 267 Motor vehicle ...•..•. 28 ·26 32 30 While at work ••...•.. 48 45 53 54 Home • .•••••.•••••.••• 114 113 123 97 Other and unknown .•.. 89 92 84 85 Many had medical attention.--Eighty-one percent of the 47 million injured Persons were hurt badly enough to have medical attention, and one-sixth were disabled enough to be confined to their beds. To put it another way, 227 out of every 1,000 persons in the country were medically attended and 49 per 1,000 confined to bed because of injuries. Lost time from their jobs resulted from accidents for 123 out of every l,ooo employed people, and lost time from school for 99 out of every 1,000 boys and girls between the ages of 6 and 16. -20- CONSUMERS OPTIMISTIC IN 1959 Consumers were optimistic about economic conditions early in 1959, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Board. y Most of them expected higher prices than in 1958, but t~ey also anticipated improvements in income that would enable them to buy even if things cost more. MJre nonf'arm consumers expected to buy houses in 1959 than in 1958 (9.3 percent and 7·5 percent, respectively). (See table 8.) More also reported intentions to spend at least $50 for home improvement or maintenance. However, they planned to spend slightly less on these improvements than in 1958 (median $360 in 1959 compared to $380 in 1958). Slightly more people expressed intentions to buy new cars this year than last--7.6 and 6.9. percent of all consumer units, respectively. They also expected to pay higher prices for these new cars ($3,030 compared to $2,840). The proportion planning to buy used cars was a little lower than in 1958, so total anticipated car purchases were about the same as last year. About 28 percent of consumers were planning to buy furniture or major household equipment in 1958 and 1959, with expected spending just under $300. Table 8.--Percent of consumers planning to purchase specified durable goods Item 1959 1958 Percent Percent Nonfarm consumers: Houses ••...•.•..•.........•.....•.•.••.. Home improvement and maintenance amounting to $50 or more •..•......•... All consumers: New automobiles •...•.•..•.....•..••..•.. Used automobiles ..•..•......•........... Furniture and major household appliances 9·3 24.6 7.6 9.8 27.8 ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD 7·5 22.1 6.9 10.4 28.2 Table 9 presents the estimated cost of 1 week's food to be prepared and served at home. The estimate is based on quantities of food in the low cost, moderate cost, and liberal plans. The plans are available as a leaflet--:Ww Cost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal Family Food Budgets, HHE (Adm.)-113. Thecost of food for a specific family can be estimated from table 9, since costs are given for individuals of different ages. These costs are based on averages of food prices collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 46 cities, a~d may not apply to any specific city or region. y "Preliminary Findings of the 1959 Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 45 (3): 251-254. March 1959. -21- Table 9---Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, ~ April 1959 Sex-age groups FAMILIES Family of two, 20-34 years of age ?} .... . Family of two, 55-74 years of age gj .... . Family of four with preschool children 1} Family of four, school age children !!} ... INDIVIDUALS Children: Under 1 year .......•.....•..•..•..•..•• 1-3 years ..................•........... 4-6 years ........................•..•.. 7-9 years ...................•.......... 10-12 years ....•............•.........• Girls, 13-15 years .......•.••..••.•...•.. 16-19 years .......•.....•.•...•......•. Boys, 13-15 years ....•...............•••. 16-19 years ..•...•.•..........••.•.•... Women: 20-34 years •..•..................•..•.. 35-54 years •..•....................•... 55-74 years •... o ••••••••••••••••••• o ••• 75 years and over .......•............•. Pregnant •.........•....•............... Nursing ..........................• · . · · • Men: 20-34 years •..........................• 35-54 years ...........................• 55-74 years .............•.....•.......• 75 years and over ..................... . Low-cost plan Dollars 15.00 13-50 20.50 24.00 3.00 3-75 4.25 5-25 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 8.00 5-50 5-25 5-00 4.75 6.75 8.50 7-00 6.50 6.25 6.00 M:lderate-cost plan Dollars 20.50 18.50 27 .oo 32.00 3·75 4.50 5-50 6.75 8.00 8.50 8.50 9-50 ll.OO 7-50 7-25 6.75 6.50 8.75 10.75 9-50 9.00 8.50 8.25 Liberal plan Dollars 23.00 20.50 3l.OO 36.00 4.00 5-25 6.50 7-75 9-25 9·75 9-75 l0-75 12.50 8.50 8.25 7-75 7-25 9-75 l2.00 l0.75 lO.OO 9-50 9-00 !/ These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderatecost, and liberal food plans. These plans were published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the October 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. Quantities for children were revised J~. 1959 to comply with the 1958 NRC Recommended Dietary Allowances. The cost of the food plans was first estimated by using the average prices per pound of each food group paid by nonfam. survey families at 3 selected income levels. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Average Retail Prices of Food in 46 Large ~ties Combined released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimates for individuals have been rounded to nearest $0.25 and for families to the nearest half dollar. gj Twenty percent added for small families. 3/ Man a.'lld woman 20-34 years, children 1-3 and 4-6 years. Tjj Man and woman 20-34 years, children 7-9 and 10-12 years. -22- CONSUMER PRIC.ES Table 10.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living (1947-49 = 100) May 1958; September 1958-May 1959 Item May Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May 1958 1959 1959 All commodities .••....•••... ll8 117 118 118 118 118 ll8 118 118 ll8 Food and tobacco., ...•.• .. -- 118 -- -- u6 -- -- 115 -- -- Clothing ...•.•..•........• -- 113 -- -- 114 -- -- ll4 -- -- Household operation •...•.. -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- Household furnishings •.... -- 104 -- -- 104 -- -- 104 -- -- Building materials, house. -- ll9 -- -- 119 -- -- 120 -- -- Auto and auto supplies .... -- 136 -- -- l39 -- -- 141 -- -- Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Table 11.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families (1947-49 = 100) April 1958; August 1958-April 1959 Item April Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April 1958 1959 All i terns ••.•••..••......•.• 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 Food •.•..•.••..•......•.•. 122 121 120 120 ll9 ll9 119 ll8 118 118 Apparel ••.•••.••..•••..••. 107 107 107 107 l08 108 107 107 107 107 Housing ••.•.....••..••.••. 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 129 129 Rent . .......•........... 137 138 138 138 138 139 139 139 139 139 Gas and electricity •.... 116 ll8 ll8 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 Solid fuels and fuel oil 134 134 135 136 136 137 139 14o 140 139 Housefurnishings •....... 104 103 104 103 104 104 103 104 104 104 Household operation ..... 131 132 132 132 133 133 133 133 134 134 Transportation ..•..•...... 138 141 141 143 144 144 144 144 145 145 Medical care ••••....•...•. 143 145 146 147 147 147 148 149 149 150 Personal care ..•••...•.... 128 129 129 129 129 129 129 130 130 130 Reading and recreation •... 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 nB Other goods and services .. 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 128 - Source: u. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. <>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1959 0- 510l 68
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Family Economics Review [Jun. 1959] |
Date | 1959 |
Contributors (group) |
Institute of Home Economics (U.S.) United States. Agricultural Research Service Consumer and Food Economics Research Division Consumer and Food Economics Institute (U.S.) United States Science and Education Administration United States. Agricultural Research Service United States Agricultural Research Service Family Economics Research Group |
Subject headings | Home economics--Accounting--Periodicals |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | 8 v. ; $c 27 cm. |
Publisher | Washington, D.C. : U.S. Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 77.708:June 59 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5482 |
Full-text | I' (I) ~ MICS EW Institute of Home Eeonomirs, Agricultural Research Service_, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGR ICULTU RE Prepared for home demonstration agents and home economics specialists of the Agricultural Extension Service, this publication reports current developments in family and food economics, and economic aspects of home management • CONTENTS ~ TEE COST OF LEAN IN SELECTED CUTS OF MEAT.................... 1 NEW FOOD STANDARD. . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . • • . • . . • . . • • . . • • . • • . • . • • . . • • . 4 TRENDS IN PRICES OF CLOTHING................................. 4 CHANGES IN BLANKET PRODUCTION................................ 6 TEXTILE FIBER CONSUMPTION.................................... 8 CHANGES IN THE U. S. HOUSING SUPPLY, 1950-1956............... 8 CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS IN 1956......................... ll RECENT TRENDS IN HOUSING. . . • • . . • . . • . . • • . . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . • • . . 14 SPENDING OF SINGLE CONSUMERS. . . . . . . • . • • . • . • • • . • • • • . . • • . • • . • • . 15 ACCIDENT REroRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . 18 CONSUMERS OPTIMISTIC IN 1959································· 20 ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD............................ 20 CONSUMER PRICES • . • . . . . . . • . . • • . . • . . . • • . • . . . • . . . • . . • . • • . • . • • . • . 22 ARs 62-5 June 1959 Washington, D. C. THE COST OF LEAN IN S~TEO CUTS OF MEAT Food consumption studies show that :families spend more money :for meat and meat alternates than for any other major group of foods. For instance, in the spring of 1955 the average U. S. family spent about 24 cents of its food dollar for meat. .Another 14 cents went for poultry, fish, eggs, and dry beans, dry peas, and nuts. With such a large proportion of the food budget for meats, the homemaker has an opportunity for savings i:f she makes economical. choices. Three factors ini'luence the economy of different cuts of meat ••• the nutritional value of the meat, the price per pound, and the amount of edible meat obtained. The nutritive value of meat depends in part on the amount of fat interspersed with the lean. The fat has a diluting effect on the protein, vitamins, and minerals provided by the muscle. Cuts with more fat in them are somewhat lower in these nutrients than the leaner ones, but higher in calories. Thus cuts higher in fat may not give as good nutritional returns for the money, except in calories. There are only small differences in the food value of the lean, fat-free muscle of different kinds of meat animals except for vitamin content. Pork, for example, provides more tbi.mn1ne than other meats. Organs and glands are generally higher in iron and vitamins than other parts of an animal. There is wide variation in the amount of bone, fat, and lean meat furnished by different cuts, and in prices per pound. Many cuts include parts not eaten such as bone and gristle. And the outer rim of fat on meat may be trimmed before cooking or at the table. Hence 1 to rate meats as economical buys, comparison is best made on the basis of cost per serving or the amoun,t of lean meat provided by a cut. The experienced homemaker may know how many servings can be expected per pound :from certain cuts and, taking price into consideration, she can determine which is the thriftiest to purchase. Others, and perhaps even the experienced homemaker, may benefit from a guide which shows the cost of the lean of various cuts of meat at a given price per pound. Such a general guide follows :for selected retail cuts of choice grade beef and lamb and of pork. The table is based on the percent of lean meat provided on an average by the listed cuts • !/ The table is easy to use. To illustrate: Suppose both the heel of round and. T-bone steak are selling for $1.05 a pound, and you want to know which is the more economical to buy. A glance down the left-hand column to heel of round and across to the column headed 105 shows a value of $1.23 per pound. This means that the amount of lean meat you get from this cut costs at a rate of about $1.23 a pound when heel of round sells for $1.05 a pound. In a similar manner we find that the cost of the lean in T-bone steak at $1.05 a pound is $1. 79, nearly half again as much as for the heel of round. --:Wuise Page. Y Adapted from "Meat for the Table," by Sleeter Bull. 24o pp. New York. 1951. Table 1. --Cost per pound of raw lean meat Price per pound of retail cuts~ bone-in (cents) Kirld and cut of meat 25 30 35 4o 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 so 85 90 3eef, choice grade: Blade rib - 6th., •••••••...•..•••••• 39 46 54 62 69 77 85 92 100 108 116 123 131 139 Brisket . .....•...........•......... 49 59 68 78 88 98 ~OS 117 127 137 147 157 166 176 Chuck rib - 5th •.••.•.••.....•.•..• 39 47 55 63 71 79 86 94 102 110 118 ~2.6 134 142 Chuck rib- 3rd and 4th .••.•....... 37 45 52 6o 67 74 82 89 97 104 112 119 126 134 Chuck rib- 1st and 2nd •••..••.••.. 34 40 47 54 61 67 74 81 87 94 101 108 114 121 Club steaks . ..........•............ 43 52 6o 69 77 86 95 103 ll2 120 129 138 146 155 Fla.Ilk s te a.k.s ••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 30 35 4o 45 50 ' 55 6o 65 70 75 so 85 90 Hind shBllk • ..........•.......•..... 86 103 12.1 138 ~55 172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310 Porterhouse steaks .•••.•....••.•... 41 50 58 66 74 82 91 99 107 116 124 132 140 149 Ribs- lith and ~h ••..••.•••.•.•. 49 59 68 78 88 98 107 ll7 127 137 146 156 166 176 Ribs - 7th and 8th ....•..•......••• 43 51 60 68 77 85 94 102 111 119 128 136 145 153 Round, heel . ....................... 29 35 41 47 53 59 65 70 76 82 88 94 100 106 Round steak . .••.••.•.•...•.•••..•.. 30 36 42 48 54 6o 66 73 1 79 85 91 97 103 109 Rump, knuckle out •...•..•.••.•...•. 43 51 6o 68 77 85 94 102 ill 119 128 136 145 153 Sllort plate . ....................... 47 56 66 75 84 94 103 112 122 131 l4o 150 159 169 Sho~der arm roast ..•.....•..•..... 36 44 51 58 65 73 so 87 94 102 109 116 124 131 Sirloin, double bone •....•........• 41 49 57 65 74 82 90 98 106 114 123 131 139 147 Sirloin, round and wedge bone ..•... 36 44 51 58 66 73 so 87 95 102 109 116 124 131 T-bane stea.lts ........... ............ 43 51 60 68 77 85 94 102 lll 119 128 137 145 154 p ork, fresh: fuston butt . ....................... 30 36 42 48 53 59 65 71 77 83 89 95 101 107 Picnic ............................. 41 49 57 65 73 81 90 98 106 114 122 130 138 147 Hazn. • •.•••••. • •• • •••• • •.•••••• • ••••• 4o 48 56 64 72 so 88 96 104 112 120 128 136 144 Loin, roasts and chops .........•... 38 45 53 60 68 75 83 90 98 105 113 120 128 135 Spareribs . ......................... 42 51 59 67 76 84 93 101 110 118 126 135 143 152 L runb, choice grade: I..eg . ••.••.•...•.••••••.••.••••...•. 38 45 53 61 68 76 83 91 98 106 113 121 129 136 I.oin cllops ......................... 47 56 66 75 84 94 103 113 122 131 141 150 159 169 Rib c'bops ••••.•••••••••••••.•••.••• 50 6o 70 So 91 101 lll 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 Shoulder .••.••••.•••..•.•.•••.•.... 42 51 59 68 76 84 93 101 110 118 127 135 144 152 95 146 186 149 141 128 164 95 328 157 186 162 112 115 162 178 138 155 138 162 113 155 152 143 160 144 178 191 160 100 154 196 157 149 135 172 100 345 165 195 170 118 121 170 187 145 163 146 171 ll9 163 160 150 169 151 188 201 169 I 1\) I Table l.--Cost per pound of raw lean meat (Continued) Price per pound of retail cuts, bone-in (cents) Kind and cut of meat 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 Beef, choice grade : Blade rib - 6th .................... 162 169 177 185 193 200 208 216 223 231 239 247 254 262 Brisket .........................•.. 205 215 225 235 2 ~5 254 264 274 284 294 303 313 323 333 Chuck rib - 5th .............•...... 165 173 181 189 197 204 212 220 228 236 244 252 259 267 Chuck rib - 3rd and 4th ...........• 156 164 171 179 186 193 201 208 216 223 231 238 246 253 Chuck rib- lst and 2nd ............ 141 148 155 162 168 175 182 188 195 202 209 215 222 229 Club steaks ...............•..•..... 181 189 198 207 215 224 232 241 250 258 267 275 284 293 Flank steaks ...............•....... 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 Hind s ha..YJ.k ......... ..... ........•.• 362 379 397 414 431 448 466 483 500 517 534 552 569 586 Porterhouse steaks ........• , ......• 173 182 190 198 206 215 223 231 239 248 256 264 272 281 Ribs- llth and 12th ..........•..•• 205 215 225 234 244 254 264 273 283 293 303 313 322 332 Ribs - 7th and 8th ................. 179 187 196 204 213 221 230 238 247 256 264 273 281 290 Round, heel ....•.....•............. 123 129 135 141 147 153 159 165 170 176 182 188 194 200 Round steak . ........................ 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187 193 200 206 Rump, knuckle out ..... . ............ 179 187 196 204 213 221 230 238 247 255 264 272 281 289 Short plate .. . ..................... 197 206 215 225 234 243 253 262 272 281 290 300 309 318 Shoulder arm roast ........ . .. .... . • 153 160 167 174 182 189 196 203 211 218 225 233 240 247 Sirloin, double bone ..............• 172 180 188 196 204 212 221 229 237 245 253 261 270 278 Sirloin, round and wedge bone ...... 153 160 167 174 182 189 197 204 211 218 226 233 240 247 T-bone steaks ...............•...... 179 188 196 205 213 222 230 239 247 256 264 273 282 290 Pork, fresh: Boston butt .. . ................. .... 124 131 137 143 148 154 160 166 172 178 184 190 196 202 Picnic ........................ ..... 171 179 187 195 204 212 220 228 236 244 252 261 269 277 Hanl. . ...• • ..• • .••...•. • • . . • ... • •..•. 168 176 184 192 200 208 216 224 232 240 248 256 264 272 Loin, roasts and chops ........ ; .... 158 165 173 180 188 195 203 211 218 226 233 241 248 256 Spareribs . ......................... 177 185 194 202 211 219 228 236 245 253 261 270 278 287 Lamb, choice grade: Leg . ................•...•.......... 159 166 174 182 189 197 204 212 219 227 234 242 250 257 Loin chops .................•..•.... 197 206 216 225 235 244 253 263 272 281 291 300 310 319 Rib chops . ..........•.............. 211 221 231 241 252 262 272 282 242 302 312 322 332 342 SlJ.oulder ... .................. . ..... 177 186 194 203 211 220 228 236 2 5 253 .262 270 279 287 -- -- -- - - - --- -- L_ --- --· - 175 270 342 275 260 236 301 175 603 289 342 298 206 212 298 328 254 286 255 299 208 285 280 263 295 265 328 352 296 I w I -4- NEW FOOD STANDARD Special standards developed by the Food and Drug Administration will make food buying easier for persons on sugar-restricted diets. Under the new standards, the words "artificially sweetened" will appear on canned fruit labels as part of and ahead of the name of the fruit. For example, a label may read 11 artificially sweetened peaches 11 (or apricots, pears, cherries, fruit cocktail, or figs). It will also give the common name of the artificial sweetener used, its percentage by weight, and the number of calories in an average serving of the fruit. This standard is to become effective about July 1, 1959. TRENDS IN PRICES OF CLOTHING Retail prices for clothing, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, have changed relatively less since March 1953 than prices of any of the other major categories of goods and services. The cost of apparel increased about 3 percent, compared with 10 percent for housing and 23 percent for medical care, for example. But though the overall clothing index remained q_ui te stable, prices of some of the items that enter into it changed considerably. The chart below shows the diversity of movement since March 1953 in prices for four of the subgroups of items that make up the clothing index. Shoes.--The greatest increase among the subgroups of items in the apparel index was for shoes. (See table 2.) Shoe prices increased about 15 percent ' between March 1953 and December 1958. Women's street shoes were responsible for more of the increase than men's, the two rising 17 percent and 9 percent, INDEX PRICES FOR APPAREL ON A RECENT BASE Index (1953-54 = 100) 110 Cotton Apparel -------- 100 -, '"'""""' ,....- - - ·-....... / - .......... - ....... - Manmade Fil;-;,rs ApParel ~~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~-L~~~~~~~~ 1953 1954 1955 1957 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics -5- ~able 2.--Changes in Consumer Price Index for apparel, March 1953-December 1958 Item Total apparel ........ . Shoes .•...........•. Manmade fibers ..•... Cotton ............. . Wool ........•....... Other .............. . Relative importance in Index, December 1957 100.0 14.4 21.1 25.6 27.8 ll.l ~Change from Dec. 1953 to Dec. 1958. Indexes of wool apparel prices are compiled only for September and December each year. respectively. These figures relate to shoes of specified kinds and qualities-those bought in largest quantities by city wage-earner and clerical-worker families in 1950. The Bureau of Labor Statistics prices the same kinds and qualities of goods each month, so the Index reflects changes in prices but not changes in consumer preferences and standards of living. But there have been some changes in shoe preferences and production since 1953. Census Bureau reports show that manufacturers increased the production of sandals, play shoes, and athletic shoes substantially more than other types of shoes. They also show that the average factory value per pair of shoes shipped by manufacturers decreased somewhat. These facts suggest that the average consumer may have changed his shoe buying habits, so that he is buying more of the lower-priced casual shoes rather than paying the higher prices to maintain a shoe wardrobe of the kind and quality he bought in 1950. Apparel of manmade fibers.--Prices of clothing of manmade fibers as a group changed during the period, too, but downward instead of upward. By the end of 1958 these prices were 6.6 percent lower than in March 1953. Prices of nylon hose--an important item in the average woman's clothing budget-dropped 14 percent, and prices of girls' Orlon sweaters decreased 20 percent. Prices of women's rayon underwear changed little between 1953 and 1958, but Prices of men's rayon suits increased about 8 percent. Cotton and wool apparel.--Prices for cotton apparel were quite stable from early 1953 through mid-1955, rose about 4 percent between then and March 1957, and have remained steady since. The chart shows wide seasonal swings in prices for wool. Prices were relatively high in September when the new fall woolens came into the stores, dropped in December with the end-of-season sales. Aside from these seasonal shifts , prices of wool apparel increased less than 2 percent between December 1953 and December 1958. --Janis Moore . -6- CHANGES IN BLANKET PRODUCTION Will you choose a blanket made of cotton, wool, a synthetic fiber, or a combination of these the next time you buy1 If you look for the familiar "100 percent wool" blanket that used to be considered a standard household it~ you may find fewer of them in the retailers' stock than formerly. Information given in Facts for Industry 1/ shows that production of 100 percent wool blankets, which amounted to I4 million yards in 1948, was only 6 million yards in 1956 and 1957. Midway in this period, in 1951-1953, allwool blanket production increased sharply to fill Government orders placed to supply the Armed Forces during the KOrean crisis. (See chart, page 7 . ) The number of all-wool .blankets made for other uses dropped in 1951 as the Government contracts piled up, returned to the 1950 level in 1953, and declined after that. ?) During the period 1948-1958, production of "chiefly wool" blankets (50-99·9 percent wool) also tended downward after rising in the early fifties. Cotton blankets.--Production of cotton blankets exceeded, by quite a lot, that of wool blankets for each year in the 10-year period. (See table 3 . ) Production of all-cotton blankets was consistently higher than that of wool blankets. Chiefly cotton blankets (50-99·9 percent cotton) were made in smaller quantities than the all-cotton. Production of these chiefly cotton blankets increased during the early 1950's, partly, perhaps, to compensate for decreased production of all-wool blankets for civilians. It dropped abruptly again after 1954. Manmade fibers.--It is evident from these figures that wool and cotton blanket production was not keeping pace with the rapid population growth. Other fibers were coming along to supplement them, however . Rayon blankets have become an important part of the total. The industry-Census reports don't tell us when rayon was first used in this way. In fact , they don 't mention rayon blankets as such until 1956. Before that they were probably included with rayon yard goods. In 1956, 44 million yards of rayon blankets were reported, almost as many as the combined amounts of wool and cotton blankets. Manmade fibers other than rayon -- Acrilan, Orlon, Dynel, and others-- are also being used in blankets now. Reporting on blankets of these fibers started in 1956, when about 4 million yards were produced. Quantities produced in 1957 and 1958 were 5 and 6 million yards, respectively. Electric bed coverings increase.--Another development that may have had a part in the leveling off of production of all-wool blankets is the increasing p~pularity of electric bed coverings. According to the trade magazine, Electrical Merchandising, electric blankets and sheets sold by manufacturers increased steadily from 0.7 million in 1948 to 2.4 million in 1958 . }/ Since electric blankets don't have to depend on fiber for warmth, they can be made from manmade fibers or cotton, frequently in combination with varying amounts of wool. ~U.S. Bureau of the Census, Facts for Industry, Series M15A,G,H,L, and 22T· gj Blankets for Government order are reported separately only when abnormallY high. Otherwise, blankets bought by Government are part of the general total. ~ Electrical Merchandising, January 1959. 25 -7- WOOL BLANKET PRODUCTION, 1948-1958 (Excludes crib blankets) 50-99·~ Wool ...... ......-.--- --._,Jt - - -...- _., ' ' .., ... --... v ---- Table 3.--Blanket production, 1948-1958 (Excludes crib blankets) Cotton Wool Manmade Year All- Chiefly All-wool Chiefly Rayon, Acrylic cotton cotton Government wool acetate and 50-99·9~ orders Other 50-99·9~ other Linear yards (millions) 1948 •.. 35 8 y 14 4 y y 1949 ... 23 13 2 13 4 y y 1950 ... 33 18 y 14 4 Y. Y. 1951 ... 33 28 17 8 6 Y. Y. 1952 ... 28 22 9 10 5 Y. Y. 1953 ... 28 19 8 14 5 Y. Y. 1954 •.. 27 15 1 9 2 Y. Y. 1955 ... 32 7 1 7 4 y 44 y 1956 ... 31 8 y 6 3 4 1957 ... 27 7 Y. 6 2 39 5 1958 ?) 24 6 ~I y 2 44 6 ~ Data not available. gj Preliminary, from quarterly figures. --Lucile F. Mark. -8- Natural and Synthetic Fibers FIBER CONSUMPTION PER PERSON POUNDS Others* - :::: Cotton -~ 30 Synthetics• - 20 10 0 .L...l:a~ll.....tiz2 1930-34 1940-44 1950-54 1925-29 1935-39 1945-49 1955-58° • WOOL. FlAX, ANO SILK 0 ,.fliMINA.Y U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. • 91-591]) AGRICULTURAl MARKE TING SE RVICE TEXTILE FIBER CONSUMPTION Tbtal consumption of textile fibers per person in the United States in 1955-58.averaged about 37 pounds. This was below the 1950-54 average of nearl y 42 pounds per person, and continued a downward trend that began in 1945-49. Cotton and wool consumption in 1955-58 was below the 1950-54 average, but the use of manmade fibers increased, maintaining the long-time upward trend. This information is based on Agricultural Marketing Service data obtained from the Bureau of the Census and the textile industry. CHANGES IN THE U. S. HOUSING SUPPLY, 1950-1956 Dwelling units in this country numbered 55.3 million in 1956, about 9 million more than in 1950 when the last previous count was made. Of the 55·3 million, 75 percent existed in 1950 in essentially the same shape and form, except that some may have had such changes as the addition of a room or installation of a furnace. Twenty percent had been built since 1950, and the remaining 5 percent were the net result of converting and merging structures existing in 1959, or were added from other sources. These estimates are based on a housing "inventory" done late in 1956 by the Census Bureau. ~ This is the first nationwide survey describing the types of changes occurring in the housing supply over a period of time. ~U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1956 National Housing Inventory. Vol. I. Components of Change, 1950 to 1956; Part 1, United States and Regions. 1958. -9- Housing units added--where they came from New construction was by far the most important single factor of change between 1950 and 1956. Dwelling units built during that time numbered 10.9 million, an average of 1.6 million a year. (See table 4.) Another 0. 7 million dwellings were added to the housing supply by the "conversion" of structures existing in 1950 into a larger number of units--as for example, cutting a house up into apartments. About 0. 7 million of the 1950 dwellings were subdivided to form 1.4 million, resulting in a net increase of 0.7 million. Still another 0.9 million units were added from other sources. Some, for example, had formerly been nonresidential buildings such as garages and stores, but were being used as residences in 1956. Units lost Over 3 million dwellings were lost by one means or another between 1950 and 1956. More than l million .....-ere demolished--tom down by the owner or a public agency. Another 0.7 million disappeared as separate units as a result l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Table 4.--Changes in the stock of dwelling units, 1950-1956, United States and regions United I North- North Item States east Central South Thousands Units existing in 1950 ...... 45,990 12,050 l3,750 l3,66o Units lost, 1950-56 •........ 3,220 560 Boo 1,300 By demolition ..•.........• l,l30 210 260 520 By merger ..•..•........... 670 180 210 230 By other .•.•..•.......•... l,4lO 180 34o 560 Remaining from 1950 stock !/ 42,770 ll,490 l2,94o 12,360 Units added, 1950-56 .......• 12,570 2,720 2,900 4,280 Built new ........•..•..... 10,920 2,360 2,420 3, 770 Net gain by conversion ...• 710 210 24o 190 Other ..................... 940 140 240 320 Units existing in 1956 .•.... 55,340 14,200 l5,84o l6,64o Percent increase, 1950-56 ... 20 l8 l5 22 l/ Item l minus 2. gj Item 3 plus 4. NOte - Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of rounding. West 6,530 550 150 6o 330 5,990 2,670 2,360 60 250 8,660 33 -10- of "mergers" which reduced 1.3 million units to 0.6 million. "Merging" means making two or more units into one, as when a person stops renting out part of his house as an apartment and takes it all for his own use. losses by merger offset the gains through conversion. Various other events, such as fires, floods, tornadoes, and the shifting of structures from residential to nonresidential use, took 1.4 million dwellings out of use during the six-year period. Regional differences Considerable difference existed among regions in the changes that occurred in the housing supply between 1950 and 1956. The greatest relative increase in number of homes was in the West. One-third of the West's 1956 housing inventory either didn't exist at all in 1950, or existed in some other form. Least change was noted in the North Central region, where 15 percent of the 1956 inventory was new or changed. New construction accounted for 27 percent of the 1956 inventory of houses in the West, 23 percent in the South, 17 percent in the Northeast, and 15 percent in the North Central region. In actual number of dwellings built, however, the South topped the list with 3.8 million, compared to about 2.4 million in each of the other regions. Relatively more of the 1950 dwellings were lost through demolition, fire, tornado, etc. in the South and West than in the other regions. Differences by size of place The amount and kind of change in the inventories of dwellings were also markedly different in communities of different size. Outstanding for growth in number of dwelling units were the suburban areas surrounding large cities. This is shown in the following: Area: Inside standard metropolitan areas gj In central cities ................ . Not in central cities ............ . Outside standard metropolitan areas. Percent increase in number of dwelling units, 1950-1956 23 8 46 17 2/ A standard metropolitan area is defined as a county or group of contiguous counties containing at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more at the time oi the 1950 Census. The contiguous counties were included if they were metropolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city. In New England, towns and cities were the units used in defining standard metropolitan areas, and a population density criterion was applied rather than that relating to metropolitan character. -ll- In the part of the metropolitan areas lying outside the central cities, one-third of the units existing in 1956 had been built new since 1950. New homes were only ll percent of the 1956 inventory in the central cities, and 18 percent in places outside the metropolitan areas. Housing improved by changes The net result of the additions to and subtractions from the housing supply between 1950 and 1956 was an upgrading of U. S. housing quality. T,he units lost by demolition or other means during the 6 years were, on the whole, the poorer dwellings. For example, 73 percent of them were reported to be dilapidated or lacking facilities in 1950. They were mostly small (3.3 was the median number of rooms), occupied by renters (72 percent), with median rental of $27 per month . In contrast, the newly built units had only 9 percent lacking facilities, were mostly larger (4.8 rooms the median), occupied by owners (76 percent), and the tenant-occupied ones had higher rental values ($70 median). But not all the new dwelling units were top-notch. Some were poor enough to be classified as "dilapidated" in 1956. These may have been poorly built to begin with, or may have been neglected and allowed to run down. Some units built since 1950 were structurally sound but lacked facilities like running water and bathrooms. New houses that were dilapidated or without facilities were relatively more common in the South than in other regions. They were also more common outside the standard metropolitan areas than in either the central cities or their suburban areas. --Emma G. Holmes and Lucile F. Mork. CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS IN 1956 The 1956 housing survey mentioned in the preceding article -also describes the dwellings of U.s. families, and compares them with those of 1950. ~ In 1956, 54 percent of the dwelling units were occupied by their owners, 36 percent by renters, and lO percent were vacant. Corresponding figures for 1950 were 51 percent owner-occupied, 42 percent renter-occupied, and 7 percent vacant . The vacant ones were mostly places that were up for sale or rent, or Were seasonal dwellings like summer homes. The majority of dwellings (68 percent) were single-family detached houses. As in 1950, something less than 1 percent of the units were trailers. Size.--In general, families were probably better off with regard to space in l95b'"than 6 years earlier. Relatively more of them had 4, 5, or 6 rooms, Y U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1956 National Housing Inventory. Vol. III, Characteristics of the 1956 Inventory; Part l? United States and Regions. 1959. -12- fewer were living in 3 rooms .pr less. The smaller units were occupied mainly by renters, as the following shows: Number of rooms : 3 or less ..•................. 4 'to 6 ......................• 7 or m:::>re ................... . Percent of Owners 1956 1950 6 10 75 68 19 22 dwellings Renters 1956 1950 37 41 57 52 6 6 Facilities.--Housing was better in 1956 than a~ mid-century with respect to structural quality and installed facilities, too. The extent of improvement is summarized below: Facilities in unit: Piped running water ..•......••.•• Hot running water .•..•..•...•.. Private flush toilet ......•...... Private bathtub or shower •...•... Good structural condition and all the above facilities ..•.•...•.. Percent of dwellings 1956 1950 91 83 82 70 83 71 81 69 76 63 Values.--The value of homes was considerably higher in 1956 tha~ in 1950, due partly to the upgrading in quality, partly to the increase in the price level. One-fifth of the owner-occupied nonfarm single-family houses were valued under $6,000 in 1956, almost two-fifths in 1950. At the high end of the scale, 30 percent had values of $15,000 or more in 1956, compared to 12 percent in the earlier year. Comparable changes took place in the monthly rent for tenant-occupied units. For example, 39 percent of the renters were paying $60 or more a month in 1956, but only 15 percent were paying this much in 1950. MOvers were many.--A sidelight on the mobility of U. s. families is the fact that 29 percent of the dwellings in use at the time of the 1956 survey were occupied by households that had moved in during 1955 or 1956. Fortyfive percent of the renters and 18 percent of the owners came as recently as 1955 or 1956. Only 1 in every 4 dwelling units was still occupied by a familY that moved there before 1945. Regional differences As in earlier housing surveys, there were considerable differences in the characteristics of housing in the four regions. Home ownership was highest in the North Central region, lowest in the Northeast. About three-fourths of the nonfarm dwellings were 1-family detached houses in all regions except· the Northeast, where only one-half were. Older houses were more common in the -13- Northeast and North Central regions than elsewhere. In these two regions 65 percent of the dwellings were of pre-1930 construction; in the South and West, about 4o percent were that old. On the whole, homes in the Northeast and West were most adequate with regard to installed facilities. The proportion of dwellings in good structural condition and provided with all facilities (hot running water, bath or shower, and flush toilet) varied among regions as follows: Region: Northeast .....•..........•..•• North Central .•......•.....••. South •.......•...•.•.•...•.••. West . ......•.....•.••.......•. Percent in good condition and with all facilities 1956 1950 86 78 75 61 63 45 88 78 All regions made progress toward better housing between 1950 and 1956, but the South, starting at a lower level, made the greatest relative gains. Differences by urbanization ~ae figures for areas of different degrees of urbanization reflect the tendency for city living to be largely in rented apartments. In the central cities relatively fewer units were one-family detached houses, fewer were occupied by owners, more were l to 3 rooms, and more were built before 1930 than in suburban and nonmetropoli tan areas . (See table 5.) Table 5---Characteristics of dwelling units, by location, 1956 Inside standard metropolitan areas Outside Characteristics In central Not in stanaard All cities central metrop...,li ta..J cities areas Percent Percent -Per-ce-nt Percent Owner occupied ...•.....•.•. 55 43 67 54 Single-family detached •.... 57 38 76 83 Pre-1930 construction ...... 54 69 37 55 With l-3 rooms ............. 21 27 14 2l With private flush toilet .. 93 93 92 69 With private bath or shower 91 91 91 66 Good structural condition, with all facilities ...... 87 86 88 62 --Emma G. Holmes and Lucile F . .Mork. -14- RECENT TRENDS IN HOUSING NEW NONFARM DWELLING UNITS STARTED Mil. units 1.0 - 8 ~~~~19~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates Source: U. S. Department of Commerce The number of new privately owned nonfarm homes started rose sharply after early 1958, following a 3-year drop. Nonfarm dwelling units are being started at the rate of about 1 .4 million a year. VAWE OF NEW NONFARM RESillENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Bil. dollars 1.8 Source: Commerce NONFARM IDRIDAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING Bil. dollars 115 105 95 1- to 4-family houses 75 Source: Federal Reserve Board Though the number of privately owned nonfarm dwellings started in the last few months is about the same as in the corresponding period 4 years ago , the value of this construction is considerably higher. The higher value reflects changes in characteristics of the dwellings, as well as higher building costs . Mortgage debt outstanding on l- to 4-family nonfarm houses continues to rise . Mortgages being paid off are more than offset by those being taken on . Factors in the steep upward trend are the increasing home values, the rising rate of home ownership, and smaller down payments . -15- SPENDING OF SINGLE CONSUMERS Spending patterns of single urban consumers are described in a recently published report of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. !/ Hitherto single consumers-- that is, persons living apart from family groups--have had relatively little attention as spending units. They are of considerable importance now numerically, however, a..11d are becoming more so. More single men and women are maintaining separate households than ever before. More older people are continuing to live alone rather than to move in with the younger generation. These trends reflect the increasing financial independence of individuals, due to higher wages, salaries, and retirement incomes. In 1950, the latest year for which urban spending figures are available, 6.9 million single consumers were living in urban areas. Of these, 3.6 million (52 percent) were heads of households, and 3-3 million (48 percent) were living as lodgers or resident employees in hotels, households, and rooming houses. Three-fifths of the single consumers were women and about one-fourth were 65 years old or over. Their median age was 54 years (by 1957 it had increased to 57 years). ?) The average income after personal taxes of single consumers in 1950 was $1,895. Since a majority of those over 65 were not employed many had low incomes--nearly 60 percent of this older group had less than $1,000 income for the year. The distribution of single consumers by after-tax income in 1950 was as follows: 1950 income after tax: Under $1, 000 .......•.............. $1,000- $1,999··················· $2,000 - $2,999 ...........•....... $3,000- $3,999··················· $4, 000 - $4, 999 ........•.......... $5,000 and over ...••..•.•..• -•..••• Percent of single consumers 29 32 23 10 3 3 Approximately three-fifths of the single consumers "kept bouse" all year-that is, they ate or prepared 10 or more meals at home each week. One-third d.idn 't keep house at all, and the remainder changed from one type of living arrangement to the other during the year. A considerably larger proportion of women than of men kept bouse--seven-tenths and one-third, respectively. Evidently this has much to do with the spending pattern of these persons. Spending patterns of single consumers Income differences.--Single consumers spent an average of $1,812 for current consumption in 1950. Like families, they spent a larger proportion of Y Marsha M. Froeder. "Single Consumers' Spending Patterns in Three Periods." ~nthly Labor Review, February 1959, pp. 142-150. g/ Data in this paragraph are based on Census Bureau reports. -16- their current consumption dollar for food than for any other major category of the budget. (See table 6.) Housing was next in importance, and (except for the under $1,000 group) transportation and clothing followed in order. As with families, also, the single consumers spent a smaller proportion of the consumption dollar for food and for housing as income increased. Food, for example, took 36 percent of the living expenditure of persons with incomes under $1,000, and 30 percent that of persons with $6,000 or more. Single consumers with higher incomes put a larger proportion into transportation (particularly automobile transportation) and into recreation than did those with less to spend. Age differences.--Young consumers tended to put a larger proportion of what they spent into clothing, less into food than older ones. Proportionate expenditures for personal care, recreation, reading, and education also decreased with age. Spending for housing was highest in the middle years, while that for medical care continued upward as age increased. Sex differences.--Single men and women differed considerably in both income and spending. Women had lower average incomes than men. About one-third of them received less than $1,000 in 1950, compared to one-fifth of the men. The women's lower incomes were partly because they were older as a group than the men and had less employment. Among single persons 65 years old or over, for example, two-fifths of the men, but only one-fifth of the women reported some work for pay in 1950. Income differences were also due to differences in living· arrangements of men and women, and to differing preferences related to sex of the individual. On the average, men spent proportionately more for recreation and tobacco, food and beverages, and transportation than women did. Women spent a larger proportion of the current living dollar for clothing, housing and furnishings, and medical and personal care. These patterns hold quite consistently at the various income levels. The men managed to save an average of $45 during the year, while the women had an average deficit of $170--which probably means that many dipped into savings to supplement income. This difference in savings reflects the fact that men had higher incomes than women, not that they were more frugal. Comparisons with family spending The average urban family (consisting of 3. 3 persons) had an after-tax income in 1950 of $4,224. Its expenditure for current living was $4,118. The family's division of the consumption dollar among the major categories of the budget was similar to that of single consumers, except that single consumers tended to spend more for housing, less for furnishings and equipment and for transportation. But there were marked differences for certain components of the major categories. For example, single persons spent much more :for "eating out" (52 percent of the food dollar, compared to 17 percent for families). Single consumers also spent more for recreation outside the home. They allocated 55 cents of their recreation dollar to admissions to places of entertainment and 23 cents for radio and television. The corresponding figures for -17- Table 6 . --Income and distribution of expenditures by families, and by single consumers by income, age, and sex; urban United States, 1950 Single consumers Item All By income By sex families All Under :3,000- $6,ooo $1,000 3,999 and over Men Women Money income after tax (dollars) .....•. 4,224 1,895 6o8 3, 395 9,466 2,351 1,644 Percent distribution y Expenditures for current consumption. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Food and beverages •• 31 33 36 30 30 39 30 Housing gj .......... ll 18 23 16 15 15 2l Fuel and household operation •..•.•••. . 9 9 13 7 8 6 ll Furnishings and e~uipment •..•..... 7 4 3 5 6 2 5 Clothing ....•....... 12 10 5 12 ll 9 ll Transportation ...•.. 14 ll 6 16 16 14 8 Medical care ••..••.. 5 4 7 4 l 3 5 Personal care ....•.• 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Recreation, reading, education ....••... 6 5 3 6 8 6 4 Tbbacco, misc •..••.• 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 ~ Detail may not necessarily add to 100 due to rounding. W Includes rent, lodging away from home, and (for homeowners) current operation expenditures (including interest, taxes, insurance, repair and upkeep). Does not include principal payments on owned homes. families were 24 cents and 37 cents. Differences in age, living arrangements, occupations, and social activity of single persons as compared to families Were reflected in their expenditures. ~ifts, contributions, and insurance Expenditures for current consumption, which we have discussed above, do not include money used for gifts and contributions to persons outside the family, nor for personal insurance premiums. Single consumers gave an average of $165 in gifts and contributions in 1950, and paid insurance premiums amounting to $63. Both increased with income. For sillgle men and -women, average gifts and contributions amounted to $196 and $148; average insurance payments to $76 and $57, respectively. -18- ACCIDENT REPORT Accidents cost money, both in terms of what it costs to provide care for the injured person and in reduced income because of time lost from work. During the year which ended June 30, 1958, about 47 million persons in the United States (more than 1 in every 4) received injuries that required medical attention or restricted their activities for at least one day. Men and boys had 27 million of these injuries, women and girls 20 million. These are estimates based on a study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service in cooperation with the Census Bureau, in which inte~views were taken in 36,000 households made up of 115,000 persons. !/ Home accidents were more numerous than any of the other three classes reported, which included (1) motor vehicle; (2) while at work; and (3) other and unknown types • About 41 percent of the persons injured were in "home" accidents; 10 percent were in motor vehicle accidents; 17 percent were injured at work; and 32 percent were in other or unknown types. More males than females were hurt. --Men and boys had more accidental injuries than girls and women. The accident rate for males was 331 per thousand population; for girls and women it was 229 per thousand. Relatively more males than females were hurt in each class of accident except home accidents, as this summary shows: Number injured per 1,000 per year Class of accident: Males Females All classes .•..•.....•.... 331 229 Mbtor vehicle ..•........ 35 21 While at work ......•..•• 80 18 Home • •••.••.•..•.•••••.• 110 117 Other or unknown •..•...• 105 73 Higher accident rates for males than for females occurred in every age group except 65 and over. (See chart, page 19.) Young men 15 to 24 years old had proportionately more accidental injuries than any other age or sex group, with almost 1 accident for every 2 males of these ages. The motor vehicle accident rate was higher for boys 15-24 than for any other group, but these young people also had more "other and unknown" injuries, as well as a rate of accidents at work that was exceeded only by men 25-44 years of age. Among females, older women (65 years old dent rate, with 319 injuries per 1,000 women. for safety, with only 192 injuries per 1,000. and over) had the highest acciWomen 25-44 had the best record · Farm people fare best.--Farm people had a somewhat better accident record _than others during the year, rural nonfarm residents a poorer one. Farmers were particularly low in home accidents. (See table 7.) !/ U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Persons injured1 by class of accident, United States, July 1957-June 1958. Health Statistics, Series B-8. February 1959. -19- NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED PER l, 000 PERSONS PER YEAR, BY SEX .AND AGE Number per 1,000 persons -Male ~Female Table 7.--Number injured per 1,000 persons per year in various types of accidents, by residence All Rural Rural Class of accident areas Urban nonfarm farm All classes ....•.•..•.. 279 276 291 267 Motor vehicle ...•..•. 28 ·26 32 30 While at work ••...•.. 48 45 53 54 Home • .•••••.•••••.••• 114 113 123 97 Other and unknown .•.. 89 92 84 85 Many had medical attention.--Eighty-one percent of the 47 million injured Persons were hurt badly enough to have medical attention, and one-sixth were disabled enough to be confined to their beds. To put it another way, 227 out of every 1,000 persons in the country were medically attended and 49 per 1,000 confined to bed because of injuries. Lost time from their jobs resulted from accidents for 123 out of every l,ooo employed people, and lost time from school for 99 out of every 1,000 boys and girls between the ages of 6 and 16. -20- CONSUMERS OPTIMISTIC IN 1959 Consumers were optimistic about economic conditions early in 1959, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Board. y Most of them expected higher prices than in 1958, but t~ey also anticipated improvements in income that would enable them to buy even if things cost more. MJre nonf'arm consumers expected to buy houses in 1959 than in 1958 (9.3 percent and 7·5 percent, respectively). (See table 8.) More also reported intentions to spend at least $50 for home improvement or maintenance. However, they planned to spend slightly less on these improvements than in 1958 (median $360 in 1959 compared to $380 in 1958). Slightly more people expressed intentions to buy new cars this year than last--7.6 and 6.9. percent of all consumer units, respectively. They also expected to pay higher prices for these new cars ($3,030 compared to $2,840). The proportion planning to buy used cars was a little lower than in 1958, so total anticipated car purchases were about the same as last year. About 28 percent of consumers were planning to buy furniture or major household equipment in 1958 and 1959, with expected spending just under $300. Table 8.--Percent of consumers planning to purchase specified durable goods Item 1959 1958 Percent Percent Nonfarm consumers: Houses ••...•.•..•.........•.....•.•.••.. Home improvement and maintenance amounting to $50 or more •..•......•... All consumers: New automobiles •...•.•..•.....•..••..•.. Used automobiles ..•..•......•........... Furniture and major household appliances 9·3 24.6 7.6 9.8 27.8 ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD 7·5 22.1 6.9 10.4 28.2 Table 9 presents the estimated cost of 1 week's food to be prepared and served at home. The estimate is based on quantities of food in the low cost, moderate cost, and liberal plans. The plans are available as a leaflet--:Ww Cost, Moderate Cost, and Liberal Family Food Budgets, HHE (Adm.)-113. Thecost of food for a specific family can be estimated from table 9, since costs are given for individuals of different ages. These costs are based on averages of food prices collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 46 cities, a~d may not apply to any specific city or region. y "Preliminary Findings of the 1959 Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 45 (3): 251-254. March 1959. -21- Table 9---Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, ~ April 1959 Sex-age groups FAMILIES Family of two, 20-34 years of age ?} .... . Family of two, 55-74 years of age gj .... . Family of four with preschool children 1} Family of four, school age children !!} ... INDIVIDUALS Children: Under 1 year .......•.....•..•..•..•..•• 1-3 years ..................•........... 4-6 years ........................•..•.. 7-9 years ...................•.......... 10-12 years ....•............•.........• Girls, 13-15 years .......•.••..••.•...•.. 16-19 years .......•.....•.•...•......•. Boys, 13-15 years ....•...............•••. 16-19 years ..•...•.•..........••.•.•... Women: 20-34 years •..•..................•..•.. 35-54 years •..•....................•... 55-74 years •... o ••••••••••••••••••• o ••• 75 years and over .......•............•. Pregnant •.........•....•............... Nursing ..........................• · . · · • Men: 20-34 years •..........................• 35-54 years ...........................• 55-74 years .............•.....•.......• 75 years and over ..................... . Low-cost plan Dollars 15.00 13-50 20.50 24.00 3.00 3-75 4.25 5-25 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 8.00 5-50 5-25 5-00 4.75 6.75 8.50 7-00 6.50 6.25 6.00 M:lderate-cost plan Dollars 20.50 18.50 27 .oo 32.00 3·75 4.50 5-50 6.75 8.00 8.50 8.50 9-50 ll.OO 7-50 7-25 6.75 6.50 8.75 10.75 9-50 9.00 8.50 8.25 Liberal plan Dollars 23.00 20.50 3l.OO 36.00 4.00 5-25 6.50 7-75 9-25 9·75 9-75 l0-75 12.50 8.50 8.25 7-75 7-25 9-75 l2.00 l0.75 lO.OO 9-50 9-00 !/ These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderatecost, and liberal food plans. These plans were published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the October 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. Quantities for children were revised J~. 1959 to comply with the 1958 NRC Recommended Dietary Allowances. The cost of the food plans was first estimated by using the average prices per pound of each food group paid by nonfam. survey families at 3 selected income levels. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Average Retail Prices of Food in 46 Large ~ties Combined released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimates for individuals have been rounded to nearest $0.25 and for families to the nearest half dollar. gj Twenty percent added for small families. 3/ Man a.'lld woman 20-34 years, children 1-3 and 4-6 years. Tjj Man and woman 20-34 years, children 7-9 and 10-12 years. -22- CONSUMER PRIC.ES Table 10.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living (1947-49 = 100) May 1958; September 1958-May 1959 Item May Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May 1958 1959 1959 All commodities .••....•••... ll8 117 118 118 118 118 ll8 118 118 ll8 Food and tobacco., ...•.• .. -- 118 -- -- u6 -- -- 115 -- -- Clothing ...•.•..•........• -- 113 -- -- 114 -- -- ll4 -- -- Household operation •...•.. -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- Household furnishings •.... -- 104 -- -- 104 -- -- 104 -- -- Building materials, house. -- ll9 -- -- 119 -- -- 120 -- -- Auto and auto supplies .... -- 136 -- -- l39 -- -- 141 -- -- Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Table 11.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families (1947-49 = 100) April 1958; August 1958-April 1959 Item April Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April 1958 1959 All i terns ••.•••..••......•.• 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 Food •.•..•.••..•......•.•. 122 121 120 120 ll9 ll9 119 ll8 118 118 Apparel ••.•••.••..•••..••. 107 107 107 107 l08 108 107 107 107 107 Housing ••.•.....••..••.••. 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 129 129 Rent . .......•........... 137 138 138 138 138 139 139 139 139 139 Gas and electricity •.... 116 ll8 ll8 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 Solid fuels and fuel oil 134 134 135 136 136 137 139 14o 140 139 Housefurnishings •....... 104 103 104 103 104 104 103 104 104 104 Household operation ..... 131 132 132 132 133 133 133 133 134 134 Transportation ..•..•...... 138 141 141 143 144 144 144 144 145 145 Medical care ••••....•...•. 143 145 146 147 147 147 148 149 149 150 Personal care ..•••...•.... 128 129 129 129 129 129 129 130 130 130 Reading and recreation •... 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 nB Other goods and services .. 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 128 - Source: u. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. <>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1959 0- 510l 68 |
OCLC number | 888048575 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
N |
|
P |
|
U |
|
W |
|
|
|