Family Economics Review [1967, Number 3]

              ;v
MICS
EW
fonsumer and Food Economics Research Division Agricultural Research Servic·c•
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Ktllim~•I~'IR
PROPERTY OF THE
CONTENTS
LIBRARY
OCT 16 1967
UNIVERSITY OF NOR-I H CAROLINA
AT GREENSBORO
Page
CHANGING FOOD CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES---~ _ j_lj 3
HOMEFREEZER MANAGEMENT SURVEY: Advantages and Dis-advantages
of Freezer Ownership; Defrosting Practices; Costs 6
USDA TEXTILES AND CLOTHING LABORATORY MOVES TO
TENNESSEE ----------------------------------------- 10
TRENDS IN PRICES OF FOOD AT HOME AND AWAY FROM HOME 10
TRENDS IN CONSUMER INSTALLMENT CREDIT --------------- 12
SURVEY OF THE MARKET FOR FOOD AWAY FROM HOME------ 15
MOBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES-------------------------- 16
WIVES IN THE LABOR FORCE ------------------------------ 20
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS--------------------------- 21
CONSUMER PRICES----------------------------------------- 23
COST OF FOOD AT HOME ---------- ----------------------- 24
ARS 62-5
September 1967
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly report on research of
the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division and on infor­mation
from other sources relating to economic aspects of family
living. It is developed by Dr. Emma G. Holmes, research family
economist, with the cooperation of other staff members of the Divi­sion.
It is prepared primarily for home economics agents and home
economics specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service.
CHANGING FOOD CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATEs.!/
Changes in the food consumption of U. S. families can be traced by comparing
data from nationwide surveys made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The most
recent of these was made in 1965 and the previous one in 1955. Others were made in
1948, 1942, and 1936. This article reports changes between 1955 and 1965 in food used
at home during a week in spring, based on data from the surveys made in those years.
What Changes in Food Consumption?
Meat group.--Both the quantityused and the money value of the meat group (meat,
poultry, fish; eggs; dry beans and peas, nuts) increased between 1955 and 1965 (fig. 1).
Quantity increased 8 percent and value 17 percent. The larger increase in money value
was due largely to the increase in the average price of foods .in the meat group, which
went from 53 to 57 cents per pound.
Increases in the meat group have been chiefly in beef and poultry. Changes in
meat consumption show that the influence of price on consumption is unpredictable in a
period of increasing affluence. Beef, with a price rise of about 20 percent, increased
30 percent in amount used. Poultry, with a price drop of 27 percent, increased 19 per­cent
in amount used. Eggs declined about 11 percent in price per pound and 2 percent
. in quantity used. Pork rose 6 percent in price and fell 4 percent in use. The money
value of fish stayed the same but its use decreased 8 percent. Two foods not shown on
the chart increased in quantity used-peanut butter nearly 60 percent and lunch meats
17 percent.
Milk group. --The quantity used of foods in the milk group (milk, cheese, ice
cream) was down 8 percent and the money value was down 4 percent in 1965 (fig. 2).
Much of the decrease in quantity reflects the use of less fresh fluid milk and cream.
Consumption shifted away from these products to more frozen milk desserts, cheese,
and processed milk. The quantity of evaporated milk used in 1965 was about two-thirds
that of 1955, and the quantity of nonfat dry milk was more than double that of the earlier
year.
Vegetables and fruit group. --Consumption of the vegetable-fruit group fell 9 per­cent,
but money value rose 14 percent. This group includes fresh, canned, frozen, and
dried fruits and vegetables--except dry beans and peas. The cost per pound of the assort­ment
of vegetables and fruits families used increased nearly 30 percent. Cost per pound
rose from an average of 14 cents to 18 cents because of the general price rise and the
shift from fresh to the more costly canned and frozen forms. The canned forms cost
about one-fourth more a pound than fresh in both periods. The frozen forms cost about
three times as much as the fresh in 1955 and twice as much in 1965.
1/ Condensed from a paper presented by Sadye F. Adelson at the 58th Annual Meeting
of the American Home Economics Association, Dallas, Tex. June 27, 1967.
SEPTEMBER 1967 3
Consumption of frozen vegetables and fruits increased an average of about 0.1
pound per person a week, rising from 0. 3 to 0. 4 pound between 1955 and 1965. Fresh
vegetables and fruits decreased about 1 pound, dropping from 7.4 to 6.3 pounds per per­son.
This decrease was in potatoes and sweet potatoes (down to 0. 3 pound), in "other "
vegetables (down 0. 4 pound), and in fruit (down 0. 4 pound). The only increase in fresh
produce used was in fruit juices (up 0.1 pound).
Bread-cereal group.--Families were using 10 percent less of foods in the bread­cereal
group (flour equivalent) in 1965 than 1955 (fig. 3). However, money value was up
30 percent, due primarily to a shift to bakery products other than bread and to ready-to­eat
breakfast cereals. Use of breakfast cereals increased about one-fourth and bakery
products other than bread two-thirds, whereas use of flour decreased about one-third.
How Does Food Use Differ Among Population Groups ?
Regional differences. --Families in the South had about 1 pint less milk and 0. 7
pound less vegetables and fruit per person per week than those in the North (fig. 4). But
they had 1. 2 pounds more bread and cereals and about the same amounts of foods in the
meat group.
Urbanization differences.--Urban and farm households averaged about the same
amount of each food group except the bread-cereal one (fig. 5). Farm families used
3. 3 pounds per person of the bread-cereal group, and urban families 2. 3 pounds.
Income differences.--Families with incomes under $3,000 averaged nearly 3 cups
less milk, 0. 5 pound less meat, and 1.7 pounds less vegetables and fruit per person a
week than families with $7,000 to $10,000 (fig. 6). However, the low-income group had
0.8 pound more bread and cereals. Thus, the lowest users of the milk, meat, and vege­table-
fruit groups were the families in the South and those with low incomes. The lowest
users of the bread-cereal group were families in the North, in the cities, and with high
incomes.
Has the Family's Food Pattern Changed?
Family food patterns have changed some, but no major shifts have occurred.
Meat is the only food group that increased in use, rising from 5.2 to 5.6 pounds per per­son
per week. Milk decreased from 4. 5 to 4. 1 quarts (in calcium equivalent of fluid
whole milk) per person. Vegetables and fruit were down 0. 9 pound, dropping from 9. 6
to 8. 7 pounds per person. Foods in the bread-cereal group declined from 2. 8 to 2. 5
pounds.
Use of fats and oils and sugars and sweets decreased--the former from 0. 9 to
0. 8 pound per person per week, the latter from 1. 2 to 1.1 pounds. Use of beverages
other than coffee increased considerably--soft drinks from 0.9 to 1.5 pounds per person
and fruit ades, fruit drinks, punches, and nectars from 0. 04 to 0. 34 pound.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
TOTAL GROUP
BEEF
POULTRY
PORK
FISH & SHELLFISH
EGGS
MEAT GROUP
Use and money value up in 1965
%CHANGE, 1955 TO 1965
• QUANTITY
0 MONEY VALUE
Household Food ConsumptiOn Sur ... eys, Sprma 1965 and 1955
All HousehOlds "' US
U.S. Ofi'Ati:TIIIENT Of AGIIICUlTUJIE NEG. NO. 67161 Sll6 ACJI ICUlfUJIAl JI[S(AJICtt SERVICE
-30
TOTAL GROUP
FRESH FLUID
MILK
PROCESSED MILK
CREAM
FROZEN MILK
DESSERTS
CHEESE
Figure 1
MILK GROUP
Use and money value down in 1965
-20
%CHANGE, 1955 TO 1965
·10 0 +10 +20 +30
.QUANTITY
0 MONEY VALUE
+40
Househokf Food ConsumptiOn Surwys, Spr•na 1965 and 1955
U.S. Oli'AIIITMEMT D' AGJtiCUlllHt[ JIIEG. NO 6116) 5al7
AU HousehOlds '" U S
AGJIICUlTUJIAL R£S[ARCI1 S(ltYICt
TOTAL GROUP
BREAD
OTHER BAKERY
PRODUCfS
BREAKFAST
CEREAL
OTHER CEREAL,
PASTES
FLOUR, MIX
Figure 2
BREAD CEREAL GROUP
Use clown, money value up in 1965
+70 +80 +90
.QUANTITY
0 MONEY VALUE
Hout.nokl food ConsumpltOn Surveys, 59f1111 1965 and 1955 All HouMhOids 1n U 5
MEG.- NO. 67(6) !1139 -"JIICUlTUJIM. ltUtARCH Sflt'IIC[
Figure 3
SEPTEMBER 1967
REGION AND FOOD USE
In South, leu milk, vegetables and hvit bvt more b,eod and cereals than in North
MILK GROUP
MEAT GROUP
VEGETABLE
FRUIT GROUP 1--------------'
BREAD
CEREAL GROUP 1--------'
POUNDS PER PERSON PER WEEK
HousehOld Food Consumption Sur .. ys, Spr.na1965 and 1965 An Househ olos '"uS
US.. Of.I',UTIII[NT Of AGitiCUlTUit[ N[C foK) 67(6) ~l• AC>f!ICUlTUitAllt(S[AitCI't S£11YIC(
Figure 4
URBANIZATION AND FOOD USE
On farms, more bread and cereals than in cities
MILK GROUP
MEAT GROUP
VEGET"BLE
FRUIT GROUP 1------------~=:=:=::J
BREAD
CEREAL GROUP._ __ ___~
POUNDS PER PERSON PER WEEK
Housenold food Consumption Surveys, Spr~na 1965 •nd 1955 All H ttu \ e"~ Ooa\ .n us
US 0[PAIITM[NT Of ACitiCUlTUit[ M(C P+0 6716) Sill .. GitiCUlTUII .. llllShltC" Sllt\IIC(
Figure 5
INCOME AND FOOD USE
At low incomes, more bread and cereals, len of other foods
MILK GROUP
MEAT GROUP
VEGETABLE
FRUIT GROUP 1----=====:=:=:=:=::.___J
3 8 10
POUND! PER PERSON PEl WEE«
Household Food ConsumptiOn Surveys, Spr~na 1965 1nd 1955 All Householas onus
U.S. 0£1'AitTtii£NT Of AGIIICUl TUit[ NEC.. NO 67161 SllS ACitiCUlTUIIAl It($ (ARCH S[lt'tiC[
Figure 6
5
In terms of servings, the average amounts of food used per person per week were
less in 1965 than 1955 by the equivalent of 1.6 cups of milk, 4 servings of vegetables and
fruit, 5 to 6 slices of bread, 4 tablespoons of oil, and 8 tablespoons of sugar. But the
meat group increased by the equivalent of one fairly goo~-sized serving. Soft drinks in­creased
about 1. 5 cups and fruit drinks about 0. 5 cup.
Why the Changes in Food Consumption?
The increase in use of poultry between 1955 and 1965 was probably due to the de­crease
in price of a popular food. Beef use increased despite higher prices, indicating
the effect of higher incomes and differences in food preferences. The rise in use of fro­zen
desserts reflects in part the introduction of many new low-priced and low-caloried
products.
Some people apparently followed the advice to cut calories and be selective in the
types of fats used. Less food was consumed, on the average, in 1965 and shifts from
butter and shortening to margarine and oils, and from whole milk and cream to skim
milk were evident.
Time- and work-saving foods increased in use, perhaps due in part to the increase
in number of working wives and mothers. Bakery products replaced a large share of the
flour; ready-to-eat cereals took the place of cereals needing to be cooked; and frozen
vegetables replaced some of the fresh ones. Squeezed citrus fruit as frozen and chilled
juices--as well as ades-gained in use. More youths in the population and more snack­ing
by people in general probably contributed to the increased use of ades, punches, soft
drinks, potato chips, luncheon meat, peanut butter, crackers, cookies, doughnuts, fro­zen
desserts, and candy.
HOMEFREEZER MANAGEMENT SURVEY: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Freezer Ownership; Defrosting Practices; Costs
This is the last of four articles reporting highlights from a survey conducted by
the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division in the Fort Wayne, Ind. area in
1964-65. The information was furnished by 242 farm and 240 urban homefreezer owners.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Freezer Ownership
Advantages. --Substantial numbers (one-fifth or more of the total) of both farm
and urban homemakers mentioned these advantages of freezer ownership: Being able to
freeze local or home-grown fruits and vegetables in season; saving time in shopping, or
not having to shop as often; having food on hand; and saving money on food (table 1). Farm
homemakers also often mentioned as advantages: Being able to freeze their own meat;
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
T~ble 1.--Households reporting specified advantages of
owning a homefreezer !/
Advantage
Freeze local, home-grown, in-season fruits and
vegetables ----------------------------------
Freeze own meat ------------------------------­Buy
food in quantity -------------------------­Buy
side, quarter of meat --------------------­Freeze
game, fish ----------------------------­Save
time in shopping, don't shop as often ----
Have meat on hand ----------------------------­Have
food other than meat on hand ------------­Can
cook, bake ahead -------------------------­Easier
than canning --------------------------­Save
money on meat ---------------------------­Save
money on food other than meat -----------­Better
quality meat, meat tastes better ------­Better
quality fruits, vegetables, taste better
Better quality food, unspecified food --------­Greater
variety of foods, better meals -------­Freeze
leftovers, no spoilage or waste --------
Farm
households
Percent
47
28
10
7
('ij)
30
6
26
5
15
8
24
4
2
8
10
9
Urban
households
Percent
29
3
15
13
1
32
13
21
12
5
22
23
5
('ij)
3
5
10
~ Responses from 242 farm and 239 urban homemakers. The average number
of advantages mentioned was 2.4 for farm and 2.1 for urban households. y Less than 0. 5 percent.
that freezing is easier than canning; and having greater variety of foods and therefore
better meals. City homemakers often mentioned the advantage of saving money on meat;
of buying a side or quarter of a carcass; and of having meat on hand.
Disadvantages. --About 80 percent of the farm and 85 percent of the urban home­makers
reported no disadvantages in owning a freezer (table 2). Those who gave any
disadvantages most often mentioned the nuisance of defrosting, and that foods are frozen
solid when needed. A few mentioned power failure--actual or the possibility of it. Dur­ing
the 2 years before the interview, power failure resulting in the thawing of food in the
freezer had occurred once in three farm and five urban households; twice in one urban
household; and three times in one farm home.
Defrosting Practices
Most of the homemakers (82 percentof the farm and 74 percent of the urban) said
they defrosted their freezers once or twice a year (table 3). About 11 percent of the
SEPTEMBER 1967 7
Table 2.--Households reporting specified disadvantages
of owning a homefreezer !/
Farm Urban
Disadvantage households households
No disadvantages ----------------------------­Nuisance
of defrosting ----------------------­Food
frozen solid when needed ---------------­Possibility
of power failure, actual power
failure ------------------------------------
Not using it fully, not keeping it full ------
OVerbuying -----------------------------------
Eating too much of the same food, same meat --
eantt get to bottom in chest type, things fall
out of upright -----------------------------
Expensive ------------------------------------
Percent
79
7
5
3
1
0
1
3
2
Percent
85
6
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
!J Responses from 240 homemakers. The average number of disadvantages
mentioned was 0.2 per household.
Table 3.--Houeeholde reporting specified defrosting
practices for homefreezere
Defrosting practice
Frequency:
Farm
households 1/
Percent
Once a year -------------------------- 47
Twice a year ------------------------- 35
More than twice a year --------------- 4
Once in 2 years ---------------------- 1
Once in 3 years ---------------------- 1
Twice in 3 years --------------------- 1
Freezer is self-defrostingJ have never
defrostedJ scraped ----------------- 11
Time required:
Less than 1/2 hour ------------------- 8
1/2 to less than 1 hour -------------- 22
1 hour to less than 2 hours ---------- 24
2 hours to lese than 3 hours --------- 22
3 hours or more ---------------------- 24
1/ 242 reported frequency, 211 time required.
g{ 240 reported frequency, 206 time required.
Urban
households
Percent
41
33
8
1
2
1
14
4
11
29
25
31
gj
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
farm and 14 percent of the urban homemakers said they had self-defrosting freezers, or
had never defrosted, or had scraped the frost off.
The time required to defrost the freezer varied from less than one-half hour to
3 or more hours. The median was between 1 and 2 hours for farm households and be­tween
2 and 3 hours for urban households. Frozen foods were protected during defrost­ing
in such ways as putting them in a covered container; wrapping them in blankets, rugs,
or newspapers; ·putting them in a refrigerator; and putting them outdoors in winter.
Costs
Although only 2 percent of the farm and none of the urban homemakers mentioned
cost as a disadvantage of homefreezers, a family thinking of buying a freezer will want
to take cost into consideration.
Estimated costs of operating the homefreezer for the monthin which the families
kept records of food input are shown in table 4. In these estimates the electrical energy
requirements for freezing food and maintaining 0° F. for storage are based on data from
Home and Garden Bulletin No. 48, Home Freezers--Their Selection and Use. The elec­trical
rate is based on information from two utility companies in the Fort Wayne area.
One quoted the average residential rate for 1964 as 1. 91 cents per kilowatt-hour, the
other 1. 99 cents. The midpoint--1. 95 cents--was used in the calculations.
Table 4.--Homefreezing costs for 1 month (excluding cost of food)
Item
Freezer:
Net depreciation (15 years expected life)
Repairs (2 percent of purchase price per
year) ---------------------------------
Electricity for--
Freezing food (0.1 kw.-hr. per lb. at
1.95 cents per kw.-hr.) --------------­Maintaining
oo F.--
0.20 kw.-hr. per cu. ft. per 24 hr.
at 1.95 cents per kw.-hr. -----------
0.22 kw.-hr. per cu. ft. per 24 hr.
at 1.95 cents per kw.-hr. ----------­Packaging
(2.5 cents per lb. frozen) ------
Total -------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1967
Farm
households
Dollars
1.67
.50
.07
2.11
Urban
households
Dollars
1.67
.50
.o6
1.93
-71
4.87
9
For farm households, the median freezer size was 18.0 cubic feet, and the medi­an
purchase price $300. Total monthly input of food averaged 46 pounds, 80 percent of
which was frozen in the homefreezer. For city households, the median freezer size was
15.0 cubic feet and the median purchase price $300. Total monthly input of food averaged
43 pounds, 66 percent of which was frozen in the homefreezer.
The cost of home freezing for the month input records were kept, not including
the cost of the food, averaged slightly more than $5 for farm and slightly less than $5 for
urban households. The cost per pound of food would depend on how much food was in the
freezer and the rate of turnover.
USDA TEXTILES AND CLOTHING LABORATORY MOVES TO TENNESSEE
The U. S. Department of Agriculture will soon relocate its Textiles and Clothing
Research Laboratory at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The laboratory is part
of the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division of the Agricultural Research
Service. It was formerly in the Clothing and Housing Division. The main reason for mov­ing
the laboratory from the Agricultural Research Center in Maryland is to place it near
~. a strong university program of home economics research, teaching, and extension in a
State where textiles are economically important. The University of Tennessee meets
these criteria. It also has textile-oriented units in agriculture, physics, and engineering.
Under terms of the agreement between the USDA and the University of Tennessee,
university researchers will work with ARS staff to conduct studies that will ( 1) find out
consumer needs for textiles and clothing and how well products available meet these
needs; ( 2) develop basic principles to guide consumers in selecting and caring for tex­tiles
and clothing; and ( 3) solve other problems in textiles and clothing that ARS and uni­versity
scientists agree are economically or technically important.
Research will get underway at the new location when the building being renovated
for the laboratory is ready and a staff has been assembled.
TRENDS IN PRICES OF FOOD AT HOME AND AWAY FROM HOME
Food prices have risen along with consumer prices in general. The index of
prices for food as a whole increased from 99. 7 in March 1959 to 114. 2 in March 1967-
a gain of 15 percent during the 8 years (see figure). (The Bureau of Labor Statistics'
Consumer Price Index uses average prices for the years 1957, 1958, and 1959 as a base;
i.e. , 1957-59 = 100.) Gains during the 8 years for the two components of the food index
-food bought to be prepared at home, and food bought and eaten away from home--
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
PRICES OF FOOD AT HOME AND AWAY
% OF 1957-59
120
1965 1967
ILS DATA .. CITY WAGE £A.HE•s AHD CLEitiCAL WORK fitS.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGAICUL TURf NEG. ARS 67 (1)-5161 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
differed widely. The index of prices for food at home rose 12 percent (from 99. 4 to
111. 5), while the index for food away from home increased 26 percent (from 101.5 to
127. 7). The main reason for the steeper rise in prices for food away from home was the
increased cost of labor involved in preparing and serving food in restaurants, hotels,
cafeterias, and other commercial eating places.
Compared with the general price index, the index for food used at home has been
consistently lower since 1959--except in March 1966--and the index for food away from
home has been consistently higher. Prices for food as a whole were also lower than the
general price index until June 1965, when the two met. The food indexwas above the aU­items
index each quarter in 1966, then feU below in March 1967.
A change in the prices of food away from home affects the over aU food price index
less than a change in the price of food to be used at home. In 1960-61, urban families
spent an average of $1,311 for food, of which $1,036 was for food at home and $275 was
for food away from home . .!/ Thus, food at home accounted for about four-fifths and food
away from home for one-fifth of the total food expenditure. Prices of food at home are
given about four times as much weight as those for food away in calculating the food price
index.
--Emma G. Holmes
.!/ Bureau of Labor statistics, Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61, Consumer
Expenditures and Income, Urban United States, 1960-61. Rpt. No. 237-38, table 1A.
SEPTEMBER 1967 11
TRENDS IN CONSUMER INSTALLMENT CREDIT,!/
Credit in 1966
Consumer debt continued its long-time upward trend in 1966, but at a consider­ably
lower rate than in 1965. Total consumer installment debt outstanding rose $6. 1
billion--or 9 percent--in 1966, compared with $8 billion--or 13 percent--the previous
year. Growth in automobile debt, personal loans, and repair and modernization loans
slackened. The only substantial increase was in debt for "other consumer goods," prob­ably
reflecting the spreading use of revolving credit. Disposable personal income was
about 8 percent higher in 1966 than in 1965.
Automoblle credit. -Automobile debt increased an average of $175 million a month
in 1966, compared with $300 million a month in 1965. Sales of both new and used cars
were down in 1966. However, the average amount of the installment credit contract for
car purchase rose, as did the proportion of cars bought on credit.
The proportion of new cars bought on credit increased about 3 percentage points
in 1966. Nearly 4 out of every 5 new car sales in June and July involved credit financ­ing.
This was considerablyhigherthan in the same 2months of other recentyears. Con­sumers
paid more for new cars, also, buying larger cars with more optional equipment.
About 60 percent of the new cars bought in the first quarter of 1966, compared with 52
percent in the first quarter of 1965, cost more than $2,500. The average note on new
cars rose about $80, on used cars $50.
Maturities on car loans lengthened between 1960 and 1966, largely because of the
shift to 36-month loans (see table). Most auto loan maturities are for such standard
lengths of time as 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. For example, about 98 percent of the
new-car contracts maturing in 31 to 36 months are 36-month contracts.
Other installment credit. -- The amount of installment credit extended to con­sumers
for buying "other consumer goods" (that is, other than cars) was almost 10 per..;.
cent higher in 1966 than 1965. This was due in part to increased use of revolving credit.
The demand for air conditioners in the long hot summer of 1966, and for color TV sets,
also contributed to the rise.
Personal installment loans continued to increase in 1966, but by less than 4 per­cent--
the smallest advance in 4 years. This was partly because of the increased use of
credit cards instead of loans to finance travel and vacations.
Home repair and modernization loans were about in line with seasonal expecta­tions
during the first 3 quarters of 1966, but dropped in the last quarter to the lowest
level since late 1962 .
.!/ From articles in the Federal Reserve Bulletins of March 1967 (pp. 341-352), and
June 1966 (pp. 769-780), and data from the Federal Reserve Bulletin of June 1967.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Length of new- and used-car installment maturities
January 1960 and November 1966
New-car contracts Used-car contracts
Maturity Y
Jan. 1960 r Nov . 1966 Jan. 1960 I Nov. 1966
Percent Percent Percent Percent
24 months or less --- 20 15 45
25 to 30 months ----- 9 3 34
31 to 36 months ----- 69 81 )
37 months or more --- 1 y ) 21
y Balloon contracts (providing for a large final payment), not shown
separately, accounted for less than 1 percent of each classi~ication.
gj Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: Fed. Reserve Bul., Feb. 1967.
26
31
43
Debt repayments. --Repayments on installment debt increased in 1966, but at a
lower rate than in recent years. Consumers paid 14.4 percent of their disposable in­come
on these debts. Delinquency rates were about the same as in 1965.
The number of personal bankruptcies filed in 1966 was over 13,000 higher than
in 1965, and triple the number filed in 1956. Some of this increase is probably due to
greater consumer awareness of the availability of bankruptcy procedures, and some to
higher consumer indebtedness. The number of personal bankruptcies is small, however,
in relation to the millions of installment debtors.
Credit in the First Quarter of 1967
During the first quarter of 1967, installment credit outstanding (seasonally ad­justed)
rose only $760 million, compared with $1. 8 billion in 1966. Credit outstanding
on automobile loans increased .$4 million in the first quarter of 1967. Three of the four
classes of installment debt increased less in the 1967 than the 1966 quarter, as follows:
Type of installment debt
Automobile ----------------­Other
consumer goods ------­Personal
loans--------------
Increase in debt outstanding
First quarter, 1967 First quarter, 1966
$4 mil.
$483 mil.
$291 mil.
$693 mil.
$632 mil.
$455 mil.
Installment debt on home repair and modernization loans decreased by $18 million in the
first quarter of 1967, compared with a $4 million gain in the same period of 1966.
SEPTEMBER 1967
13
Developments in Consumer Credit
Noninstallment credit. --Consumers have turned increasingly to credit cards to
pay for gasoline, lodging, and other traveling expenses, and recently for a wide range of
goods and services. The total amount owed on credit-card accounts at the end of April
1966 was estimated at $765 million, one-fifth larger than a year earlier and twice as
large as at the end of April1960. Though still a comparatively small part of all charge­account
credit, credit-card credit has increased faster than other types of such plans.
Growth factors in consumer credit. --Growth of consumer credit has naturally
accompanied the increase in ownership of cars and other durable goods. Spreading use
of personal loans to finance travel, education, and similar service expenditures has also
been an important factor in credit growth.
Consumer attitudes toward the use of credit have changed. Consumers are more
ready to commit their future incomes to debt payments now than they were a generation
ago. Rising incomes and employment and increasing security of jobs and incomes have
encouraged people to assume installment debts.
Facilities for lending to consumers have grown tremendously. Lenders have be­come
willing to extend credit to an ever-widening segment of the population. Financial
institutions and retailers have promoted consumer credit, and have adopted new and
more flexible credit plans to make credit buying easy.
New credit plans include various types of revolving credit plans, which provide
for "lines of credit" (that is, prearranged limits on the amount of debt the customer may
accumulate), and permit the customer to pay the debt in monthly installments. Revolv­ing
charge accounts make it possible to extend installment credit for small purchases
that would previously have been on a cash or conventional charge-account basis. To a
growing extent revolving credit has been substituted for conventional charge accounts
and installment credit. Revolving credit plans have spread rapidly at department stores
and mail-order houses. At the end of 1965 they accounted for nearly $3 billion of the
$5. 3 billion of installment credit outstanding at these outlets.
Credit-card banking is an important recent development in methods of extending
credit. Many banks are now offering their own credit cards, designed primarily to fi­nance
local retail purchases. Some banks have started programs for franchising or inter­changing
their cards with other banks, so they can be used on a regional or nationwide
basis. It is estimated that more than 1, 000 banks initiated credit-card service in 1966.
Bank credit-card plans are basically of two types: Charge-account and check­credit.
Under the charge-account plan, customers use their bank credit cards to make
purchases at any participating store. The bank does the monthly billing and the stores
usually pay a membership fee and take a small discount on sales made under the plan.
This plan makes it possible for small-volume merchants to offer credit. Under the check­credit
plan, customers can draw checks up to a prearranged limit and make monthly pay­ments
based either on the amount actually owed or on the total credit line. Some plans
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
combine both features, permitting the consumer both to obtain cash advances and charge
purchases. Repayment procedures are like those in most revolving credit plans. The
bank makes a service charge unless the account is settled in full by a specified date.
The changing composition of the population has also been a factor in the increased
use of installment credit. The number of households with heads under 25 years of age
has expanded rapidly, and is likely to continue expanding for the next several years.
These young families are frequent users of credit because their need and desire for
household goods and cars generally are greater than their ability to pay cash for them.
SURVEY OF THE MARKET FOR FOOD AWAY FROM HOME.!/
Away-from-home food service is available in more than 367, 000 establishments
in this country, not counting elementary and secondary schools, military installations,
correctional institutions, commercial carriers, Federal hospitals, and boarding houses.
Of the 367, 000 total, 93 percent are public eating places and 7 percent are such institu­tions
as hospitals, colleges, and homes for the aged. Together they have gross sales of
about $22 billion a year in food and nonalcoholic beverages. These estimates are based
on data collected in 1966 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the food industry
from representatives of over 6, 000 food service operations.
Men are the main away-from-home eaters. Men alone or in groups were the
principal patrons of 49 percent of the public eating places between opening time and
11 a.m., 33 percent between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., 21 percent between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.,
and 22 percent between 9 p. m. and closing time. Family groups were the predominant
customers in 17 percent of the eating establishments at the dinner hour ( 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. ) ,
but in fewer of them at other times of the day.
About 100 million consumer transactions took place each day in the 367, 000 food
service establishments. This means that a meal, snack, or nonalcoholic beverage was
served to a customer 100 million times a day. Even though each of these transactions
does not represent a different customer the number of persons served is a substantial
proportion of the population. Public eating places served an average of 247 meals,
snacks, or beverages daily and institutions 684. If the transactions in food service out­lets
of the types excluded from the survey were added, the total number for a day would
be over 115 million.
Nearly 3.3 million persons workedinfoodservice outlets. The averagefor public
eating places was 8 workers and for institutions 22. Only one-half of the public eating
places had been operated by the same proprietor for 5 or more years. One-fifth of the
proprietors had been in business at the same location less than 1 year. This rapid rate
of change in food service establishments reflects such problems as rising costs and
increasing competition.
1/ From a report with this title by Michael G. Van Dress and William H. Freund.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 45 pp. May 1967.
SEPTEMBER 1967
15
MOBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES
Residential Moves
The U.S. population is highly mobile, with about one in five persons moving to a
different dwelling each year. Among a typical group of 100 persons, 19 move in a year
(_i). .!/ Of these--
13 move within the same county;
3 move to a different county in the same State;
1 moves to a contiguous State; and
2 move to a noncontiguous State.
Regional mobility. --Although moves from one dwelling to another were made by
about 1 out of 5 persons each year between 1960 and 1965, net moves from one region to
another declined. The annual net migration rate between regions dropped from an aver­age
of 489,000 in 1960 to 1964 to 204,000 in 1964 to 1966. However, net migration be­tween
regions is expected to rise to an annual average of 210,000 to 272,000 in the 20
years ending 1985 (~). (Net migration is the number who move in minus the number who
move out.)
Net regional migration has been largely to the West and is expected to continue
in that direction. Migration was largely from the North Central and Southern Regions in
the 1960's. It is expected to be largely from the North Central Region in the period end­ing
in 1985.
Age, sex, and mobility. --The early twenties is the age when young people are
taking jobs and getting married, which usually means moving to a different residence.
Among 100 young people married between March 1965 and March 1966, 89 moved during
the year. Of these 89--
59 moved within the same county;
14 moved to a different county in the same State;
6 moved to a contiguous State; and
10 moved to a noncontiguous State.
The 20-to-24 age group is the most mobile, with an annual mobility rate of 42-­that
is, 42 out of 100 move during the year (table 1). These young people have the high­est
rate of within-county moves ( 25 per 100), of moves to other counties in the same
state ( 8), and of moves to other States ( 9). Persons 65 years old and over are the least
mobile. Only 9 out of 100 of these elderly people move in a year--6 within the same
county and 3 to another county.
,!/ Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to sources listed on page 20. Unless
otherwise noted, data are from source (_i).
16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1.--Percent of the population 1 year old and over who moved to a
different residence, March 1965 to March 1966 ~
Personal
characteristics,
March 1966
Total
movers y
Within
the
county
To a different count
Same Contig-
Total State uous
State
Noncon­tiguous
State
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Total population -------------------
Age:
Under 18 -------------------------
18 to 34 -------------------------
20 to 24 -----------------------
18 to 24:
Single -----------------------
Married, spouse present -----­First
married 1n past year -
Other marital status ---------
35 and over ----------------------
65 and over --------------------
Sex:
Male
Female ---------------------------
Occupation (employed men 14 years
and over):
Professional workers ------------­Other
nonagricultural workers ----
Education (men 25 to 34 years):
0 to 8 years ---------------------
1 to 3 years high school ---------
4 years high school -------------­College,
l year or more ----------
Color:
Nonwhite ------------------------­White
----------------------------
Employment status (men 14 years
and over):
Unemployed ----------------------­Employed
-------------------------
Residence:
Nonfarm -------------------------­Farm
-----------------------------
19
20
33
42
20
57
89
58
l2
9
20
19
23
19
33
35
29
36
23
19
29
19
20
9
13
13
21
25
11
37
59
34
8
6
13
13
13
14
25
25
19
20
19
l2
17
13
13
6
NOTE: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
7
7
l2
17
9
21
30
24
4
3
7
6
10
6
8
11
10
16
4
7
l2
6
7
3
3
3
6
8
4
10
14
9
2
1
3
3
5
3
4
6
5
8
2
3
5
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
l
4
6
4
1
1
1
l
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
4
6
4
7
10
11
1
1
2
2
4
2
3
3
3
5
2
2
2 5
~
3
1
!/ Includes members of Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post.
gj Includes a few, not listed separately, who were living abroad in March 1965.
SOURCE 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census ( !t_) •
SEPTEMBER 1967
17
Women 18 and 19 years old--ages when many of them become brides--move more
often than men the same age. Women 20 to 24 years old move somewhat more often than
men their age. However, in age groups 25 years and over men move more often than
women.
Education and occupation. --Adults with more education, some college particu­larly,
make more out-of-county moves but fewer within-county moves than those with
less education. This is especially true for men 25 to 34 years old. Similarly, men in
professional jobs move more often outside the county but make fewer local moves than
men in other types of nonagricultural employment. The differences are undoubtedly
related to job opportunities for these groups.
Labor force status. --Persons who were unemployed in March 1966 had moved
much more in the past year than those who were employed. This was true both for moves
within and outside the county. Undoubtedly many of the local moves made by the unem­ployed
were to seek lower rents. Their out-of-county moves did not seem to have been
made to take known jobs, since they were unemployed at the end of the period.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics made a special study of the labor force status of
workers in March 1962 and in March 1963, and their residential moves during the 12
months between (~). It found that 11 percent of the men ( 18 to 64 years) who were unem­ployed
in March 1962 moved to another county, compared with 6 percent of those who
were employed. About 70 percent of those employed and 50 percent of those unemployed
at that time said they moved to look for a job or to take one. Evidently the jobless men
who left the county for a different home did better than those who stayed behind, for
three-fourths of them--compared with one-half of the nonmigrants--had jobs at the end
of the year.
White-nonwhite mobility. --Nonwhite persons moved more often within the county
but less often to another county than did whites. In groups with equal education, occupa­tion,
and other socioeconomic characteristics the nonwhites made fewer out-of-county
moves.
Farm-nonfarm mobility. --Persons living on farms in March 1966 had moved only
one-half as often, both within and outside the county, as the nonfarm dwellers.
In the year ending April1966, 1,108,000 persons left farms for nonfarm areas or
lived on places where farming stopped. The s'ame year 250, 000 moved from nonfarm
areas to farms or were on places where farming started ( 6). Of the net migration from
farms, one-half was from the South and one-third from the North Central Region. A net
of 17, 000 persons moved from farms in the South to farms in other regions.
Agricultural workers are much more likely than others to move to another county
to look for or take a job (~). Many of these move to other farm jobs, some to nonfarm
areas.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Job Mobility
U. S. workers stay with the same job or employer an average of only 4 years (.!).
Among employed men 60 to 64 years old about one-fifth have held the same job 3 years
or less. Another one-fifth have held their jobs 3 to 10 years, one-fifth 10 to 20 years,
one-fifth 20 to 30 years, and one-fifth over 30 years. Median tenure of the current job
increases from about 1 year for workers 20 to 24 years old to 13 years for those 55 to
64 years.
Job tenure differs considerably for workers in different industries and occupa­tions.
For example, median years on the job among men 25 to 44 years old is 9 for
agricultural workers, 5 for other wage and salary workers, and 6 for the self-employed.
Workers in transportation and public utilities, public administration, and manufacturing
have longer tenure than those in other nonagricultural industries, and workers in con­struction
have shorter tenure.
In general, white men hold a job longer than nonwhite, and men hold a job longer
than women of the same age (table 2). Married women are responsible for women's low
tenure, for single women have a higher average number of years on the job than men the
same age.
Table 2. --Median number of years worker.s have b.een on current job,- by age
All 14 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 years
Characteristics years old 34 44 54 64 and
and over y years years years years over
j
All employed per.sons --- 4 3 6 9 13 14
Men ------------------ 5 3 8 12 16 16
White -------------- 6 3 8 12 16 16
Nonwhite ----------- 3 2 7 9 11 14
Women ---------------- 3 2 4 6 9 11
White -------------- 3 2 3 6 9 11
Nonwhite ----------- 3 2 5 ,6 8 -- I v
Single ------------- 2 4 9 16
Married, husband
present ---------- 3 2 3 6
Other marital status 4 2 3 7
~ The 14- to 24-age group ha.s a median of about 1 for each classification.
Source: u.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1).
Workers shift often from one occupation to another, as well as from job to job.
Among persons employed in both January 1965 and January 1966, 10 percent of the men
and 7 percent of the women changed to a different occupation during the year. Relatively
SEPTEMBER 1967
19
more young than older workers changed occupations, more men than women the same
age, and more nonwhite than white men. Few shifted from blue- to white-collar occupa­tions,
but movement from blue-collar to service occupations was considerable (2.}.
Sources
(1) Hamel, Harvey R., Job Tenure of Workers, January 1966, U.S. Bur. Labor
Statis. Rpt. No. 77, 1967.
( 2) Saben, Samuel, "Geographic Mobility and Employment Status, March 1962-
March 1963," Monthly Labor Rev., Aug. 1964, pp. 873-881.
( 3) Saben, Sanluel, "Occupational Mobility of Employed Workers," Monthly Labor
~, June 1967, pp. 31-38.
( 4) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, "Mobility of the
Population of the United States, March 1965 to March 1966," Ser. P-20, No. 156, 1966.
( 5) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, "illustrative Pro­jections
of the Population of States 1970 to 1985 (Revised)," Ser. P-25, No. 362, 1967.
( 6) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Farm Popu­lation--
Estimates for 1966, ERB-344, 1967.
-Virginia Britton
WIVES IN THE LABOR FORCE l/
In March 1966, 35.4 percent of all U.S. wives were in the labor force (see table).
This was about the same as the 1965 rate of 34.7 percent, but considerably above the
1960 rate of 30.5 percent. Wives in the labor force include those with jobs plus those not
currently employed ·but actively looking for work (the "unemployed"). In March 1966,
34. 1 percent of U. S. wives had jobs and 1. 3 percent were looking for work.
The proportion of farm wives that worked has always been smaller than that of
nonfarm wives, but the farm wives are catching up. In 1966, 33. 2 percent of the farm
and 35.6 percent of the nonfarm wives were in the labor force . The corresponding rates
in 1960 were 26. 6 and 30.9 percent. Thus, farm wives increased their labor force rate
by about one-fourth between 1960 and 1966, nonfarm wives by one-seventh . • Young wives and those nearing retirement age have increased their labor force
participation more than others. About 34 percent of the 14- to 19-year-old wives and
38 percent of those 20 to 24 years old were in the labor force in March 1966. This is in
contrast to 1960 rates of 25 and 30 percent, respectively. More and more mothers of
preschool-aged children are taking jobs now, too. In 1966, 24 percent of these mothers
ll Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Labor
Force Reports Nos. 13, 64, and 80.
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
were in the labor force, up from 19 percent in 1960. As for the older married women--
55 to 64 years old--about 31 percent in 1966 compared with 24 percent 6 years earlier
were members of the work force.
Wives (husband present) in the labor force, by age of wife
and by type of family
All
Age of wife and
type of family
Age of wif.e
14 to 19 years ------------
20 to 24 years ------------
25 to 34 years ------------
35 to 44 years ------------
45 to 54 years ------------
55 to 64 years ---------- --
65 years and over ---------
Type of family
No children under 18 years
Children 6 to 17 years only
Children under 6 years ----
March
1960
Percent
30.5
25.3
30.0
27-7
36.2
40.5
24.3
5.9
34.7
39.0
18.6
March
1965
Perc.ent
34.7
27.2
35.0
32.1
4o.6
44.0
31.4
7.6
38.3
42.7
23.8
March
1966
Percent
35.4
34.3
38.1
32.5
41.3
44.9
31.3
6.8
38.4
43.7
24.2
Wives 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 years old made the largest contribution to the work
for·ce both in 1960 and 1966. Their labor force rates were about 41 and 45 percent, re­spectively,
in 1966 and 36 and 41 percent in 1960. They were also the age groups with
the largest numbers in the labor force. Together they made up over one-half of all wives
in the labor force in 1966.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your Zip Code in your return address when you order these.)
RESEARCH ON TIME SPENT IN HOMEMAKING--An Annotated List of References.
ARB-62-15. 1967. Single copy free from the Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri­culture,
Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
HOME FREEZING OF FRillTS AND VEGETABLES. HG No. 10, Slightly revised 1967.
Single copy free from the Office of Information, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C. 20250.
SEPTEMBER 1967 21
INSURANCE FACTS FOR FARMERS. FB No. 2137, Revised 1967. Single copy free
from the Office of Information, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C. 20250.
The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov­ernment
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, for the prices given. (No free copies
available.)
22
THE FOOD WE EAT. MP No. 870, Revised 1967. 10 cents.
WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR HOME FREEZER STOPS. Leaflet No. 321,
Revised 1967. 5 cents.
MAKJNG HOUSEHOLD FABRICS FLAME RESISTANT. Leaflet'No. 454,
Slightly revised 1967. 5 cents.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR IMPROVING RURAL COUNTIES. AlB
No. 316. 1967. 15 cents.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(including single workers)
( 1957-59 = 100)
Group
All items ----------------------------­Food
--------------------------------
Food at home ---------------------­Food
away from home ---------------
Housing ----------------------------­Shelter
--------------------------­Rent
----------------------------
Homeown~rship ------------------­Fuel
and utilities ---------------­Fuel
oil and coal --------------­Gas
and electricity ------------­Household
furnishings and operation
Apparel and upkeep -----------------­Men's
and boys' ------------------­Women's
and girls' ----------------
Footwear --------------------------
Transportation ----------------------
Private --------------------------­Public
----------------------------
Health and recreation ---------------
Medical care ----------------------
Personal care ---------------------
Reading and recreation -----------­Other
goods and services ----------
July
1966
113.3
114.3
112.7
123.5
111.3
114.4
110.3
116.2
107.9
107.0
108.1
105.1
109.2
109.6
lo4.6
119.8
113.5
111.5
129.1
119.1
127 ·7
112.5
117.2
115.3
115.6
113.9
110.9
128.7
113.9
117 ·5
112.1
119.7
lo8.7
110.8
lo8.3
107.9
113.8
114.0
109.6
125.2
115.5
113.6
130.9
122.8
135·7
115.0
119.6
116.7
116.0
115.1
112.3
129.1
114.1
117.7
112.2
119.9
lo8.6
110.5
lo8.2
lo8.1
113.9
114.1
109.7
125.4
115.7
113.7
132.2
123.2
136.3
115.3
119.7
116.9
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
( 1957-59 = 100)
Aug. Mar. Apr. May June July
Item 1966 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967
All items ----------------- 111 111 111 112 112 113
Food and tobacco -------- - 115 - - 116 -
Clothing ---------------- - 122 - - 122 -
Household operation ----- - 112 - - 112 -
Household furnishings --- - 98 - - 98 -
Building materials, house - 106 - - 106 -
Autos and auto supplies - - 105 - 107 108 -
July
1967
116.5
u6.o
113.3
129.7
114.5
118.1
112.4
120.5
108.9
111.4
lo8.3
lo8.2
113.7
113.9
109.2
125.4
116.2
114.1
132.7
123.6
136.9
115.5
119.8
117.8
Aug.
1967
113
--
-
-
-
-
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture 1 Statistical Reporting Senice.
SEPTEMBER 1967
23
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, June 1967, U.S. average ~
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex~e groups gj Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years '}) --- 15.70 21.00 24.30 68.10 90.70 105.30
55 to 75 years~--- 13.10 17 .6o 20.00 56.60 76.50 86.90
Family of 4:
Preschool children ~ 23.00 30.60 35.20 99.60 131-90 152.30
School children 2/-- 26.50 35.40 41.10 114.80 152-90 178.00
INDIVIDUALS ~
Children, under 1 year 3.10 4.10 4.40 13.60 17.60 .18.90
1 to 3 years ------- 4.00 5.20 5-90 17.30 22.50 25.60
3 to 6 years ------- 4.70 6.30 7.20 20.30 27.10 31.00
6 to 9 years ------- 5.60 7.50 8.90 24.30 32.50 38.70
Girls,. 9 to 12 years - 6.50 8.60 9.60 28.00 37.30 41.70
12 to 15 years ----- 7.10 9.50 11.00 30.60 41.30 47.60
15 to 20 years ----- 7.40 9-70 10.90 32.00 41.90 47.30
Boys, 9 to 12 years -- 6.60 8.80 10.10 28.50 38.00 43.60
12 to 15 years ---- - 7.60 10.40 11.80 32.80 45.10 51.00
15 to 20 years ----- 8.90 11.80 13.50 38.50 51.10 58.30
Women, 20 to 35 years 6.70 8.90 10.10 29.00 38.40 43.90
35 to 55 years ----- 6.40 8.50 9.80 27.90 37.00 42.40
55 to 75 years ----- 5·59 7.40 8.40 23.80 32.10 36.30
75 years and over -- 5.00 6.60 7-70 21.70 28.60 33.20
Pregnant ----------- 8.00 10.40 11.60 34.70 44.80 50.30
Nursing ------------ 9.20 11.90 13.10 39-90 51.50 56.90
Men, 20 to 35 years -- 7.60 10.20 12.00 32.90 44.00 51.80
35 to 55 years ----- 7.10 9.40 10.90 30.60 40.90 47.20
55 to 75 years ----- 6.40 8.60 9.80 27-70 37-40 42.60
7 5 years and over -- 6.00 8.30 9-50 25.90 36.10 41.10
1/ Estimates computed from quantities in food plane published in FAMILY ECO­N~
CS REVIEW, October 1964. Costs of the plans were first estimated by using
average price per pound of each food group paid by nonfarm survey families at
3 income levels in 1955. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use
of Retail Food Prices b Cities released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ·
2 Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age. 1./ Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of fact.ors
for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, USDA, HERR No. 20.
J:} Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children 1 to 3 and 3 to 6 years.
5/ Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; child 6 to 9, and boy 9 to 12 years.
~ Costs given for persons in families of 4. For other size families,adjust
thus: 1-person, add 20 percent; 2-person, add 10 percent; 3-person, add 5 per­cent;
5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more person, subtract 10 percent.
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
"V.S. !Xl'llaiiii)IT fi!IMTJ!fO CDICEt 15'67 )Ol- 7Sl (PIS-48)