|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
|
77· 70 ' (o fa mil @@® uilding Use Only 0 ULiUD®~. Consumer and Food Economics Research Division rev1 evv Agricultural Research Service ti!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!E!! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3 Gifts and Handed-down Clothing Important in Family Wardrobes 5 Time Spent in Household Work by Homemakers 6 Money Value and Adequacy of Diets Compared with the USDA Food Plans 9 Use of Apples by U.S. Households 10 Occupations of Women Workers 12 Budget Guides 14 The Cost of Buying a Home 16 Home .Mortgage Debt 18 Price Index Rises for New Houses 18 Survey of Occupants of New Housing Units 22 The Cost of Chicken, Whole and Parts 22 Some New USDA Publications 23 Cost of Food at Home 24 Consumer Prices ARS 62-5 September 1969 PROPERTY OF THE UI3F~ARY SE~ 2 91969 UNIVtor..:.1l Y vr NORTH CAROLINA AT GR£ENS60RO o447 f\ 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. GIFTS AND HANDED-DOWN CLOTIDNG IMPORTANT IN FAMILY WARDROBES About 70 percent of the clothing acquired in a year by families with low to moderate incomes in a recent survey in a midwestern city was new readymades bought by the family.!/ The 30 percent acquired in other ways included 22 percent received as gifts from outside the family --11 percent new and 11 percent used; 3 percent handed down within the fami_ly; 2 perc en~ homem~e from new materials; 2 percent bought used; and 1 percent received as pay, oonus, prize, or stamp premium (see table).Y Children--especially infants--were the most favored members of the family in terms ofclothing received fromthe supplementary sources. For children under 2years, these items represented 67 percent of the total acquired during the year. These included 31 percent received new and· 21 percent used as gifts from outside the family; 12 percent handed down within the family; 1 percent bought in used condition; and 1 percent homemade. Infants' clothing from these sources were mainly dresses, sleeping garments, playsuits, sweaters, coats, sets of skirts or pants with tops, and layettes. Girls 2 to 17 years old received 39 percent of the clothing they acquired during the year from supplementary sources. These items included 12 percent received new and 14 percent used, as gifts from outside the family; 6 percent handed down within the family; 4 percent homemade; and 1 percent each bought in used condition and received from such sources as prizes and stamp premiums. The girls' items were mainly street dresses, slacks, skirts, blouses, and sweaters. Boys 2 to 17 years old received less of their clothing from supplementary sources than girls their age. For boys these garments amounted to 29 percent of the year's acquisitions, including 8 percent received new and 13 percent used as gifts; 6 percent handed down within the family; and 1 percent each bought used and received from miscellaneous sources. These garments for boys were mainly sport shirts, sweaters, jackets, and work trousers and jeans. Women heads of families obtained from supplementary sources 26 percent of the clothing they acquired in a year. This included 6 percent received new and 14 percent used as gifts from persons not in the family; 3 percent bought used; and 2 percent made at home. The items were largely street dresses, blouses, heavy coats, skirts, and slacks. Wives of male heads of families obtained 25 percent of their clothing from supplementary sources--about the same as the women heads of families. Howeve'r, these 1/ The survey was conducted by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment St~ion under a cooperative agreement with the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division. Geitel Winakor, professor of textiles and clothing, Iowa State University, is the project leader. 2/ In this analysis, the number of each type of garment acquired --whether bought new or -used, handed down, homemade, or received as a gift--was weighted by the average price paid by the survey families for the new ready-made item. The weights, therefore, do not represent the dollar value of the garments. They are a device for adding together different types of garments, taking into account the relative importance of each in the wardrobe. This method of weighting was described in Family Clothing Inventories and Purchases, u.s. Dept. of Agr., Agr. Inform. Bul. No. 148, 1956, p. 53. SEPTEMBER 1969 3 Distribution by source of clothing acquired in a year!/ by families with low to moderate incomes and their members, Des Moines, Iowa, 1965 Children Girls Boys Female Wives Male Source Total under 2 to 17 2 to 17 heads of of male heads of of clothing family 2 years years years families heads families Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- All sources --------------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Purchased new, readymade 70 33 61 71 74 75 81 Other sources, total ---- 30 67 39 29 26 25 19 New clothing, total --- 14 32 17 9 9 14 11 Gifts from outside the family --------- 11 31 12 8 6 9 8 Homemade ------------ 2 l 4 (g/) 2 5 (g/) Pay, bonus, stamp purchase, prize ---- l (g/) l l (g/) l 2 Used clothing, total -- 16 34 22 20 17 ll 8 Handed down from out-side the family ---- ll 21 14 13 14 9 6 Handed down within the family --------- 3 12 6 6 (g/) (g/) (g/) Purchased used ------ 2 l l l 3 2 2 1/ The quantity of each type of garment weighted by the average price paid for new items by these families. g} 0.05 or less. wives obtained relatively more of the items as new gifts and homemade garments and relatively less as used gifts and garments bought in used condition. Wives' clothing from these sources were mainly street dresses, heavy coats, suits, blouses, sweaters, skirts, slacks, and nightwear. Men who were heads of families obtained more of their year's clothing acquisitions by purchase of new items than any other family member. They received only 19 percent of their acquisitions from other sources--8 percent new and 6 percent used, as gifts from outside the family, and 2 percent each bought used and received from miscellaneous sources. The men's garments from supplementary sources were mainly suits, dress and sport shirts, and work clothes. The data in this study are for the period from Easter 1965 to Easter 1966. They were obtained from 419 families in Des Moines, Iowa, living in census tracts where median family income in 1959 was below the city's median. Of the families in the sample, 15 percent had incomes in 1965 of less than $3,000, 33 percent $3,000 to $5,999, 39percent $6,000 to $9,999, and 13 percent $10,000 or more. About 12 percent of the families received some money from public or private welfare--8 percent receiving more than 75 percent of their income from this source. The survey included only families with a 4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW '• husband, a wife under age 45, and 0 to 5 children or with a woman family head under 45 and 1 to 5 children (351 and 68 families, respectively). A total of 367 boys and 342 girls 2 to 17 years old and 124 infants and children under 2 were included. More information will be available later from this study. The purpose of the study was to investigate acquisition and use of clothing by families, as a basis for lowincome clothing budgets. --Virginia Britton TIME SPENT IN HOUSEHOLD WORK BY HOMEMAKERS .!/ Despite the automatic equipment and convenience foods available, homemakers today spend many hours on work in and for the home. This is especially true of women with small children and those with large families. Homemakers who are gainfully employed also have long workdays, as they combine homemaking with jobs outside the home. These are conclusions from analysis of data collected in 1967-68 from a stratified random sample of 1, 296 husband-wife families in the Syracuse, New York, area. The average time used for household work by homemakers in the 1,296 families was about 7 hours a day (see table). Those with no children in the home averaged about 5 hours. As the number of children increased, so did the amount of time spent by the homemaker. Her time averaged about 7 hours a day in families with 1 child, 8 hours in families with 2, 3, and 4 children, and about 9 hours in families with 5 or more children. The ages of the children also made a difference. The averagetimevaried from 9.3 hours for homemakers if the youngest child was less than 1 year old to 6 hours if the youngest was 12 to 17 years of age. In families with gainfully employed homemakers, the number of hours spent in household work decreased as the number of hours in employment increased. The homemakers who were not gainfully employed averaged about 8 hours a day in household work. Homemaking time decreased to about 7 hours a day for women employed 1 to 14 hours a week, 6 hours for those employed 15 to 29 hours, and 5 hours for those employed 30 or more hours a week. If time spent in volunteer work as well as paid employment and household tasks is counted, the working day averaged about 9 hours for full-time homemakers and 10 hours for the women employed 30 or more hours a week. The reduced homemaking time for gainfully employed homemakers probably reflects, in part, more effective use of time and a tendency to eliminate some household work. But it undoubtedly reflects even more the fact that the gainfully employed homemakers, as a group, had fewer children--small children, especially--than the full-time homemakers. The New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell University conducted the survey of use of time in homemaking, on which this report is based. The 1,296 fam- 1/ From a paper by Kathryn E. Walker, associate professor in the Department of Consu~ er Economics and Public Policy, New York State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University. Dr. Walker is principal investigator for the research project that provided the data for this report. The project is being financed in part by a grant from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division. SEPTEMBER 1969 5 Average hours per day spent on household work by 1,296 homemakers, by number of children, age of youngest child, and hours per week of paid employment, Syracuse, New York area, 1967-68 Item Hours Item Hours All homemakers --- 7.3 Age of youngest child Number of children Under 1 year --------- 9-3 1 year --------------- 8.3 0 -------------- 4.8 2 to 5 years --------- 7.7 1 -------------- 6.8 6 to 11 years -------- 7.1 2 -------------- 7.8 12 to 17 years ------- 6.0 3 -------------- 7.7 4 -------------- 8.2 Paid employment per week 5 or 6 --------- 8.5 7 to 9 --------- 9.2 None ----------------- 8.1 1 to 14 hours -------- 7.3 15 to 29 hours ------- 6.3 30 hours or more ----- 4.8 ilies in the survey provided a total of 2,592 daily records of time use, equallydistributed among the days of the week and seasons of the year. Interviewers asked each homemaker to recall time use on the previous day for one record. Another was left for the home- maker to fill out with the help of the family for a designated second day. Data from the study, which are in the process of being analyzed, will yield much more information about time spent on homemaking tasks. Findings will be reported as they become available. MONEY VALUE AND ADEQUACY OF DIETS COMPARED WITH THE USDA FOOD PLANS How does family food spending compare with the cost of the USDA food plans? How likely are diets to be nutritionally adequate in families spending what the USDA food plans cost? Answers to these questions are currently of interest to many people--particularly those using the estimated cost of the USDA plans for setting money allowances for food or for other social welfare purposes. The nationwide household food consumption survey of 1965 is the most up-to-date source of such information on the money value and nutritional adequacy of diets . .!/ .!/ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Levels of Households in the United States, Spring 1965. U.S. Dept. Agr. Household Food Consumption Survey 1965-66, Rpt. No.6. 1969. For 'sale for $1.00 by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. 20402. 6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Money Value of Food Used by Families and the Cost of USDA Food Plans Of every 10 urban families surveyed in 1965, 1 used food valued below the cost of the economy plan; 2 used food valued below the low-cost plan; and 4 used food valued below the moderate-cost plan (see table). The food used by 4 of every 10 families was valued at or above the cost of the liberal food plan. 'Y Percentage of urban families in 3 income groups using food at home valued below the cost of USDA food plans, spring 1965 ~ Families using food valued below the cost of-- Income Economy Low-cost Moderate- Liberal plan plan cost plan plan Percent Percent Percent Percent All ---------------- 10 22 41 60 Under $3,000 ------- 23 38 59 75 $5,000 to $6,999 --- 8 19 39 60 $10,000 and over --- 2 7 21 41 ~ Estimated from the distribution of survey families by money value of food per person and the estimated cost of the food plan per person in a family of the average size and composition of the income class. Of every 10 urban families with incomes under $3, 000, 2 used food with value below the cost of the economy plan; 4 below the low-cost plan; and 6 below the moderate- cost plan. Even among families with incomes of $10, 000 or more, a few used food valued at less than the cost of each of the two lower plans. To facilitate comparisons such as this, the survey data have been adjusted to the basis of 21 meals per person per week from home food supplies. The estimated costs of the USDA food plan also represent the total cost of a family's food for a week if all meals are eaten at home or carried from home. The survey values include expenditures for food and beverages, plus the retail value of foods that were donated, received as gift or pay, and home produced. Quality of Diets at Cost Levels of USDA Food Plans The USDA food plans include foods that provide the Recommended Dietary Allow- 2/ Cost estimates for the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans are published qu;:-rterly in Family Economics Review (see p. 23). Estimates for the economy plan, which costs less than the low-cost plan, are available upon request from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. SEPTEMBER 1969 7 ances set by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Y A family using food valued at the level of the estimated cost of a USDA plan will have a nutritionally adequate diet if it selects foods of the kinds and quantities given in the plans. However, money alone does not insure an adequate diet. Many families in the 1965 survey who used food with a money value at the level of the cost of the food plans--even the liberal plan--had diets that did not provide recommended amounts of nutrients. Below are preliminary estimates of how many urban families in 1965 had diets that were good and how many diets that were fair or better. Diets were considered good if they provided the recommended allowances ( 1963) for all nutrients, and fair or better if they provided at least two-thirds of the allowances. Of the survey families with food valued at the cost of the-- Economy plan ----------Low- cost plan ---------Moderate- cost plan ----- Liberal plan ----------- the percentage with good diets was -- less than 10 30 50 60 and the percentage with diets that were fair or better was-- less than 50 60 so 90 On the basis of these findings, about 3 out of 10 families using food valued at the cost of the low-cost plan would be expected to have good diets, and 6 out of 10 might have diets that are fair or better. Less than 1 out of 10 families using food valued at the cost of the economy plan would be expected to have good diets, but as many as 5 out of 10 might have diets that are fair or better. Because so few families using food at the cost level of the economy plan get good or even fair diets, USDAnutritionists and food economists recommend thatpublic assistance agencies consider the low-cost rather than the economy plan as a standard for money allowances for food. Use of the economy plan as a standard might be justified for families receiving other types of food assistance such as donated foods, free school lunches, or food stamps with value well above what the family pays for them. A homemaker must have great skill and interest in shopping for and preparing food if she is to provide her family with a good diet at the cost of the economy plan. Many welfare recipients do not have such skill or interest. Moreover, many do not have equipment needed for preparing some of the inexpensive foods that are included in such diets. Need for expanded programs of education in food selection and nutrition is indicated, because some families at every cost level do not use foods that furnish nutritionally good or fair diets. The need is especially great for families with limited money for food, as at the level of the economy food plan. --Betty Peterkin and Faith Clark y The USDA plans meet the allowances for food energy, protein, calcium, vitamin A value, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and ascorbic acid listed in the 1963 and 1968 editions of Recommended Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. They provide as much iron as the 1963 edition recommends and as the 1968 edition indicates the usual diet is expected to have--that is, 6 mg. per 1, 000 calories. 8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW • ., USE OF APPLES BY U.S. HOUSEHOLDS U.S. households used an average of 32 cents worth of apples a week in spring 1965, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's nationwide household food consumption survey. This amount represented about 1 cent of the family'~ food dollar. About two-thirds of the expenditure was for fresh apples and one-third for processed apple products--mainly canned sauce and juices. The quantity of fresh apples used during the week of the survey averaged 1. 38 pounds per household. The quantity used per person was 0. 42 pound, ranging from 0. 35 pound in the South to 0. 47 in the North Central Region (fig. 1). Assuming 3 or 4 apples to a pound, these levels of use would not permit families to follow the advice of the adage "An apple a day keeps the .doctor away." Larger quantities would likely have been reported if the survey had been done in the fall when apples are being harvested. Information the families gave about the fresh fruits used during the week indicates that apples were more popular than oranges but less so than bananas, since the three fruits were used by 45, 31, and 52 percent of the households, respectively (fig. 2). The proportion using apples varied among income groups, from 30 percent of the families with less than $1, 000 to 51 percent of those at the $15, 000-and-over level. Canned apples--sauce and slices--were used by 23 percent of the households, varying from 13 percent of farm to 24 percent of city households. More high- than lowincome families used canned apples also (fig. 3). Canned applesauce and slices ranked about equal with canned peaches and considerably higher than canned pineapple and apricots in percentage of households using them. Canned and bottled apple juice, including cider, was used by about 7 percent of U.S. households, varying from 3 percent of those with incomes under $3, 000 to 12 percent with $10, 000 or more (fig. 4). Apple juice ranked considerably lower than ca:D.ned or frozen orange juice but higher than canned grapefruit juice in the proportion of families reporting its use. · The percentage of households reporting the use of apples and a pp 1 e products during a week in spring was about the same in i965 as in 1955. The average quantity of FRESH APPLES USED PER PERSON PER WEEK, BY RE610N UN I TED STATES .42 1ba . NORTHEAST NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH WEST Figure 1 SEPTEMBER 1969 55 45 ' 35 25 15 D ~~ FRESH APPLES, BAIIAIIAS AIID ORAII6ES HOUSEHOLDS USIII&, BY INCOME L. ............... -""":: v.,., .... -- ..L""_ --·- ~ _,.. .L:: ~ r r- ~ __/ v-----.. D 2 l ' I 10 15& IIICOME (11,000) over "·'·· 1 w:u ......... , ... , Figure 2 9 I CAllED fRUITS HOUSEHOLD$ USIII, IY IICOME • •• •• 1 .. Ql .......... . Figure 3 I 10 10 APPLE" AID CITRUS JUICES HOUSEHOLDS USIII, IY IICGM£ z •....,_.c•- . ' IICOMI (11,000) tl.l. ·- ....... It Figure 4 fresh apples used per household was also about the same. However, more families in 1965 than 10years earlier used canned apple sauce and slices--23 compared with 15percent-- and more used apple juice--7 compared with 2 percent. Source: Adapted from material in a talk by Daniel A. Swope at the National Apple Uti_lization Conference in Yakima, Wash., May 1969. OCCUPATIONS OF WOMEN WORKERS Women workers in the United States are increasing steadily, both in numbers and as a proportion of the total labor force. The number of women in nonfarm jobs increased from about 16.3 million to 28.2 million between 1950 and 1969, and the proportion of the total nonfarm work force made up of women increased from 31 to 38 percent. The number of women workers increased in each occupational category except private household workers (see table). Women also became a larger percentage of each category except professional and technical workers, and managers and officials. Women's largest gains in number employed were in .clerical jobs. The number of clerical jobs held by women increased from about 4.5 to 9.8 million, raising the proportion of all jobs in this field held by women from 62 percent to 74 percent. Women's advances in professional and technical jobs--which generally require more education, offer more in job security and income, and involve more responsibility --were less impressive. The number of women in professional and technical jobs increased from 1.9 to 4.1 million between1950and 1969. Since the number ofmen in these jobs increased even more, however, the proportion of professional and technical jobs held by women declined slightly, from 40 to 38 percent. The proportion of the managerial, official, and proprietorial positions held by women remained at 15 percent. Women in service occupations (other than private household work) advanced from 2.2 to 4·. 7 million. These occupations include such workers as waitresses, cooks, beau- 10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW r it l ~. ( Women in nonfarm employment: Number, percentage of total work force, and distribution, by occupation Number of wome~ Proportion of Distribution Occupation work force who of women were women workers 1969 I 1960 I 1950 1969 I 1960 I 1950 1969 ll960l 1950 Thous. Thous. Thous. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet . Pet. Total -------- 28,224 21,229 16,260 38 35 31 100 100 Professional and technical workers 4,114 2,856 1,920 38 38 40 15 13 Managers, officials, and proprietors - 1,208 1,021 941 15 15 15 4 5 Clerical workers -- 9,787 6,525 4,481 74 68 62 35 31 Sales workers ----- 1,906 1,728 l, 516 42 39 39 7 8 Operatives~------ 4,819 3,676 3,464 17 15 15 17 17 Service workers (except private household) ----- 4,740 3,277 2,168 59 53 45 17 15 Private household workers --------- 1,648 2,146 1,771 97 98 92 6 10 !/ Includes women age 16 and over in 1969, age 14 and over in 1960 and 1950. gj Includes a few laborers, craftsmen, and foremen. Pet. 100 12 6 28 9 21 13 ll Details may not add to totals because of rounding, Data are for April of each year. ticians, practical nurses, policewomen, and cleaning women. Women held 59 percent of the service jobs in 1969, compared with 45 percent in 1950, the largest increase in the proportion of women in any of the occupational fields. In sales work and in jobs as operatives.!/ such as factory workers and laundry and dry cleaning workers, the number of women increased less during the period than in most other occupations, but the increases were still somewhat greater than for men. Women were 42 percent of all sales workers and 17 percent of all operatives in 1969 compared with 39 and 15 percent, respectively, in 1950. Occupational Distribution of Women in the Nonfarm Labor Force Of all women working in April 1969, a much larger proportion was employed as clerical workers--such as typists, bookkeepers, office machine operators, and bank tellers--than in any other occupation. About 35 percent were clerical workers, 17 percent operatives, 17 percent service workers (other than private household), and 15 percent professional or technical workers. Only 4 to 7 percent of the women were in each of the other three occupational categories--managerial and official, sales, and private household service. Comparison of these figures with the corresponding ones for 1950 shows that clerical, professional and technical, and service (except household) occupations had increased in favor with women, while the others had declined. The two largest .!/ Includes laborers, craftsmen, and foremen. SEPTEMBER 1969 11 "white collar" groups--clerical, and professional and technical--together accounted for 50 percent of all women in the nonfarm work force in 1969, compared with 40 percent in 1950. --Katherine D. Smythe Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force. May 1969; and Barry, Carol, "White Collar Employment: II- Characteristics," Monthly Labor Review. February 1961. BUDGET GUIDES The Consumer and Food Economics Research Division receives many requests for help with budgets. These requests usually ask how much money or what percentage of income should be spent for food, clothing, rent, and the other budget items. Although no quick and easy formula is available, some useful guides can be provided. These are of two types: "Prepared," "constructed," or "standard" budgets that have been developed by many agencies to answer the question "How much does it cost a family to live?"; and general "how-to" directions for making and carrying out a plan for spending and saving. Prepared Budgets USDA food budgets. --One widely used prepared budget is the U. S. Department of Agriculture's estimated cost of food in food plans at low, moderate, and liberal cost. These food plans suggest amounts of food in 11 food groups that together provide a nutri-tionally adequate diet. The plans and estimates of the cost at home of food in the plans are given for men, women, boys, and girls of different ages. A food budget for any fam-ily can be made by adding the costs for persons in that family, using the cost level of the food plan best suited to the family's income and needs. Many welfare agencies use the cost of the low-cost plan to establish money allowances for food. The estimated cost of food in the USDA food plans is updated every 3 months, to reflect changing food prices. Once a year the costs are calculated for each of the four regions of the United States. The costs of the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans are published in Family Economics Review and also as a separate leaflet. An economy plan, costing less than the low-cost plan and for use in emergency situations, is available upon request. Budgets of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. --The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has prepared budgets for moderate, lower, and higher standards of living for an urban family of four persons--an employed husband aged 38; his wife, who is not employed; a boy 13; and a girl 8. BLS also has a budget for an urban retired couple at a moderate standard of living. Cost estimates for the budgets are given for each of 39 metropolitan areas and for a sample of nonmetropolitan areas with population of 2, 500 to 50, 000 in each of the four regions. BLS has also developed a scale that can be used to estimate for families of other sizes and types the cost of a budget comparable to that for the 4-person family at a moderate standard of living. BLS plans to revise the budget costs annually. 12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW The BLS budgets are useful as guides for social and legislative programs on wages, prices, credit, public assistance, and taxes; for evaluating adequacy of incomes of groups of families; and for measuring differences in living costs among cities and areas. The budget quantities and pricing specifications can be used to estimate costs for areas not in the BLS list. These budgets are not meant to show how families should. spend their money or to use as patterns of spending by families. Other prepared budgets.-- Many other prepared budgets have been developed, especiallyby agencies responsiblefor determining allotments for needy families. These budgets vary widely from place to place, in keeping with local needs, prices, and resources. Other Budget Guides The Consumer an~ Food Economics Research Division of the USDA has prepared three general budget guides. One for beginning families is a bulletin titled "A Guide to Budgeting for the Young Couple." For families a little further along in the family cycle, "A Guide to Budgeting for the Family" is better. These publications give step-by-step directions for planning and carrying out a spending plan, but no set formulas for dividing the income among budget items. They include forms that may be used in setting up the budget and recording expenditures. The third publication, "Helping Families Manage Their Finances, " is for use by teachers and other leaders who work with families on budget preparation. The Federal Extension Service has prepared a publication on budgeting for lowincome families called "Managing Your Money ... A Family Plan." General budget guides are available from many State Extension offices, financial and business sources. Following are directions for ordering the budget materials mentioned above, plus a few others. Some are available free, others for sale only. Order by title and number from the source given. Please give your ZIP code with your return address. • Budget guides prepared by the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division (1) Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Informa-tion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250: A Guide to Budgeting for the Young Couple, HG-98. A Guide to Budgeting for the Family, HG-108. Food for the Young Couple, HG-85. Food for the Family with Young Children, HG-5. Food Guide For Older Folks, HG-17. ( 2) Single copies of the following are available free from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782: Cost of Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels. CFE(Adm.)- 256. Sample Menus and Food Lists for OneWeekBasedon the USDA Economy Food Plan. CA 62-20. Family Economics Review. ARS 62-5. (Published quarterly. Includes cost estimates for the USDA food plans and other information relating to budgeting. Mailing list limited to teachers and other professional workers.) SEPTEMBER 1969 13 • • ( 3) The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402: Helping Families Manage Their Finances. HERR No. 21. (A publication for teachers and adult leaders.) 40 cents. Food for Families with School Children. HG-13. 15 cents. Family Food Budgeting ... For Good Meals and Good Nutrition. HG-94. 15 cents. Budgets prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402: 3 Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-5. $1. 00. Retired Couple's Budget for a Moderate Living Standard. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-4. 35 cents. Revised Equivalence Scale for Estimating Equivalent Incomes or Budget Costs by Family Type. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-2. 35 cents. Federal Extension Service budget guide for low-income families: Managing Your Money ... A Family Plan. For sale for 10 cents by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. --Emma G. Holmes THE COST OF BUYING A HOME Buying a home is the biggest single investment many families make. Few families have enough savings to pay the purchase price outright. The more common practice is to make a downpayment from savings and borrow the remainder, giving a mortgage to the person or agency making the loan. The mortgage terms--the rate of interest and the length of time taken to repay the loan--and the size of the downpayment can make a big difference in the total cost of the home. At interest rates of 7 1/2 to 10 percent, interest alone on a $20, 000 home may cost from $12, 010 to $38, 720 if the purchase is financed with an $18, 000 mortgage loan payable in 15 to 30 years (see table). A variation of even one-half of one percent in the interest rate makes a considerable difference. The intereston a 25-year, $18,000 mortgage loan at 7 l/2 percent totals $21,900, at 8 percent $23,650, at 8 l/2 percent $25,380, at 9 percent $27,200, at 9 l/2 percent $29,130, and at 10 percent $31,010. The monthly payments are about $6 more at 8 than 7 1/2 percent, and $7 more at 10. than 9 1/2 percent. Although $6 or $7 a month may not seem a large amount, it adds up when paid over such a long period of time. As short a mortgage repayment period as possible is desirable to keep interest costs down. At 8 l/2 percent, interest on an $18,000 loan repaid in 15 years costs about· $13, 900, in 20 years about $19, 480, in 25 years about $25, 380, and in 30 years about 14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Monthly payments and total interest cost to buy a $20, 000 home, by size of downpayment, rate of inter est, and length of mortgage term Down- I .Amount Monthly payments I Total inter est payment borr owed 15 yrs. I 20 yr s . ] 25 yrs . I 30 yrs . 15 yr s . I 20 yr s . I 25 yrs. I 30 yrs . 7 1/ 2 percent interest Dol. Dol. D-o-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. Dol. D-o-l. Dol. Dol. D-o-l. 0 20, 000 186 161 148 140 13, 340 18, 650 24 , 330 30,190 500 19, 500 181 157 144 136 13, 010 18, 180 23 , 720 29, 430 1,000 19, 000 176 153 140 133 12, 670 17,710 23 ,120 28, 680 2,000 18, 000 167 145 133 126 12, 010 16, 780 21, 900 27,170 3, 000 17, 000 158 137 126 il9 ll, 340 15, 850 20, 680 25, 660 4, ooo 16, 000 148 129 ll8 ll2 10, 670 14, 920 19, 470 24, 150 5, 000 15, 000 139 121 ill 105 10, 000 13, 980 18, 250 22, 640 6,000 14, ooo 130 ll3 103 98 9,340 13, 050 17, 030 21, 130 8, ooo 12, 000 ill 97 89 84 8, 000 il, l90 14, 600 18, il0 10, 000 10, 000 93 81 74 70 6, 670 9, 320 12, 170 15, 090 8 percent interest 0 20, 000 191 167 154 147 14, 390 20, ll0 26, 280 32,780 500 19, 500 186 163 151 143 14, 030 19, 610 25, 630 31, 960 1, 000 19, 000 182 159 147 139 13, 670 19, il0 24, 970 31, 140 2, 000 18, 000 172 151 139 132 12, 950 i8,100 23 , 650 29, 500 3, 000 17, 000 163 !42 131 125 12, 230 17, 090 22, 340 27, 860 4, ooo 16,000 153 134 124 ll7 il, 520 16, 090 21, 030 26, 220 5, 000 15, 000 143 126 ll6 ilO 10, 800 15, 080 19, 710 24, 58o 6, 000 14, 000 134 il7 loB 103 lO, o80 14, 080 18, 400 22,940 8, ooo 12, 000 il5 100 93 88 8, 640 12, 070 15, 770 19, 670 10, 000 10, 000 96 84 77 73 7, 200 10, 060 13, 140 16, 390 8 1/2 per cent interest 0 20, 000 197 174 161 154 15, 440 21, 640 28, 200 35, 340 ~0 19, 500 192 169 157 150 15, 050 21, 100 27, 500 34, 460 1, 000 19, 000 187 165 153 146 14, 670 20, 560 26,790 33, 570 2, 000 18, 000 177 156 145 138 13, 900 19, 480 25, 380 31, 810 3, 000 17, 000 167 148 137 131 13, 120 18, 4oo 23 , 970 30, 040 4, ooo 16, ooo 158 139 129 123 12, 350 17, 310 22, 560 . 28, 270 5, 000 15, 000 148 130 121 ll5 il, 580 16, 230 21, 150 26, 500 6,ooo 14, 000 138 122 il3 108 10, 810 15, 150 19, 740 24, 740 8, ooo 12, 000 ll8 104 97 92 9, 260 12, 990 16, 920 21, 200 10, 000 10, 000 98 87 81 77 7, 720 10, 820 14, 100 17, 670 9 percent interest 0 20, 000 203 180 168 161 16, 490 23, 160 30, 220 37, 820 500 19, 500 198 176 164 157 16,070 22, 580 29, 460 36,880 1, 000 19, 000 193 171 160 153 15, 660 22, 000 28,710 35, 930 2, 000 18, 000 183 162 151 145 14, 840 20, 850 27, 200 34, 040 3, 000 17, 000 173 153 143 137 14, 010 19, 690 25, 690 32,150 4, ooo 16, 000 162 144 134 129 13,190 18, 530 24,180 30, 260 5, 000 15,000 152 135 126 121 12, 360 17, 370 22, 670 28, 370 6, 000 14, 000 142 126 il8 113 il, 540 16, 210 21,150 26, 480 8, 000 12, 000 122 lo8 101 97 9, 890 13, 900 18, 130 22, 690 10, 000 10, 000 102 90 84 80 8, 240 11, 580 15, il0 18, 910 9 1/2 percent interest 0 20, 000 209 187 175 168 17, 560 24, 660 32, 370 40, 490 500 19, 500 2o4 182 170 164 17, 120 24, 040 31, 560 39,480 1, 000 19, 000 199 177 166 160 16, 680 23, 430 30,750 38, 470 2, 000 18, 000 188 168 157 151 15, 800 22,190 29, 130 36, 440 3, 000 17, 000 178 159 149 143 14, 920 20, 960 27, 510 34, 420 4,000 16, 000 167 149 140 135 14, 050 19, 730 25, 890 32, 390 5, 000 . 15, 000 157 140 131 126 13,170 18, 500 24, 270 30, 370 6,000 14, 000 146 131 122 il8 12, 290 17, 260 22, 660 28, 340 8 , 000 12, 000 125 112 105 101 10, 540 14, 800 19, 420 .24 , 300 10,000 10, 000 104 93 87 84 8, 780 12, 330 16, 180 20, 250 SEPTEMBER 1969 15 Monthly payments and total interest cost to buy a $20, 000 home, by size of downpayment, rate of interest, and length of mortgage term (continued ) Down- .Amount Monthly payments Total interest payment borrowed 15 yrs . I 20 yrs . I 25 yrs . I 30 yrs . 15 yrs . I 20 yrs . I 25 yrs . I 30 yr s . 10 percent interest D-o-l. D-o-l. -Dol-. -Do-l. D-o-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. D-ol-. 0 20,000 215 193 182 176 18, 670 26, 220 34, 460 43, 020 500 19, 500 210 188 177 171 18, 200 25, 570 33, 600 41, 950 1,000 19, 000 2o4 184 173 167 17, 730 24, 910 32,740 40, 870 2, 000 18,000 194 174 164 158 16, 800 23 , 600 31, 010 38, 720 3, 000 17, 000 183 164 155 149 15,870 22, 290 29, 290 36, 570 4, 000 16, ooo 172 155 145 140 14, 930 20, 980 27 , 570 34, 420 5, 000 15,000 161 145 136 132 14, ooo 19, 670 25,840 32, 270 6, 000 14,000 150 135 127 123 13, 070 18, 360 24 ,120 30,120 8, ooo 12, 000 129 ll6 109 105 ll, 200 15,730 20, 670 25,810 10, 000 10,000 1o8 97 91 88 9, 330 13,ll0 17, 230 21, 510 Note : Monthly payments rounded to nearest $1; total interest rounded to nearest $10 . $31, 810. When these amounts of interest are added to the original price of a $20, 000 home, the actual cost is between $33, 900 and $51, 810. A large downpayment also reduces the cost of interest in buying a home. Each $1, 000 of downpayment on a 25-year, 8 1/2 percent loan reduces the interest by about $1,410. On a $20, 000 home, for example, if the downpayment is $1, 000, total interest on the amount borrowed costs about $26, 790; if the downpayment is $2, 000, the interest costs about $25 , 380. A large downpayment may also make a loan easier to obtain and a lower interest rate available, besides giving the buyer a greater equity in the home. Not long ago the prevailing interest rate was about 6 percent. At 6 percent, interest on an $18,000 mortgage loan repaid in 25 years would cost about $16, 740 compared with about $25,380 at 8 1/2 percent--a difference of $8,640. Monthly payments on the mortgage at 6 percent would be $116 and at 8 1/2 percent $145. A desirable contract for a mortgage loan will provide for the right to repay the loan at a faster rate than originally agreed upon. Then if the family's financial situation improves , it can make larger payments and pay off the debt earlier . This provision is particularly important when interest rates are high. --Lucile F. Mork HOME MORTGAGE DEBT Mortgage debt on 1- to 4-family nonfarm houses totaled $251 billion at the end of 1968 (see table). It had risen 38 percent during the 5 years since the end of 1963, due to the larger number of mortgaged homes--26 million in 1968 compared with 22 million in 1963--and the larger average debt per home--$9,600 compared with $8,395. The average (median) cost of new !-family homes had increased during the period from $18,000 to $24,600. This increase was due partly to higher land and construction costs and partly to the building of larger homes with more equipment included in the price. About 20 percent of the debt at the end of 1968 was in mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), 13 percent was guaranteed by the Veterans Ad- 16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Number of mortgaged 1- to 4-family nonfarm houses, total and average mortgage debt, and distribution by type, end of year, 1963 to 1968 Mortgage debt Number of Average Distribution by type Year mortgaged per VA- Con-houses Total mortgaged Total FHA- guar- ven-house insured anteed tional -Mi-l. Bil. dol. Dol. Pet. -Pe-t. -Pe-t. Pet. 1963 --- 21.7 182 8,395 100 19 17 64 1964 --- 22.7 198 8,710 100 19 16 65 1965 --- 23.6 213 9,045 100 20 15 66 1966 --- 24.4 224 9,160 100 20 14 66 1967 --- 25.2 236 9,355 100 20 14 66 1968 --- 26.2 251 9,600 100 20 13 66 Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. ministration (VA), and 67 percent was in other mortgages, commonly known as conventional mortgages. Most of the funds for all three types of mortgage loans were from savings and loan associations, banks, and life insurance companies. Foreclosures on mortgages were at the rate of 3. 47 per thousand in 1968 compared with 4. 52 per thousand in 1963. In 1968, 95 percent of the purchases of new 1-family houses were financed with a mortgage loan--62 percent conventional, 20 percent FHA-insured, and 13 percent VAguaranteed. The median sales prices of the new homes financed with the three types of loans were $28, 500, $19,400, and $19, 900, respectively. Buyers of higher priced new houses are likely to use conventional mortgage financing, partly because of the ceiling on the amount that can be borrowed on an FHA- or VA -backed loan. Details similar to these are not available on purchases of existing homes, though many more existing than new homes are bought in a year. The loan/price ratio was higher and the mortgage repayment period longer for FHA-insured than conventional loans made in 1968. On new homes, the average FHA mortgage covered 92 percent of the price and allowed 29. 9 years to pay; the average conventional mortgage covered 74percent of the price and allowed 25.5 years to pay. On existing homes, average repayment periods were shorter--28. 4 and 22. 7 years for the respective types of loans--but loan/price ratios were about the same as on new homes. The average interest rate on conventional mortgages in 1968 was 6. 83 percent on new and 6.90 percent on existing homes. On FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgages, the highest permissible interest rate was 6 percent until May 1968 and 6 3/4 percent for the rest of the year. --Lucie G. Krassa Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: (1) Housing and Urban Development Trends, May 1969, and (2) FHA Trends of Home Mortgage Characteristics, 4th Qtr. 1968. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Federal Reserve Bulletin, Oct. 1968. SEPTEMBER 1969 17 PRICE INDEX RISES FOR NEW HOUSES The price index for new one-family houses sold increased about 7 percent from 1967 to 1968, according to the Bureau of the Census. This increase accounted for over one-third of the 18 percent gain in the index since 1963, the first year for which it is available. Indexes for 1963 to 1968 (1963 = 100) and the year-to-year changes are as follows: Year Index Percent change from Erevious ~ear 1963 100.0 1964 101.1 1.1 1965 103.5 2.4 1966 106.5 2.9 1967 110.3 3.6 1968 117.9 6.9 The index is designed to measure changes in sales prices of new houses with the same characteristics. Changes in the average prices actually paid for new houses reflect changes in the characteristics of the houses as well. In contrast to the 18 percent rise in the price index for houses from 1963 to 1968, the average price actually paid for new homes increased about 37 percent due, in part, to the shift to larger houses with more equipment. SURVEY OF OCCUPANTS OF NEW HOUSING UNITS The typical owner moving into a new home between October 1965 and March 1966 was a family of 4 or more, headed by a man 25 to 44years old and his wife, according to a survey by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). The nationwide Survey of Occupants of New Housing Units included a sample of households that, between October 1965 and March 1966, had moved as owners into new single-family homes or as renters into new buildings with 5 or more dwelling units. Mailed questionnaires filled in and returned by 2,110 owners and 629 renters provided inforiJlation HUD has reported in a publication that also reports on a mobile homes survey. !I This article summarizes the survey of new housing units. New Owner-Occu:Eied Housing and Its Occupants The occuEants.--Most--94percent--of the households that moved into new homes as owners were families with both husband and wife present (table 1). Nearly all of the couples had been married at least 2 years, and most of them had been married 5 years or more. Almost three-fifths of the households had 4 or more members . .!/ U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Surve~s, Parts 1 and 2: OccuEants of New Housing Units; Mobile Homes and the HousingSu:EEly. For sale for $1.25 by the Supt. Doc., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. , Washington, D. C. 20402. 18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Many more households owning new homes were headed by persons aged 25 to 44 years than by younger or older persons. Heads aged 25 to 44 --the period when family housing needs are likely to be growing--comprised almost two-thirds of the total. In contrast, households with heads under 25years and 65years or older were only 6 and 4percent of the total, respectively. Annual earnings--wages and salaries--between $6,000 and $9,999 were reported by 39 percent of the new owners. About 20 percent earned less than $6,000 and 27 percent $10,000 or more. No report on earnings was received from 14 percent. Of the households that moved into new owner-occupied homes, 54 percent had owned the house from which they moved, 42 percent moved from rented quarters, and 4 percent were newly formed households establishing their first home. Why did they move? The reason mentioned more often than any other--by 26 percent of the households--was that they wanted a home of their own. Other reasons of about equal importance-- given by 17 to 20 percent--were the desire for a better house or neighborhood, the desire for a larger or smaller dwelling (usually larger), and job-related motives, such as a job change to a new location or a need to be closer to work. Another 7 percent of the households moved because of a change in family status, such as an increase or decrease in size. Most of the moves were quite short, 78 percent being less than 25 miles. Only 8 percent of the households moved 500 miles or more. The houses. --The trend toward larger houses with more comforts is evident in this study. The new owner-occupied houses included 36 percent with 7 or more rooms and only 7 percent with less than 5 rooms (table 2). According to the 1960 Census, houses completed in 1959 and early 1960 included only 16 percent with 7 or more rooms and 21 percent with less than 5. The new homes the surveyfamilies moved into were mainly 3- and 4-bedroom houses with more than one bathroom. About one-fourth of those moving into new owned homes reported paying less than ' $15,000 for them. These families probably included most if not all of the 14percent who did at least part of their own construction work. Only 8 percent paid $35, 000 or more. Mortgage loans were used to finance 86 percent of the purchases, including 23 percent backed by the Federal Housing or Veterans Administration. Downpayments ranged from less than 10 percent (28 percent of buyers) to 40 percent or more (10 percent). Mortgage payments amounted to less than $100 a month for about 25 percent of the new-home occupants, $100 to $150 for 31 percent, and $150 or more for 24 percent. The rest were not paying on a mortgage or did not report. New Rental Units and Their Occupants The occupants. --The households that moved into new rental units of the type surveyed were, as a group, quite different from the new homeowners. Only 62 percent of them were husband-wife households, the other 38 percent included 25 percent made up of a person living alone and 13 percent with other combinations of related or unrelated persons sharing the unit. Almost three-fourths of the renters had households of 1 or 2 persons, and only 9 percent were in the 4-or-more person class that was most common among the new homeowners. The renters were a relatively young group, also. In about one-fourth of the renter households the head was under 2 5 years and in another ona_-fourth, 25 to 34 years old. On the other hand, households headed by persons 55 years o 1 d or SEPTEMBER 1969 19 Table 1 .--Characteristics of households movi ng as owners into new one- family homes and as renters into new units in buildings with 5 or more units , October 1965 to March 1966 Households Households Item moving into-- Item moving i nto-- Owned I Rented Owned I Rent ed Percent Percent Percent Percent Composition Tenure 2 previous dwellin~ Husband-wife ----- 94 62 Owner ----------------- 54 21 Other ------------ 5 38 Renter ---------------- 42 54 Not reported ----- 1 - Newly formed household 4 25 -Siz-e Annual earnings 1 person --------- 2 25 Less than $6,000 ------ 20 25 2 persons -------- 21 48 $6,000 to $9,999 ------ 39 33 3 persons ------ -- 19 18 $10,000 to $14,999 ---- 19 18 4 or 5 persons --- 44 8 $1 5, 000 and over ------ 8 6 6 or more persons 14 1 Not reported ---------- 14 18 Age of head Reasons for moving Under 25 years --- 6 23 Desire for own place -- 26 2 25 to 34 years --- 32 26 Better home , neighbor - 35 to 44 years --- 30 12 hood ---- ------------ 20 19 45 to 54 years --- 17 7 Larger or smaller unit 18 14 55 to 64 years --- 7 9 Job related ----------- 17 23 65 years or over - 4 7 Change in family status 7 26 Not reported ----- 4 16 Other or not reported - 12 16 Table 2 .--Characteristics and financing of new owner- occupied one - family homes moved into between October 1965 and March 1966 Item Homes Item Homes Percent l} Percent Number of rooms Purchase price 4 or less ------------- 7 Less than $10, 000 ---- - 8 5 --------------------- 29 $10,000 to $14,999 ---- 18 6 --------------------- 28 $15,000 to $19,999 ---- 25 7 --------------------- 17 $20,000 to $24, 999 ---- 17 8 or more ------------- 19 $25 , 000 to $34,999 ---- 18 Number of bedrooms $35 , 000 or more ------- 8 2 or less ------------- 12 Not reported ---------- 6 3 --------------------- 62 Monthly payments 4 or more -------- ----- 25 Less than $100 -------- 25 Not reported ---------- l $100 to $149 ---------- 31 Number of bathrooms $150 to $199 ---------- 16 None or partial only -- 2 $200 or more ---------- 8 l --------------------- 24 Not reported ---------- 6 1 plus partial -------- 25 None (no mortgage) ---- 14 2 --------------------- 30 Financin~ 2 plus partial --- - ---- 13 Mortgage loan --------- 86 3 or more ------------- 6 Other ----------------- 14 !J For homes built by the owner, out - of-pocket costs only were reported. 20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW over were a somewhat larger partof the renter than the owner sample--16percent compared with 11 percent. Of those moving into new rental units, 54 percent moved from another rented place and 21percent from homes theyowned. The others were newlyformed households, such as newlyweds and single persons setting up their first homes. Reasons for moving were related mainly to changes in family status, jobs, or a desire for a better home or neighborhood. Relatively more renters than owners had moved 500 miles or more --17 compared with 8 percent. The income (earnings) distribution was about the same for the renter households as for the owners of new homes. Tabl e 3.--Characteristi cs of new renter-occupied units moved into between October 1965 and Mar ch 1966 Item Rental Item Rental Units Units Percent Percent Number of r ooms Gross rent per month l --------------------- 4 Less than $100 --------- 11 2 --------------------- 9 $100 to $124 ----------- 19 3 --------------------- 37 $125 to $149 ----------- 32 4 --------------------- 37 $150 to $199 ----------- 27 5 or more ------------- 13 $200 or more ----------- 7 No cash rent, no report 4 Number of bedrooms None ------------------ 7 Utilities included in r ent l --------------------- 46 None ------------------- 7 2 --------------------- 44 Hot water only --------- 13 3 --------------------- 3 Hot water and heat onl y 4 Hot water, heat , and Number of bathrooms gas y --------------- 31 l --------------------- 86 Hot water , heat, gas, l plus partial -------- 6 and electri city y --- 29 2 or more ------------- 8 Other combinations or no cash r ent ------------ 16 y Gas either incl uded in rent or not avail abl e . The rental units.--Apartments with 1 or 2 bedrooms were the choice of 90 percent of the renter households and the new units they moved into were about equally divided between these two sizes (table 3 above). About 14 percent of the new units had more than one bathroom. Monthly rents ranged from $125 to $149 for 32 percent of the new units and $150 to $199 for 27 percent. Only a few--11 percent--rented for less than $100. All or most utilities were included in the rent for most of the units. SEPTEMBER 1969 21 THE COST OF CIITCKEN, WHOLE AND PARTS Poultry is among the least costly and most popular of main dishes. The form in which poultry is purchased often determines how good a bargain it is. Chicken sold whole generally costs a few cents less per pound than chicken cut up. Whole chicken is usually a better buy than chicken pieces, such as breasts and legs, in terms of the amount of meat provided. When whole fryers are 39 cents a pound, chicken breasts are an equally good buy at 55 cents (see table). With whole fryers at 39 cents, breasts provide more meat for the money at prices under 55 cents a pound, less meat for the money at prices over 55 cents. Price per pound of whole chicken fryers, ready to cook, and of chicken parts providing equal amounts of edible meat for the money If the price per pound of whole fryers, ready to cook, is-- Chicken parts are an per pound is-- Breast Drumstick equally good buy if the price Drumstick Wing Cents 27 ---------------- 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 half and thigh Cents Cents 38 41 44 47 49 52 55 58 61 63 66 69 72 75 78 35 37 40 42 45 47 50 53 55 58 60 63 65 68 71 Cents 33 36 38 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 65 68 SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS 36 39 41 44 47 49 52 55 57 6o 63 65 68 71 73 (Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.) Cents 21 23 25 26 28 29 31 33 34 36 37 39 41 42 44 u.s. Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Information, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250: • • KEEPING FOOD SAFE TO EAT ..• A Guide for Homemakers. HG No. 162 . HOUSE CONSTRUCTION •.. How to Reduce Costs. HG No. 168 . The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402: 22 HOW TO BUY MEAT FOR YOUR FREEZER. HG No. 166. 20 cents. THE POOR: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. MP No. 1145. 60 cents. LOW-COST WOOD HOMES FOR RURAL AMERICA. AH No. 364. $1. 00. FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW COST OF FOOD AT HOME Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels, June 1969 ' U. S . average !J Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month Sex-age groups ?) Low-costiModerate-,Liberal Low-costiModerate-,Liberal plan cost plan plan plan cost plan ~lan Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars FAMILIES Family of 2: 20 to 35 years ]/---- 17.50 22.30 27.50 75.80 96.90 119.20 55 to 75 years]/---- 14.30 18.70 22.40 62.20 81.00 97.50 Family of 4: Preschool children ~ 25.40 32.50 39.60 110.10 140.70 171.50 School children 2/--- 29.50 37.90 46.50 127.80 164.10 201.80 INDIVIDUALS 6/ Children, under 1 year 3.40 4.30 4.80 14.70 18.50 20.80 1 to 3 years -------- 4.30 5.50 6.60 18.80 23.70 28.40 3 to 6 years -------- 5.20 6.70 8.00 22.40 28.90 34.70 6 to 9 years -------- 6.30 8.10 10.10 27.20 35.00 43.80 Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 7.10 9.30 10.90 31.00 40.20 47.10 12 to 15 years ------ 7.90 10.30 12.50 34.10 44.50 54.00 15 to 20 years ------ 8.00 10.20 12.10 34.80 44.10 52.60 Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 7.30 9.50 11.40 31.70 41.00 49.60 12 to 15 years ------ 8.60 11.30 13.50 37.10 48.90 58.50 15 to 20 years ------ 9.90 12.60 15.20 42.80 54.50 65.90 Women, 20 to 35 years - 7.40 9.40 11.40 32.00 40.90 49.40 35 to 55 years ------ 7.10 9.10 11.00 30.70 39.40 47.60 55 to 75 years ------ 6.00 7.80 9.30 26.00 33.90 40.50 75 years and over --- 5.40 6.90 8.50 23.60 30.10 36.90 Pregnant ------------ 8.80 11.00 13.10 38.10 47.70 56.60 Nursing ------------- 10.20 12.70 14.90 44.10 54.90 64.40 Men, 20 to 35 years --- 8.50 10.90 13.60 36.90 47.20 59.00 35 to 55 years ------ 7.90 10.10 12.40 34.30 43.80 53.70 55 to 75 years ------ 7.00 9.20 11.10 30.50 39.70 48.10 75 years and over --- 6.60 8.80 10.70 28.50 38.20 46.20 !J Estimates computed from ~uantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review, October 1964. Costs of the plans were first estimated by using average price per pound of each food group paid by urban survey families at 3 income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ~ Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age. ]/ 10 percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factors for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, USDA, HERR No. 20. ljj 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. SEPTEMBER 1969 23 CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1957-59 = 100) Group All items --------------- - -- - ---------Food -------------------------------- Food at home ------------- --------Food away from home --------------- Housing - - --------------------------Shelter --------------- - ----------Rent ---------------------------- Homeownership ------------------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 r ecreation - - ---------Other goods and services ---------- July 1968 121 .5 120 .0 116 .7 136 .5 119 .5 124 .2 115 .1 127 .8 110 .6 115 .7 109 .5 113 .1 119 .7 120.1 115 .7 132 .0 119 .8 117 .6 138 .5 130 .2 145 .1 120 .4 125 .9 123 .9 126 .8 123 .7 119 .8 142 .8 125 .8 132 .4 118 .1 138 .0 112 .6 117 .5 111 .2 117 .4 126 .6 128 .1 122 .4 139 .6 124 .0 121 .2 148 .0 135.7 154 .5 125 .8 130 .2 126 .9 127.6 125 .5 121 .8 143 .7 126 .3 133 .0 118 .5 138 .7 112 .7 117 .5 111 .3 117.9 127 .0 128 .5 122 .7 140 .1 124 .6 121 .8 149 .1 136.3 155 .2 126 .2 130 .4 127 .9 Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics . Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items (1957- 59 = 100) Item July March April May June 1968 1969 1969 _1969 1969 All items -------------------- 118 122 122 123 123 Food and tobacco ----------- - 121 - - 125 Clothing ------------------- - 137 - - 137 Household operation -------- - 118 - - 119 Household furnishings -- --- - - 105 - - 105 Building materials, house -- - 127 - - 126 128.2 126 .7 123.0 144 .8 127.0 134 .0 ll8.8 140 .0 112.6 117.4 110 .9 118 .2 126 .8 128 .1 122 .5 139 .9 124 .3 121 .4 149 .5 137.0 155 .9 126 .6 130.7 129 .1 J uly 1969 123 ----- Source : U.S . Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service . 24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW "'U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969- 394 -374/ERS - 13 •)
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Rating | |
Title | Family Economics Review [1969, Number 3] |
Date | 1969 |
Contributors (group) |
Institute of Home Economics (U.S.) United States. Agricultural Research Service Consumer and Food Economics Research Division Consumer and Food Economics Institute (U.S.) United States Science and Education Administration United States. Agricultural Research Service United States Agricultural Research Service Family Economics Research Group |
Subject headings | Home economics--Accounting--Periodicals |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | 8 v. ; $c 27 cm. |
Publisher | Washington, D.C. : U.S. Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 77.708:969/3 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5482 |
Full-text | 77· 70 ' (o fa mil @@® uilding Use Only 0 ULiUD®~. Consumer and Food Economics Research Division rev1 evv Agricultural Research Service ti!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!E!! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3 Gifts and Handed-down Clothing Important in Family Wardrobes 5 Time Spent in Household Work by Homemakers 6 Money Value and Adequacy of Diets Compared with the USDA Food Plans 9 Use of Apples by U.S. Households 10 Occupations of Women Workers 12 Budget Guides 14 The Cost of Buying a Home 16 Home .Mortgage Debt 18 Price Index Rises for New Houses 18 Survey of Occupants of New Housing Units 22 The Cost of Chicken, Whole and Parts 22 Some New USDA Publications 23 Cost of Food at Home 24 Consumer Prices ARS 62-5 September 1969 PROPERTY OF THE UI3F~ARY SE~ 2 91969 UNIVtor..:.1l Y vr NORTH CAROLINA AT GR£ENS60RO o447 f\ 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. GIFTS AND HANDED-DOWN CLOTIDNG IMPORTANT IN FAMILY WARDROBES About 70 percent of the clothing acquired in a year by families with low to moderate incomes in a recent survey in a midwestern city was new readymades bought by the family.!/ The 30 percent acquired in other ways included 22 percent received as gifts from outside the family --11 percent new and 11 percent used; 3 percent handed down within the fami_ly; 2 perc en~ homem~e from new materials; 2 percent bought used; and 1 percent received as pay, oonus, prize, or stamp premium (see table).Y Children--especially infants--were the most favored members of the family in terms ofclothing received fromthe supplementary sources. For children under 2years, these items represented 67 percent of the total acquired during the year. These included 31 percent received new and· 21 percent used as gifts from outside the family; 12 percent handed down within the family; 1 percent bought in used condition; and 1 percent homemade. Infants' clothing from these sources were mainly dresses, sleeping garments, playsuits, sweaters, coats, sets of skirts or pants with tops, and layettes. Girls 2 to 17 years old received 39 percent of the clothing they acquired during the year from supplementary sources. These items included 12 percent received new and 14 percent used, as gifts from outside the family; 6 percent handed down within the family; 4 percent homemade; and 1 percent each bought in used condition and received from such sources as prizes and stamp premiums. The girls' items were mainly street dresses, slacks, skirts, blouses, and sweaters. Boys 2 to 17 years old received less of their clothing from supplementary sources than girls their age. For boys these garments amounted to 29 percent of the year's acquisitions, including 8 percent received new and 13 percent used as gifts; 6 percent handed down within the family; and 1 percent each bought used and received from miscellaneous sources. These garments for boys were mainly sport shirts, sweaters, jackets, and work trousers and jeans. Women heads of families obtained from supplementary sources 26 percent of the clothing they acquired in a year. This included 6 percent received new and 14 percent used as gifts from persons not in the family; 3 percent bought used; and 2 percent made at home. The items were largely street dresses, blouses, heavy coats, skirts, and slacks. Wives of male heads of families obtained 25 percent of their clothing from supplementary sources--about the same as the women heads of families. Howeve'r, these 1/ The survey was conducted by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment St~ion under a cooperative agreement with the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division. Geitel Winakor, professor of textiles and clothing, Iowa State University, is the project leader. 2/ In this analysis, the number of each type of garment acquired --whether bought new or -used, handed down, homemade, or received as a gift--was weighted by the average price paid by the survey families for the new ready-made item. The weights, therefore, do not represent the dollar value of the garments. They are a device for adding together different types of garments, taking into account the relative importance of each in the wardrobe. This method of weighting was described in Family Clothing Inventories and Purchases, u.s. Dept. of Agr., Agr. Inform. Bul. No. 148, 1956, p. 53. SEPTEMBER 1969 3 Distribution by source of clothing acquired in a year!/ by families with low to moderate incomes and their members, Des Moines, Iowa, 1965 Children Girls Boys Female Wives Male Source Total under 2 to 17 2 to 17 heads of of male heads of of clothing family 2 years years years families heads families Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- All sources --------------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Purchased new, readymade 70 33 61 71 74 75 81 Other sources, total ---- 30 67 39 29 26 25 19 New clothing, total --- 14 32 17 9 9 14 11 Gifts from outside the family --------- 11 31 12 8 6 9 8 Homemade ------------ 2 l 4 (g/) 2 5 (g/) Pay, bonus, stamp purchase, prize ---- l (g/) l l (g/) l 2 Used clothing, total -- 16 34 22 20 17 ll 8 Handed down from out-side the family ---- ll 21 14 13 14 9 6 Handed down within the family --------- 3 12 6 6 (g/) (g/) (g/) Purchased used ------ 2 l l l 3 2 2 1/ The quantity of each type of garment weighted by the average price paid for new items by these families. g} 0.05 or less. wives obtained relatively more of the items as new gifts and homemade garments and relatively less as used gifts and garments bought in used condition. Wives' clothing from these sources were mainly street dresses, heavy coats, suits, blouses, sweaters, skirts, slacks, and nightwear. Men who were heads of families obtained more of their year's clothing acquisitions by purchase of new items than any other family member. They received only 19 percent of their acquisitions from other sources--8 percent new and 6 percent used, as gifts from outside the family, and 2 percent each bought used and received from miscellaneous sources. The men's garments from supplementary sources were mainly suits, dress and sport shirts, and work clothes. The data in this study are for the period from Easter 1965 to Easter 1966. They were obtained from 419 families in Des Moines, Iowa, living in census tracts where median family income in 1959 was below the city's median. Of the families in the sample, 15 percent had incomes in 1965 of less than $3,000, 33 percent $3,000 to $5,999, 39percent $6,000 to $9,999, and 13 percent $10,000 or more. About 12 percent of the families received some money from public or private welfare--8 percent receiving more than 75 percent of their income from this source. The survey included only families with a 4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW '• husband, a wife under age 45, and 0 to 5 children or with a woman family head under 45 and 1 to 5 children (351 and 68 families, respectively). A total of 367 boys and 342 girls 2 to 17 years old and 124 infants and children under 2 were included. More information will be available later from this study. The purpose of the study was to investigate acquisition and use of clothing by families, as a basis for lowincome clothing budgets. --Virginia Britton TIME SPENT IN HOUSEHOLD WORK BY HOMEMAKERS .!/ Despite the automatic equipment and convenience foods available, homemakers today spend many hours on work in and for the home. This is especially true of women with small children and those with large families. Homemakers who are gainfully employed also have long workdays, as they combine homemaking with jobs outside the home. These are conclusions from analysis of data collected in 1967-68 from a stratified random sample of 1, 296 husband-wife families in the Syracuse, New York, area. The average time used for household work by homemakers in the 1,296 families was about 7 hours a day (see table). Those with no children in the home averaged about 5 hours. As the number of children increased, so did the amount of time spent by the homemaker. Her time averaged about 7 hours a day in families with 1 child, 8 hours in families with 2, 3, and 4 children, and about 9 hours in families with 5 or more children. The ages of the children also made a difference. The averagetimevaried from 9.3 hours for homemakers if the youngest child was less than 1 year old to 6 hours if the youngest was 12 to 17 years of age. In families with gainfully employed homemakers, the number of hours spent in household work decreased as the number of hours in employment increased. The homemakers who were not gainfully employed averaged about 8 hours a day in household work. Homemaking time decreased to about 7 hours a day for women employed 1 to 14 hours a week, 6 hours for those employed 15 to 29 hours, and 5 hours for those employed 30 or more hours a week. If time spent in volunteer work as well as paid employment and household tasks is counted, the working day averaged about 9 hours for full-time homemakers and 10 hours for the women employed 30 or more hours a week. The reduced homemaking time for gainfully employed homemakers probably reflects, in part, more effective use of time and a tendency to eliminate some household work. But it undoubtedly reflects even more the fact that the gainfully employed homemakers, as a group, had fewer children--small children, especially--than the full-time homemakers. The New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell University conducted the survey of use of time in homemaking, on which this report is based. The 1,296 fam- 1/ From a paper by Kathryn E. Walker, associate professor in the Department of Consu~ er Economics and Public Policy, New York State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University. Dr. Walker is principal investigator for the research project that provided the data for this report. The project is being financed in part by a grant from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division. SEPTEMBER 1969 5 Average hours per day spent on household work by 1,296 homemakers, by number of children, age of youngest child, and hours per week of paid employment, Syracuse, New York area, 1967-68 Item Hours Item Hours All homemakers --- 7.3 Age of youngest child Number of children Under 1 year --------- 9-3 1 year --------------- 8.3 0 -------------- 4.8 2 to 5 years --------- 7.7 1 -------------- 6.8 6 to 11 years -------- 7.1 2 -------------- 7.8 12 to 17 years ------- 6.0 3 -------------- 7.7 4 -------------- 8.2 Paid employment per week 5 or 6 --------- 8.5 7 to 9 --------- 9.2 None ----------------- 8.1 1 to 14 hours -------- 7.3 15 to 29 hours ------- 6.3 30 hours or more ----- 4.8 ilies in the survey provided a total of 2,592 daily records of time use, equallydistributed among the days of the week and seasons of the year. Interviewers asked each homemaker to recall time use on the previous day for one record. Another was left for the home- maker to fill out with the help of the family for a designated second day. Data from the study, which are in the process of being analyzed, will yield much more information about time spent on homemaking tasks. Findings will be reported as they become available. MONEY VALUE AND ADEQUACY OF DIETS COMPARED WITH THE USDA FOOD PLANS How does family food spending compare with the cost of the USDA food plans? How likely are diets to be nutritionally adequate in families spending what the USDA food plans cost? Answers to these questions are currently of interest to many people--particularly those using the estimated cost of the USDA plans for setting money allowances for food or for other social welfare purposes. The nationwide household food consumption survey of 1965 is the most up-to-date source of such information on the money value and nutritional adequacy of diets . .!/ .!/ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Levels of Households in the United States, Spring 1965. U.S. Dept. Agr. Household Food Consumption Survey 1965-66, Rpt. No.6. 1969. For 'sale for $1.00 by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. 20402. 6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Money Value of Food Used by Families and the Cost of USDA Food Plans Of every 10 urban families surveyed in 1965, 1 used food valued below the cost of the economy plan; 2 used food valued below the low-cost plan; and 4 used food valued below the moderate-cost plan (see table). The food used by 4 of every 10 families was valued at or above the cost of the liberal food plan. 'Y Percentage of urban families in 3 income groups using food at home valued below the cost of USDA food plans, spring 1965 ~ Families using food valued below the cost of-- Income Economy Low-cost Moderate- Liberal plan plan cost plan plan Percent Percent Percent Percent All ---------------- 10 22 41 60 Under $3,000 ------- 23 38 59 75 $5,000 to $6,999 --- 8 19 39 60 $10,000 and over --- 2 7 21 41 ~ Estimated from the distribution of survey families by money value of food per person and the estimated cost of the food plan per person in a family of the average size and composition of the income class. Of every 10 urban families with incomes under $3, 000, 2 used food with value below the cost of the economy plan; 4 below the low-cost plan; and 6 below the moderate- cost plan. Even among families with incomes of $10, 000 or more, a few used food valued at less than the cost of each of the two lower plans. To facilitate comparisons such as this, the survey data have been adjusted to the basis of 21 meals per person per week from home food supplies. The estimated costs of the USDA food plan also represent the total cost of a family's food for a week if all meals are eaten at home or carried from home. The survey values include expenditures for food and beverages, plus the retail value of foods that were donated, received as gift or pay, and home produced. Quality of Diets at Cost Levels of USDA Food Plans The USDA food plans include foods that provide the Recommended Dietary Allow- 2/ Cost estimates for the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans are published qu;:-rterly in Family Economics Review (see p. 23). Estimates for the economy plan, which costs less than the low-cost plan, are available upon request from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. SEPTEMBER 1969 7 ances set by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Y A family using food valued at the level of the estimated cost of a USDA plan will have a nutritionally adequate diet if it selects foods of the kinds and quantities given in the plans. However, money alone does not insure an adequate diet. Many families in the 1965 survey who used food with a money value at the level of the cost of the food plans--even the liberal plan--had diets that did not provide recommended amounts of nutrients. Below are preliminary estimates of how many urban families in 1965 had diets that were good and how many diets that were fair or better. Diets were considered good if they provided the recommended allowances ( 1963) for all nutrients, and fair or better if they provided at least two-thirds of the allowances. Of the survey families with food valued at the cost of the-- Economy plan ----------Low- cost plan ---------Moderate- cost plan ----- Liberal plan ----------- the percentage with good diets was -- less than 10 30 50 60 and the percentage with diets that were fair or better was-- less than 50 60 so 90 On the basis of these findings, about 3 out of 10 families using food valued at the cost of the low-cost plan would be expected to have good diets, and 6 out of 10 might have diets that are fair or better. Less than 1 out of 10 families using food valued at the cost of the economy plan would be expected to have good diets, but as many as 5 out of 10 might have diets that are fair or better. Because so few families using food at the cost level of the economy plan get good or even fair diets, USDAnutritionists and food economists recommend thatpublic assistance agencies consider the low-cost rather than the economy plan as a standard for money allowances for food. Use of the economy plan as a standard might be justified for families receiving other types of food assistance such as donated foods, free school lunches, or food stamps with value well above what the family pays for them. A homemaker must have great skill and interest in shopping for and preparing food if she is to provide her family with a good diet at the cost of the economy plan. Many welfare recipients do not have such skill or interest. Moreover, many do not have equipment needed for preparing some of the inexpensive foods that are included in such diets. Need for expanded programs of education in food selection and nutrition is indicated, because some families at every cost level do not use foods that furnish nutritionally good or fair diets. The need is especially great for families with limited money for food, as at the level of the economy food plan. --Betty Peterkin and Faith Clark y The USDA plans meet the allowances for food energy, protein, calcium, vitamin A value, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and ascorbic acid listed in the 1963 and 1968 editions of Recommended Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. They provide as much iron as the 1963 edition recommends and as the 1968 edition indicates the usual diet is expected to have--that is, 6 mg. per 1, 000 calories. 8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW • ., USE OF APPLES BY U.S. HOUSEHOLDS U.S. households used an average of 32 cents worth of apples a week in spring 1965, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's nationwide household food consumption survey. This amount represented about 1 cent of the family'~ food dollar. About two-thirds of the expenditure was for fresh apples and one-third for processed apple products--mainly canned sauce and juices. The quantity of fresh apples used during the week of the survey averaged 1. 38 pounds per household. The quantity used per person was 0. 42 pound, ranging from 0. 35 pound in the South to 0. 47 in the North Central Region (fig. 1). Assuming 3 or 4 apples to a pound, these levels of use would not permit families to follow the advice of the adage "An apple a day keeps the .doctor away." Larger quantities would likely have been reported if the survey had been done in the fall when apples are being harvested. Information the families gave about the fresh fruits used during the week indicates that apples were more popular than oranges but less so than bananas, since the three fruits were used by 45, 31, and 52 percent of the households, respectively (fig. 2). The proportion using apples varied among income groups, from 30 percent of the families with less than $1, 000 to 51 percent of those at the $15, 000-and-over level. Canned apples--sauce and slices--were used by 23 percent of the households, varying from 13 percent of farm to 24 percent of city households. More high- than lowincome families used canned apples also (fig. 3). Canned applesauce and slices ranked about equal with canned peaches and considerably higher than canned pineapple and apricots in percentage of households using them. Canned and bottled apple juice, including cider, was used by about 7 percent of U.S. households, varying from 3 percent of those with incomes under $3, 000 to 12 percent with $10, 000 or more (fig. 4). Apple juice ranked considerably lower than ca:D.ned or frozen orange juice but higher than canned grapefruit juice in the proportion of families reporting its use. · The percentage of households reporting the use of apples and a pp 1 e products during a week in spring was about the same in i965 as in 1955. The average quantity of FRESH APPLES USED PER PERSON PER WEEK, BY RE610N UN I TED STATES .42 1ba . NORTHEAST NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH WEST Figure 1 SEPTEMBER 1969 55 45 ' 35 25 15 D ~~ FRESH APPLES, BAIIAIIAS AIID ORAII6ES HOUSEHOLDS USIII&, BY INCOME L. ............... -""":: v.,., .... -- ..L""_ --·- ~ _,.. .L:: ~ r r- ~ __/ v-----.. D 2 l ' I 10 15& IIICOME (11,000) over "·'·· 1 w:u ......... , ... , Figure 2 9 I CAllED fRUITS HOUSEHOLD$ USIII, IY IICOME • •• •• 1 .. Ql .......... . Figure 3 I 10 10 APPLE" AID CITRUS JUICES HOUSEHOLDS USIII, IY IICGM£ z •....,_.c•- . ' IICOMI (11,000) tl.l. ·- ....... It Figure 4 fresh apples used per household was also about the same. However, more families in 1965 than 10years earlier used canned apple sauce and slices--23 compared with 15percent-- and more used apple juice--7 compared with 2 percent. Source: Adapted from material in a talk by Daniel A. Swope at the National Apple Uti_lization Conference in Yakima, Wash., May 1969. OCCUPATIONS OF WOMEN WORKERS Women workers in the United States are increasing steadily, both in numbers and as a proportion of the total labor force. The number of women in nonfarm jobs increased from about 16.3 million to 28.2 million between 1950 and 1969, and the proportion of the total nonfarm work force made up of women increased from 31 to 38 percent. The number of women workers increased in each occupational category except private household workers (see table). Women also became a larger percentage of each category except professional and technical workers, and managers and officials. Women's largest gains in number employed were in .clerical jobs. The number of clerical jobs held by women increased from about 4.5 to 9.8 million, raising the proportion of all jobs in this field held by women from 62 percent to 74 percent. Women's advances in professional and technical jobs--which generally require more education, offer more in job security and income, and involve more responsibility --were less impressive. The number of women in professional and technical jobs increased from 1.9 to 4.1 million between1950and 1969. Since the number ofmen in these jobs increased even more, however, the proportion of professional and technical jobs held by women declined slightly, from 40 to 38 percent. The proportion of the managerial, official, and proprietorial positions held by women remained at 15 percent. Women in service occupations (other than private household work) advanced from 2.2 to 4·. 7 million. These occupations include such workers as waitresses, cooks, beau- 10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW r it l ~. ( Women in nonfarm employment: Number, percentage of total work force, and distribution, by occupation Number of wome~ Proportion of Distribution Occupation work force who of women were women workers 1969 I 1960 I 1950 1969 I 1960 I 1950 1969 ll960l 1950 Thous. Thous. Thous. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet . Pet. Total -------- 28,224 21,229 16,260 38 35 31 100 100 Professional and technical workers 4,114 2,856 1,920 38 38 40 15 13 Managers, officials, and proprietors - 1,208 1,021 941 15 15 15 4 5 Clerical workers -- 9,787 6,525 4,481 74 68 62 35 31 Sales workers ----- 1,906 1,728 l, 516 42 39 39 7 8 Operatives~------ 4,819 3,676 3,464 17 15 15 17 17 Service workers (except private household) ----- 4,740 3,277 2,168 59 53 45 17 15 Private household workers --------- 1,648 2,146 1,771 97 98 92 6 10 !/ Includes women age 16 and over in 1969, age 14 and over in 1960 and 1950. gj Includes a few laborers, craftsmen, and foremen. Pet. 100 12 6 28 9 21 13 ll Details may not add to totals because of rounding, Data are for April of each year. ticians, practical nurses, policewomen, and cleaning women. Women held 59 percent of the service jobs in 1969, compared with 45 percent in 1950, the largest increase in the proportion of women in any of the occupational fields. In sales work and in jobs as operatives.!/ such as factory workers and laundry and dry cleaning workers, the number of women increased less during the period than in most other occupations, but the increases were still somewhat greater than for men. Women were 42 percent of all sales workers and 17 percent of all operatives in 1969 compared with 39 and 15 percent, respectively, in 1950. Occupational Distribution of Women in the Nonfarm Labor Force Of all women working in April 1969, a much larger proportion was employed as clerical workers--such as typists, bookkeepers, office machine operators, and bank tellers--than in any other occupation. About 35 percent were clerical workers, 17 percent operatives, 17 percent service workers (other than private household), and 15 percent professional or technical workers. Only 4 to 7 percent of the women were in each of the other three occupational categories--managerial and official, sales, and private household service. Comparison of these figures with the corresponding ones for 1950 shows that clerical, professional and technical, and service (except household) occupations had increased in favor with women, while the others had declined. The two largest .!/ Includes laborers, craftsmen, and foremen. SEPTEMBER 1969 11 "white collar" groups--clerical, and professional and technical--together accounted for 50 percent of all women in the nonfarm work force in 1969, compared with 40 percent in 1950. --Katherine D. Smythe Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force. May 1969; and Barry, Carol, "White Collar Employment: II- Characteristics," Monthly Labor Review. February 1961. BUDGET GUIDES The Consumer and Food Economics Research Division receives many requests for help with budgets. These requests usually ask how much money or what percentage of income should be spent for food, clothing, rent, and the other budget items. Although no quick and easy formula is available, some useful guides can be provided. These are of two types: "Prepared," "constructed," or "standard" budgets that have been developed by many agencies to answer the question "How much does it cost a family to live?"; and general "how-to" directions for making and carrying out a plan for spending and saving. Prepared Budgets USDA food budgets. --One widely used prepared budget is the U. S. Department of Agriculture's estimated cost of food in food plans at low, moderate, and liberal cost. These food plans suggest amounts of food in 11 food groups that together provide a nutri-tionally adequate diet. The plans and estimates of the cost at home of food in the plans are given for men, women, boys, and girls of different ages. A food budget for any fam-ily can be made by adding the costs for persons in that family, using the cost level of the food plan best suited to the family's income and needs. Many welfare agencies use the cost of the low-cost plan to establish money allowances for food. The estimated cost of food in the USDA food plans is updated every 3 months, to reflect changing food prices. Once a year the costs are calculated for each of the four regions of the United States. The costs of the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans are published in Family Economics Review and also as a separate leaflet. An economy plan, costing less than the low-cost plan and for use in emergency situations, is available upon request. Budgets of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. --The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has prepared budgets for moderate, lower, and higher standards of living for an urban family of four persons--an employed husband aged 38; his wife, who is not employed; a boy 13; and a girl 8. BLS also has a budget for an urban retired couple at a moderate standard of living. Cost estimates for the budgets are given for each of 39 metropolitan areas and for a sample of nonmetropolitan areas with population of 2, 500 to 50, 000 in each of the four regions. BLS has also developed a scale that can be used to estimate for families of other sizes and types the cost of a budget comparable to that for the 4-person family at a moderate standard of living. BLS plans to revise the budget costs annually. 12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW The BLS budgets are useful as guides for social and legislative programs on wages, prices, credit, public assistance, and taxes; for evaluating adequacy of incomes of groups of families; and for measuring differences in living costs among cities and areas. The budget quantities and pricing specifications can be used to estimate costs for areas not in the BLS list. These budgets are not meant to show how families should. spend their money or to use as patterns of spending by families. Other prepared budgets.-- Many other prepared budgets have been developed, especiallyby agencies responsiblefor determining allotments for needy families. These budgets vary widely from place to place, in keeping with local needs, prices, and resources. Other Budget Guides The Consumer an~ Food Economics Research Division of the USDA has prepared three general budget guides. One for beginning families is a bulletin titled "A Guide to Budgeting for the Young Couple." For families a little further along in the family cycle, "A Guide to Budgeting for the Family" is better. These publications give step-by-step directions for planning and carrying out a spending plan, but no set formulas for dividing the income among budget items. They include forms that may be used in setting up the budget and recording expenditures. The third publication, "Helping Families Manage Their Finances, " is for use by teachers and other leaders who work with families on budget preparation. The Federal Extension Service has prepared a publication on budgeting for lowincome families called "Managing Your Money ... A Family Plan." General budget guides are available from many State Extension offices, financial and business sources. Following are directions for ordering the budget materials mentioned above, plus a few others. Some are available free, others for sale only. Order by title and number from the source given. Please give your ZIP code with your return address. • Budget guides prepared by the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division (1) Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Informa-tion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250: A Guide to Budgeting for the Young Couple, HG-98. A Guide to Budgeting for the Family, HG-108. Food for the Young Couple, HG-85. Food for the Family with Young Children, HG-5. Food Guide For Older Folks, HG-17. ( 2) Single copies of the following are available free from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782: Cost of Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels. CFE(Adm.)- 256. Sample Menus and Food Lists for OneWeekBasedon the USDA Economy Food Plan. CA 62-20. Family Economics Review. ARS 62-5. (Published quarterly. Includes cost estimates for the USDA food plans and other information relating to budgeting. Mailing list limited to teachers and other professional workers.) SEPTEMBER 1969 13 • • ( 3) The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402: Helping Families Manage Their Finances. HERR No. 21. (A publication for teachers and adult leaders.) 40 cents. Food for Families with School Children. HG-13. 15 cents. Family Food Budgeting ... For Good Meals and Good Nutrition. HG-94. 15 cents. Budgets prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402: 3 Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-5. $1. 00. Retired Couple's Budget for a Moderate Living Standard. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-4. 35 cents. Revised Equivalence Scale for Estimating Equivalent Incomes or Budget Costs by Family Type. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. No. 1570-2. 35 cents. Federal Extension Service budget guide for low-income families: Managing Your Money ... A Family Plan. For sale for 10 cents by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. --Emma G. Holmes THE COST OF BUYING A HOME Buying a home is the biggest single investment many families make. Few families have enough savings to pay the purchase price outright. The more common practice is to make a downpayment from savings and borrow the remainder, giving a mortgage to the person or agency making the loan. The mortgage terms--the rate of interest and the length of time taken to repay the loan--and the size of the downpayment can make a big difference in the total cost of the home. At interest rates of 7 1/2 to 10 percent, interest alone on a $20, 000 home may cost from $12, 010 to $38, 720 if the purchase is financed with an $18, 000 mortgage loan payable in 15 to 30 years (see table). A variation of even one-half of one percent in the interest rate makes a considerable difference. The intereston a 25-year, $18,000 mortgage loan at 7 l/2 percent totals $21,900, at 8 percent $23,650, at 8 l/2 percent $25,380, at 9 percent $27,200, at 9 l/2 percent $29,130, and at 10 percent $31,010. The monthly payments are about $6 more at 8 than 7 1/2 percent, and $7 more at 10. than 9 1/2 percent. Although $6 or $7 a month may not seem a large amount, it adds up when paid over such a long period of time. As short a mortgage repayment period as possible is desirable to keep interest costs down. At 8 l/2 percent, interest on an $18,000 loan repaid in 15 years costs about· $13, 900, in 20 years about $19, 480, in 25 years about $25, 380, and in 30 years about 14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Monthly payments and total interest cost to buy a $20, 000 home, by size of downpayment, rate of inter est, and length of mortgage term Down- I .Amount Monthly payments I Total inter est payment borr owed 15 yrs. I 20 yr s . ] 25 yrs . I 30 yrs . 15 yr s . I 20 yr s . I 25 yrs. I 30 yrs . 7 1/ 2 percent interest Dol. Dol. D-o-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. Dol. D-o-l. Dol. Dol. D-o-l. 0 20, 000 186 161 148 140 13, 340 18, 650 24 , 330 30,190 500 19, 500 181 157 144 136 13, 010 18, 180 23 , 720 29, 430 1,000 19, 000 176 153 140 133 12, 670 17,710 23 ,120 28, 680 2,000 18, 000 167 145 133 126 12, 010 16, 780 21, 900 27,170 3, 000 17, 000 158 137 126 il9 ll, 340 15, 850 20, 680 25, 660 4, ooo 16, 000 148 129 ll8 ll2 10, 670 14, 920 19, 470 24, 150 5, 000 15, 000 139 121 ill 105 10, 000 13, 980 18, 250 22, 640 6,000 14, ooo 130 ll3 103 98 9,340 13, 050 17, 030 21, 130 8, ooo 12, 000 ill 97 89 84 8, 000 il, l90 14, 600 18, il0 10, 000 10, 000 93 81 74 70 6, 670 9, 320 12, 170 15, 090 8 percent interest 0 20, 000 191 167 154 147 14, 390 20, ll0 26, 280 32,780 500 19, 500 186 163 151 143 14, 030 19, 610 25, 630 31, 960 1, 000 19, 000 182 159 147 139 13, 670 19, il0 24, 970 31, 140 2, 000 18, 000 172 151 139 132 12, 950 i8,100 23 , 650 29, 500 3, 000 17, 000 163 !42 131 125 12, 230 17, 090 22, 340 27, 860 4, ooo 16,000 153 134 124 ll7 il, 520 16, 090 21, 030 26, 220 5, 000 15, 000 143 126 ll6 ilO 10, 800 15, 080 19, 710 24, 58o 6, 000 14, 000 134 il7 loB 103 lO, o80 14, 080 18, 400 22,940 8, ooo 12, 000 il5 100 93 88 8, 640 12, 070 15, 770 19, 670 10, 000 10, 000 96 84 77 73 7, 200 10, 060 13, 140 16, 390 8 1/2 per cent interest 0 20, 000 197 174 161 154 15, 440 21, 640 28, 200 35, 340 ~0 19, 500 192 169 157 150 15, 050 21, 100 27, 500 34, 460 1, 000 19, 000 187 165 153 146 14, 670 20, 560 26,790 33, 570 2, 000 18, 000 177 156 145 138 13, 900 19, 480 25, 380 31, 810 3, 000 17, 000 167 148 137 131 13, 120 18, 4oo 23 , 970 30, 040 4, ooo 16, ooo 158 139 129 123 12, 350 17, 310 22, 560 . 28, 270 5, 000 15, 000 148 130 121 ll5 il, 580 16, 230 21, 150 26, 500 6,ooo 14, 000 138 122 il3 108 10, 810 15, 150 19, 740 24, 740 8, ooo 12, 000 ll8 104 97 92 9, 260 12, 990 16, 920 21, 200 10, 000 10, 000 98 87 81 77 7, 720 10, 820 14, 100 17, 670 9 percent interest 0 20, 000 203 180 168 161 16, 490 23, 160 30, 220 37, 820 500 19, 500 198 176 164 157 16,070 22, 580 29, 460 36,880 1, 000 19, 000 193 171 160 153 15, 660 22, 000 28,710 35, 930 2, 000 18, 000 183 162 151 145 14, 840 20, 850 27, 200 34, 040 3, 000 17, 000 173 153 143 137 14, 010 19, 690 25, 690 32,150 4, ooo 16, 000 162 144 134 129 13,190 18, 530 24,180 30, 260 5, 000 15,000 152 135 126 121 12, 360 17, 370 22, 670 28, 370 6, 000 14, 000 142 126 il8 113 il, 540 16, 210 21,150 26, 480 8, 000 12, 000 122 lo8 101 97 9, 890 13, 900 18, 130 22, 690 10, 000 10, 000 102 90 84 80 8, 240 11, 580 15, il0 18, 910 9 1/2 percent interest 0 20, 000 209 187 175 168 17, 560 24, 660 32, 370 40, 490 500 19, 500 2o4 182 170 164 17, 120 24, 040 31, 560 39,480 1, 000 19, 000 199 177 166 160 16, 680 23, 430 30,750 38, 470 2, 000 18, 000 188 168 157 151 15, 800 22,190 29, 130 36, 440 3, 000 17, 000 178 159 149 143 14, 920 20, 960 27, 510 34, 420 4,000 16, 000 167 149 140 135 14, 050 19, 730 25, 890 32, 390 5, 000 . 15, 000 157 140 131 126 13,170 18, 500 24, 270 30, 370 6,000 14, 000 146 131 122 il8 12, 290 17, 260 22, 660 28, 340 8 , 000 12, 000 125 112 105 101 10, 540 14, 800 19, 420 .24 , 300 10,000 10, 000 104 93 87 84 8, 780 12, 330 16, 180 20, 250 SEPTEMBER 1969 15 Monthly payments and total interest cost to buy a $20, 000 home, by size of downpayment, rate of interest, and length of mortgage term (continued ) Down- .Amount Monthly payments Total interest payment borrowed 15 yrs . I 20 yrs . I 25 yrs . I 30 yrs . 15 yrs . I 20 yrs . I 25 yrs . I 30 yr s . 10 percent interest D-o-l. D-o-l. -Dol-. -Do-l. D-o-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. D-ol-. 0 20,000 215 193 182 176 18, 670 26, 220 34, 460 43, 020 500 19, 500 210 188 177 171 18, 200 25, 570 33, 600 41, 950 1,000 19, 000 2o4 184 173 167 17, 730 24, 910 32,740 40, 870 2, 000 18,000 194 174 164 158 16, 800 23 , 600 31, 010 38, 720 3, 000 17, 000 183 164 155 149 15,870 22, 290 29, 290 36, 570 4, 000 16, ooo 172 155 145 140 14, 930 20, 980 27 , 570 34, 420 5, 000 15,000 161 145 136 132 14, ooo 19, 670 25,840 32, 270 6, 000 14,000 150 135 127 123 13, 070 18, 360 24 ,120 30,120 8, ooo 12, 000 129 ll6 109 105 ll, 200 15,730 20, 670 25,810 10, 000 10,000 1o8 97 91 88 9, 330 13,ll0 17, 230 21, 510 Note : Monthly payments rounded to nearest $1; total interest rounded to nearest $10 . $31, 810. When these amounts of interest are added to the original price of a $20, 000 home, the actual cost is between $33, 900 and $51, 810. A large downpayment also reduces the cost of interest in buying a home. Each $1, 000 of downpayment on a 25-year, 8 1/2 percent loan reduces the interest by about $1,410. On a $20, 000 home, for example, if the downpayment is $1, 000, total interest on the amount borrowed costs about $26, 790; if the downpayment is $2, 000, the interest costs about $25 , 380. A large downpayment may also make a loan easier to obtain and a lower interest rate available, besides giving the buyer a greater equity in the home. Not long ago the prevailing interest rate was about 6 percent. At 6 percent, interest on an $18,000 mortgage loan repaid in 25 years would cost about $16, 740 compared with about $25,380 at 8 1/2 percent--a difference of $8,640. Monthly payments on the mortgage at 6 percent would be $116 and at 8 1/2 percent $145. A desirable contract for a mortgage loan will provide for the right to repay the loan at a faster rate than originally agreed upon. Then if the family's financial situation improves , it can make larger payments and pay off the debt earlier . This provision is particularly important when interest rates are high. --Lucile F. Mork HOME MORTGAGE DEBT Mortgage debt on 1- to 4-family nonfarm houses totaled $251 billion at the end of 1968 (see table). It had risen 38 percent during the 5 years since the end of 1963, due to the larger number of mortgaged homes--26 million in 1968 compared with 22 million in 1963--and the larger average debt per home--$9,600 compared with $8,395. The average (median) cost of new !-family homes had increased during the period from $18,000 to $24,600. This increase was due partly to higher land and construction costs and partly to the building of larger homes with more equipment included in the price. About 20 percent of the debt at the end of 1968 was in mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), 13 percent was guaranteed by the Veterans Ad- 16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Number of mortgaged 1- to 4-family nonfarm houses, total and average mortgage debt, and distribution by type, end of year, 1963 to 1968 Mortgage debt Number of Average Distribution by type Year mortgaged per VA- Con-houses Total mortgaged Total FHA- guar- ven-house insured anteed tional -Mi-l. Bil. dol. Dol. Pet. -Pe-t. -Pe-t. Pet. 1963 --- 21.7 182 8,395 100 19 17 64 1964 --- 22.7 198 8,710 100 19 16 65 1965 --- 23.6 213 9,045 100 20 15 66 1966 --- 24.4 224 9,160 100 20 14 66 1967 --- 25.2 236 9,355 100 20 14 66 1968 --- 26.2 251 9,600 100 20 13 66 Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. ministration (VA), and 67 percent was in other mortgages, commonly known as conventional mortgages. Most of the funds for all three types of mortgage loans were from savings and loan associations, banks, and life insurance companies. Foreclosures on mortgages were at the rate of 3. 47 per thousand in 1968 compared with 4. 52 per thousand in 1963. In 1968, 95 percent of the purchases of new 1-family houses were financed with a mortgage loan--62 percent conventional, 20 percent FHA-insured, and 13 percent VAguaranteed. The median sales prices of the new homes financed with the three types of loans were $28, 500, $19,400, and $19, 900, respectively. Buyers of higher priced new houses are likely to use conventional mortgage financing, partly because of the ceiling on the amount that can be borrowed on an FHA- or VA -backed loan. Details similar to these are not available on purchases of existing homes, though many more existing than new homes are bought in a year. The loan/price ratio was higher and the mortgage repayment period longer for FHA-insured than conventional loans made in 1968. On new homes, the average FHA mortgage covered 92 percent of the price and allowed 29. 9 years to pay; the average conventional mortgage covered 74percent of the price and allowed 25.5 years to pay. On existing homes, average repayment periods were shorter--28. 4 and 22. 7 years for the respective types of loans--but loan/price ratios were about the same as on new homes. The average interest rate on conventional mortgages in 1968 was 6. 83 percent on new and 6.90 percent on existing homes. On FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgages, the highest permissible interest rate was 6 percent until May 1968 and 6 3/4 percent for the rest of the year. --Lucie G. Krassa Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: (1) Housing and Urban Development Trends, May 1969, and (2) FHA Trends of Home Mortgage Characteristics, 4th Qtr. 1968. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Federal Reserve Bulletin, Oct. 1968. SEPTEMBER 1969 17 PRICE INDEX RISES FOR NEW HOUSES The price index for new one-family houses sold increased about 7 percent from 1967 to 1968, according to the Bureau of the Census. This increase accounted for over one-third of the 18 percent gain in the index since 1963, the first year for which it is available. Indexes for 1963 to 1968 (1963 = 100) and the year-to-year changes are as follows: Year Index Percent change from Erevious ~ear 1963 100.0 1964 101.1 1.1 1965 103.5 2.4 1966 106.5 2.9 1967 110.3 3.6 1968 117.9 6.9 The index is designed to measure changes in sales prices of new houses with the same characteristics. Changes in the average prices actually paid for new houses reflect changes in the characteristics of the houses as well. In contrast to the 18 percent rise in the price index for houses from 1963 to 1968, the average price actually paid for new homes increased about 37 percent due, in part, to the shift to larger houses with more equipment. SURVEY OF OCCUPANTS OF NEW HOUSING UNITS The typical owner moving into a new home between October 1965 and March 1966 was a family of 4 or more, headed by a man 25 to 44years old and his wife, according to a survey by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). The nationwide Survey of Occupants of New Housing Units included a sample of households that, between October 1965 and March 1966, had moved as owners into new single-family homes or as renters into new buildings with 5 or more dwelling units. Mailed questionnaires filled in and returned by 2,110 owners and 629 renters provided inforiJlation HUD has reported in a publication that also reports on a mobile homes survey. !I This article summarizes the survey of new housing units. New Owner-Occu:Eied Housing and Its Occupants The occuEants.--Most--94percent--of the households that moved into new homes as owners were families with both husband and wife present (table 1). Nearly all of the couples had been married at least 2 years, and most of them had been married 5 years or more. Almost three-fifths of the households had 4 or more members . .!/ U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Surve~s, Parts 1 and 2: OccuEants of New Housing Units; Mobile Homes and the HousingSu:EEly. For sale for $1.25 by the Supt. Doc., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. , Washington, D. C. 20402. 18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW Many more households owning new homes were headed by persons aged 25 to 44 years than by younger or older persons. Heads aged 25 to 44 --the period when family housing needs are likely to be growing--comprised almost two-thirds of the total. In contrast, households with heads under 25years and 65years or older were only 6 and 4percent of the total, respectively. Annual earnings--wages and salaries--between $6,000 and $9,999 were reported by 39 percent of the new owners. About 20 percent earned less than $6,000 and 27 percent $10,000 or more. No report on earnings was received from 14 percent. Of the households that moved into new owner-occupied homes, 54 percent had owned the house from which they moved, 42 percent moved from rented quarters, and 4 percent were newly formed households establishing their first home. Why did they move? The reason mentioned more often than any other--by 26 percent of the households--was that they wanted a home of their own. Other reasons of about equal importance-- given by 17 to 20 percent--were the desire for a better house or neighborhood, the desire for a larger or smaller dwelling (usually larger), and job-related motives, such as a job change to a new location or a need to be closer to work. Another 7 percent of the households moved because of a change in family status, such as an increase or decrease in size. Most of the moves were quite short, 78 percent being less than 25 miles. Only 8 percent of the households moved 500 miles or more. The houses. --The trend toward larger houses with more comforts is evident in this study. The new owner-occupied houses included 36 percent with 7 or more rooms and only 7 percent with less than 5 rooms (table 2). According to the 1960 Census, houses completed in 1959 and early 1960 included only 16 percent with 7 or more rooms and 21 percent with less than 5. The new homes the surveyfamilies moved into were mainly 3- and 4-bedroom houses with more than one bathroom. About one-fourth of those moving into new owned homes reported paying less than ' $15,000 for them. These families probably included most if not all of the 14percent who did at least part of their own construction work. Only 8 percent paid $35, 000 or more. Mortgage loans were used to finance 86 percent of the purchases, including 23 percent backed by the Federal Housing or Veterans Administration. Downpayments ranged from less than 10 percent (28 percent of buyers) to 40 percent or more (10 percent). Mortgage payments amounted to less than $100 a month for about 25 percent of the new-home occupants, $100 to $150 for 31 percent, and $150 or more for 24 percent. The rest were not paying on a mortgage or did not report. New Rental Units and Their Occupants The occupants. --The households that moved into new rental units of the type surveyed were, as a group, quite different from the new homeowners. Only 62 percent of them were husband-wife households, the other 38 percent included 25 percent made up of a person living alone and 13 percent with other combinations of related or unrelated persons sharing the unit. Almost three-fourths of the renters had households of 1 or 2 persons, and only 9 percent were in the 4-or-more person class that was most common among the new homeowners. The renters were a relatively young group, also. In about one-fourth of the renter households the head was under 2 5 years and in another ona_-fourth, 25 to 34 years old. On the other hand, households headed by persons 55 years o 1 d or SEPTEMBER 1969 19 Table 1 .--Characteristics of households movi ng as owners into new one- family homes and as renters into new units in buildings with 5 or more units , October 1965 to March 1966 Households Households Item moving into-- Item moving i nto-- Owned I Rented Owned I Rent ed Percent Percent Percent Percent Composition Tenure 2 previous dwellin~ Husband-wife ----- 94 62 Owner ----------------- 54 21 Other ------------ 5 38 Renter ---------------- 42 54 Not reported ----- 1 - Newly formed household 4 25 -Siz-e Annual earnings 1 person --------- 2 25 Less than $6,000 ------ 20 25 2 persons -------- 21 48 $6,000 to $9,999 ------ 39 33 3 persons ------ -- 19 18 $10,000 to $14,999 ---- 19 18 4 or 5 persons --- 44 8 $1 5, 000 and over ------ 8 6 6 or more persons 14 1 Not reported ---------- 14 18 Age of head Reasons for moving Under 25 years --- 6 23 Desire for own place -- 26 2 25 to 34 years --- 32 26 Better home , neighbor - 35 to 44 years --- 30 12 hood ---- ------------ 20 19 45 to 54 years --- 17 7 Larger or smaller unit 18 14 55 to 64 years --- 7 9 Job related ----------- 17 23 65 years or over - 4 7 Change in family status 7 26 Not reported ----- 4 16 Other or not reported - 12 16 Table 2 .--Characteristics and financing of new owner- occupied one - family homes moved into between October 1965 and March 1966 Item Homes Item Homes Percent l} Percent Number of rooms Purchase price 4 or less ------------- 7 Less than $10, 000 ---- - 8 5 --------------------- 29 $10,000 to $14,999 ---- 18 6 --------------------- 28 $15,000 to $19,999 ---- 25 7 --------------------- 17 $20,000 to $24, 999 ---- 17 8 or more ------------- 19 $25 , 000 to $34,999 ---- 18 Number of bedrooms $35 , 000 or more ------- 8 2 or less ------------- 12 Not reported ---------- 6 3 --------------------- 62 Monthly payments 4 or more -------- ----- 25 Less than $100 -------- 25 Not reported ---------- l $100 to $149 ---------- 31 Number of bathrooms $150 to $199 ---------- 16 None or partial only -- 2 $200 or more ---------- 8 l --------------------- 24 Not reported ---------- 6 1 plus partial -------- 25 None (no mortgage) ---- 14 2 --------------------- 30 Financin~ 2 plus partial --- - ---- 13 Mortgage loan --------- 86 3 or more ------------- 6 Other ----------------- 14 !J For homes built by the owner, out - of-pocket costs only were reported. 20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW over were a somewhat larger partof the renter than the owner sample--16percent compared with 11 percent. Of those moving into new rental units, 54 percent moved from another rented place and 21percent from homes theyowned. The others were newlyformed households, such as newlyweds and single persons setting up their first homes. Reasons for moving were related mainly to changes in family status, jobs, or a desire for a better home or neighborhood. Relatively more renters than owners had moved 500 miles or more --17 compared with 8 percent. The income (earnings) distribution was about the same for the renter households as for the owners of new homes. Tabl e 3.--Characteristi cs of new renter-occupied units moved into between October 1965 and Mar ch 1966 Item Rental Item Rental Units Units Percent Percent Number of r ooms Gross rent per month l --------------------- 4 Less than $100 --------- 11 2 --------------------- 9 $100 to $124 ----------- 19 3 --------------------- 37 $125 to $149 ----------- 32 4 --------------------- 37 $150 to $199 ----------- 27 5 or more ------------- 13 $200 or more ----------- 7 No cash rent, no report 4 Number of bedrooms None ------------------ 7 Utilities included in r ent l --------------------- 46 None ------------------- 7 2 --------------------- 44 Hot water only --------- 13 3 --------------------- 3 Hot water and heat onl y 4 Hot water, heat , and Number of bathrooms gas y --------------- 31 l --------------------- 86 Hot water , heat, gas, l plus partial -------- 6 and electri city y --- 29 2 or more ------------- 8 Other combinations or no cash r ent ------------ 16 y Gas either incl uded in rent or not avail abl e . The rental units.--Apartments with 1 or 2 bedrooms were the choice of 90 percent of the renter households and the new units they moved into were about equally divided between these two sizes (table 3 above). About 14 percent of the new units had more than one bathroom. Monthly rents ranged from $125 to $149 for 32 percent of the new units and $150 to $199 for 27 percent. Only a few--11 percent--rented for less than $100. All or most utilities were included in the rent for most of the units. SEPTEMBER 1969 21 THE COST OF CIITCKEN, WHOLE AND PARTS Poultry is among the least costly and most popular of main dishes. The form in which poultry is purchased often determines how good a bargain it is. Chicken sold whole generally costs a few cents less per pound than chicken cut up. Whole chicken is usually a better buy than chicken pieces, such as breasts and legs, in terms of the amount of meat provided. When whole fryers are 39 cents a pound, chicken breasts are an equally good buy at 55 cents (see table). With whole fryers at 39 cents, breasts provide more meat for the money at prices under 55 cents a pound, less meat for the money at prices over 55 cents. Price per pound of whole chicken fryers, ready to cook, and of chicken parts providing equal amounts of edible meat for the money If the price per pound of whole fryers, ready to cook, is-- Chicken parts are an per pound is-- Breast Drumstick equally good buy if the price Drumstick Wing Cents 27 ---------------- 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 half and thigh Cents Cents 38 41 44 47 49 52 55 58 61 63 66 69 72 75 78 35 37 40 42 45 47 50 53 55 58 60 63 65 68 71 Cents 33 36 38 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 65 68 SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS 36 39 41 44 47 49 52 55 57 6o 63 65 68 71 73 (Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.) Cents 21 23 25 26 28 29 31 33 34 36 37 39 41 42 44 u.s. Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Information, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250: • • KEEPING FOOD SAFE TO EAT ..• A Guide for Homemakers. HG No. 162 . HOUSE CONSTRUCTION •.. How to Reduce Costs. HG No. 168 . The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402: 22 HOW TO BUY MEAT FOR YOUR FREEZER. HG No. 166. 20 cents. THE POOR: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. MP No. 1145. 60 cents. LOW-COST WOOD HOMES FOR RURAL AMERICA. AH No. 364. $1. 00. FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW COST OF FOOD AT HOME Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels, June 1969 ' U. S . average !J Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month Sex-age groups ?) Low-costiModerate-,Liberal Low-costiModerate-,Liberal plan cost plan plan plan cost plan ~lan Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars FAMILIES Family of 2: 20 to 35 years ]/---- 17.50 22.30 27.50 75.80 96.90 119.20 55 to 75 years]/---- 14.30 18.70 22.40 62.20 81.00 97.50 Family of 4: Preschool children ~ 25.40 32.50 39.60 110.10 140.70 171.50 School children 2/--- 29.50 37.90 46.50 127.80 164.10 201.80 INDIVIDUALS 6/ Children, under 1 year 3.40 4.30 4.80 14.70 18.50 20.80 1 to 3 years -------- 4.30 5.50 6.60 18.80 23.70 28.40 3 to 6 years -------- 5.20 6.70 8.00 22.40 28.90 34.70 6 to 9 years -------- 6.30 8.10 10.10 27.20 35.00 43.80 Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 7.10 9.30 10.90 31.00 40.20 47.10 12 to 15 years ------ 7.90 10.30 12.50 34.10 44.50 54.00 15 to 20 years ------ 8.00 10.20 12.10 34.80 44.10 52.60 Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 7.30 9.50 11.40 31.70 41.00 49.60 12 to 15 years ------ 8.60 11.30 13.50 37.10 48.90 58.50 15 to 20 years ------ 9.90 12.60 15.20 42.80 54.50 65.90 Women, 20 to 35 years - 7.40 9.40 11.40 32.00 40.90 49.40 35 to 55 years ------ 7.10 9.10 11.00 30.70 39.40 47.60 55 to 75 years ------ 6.00 7.80 9.30 26.00 33.90 40.50 75 years and over --- 5.40 6.90 8.50 23.60 30.10 36.90 Pregnant ------------ 8.80 11.00 13.10 38.10 47.70 56.60 Nursing ------------- 10.20 12.70 14.90 44.10 54.90 64.40 Men, 20 to 35 years --- 8.50 10.90 13.60 36.90 47.20 59.00 35 to 55 years ------ 7.90 10.10 12.40 34.30 43.80 53.70 55 to 75 years ------ 7.00 9.20 11.10 30.50 39.70 48.10 75 years and over --- 6.60 8.80 10.70 28.50 38.20 46.20 !J Estimates computed from ~uantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review, October 1964. Costs of the plans were first estimated by using average price per pound of each food group paid by urban survey families at 3 income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ~ Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age. ]/ 10 percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factors for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, USDA, HERR No. 20. ljj 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. SEPTEMBER 1969 23 CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1957-59 = 100) Group All items --------------- - -- - ---------Food -------------------------------- Food at home ------------- --------Food away from home --------------- Housing - - --------------------------Shelter --------------- - ----------Rent ---------------------------- Homeownership ------------------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 r ecreation - - ---------Other goods and services ---------- July 1968 121 .5 120 .0 116 .7 136 .5 119 .5 124 .2 115 .1 127 .8 110 .6 115 .7 109 .5 113 .1 119 .7 120.1 115 .7 132 .0 119 .8 117 .6 138 .5 130 .2 145 .1 120 .4 125 .9 123 .9 126 .8 123 .7 119 .8 142 .8 125 .8 132 .4 118 .1 138 .0 112 .6 117 .5 111 .2 117 .4 126 .6 128 .1 122 .4 139 .6 124 .0 121 .2 148 .0 135.7 154 .5 125 .8 130 .2 126 .9 127.6 125 .5 121 .8 143 .7 126 .3 133 .0 118 .5 138 .7 112 .7 117 .5 111 .3 117.9 127 .0 128 .5 122 .7 140 .1 124 .6 121 .8 149 .1 136.3 155 .2 126 .2 130 .4 127 .9 Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics . Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items (1957- 59 = 100) Item July March April May June 1968 1969 1969 _1969 1969 All items -------------------- 118 122 122 123 123 Food and tobacco ----------- - 121 - - 125 Clothing ------------------- - 137 - - 137 Household operation -------- - 118 - - 119 Household furnishings -- --- - - 105 - - 105 Building materials, house -- - 127 - - 126 128.2 126 .7 123.0 144 .8 127.0 134 .0 ll8.8 140 .0 112.6 117.4 110 .9 118 .2 126 .8 128 .1 122 .5 139 .9 124 .3 121 .4 149 .5 137.0 155 .9 126 .6 130.7 129 .1 J uly 1969 123 ----- Source : U.S . Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service . 24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW "'U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969- 394 -374/ERS - 13 •) |
OCLC number | 888048785 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
N |
|
P |
|
U |
|
W |
|
|
|