Family Economics Review [1969, Number 3]

              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
•)