Family Economics Review [Jun. 1959]

              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