Family Economics Review [1968, Number 3]

              I'
••
,,
,,
3 Food Use in Farm and Urban Households in 1955 and 1965
5 Purchases of Various Types of Clothing for Men, Women,
and Children
11 Food Prices in Chainstores in High- and Low-Income Areas
of Six Cities
12 The Cost of Cooked Lean. in Selected Cuts of Meat
14 Outlook Conference to be Held in February 1969
14 Spending for Services
16 Installment Credit and Sales Practices of Retailers in the
District of Columbia
18 Ownership of Household Equipment in 1967
19
21
21
Education and Lifetime Earnings
A New Poverty Statistic
Spending for Foreign Travel
IJ170PERTY OF TH
Ll"'f?A~Y
. f.: T 1 ti 1968
22
22
23
24
Ul-tt\'t:.l\....,fl y vr
'~'-"• 11 .1 .._. "''-'LI'\~ A The Educational Level of U.S. Workers AT C.Rt:ENSBORu •
Some New USDA Publications
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
anniversary
0447A
ARS 62·5
September 1968
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.
FOOD USE IN FARM AND URBAN HOUSEHOLDS IN 1955 AND 1965
During the 10 years between 1955 and 1965, U.S. households changed their food
consumption patterns to include more meat, poultry, and fish and more bakery products,
but smaller quantities of milk, vegetables and fruit, and flour and cereals. These are
findings from nationwide food consumption surveys made in spring 1955 and 1965. Y
Both farm and urban households shared in these changes in food consumption.
However, for every major food group except vegetables and fruit, the change in average
quantity used was greater in farm than urban households (fig. 1). Some important foods
for which changes were greater in farm than urban households were: Fresh fluid milk,
down 30 percent for farm but only 16 percent for urban households; beef, up 47 percent
for farm but only 26 percent for urban; bakery products other than bread, up 106 percent
for farm and 54 percent for urban households (see table).
The changes in food use resulted in greater similarity of farm and urban food pat­terns.
The following comparisons of farm with urban consumption of foods to the food
groups show smaller differences in 1965 than in 1955:
Food group
Milk, cream, cheese --------­Meat,
poultry, fish, eggs ----­Vegetables,
fruit------------­Flour,
cereal---------------­Purchased
bakery products---­Fats,
oils ------------------­Sugars,
sweets -------------­Soup,
other purchased mixtures
Peanut butter, nuts -----------
Compared with urban, consumption per
person in farm households was--
In 1955 In 1965
19 percent more
6 percent less
7 percent less
139 percent more
33 percent less
29 percent more
6 7 percent more
60 percent less
15 percent less
4 percent more
2 percent more
3 percent less
102 percent more
18 percent less
23 percent more
6 5 percent more
44 percent less
2 percent more
The greatest difference between farm and urban food consumption is still in flour
and cereals (fig. 2). In 1965, farm households used more than twice as much of these
foods as urban families. Their use of more fats and sugars is partly related to this use
of larger quantities of flour and cereals. Farm families continue to use considerably
smaller quantities of soups and other purchased mixes. They also use less of all types
of beverages--coffee, soft drinks, ades and punches, and alcoholic beverages.
Between 1955 and 1965, the average money value of food used at home increased
20 percent in farm households (from $6.67 to $7.98 per person), and 12 percent in urban
households (from $8.12 to $9.10 per person). This included expenditures for purchased
food plus the value of food raised at home and that received as gift or pay.
y Food Consumption of Households in the United States, Spring 1955, U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Household Food Consumption Survey 1955, Rpt. No.1, 1956 (out of print); and Food Con­sumption
of Households in the United States, Spring 196 5, U.S. Dept. Agr. , Household
Food Consumption Survey 1965-66, Rpt. No. 1, 1968, for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, for $1. 25.
SEPTEMBER 1968 3
Food used per person~ per week and distribution of f ood dollar in farm and urban
households , 1955 and 1965
Average quantity used Distribution of food dollar
Food groups and
1955 1965
Change
selected items 1955-652/ 1955 1965
Farm !Urban Farm!Urban Farm I Urban Farm I Urban Farm I Urban
L-b . -Lb . -Lb . -Lb . -Pe-t . P-e-t . -Pe-t. -Pe-t. -Pe-t . -Pe-t.
Total ---------------------- - - - - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 .0
Milk, cream, cheese (calcium
equivalent) JJ ----------- 11.10 9 -32 9 -03 8 .68 -19 -7 19 .0 14.3
Fresh fluid milk --------- 9 .o4 6 .93 6.31 5 .82 -30 -16 13 .0 8 .7
Nonfat dry milk ---------- .02 .01 .03 .03 70 162 .1 .1
Cheese ------------------- .25 .34 .31 .36 20 6 1.7 2 .1
Meat, poultry, fish, eggs -- 4.88 5 .18 5 . 58 5 -49 14 6 32 .7 37 -0
Beef --------------------- 1.18 1.34 1.73 1.69 47 26 9 .0 10 .7
Pork --- ------------------ 1.21 1.13 1.25 1.09 3 -3 9 -l 8 .5
Luncheon meat ------------ .32 .36 -39 .43 22 20 2 .5 2.7
Poultry ------------------ .65 .78 .78 .89 20 14 4.6 5 .2
Fish, shellfish ---------- .36 .41 .36 -37 l -11 2.2 3 .0
Eggs --------------------- 1.02 .81 -97 .80 -5 -2 4 .3 3 -9
Vegetables , fruit ---------- 9 .60 10.33 9 .12 9 -38 -5 -9 18 .8 18 .7
Potatoes , sweet potatoes -- 2 .25 1.70 2 .15 1.50 -4 -12 2 .4 2 .0
Other vegetables, fruit -- 7 -35 8 .62 6 .97 y .88 -5 -9 16 .4 16 .7
Fresh ------------------ 5.61 5 -65 4.86 4.75 -13 -16 12 .1 10 .3
Commercially canned ---- .82 1.36 1.02 1.44 24 6 2 .3 3 .4
Commercially frozen ---- .05 .22 .10 .23 92 6 .3 1.0
Juice (single strength
equivalent) -------- -- .61 1.26 -77 1.34 26 7 1.0 1.6
Dried fruit ------------ .26 .14 .22 .12 -13 -16 -7 .4
Flour, cereal -------------- 3.06 1.28 2.43 1.20 -21 -6 5 -5 3 .0
Flour, mixes -------------- 1.88 .63 1.36 .46 -28 -28 3 .0 1.2
Breakfast cereals -------- .28 .24 -33 .32 18 35 1.2 ·9
Bakery Products ------------ 1.46 2 .17 1.96 2 .38 34 10 4 .9 6 .8
Bread ---------- ---------- 1.08 1.49 1.18 1.34 9 -10 2 .9 3 -5
Other -------------------- .38 .68 .78 1.04 106 53 2 .0 3 -3
Fats, oils ----------------- 1.07 .82 .96 .78 -10 -5 5 -5 3 -9
Butter ------------------- .28 .20 .17 .13 -39 -37 2 .6 1.7
Margarine ---------------- .13 .20 .22 .24 68 19 -5 .6
Sugar, sweets -------------- 1.79 1.07 1.66 1.00 -7 -6 4 .3 2 .8
Beverages ------------------ v 4/ 1.80 3 .10 v v 5 .8 9 -3
Coffee ------------------- .20 -:-26 .20 .23 2 -11 3.0 3 -3
Soft drinks, ades, punches .62 1.02 1.34 2.00 114 96 1.1 1.5
Alcoholic beverages ------ v v .20 .81 v v 1.0 3 .8
Soups, other mixtures ------ .22 .54 .36 .64 64 19 1.0 2 .3
Peanut butter, nuts (shelled
weight) ------------------ .07 ·09 .12 .12 64 37 -7 -7
Seasonings, leavening,
other foods -------------- v v .48 .43 v v 1.8 1.3
!( 21 meals at home equal one person .
gj Calculated from unrounded values .
3/ Quantity of whole fluid milk to which dairy products are equivalent in calcium.
~ Data no~ available.
13.8 12.2
8 .4 7.0
.2 .1
1.8 2 .2
35 -4 36 .3
14.1 14 .0
8 .9 8 .0
2 .8 3.2
3 .4 3.8
2.2 2 .6
3 .2 2 .9
20 .1 18 .4
3 -3 2.5
16.8 15.9
11.9 9 -l
2 .6 3 -5
.4 ·9
1.3 2 .1
.6 .3
4.8 3.3
2 .0 -9
1.6 1.5
6 .7 8 .2
3 .0 3 -3
3 .6 5 .0
4 .1 3-3
1.4 1.0
.8 -7
4 .2 2 .7
6 .6 10 .4
2.4 2 .4
2 .4 3 .0
1.0 4 .3
1.7 "2 .9
·9 .8
1.7 1.4
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CHANGES IN FOOD USED PER PERSON,
URBAN AND FARM, 1955 TO 1965
DECREASE
HOUI, ............ 6"
CUEAL 21"
INCREASE
6 "··········-IJIIAN
14"····· ······fAIM
U. l , MOUIIr"'OlOJ, I W~tll' Itt JI'II!NI;. ec,u CUI• I:CIU/I'ALirlf'l'. OrNCLUOU I'OUrOt'J,
FOOD USED PER PERSON PER WEEK
URBAN AND FARM, 1965
Flour, Ceroal· ···· ·· ··lllit 2_41 b.
·········UIIAN
Bakery products ···· :: : .- 2 ·4 lb .····· ..... fARM
.0 lb .··············
U.l. Df:P411llllfNT OF 4CIII(UlTUIU
NU;. All$ itlD ·U ( I ) AGIIICULTUIIAL lt(S(AIICM UIIVICf o_"·-' .. ._ "•-"'"-' ·-· •..":....".:.":.:":..".;:.".: ..____ _::":":·;..:.:'":":;'.:".:..:d. :'.': ._...•:•::::.••<:::."'.::'"'::.••. :". :.:·:•.•::O:.<:•:.."::.':.".:::": :_j
Figure 1 Figure 2
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' index of prices for food rose 13 percent during
the decade. Apparently, the increase in the value of food used in urban households was
primarily a result of the rise in prices. The changes in foods used evidently counter­balanced
each other in value. Part of the increase in value of food used in farm house­holds
resulted from shifts to a more expensive assortment of foods--for example, use of
more meat, poultry, and fish and more bakery products.
The division of the dollar spent for food at home was similar in farm and urban
households in both 1955 and 1965 (see table). Farm families continued to allot slightly
more of their food dollar to milk, eggs, fresh vegetables and fruit, flour and mixes, fats
and oils, and sugar and sweets; and less of the dollar to canned and frozen vegetables and
fruits, vegetable and fruit juices, bakery products, beverages, and soup and other pur­chased
mixtures.
In the foods they use and the way they spend their food dollars, farm households
have become more like urban households in the years since 1955.
--Betty Peterkin and Marjorie Rauschert
PURCHASES OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CLOTHING FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN
A dollar spent for clothing by urban men 25 to 64 years old is divided among the
three major clothing groups in this way: 60 cents for outerwear, 15 cents for footwear,
and 2 5 cents for other clothing--according to the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in
1960-61. .!/ Among the items bought by these men in 1 year were an average of about two
1/ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Clothing for Urban Fami­li-;
s: Expenditures per Member by Sex and Age, 1960-61. U.S. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul.
1556, 149 pp., 34 tables, 1967. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov­ernment
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, for 75 cents.
SEPTEMBER 1968 5
dress shirts for $4.40 each, 1 pair of street shoes for $14, and 10 pairs of socks at 70
cents a pair. The data indicate that they would buy a heavy jacket about once in 5 years
for an average of about $20. Similar details about clothing expenditures for males and
females of different ages and income levels and living in different regions are available
from the survey report. This article gives information about how individuals spend for
clothing, based on that report. While the amounts spent were lower than they would be
in 1968, they show basic relationships that are of lasting interest because these change
relatively little over time.
Detailed data on clothing expenditures of rural persons are not available. How­ever,
they would probably show basic relationships similar to those for urban persons.
Expenditures of Individuals for Various Types of Clothing
Clothing expenditures of urban individuals (except infants) in 1960-61 averaged
$85 for outerwear, $26 for footwear, and $50 for other clothing. (Outerwear in this re­port
includes: For men and boys--coats and jackets; suits and trousers; work and play
clothes; and shirts; and for women and girls--coats, suits, and jackets; dresses, skirts,
blouses, and slacks. "Other clothing" includes: Underwear and nightwear; hosiery; hats,
gloves, and accessories; and unallocated expenditures when these are not discussed
separately. )
Differences related to sex and age.--Expenditures for most groups and subgroups
of clothing tend to increase with the age of children, peak at young adulthood, decline with
advancing age, and be lower for males than females the same age.Y For example, aver­age
spending onouterwear increased from $33 forboys 2 to 5 years old to a peak of $111
for young men 18 to 24 years, then declined to $46 for men 65 and older (table 1). Spend­ing
was somewhat higher for females in each of these age groups: $36 for little girls,
$127 for young women, and $47 for elderly women.
The footwear group is an exception to this general pattern. Spending for footwear
peaked at a younger age--12 to 17 years for boys, and 16 to 17 years for girls--and was
slightly higher for boys than girls of grade and junior high school age--6 to 11 and 12 to
15 years.
Males devoted more of each clothing dollar to outerwear than did females. For
example, men 25 to 64 years old spent 60 percent on outerwear and women in the same
age group spent 48 percent (table 2). Compared with women, men also used slightly
more of their clothing dollar for footwear but less for "other" clothing--specifically,
underwear and nightwear; hosiery; and hats, gloves, and accessories.
In general, younger and older persons divided their clothing dollar among the
clothing subgroups in about the same way as persons aged 25 to 64 years. Some excep­tions
were: Young boys used less of their clothing dollar for suits and trousers--parti­cularly
suits--and for accessories, and more of it for work and play clothes and foot­wear;
young girls--2 to 15 years--used less of the clothing dollar than women for hosiery
and accessories, and more for footwear; women aged 65 and over allocated less of each
clothing dollar than younger women to the subgroups made up of dresses, skirts, blouses,
and slacks--particularly separates--and more to that composed of coats, suits, and
jackets.
'!:/ Total clothing expenditures per person tend to follow this same pattern. See Cloth­ing
Expenditures for Individuals in Family Economics Review, March 1968, pp. 8-12.
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
~
Tabl e I. --Expenditures per person for clothing in a year, by age , sex ,
and type of clothing, urban, 1960-61
Clothing gr oups
and subgroups
All ages
2 years
and over
2 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 15 16 arrl 17 18 to 24 25 to 64 65 years
MALES
Total clothi ng ------------
outerwear ----------------­Coats
, jackets ---------­Suits,
t r ousers -- - -----­Work
and play clothes ---
Shirts ------------------
Footwear ------------------
Other ---------------------
Underwear, nightwear ----
Hosier y ----------------­Hat
s , gloves, accessor ies
Unallocated expenditures
TIMALES
Total clothing ------------
Outerwear ----------------­Coats
, suits , jackets --­Dr
esses, skir ts , bl ouses ,
slacks ----------------
Footwear ----------- - ------
Other -------- - - - ----------
Underwear, nightwear ----
Hosiery ----------------­Hats
, gloves , accessor ies
Unallocated expend~tures
Dol.
141
82
16
37
11
17
24
35
11
6
11
6
179
87
33
54
27
64
24
13
19
8
years years
Dol.
67
33
8
9
8
7
17
17
8
3
2
3
74
36
12
25
17
20
11
3
3
3
Dol.
104
55
12
17
14
12
25
24
9
5
5
4
115
59
18
42
24
32
14
5
7
6
years
Dol.
144
8o
20
30
13
17
32
32
11
7
8
6
187
99
33
66
30
57
23
12
14
9
years
Dol.
173
100
24
41
13
23
32
41
12
8
11
10
247
125
40
85
35
88
29
17
21
20
year s
Dol.
185
lll
25
50
13
23
27
46
12
8
15
ll
255
127
43
84
33
96
32
22
27
15
years and over
Dol.
102
18
51
12
21
25
42
13
7
16
6
212
101
41
6o
30
81
30
17
26
8
Dol.
77
46
10
24
4
8
10
21
8
3
7
3
98
47
26
21
15
35
13
7
10
5
Differences related to income. --The division of the individual's clothing dollar
among the various clothing groups and subgroups tended to be about the same at each
income level between $3,000 and $10,000. Table 2 shows examples of this tendency for
men and women aged 25 to 64, and also two exceptions: Men at the high income level
tended to spend a larger part of the dollar on suits and trousers, and men at low income
levels a larger part on work and play clothes. This probably reflects different occupa­tional
needs.
Differences related to region.--For most sex-age groups, spending on the various
clothing subgroups as well as on total clothing generally was highest in the Northeast and
lowest in the South. Proportions of total clothing outlays spent on the different subgroups
tended to be about the same in every region. Some exceptions--attributable to differ­ences
in way of living and climate--were: Work and play clothes took more of the cloth­ing
dollar for males in the West than the Northeast; and coats and jackets took less of the
clothing dollar for both males and females in the West and South than in other regions.
SEPTE:.MBER 1968 7
00
~ >e;
~
t-<
tr1
(J
0 z
0
~
(J
r:n
:::0
tr1
~
tr1
~
Table 2 .--Distribution of clothing expenditures of urban men and women aged 25 to 64, by family income after taxes and by region, 1960-61
Family income after taxes Region
Sex and type of All,
clothing 25 to 64 $3, 000 $4, 000 $5, 000 $6, 000 $7, 500 North- North years to to to to to South West
$3, 999 $4, 999 $5, 999 $7, 499 $9, 999
east Central
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
MEN
rotal clothing -------------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Outerwear ----------------- 6o 57 58 59 59 61 62 60 59 60
Coats, jackets ---------- 10 11 10 10 10 11 13 11 7 8
Suits, trousers --------- 30 24 26 26 28 31 31 29 30 30
Work and play clothes - - - 7 9 9 11 8 7 6 7 8 9
Shirts ------------------ 13 12 13 13 13 13 12 12 13 13
Footwear ------------------ 15 18 16 17 15 15 14 15 15 15
Other --------------------- 25 26 26 25 26 24 23 25 27 25
Underwear 1 nightwear ---- 8 10 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 8
Hosiery ----------------- 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5
Hats, gloves , accessories 9 9 10 9 9 9 8 10 10 9
Unallocated expenditures 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 6 4
WOMEN
Total clothing -------------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Outerwear ----------------- 48 43 45 44 45 49 50 49 45 44
Coats, suits, jack~ts --- 19 17 16 16 17 19 22 20 lei 16
Dresses , skir ts , blouses ,
slacks ---------------- 28 25 28 27 29 29 28 28 28 28
Footwear ------------------ 14 16 16 15 14 14 13 15 15 15
Other --------------------- 38 41 39 41 40 37 37 37 40 41
Underwear, nightwear - --- 14 16 16 16 15 14 14 14 14 15
Hosiery ----------------- 8 10 10 9 8 8 9 8 8 8
Hats, gloves, accessories 12 12 11 11 14 12 11 11 13 14
Unallocated expenditures 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 6 4
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollar s Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Expenditures per person for --
Total men ' s clothing ------ 169 lo8 135 136 160 197 187 157 153 177
Total women ' s clothing ---- 212 151 161 164 201 257 240 201 188 220
- ·-- -- ----- - ---- --- --- -
..... ___;_ _ _
C/)
trj
1-d
t-3
trj
~
trj
~
f--4
c.o
0')
00
c.o
- - $
Table 3 .--Average prices paid for selected garments, and average quantities purchased per person
in a year, by age, urban United States, l96o-61
Item
MALES
Overcoats (heavy for men)---­Heavy
jackets --------------­Year-
round 2 -piece suits ~--
Dress shirts ---------------­Undershorts
, briefs ---------
Hosiery ---------------------
Street shoes ---------------­Felt
hats -------------------
FEMALES
Heavy winter coats 2/-------­Street
dresses ~--~--------­Slips,
petticoats - - ----- - --­Hosiery
4/------------------­Shoes
(street or dress )
Hats ------------------------
MALES
Overcoats (heavy for men)
Heavy jackets --------------­Year
-round 2-piece suits ----
Dress shirts ---------------­Undershorts,
briefs --------­Hosiery
--------------------­Street
shoes ---------------­Felt
hats -------------------
FEMALES
Heavy winter coats g/- ------­Street
dresses~- ----------­Slips
, petticoats ----------­Hosiery~
----------------- -­Shoes
(street or dress ) -----
Hats ------------------------
1/ Wool for boys .
~ Daytime or school for children
2 to 5
years
Dollars
10.10
7.78
9 .20
2 .24
.51
.38
6 .01
(2})
13.09
3 .81
1.92
.38
5·57
2 .24
Number
0 .11
.25
.10
.77
4.69
7.94
2 .18
(2})
.18
1.96
1.33
7 .86
1.96
. 56
6 to 11
years
Dollars
13.51
10.96
16.96
2.54
.63
.45
6 .57
(2})
17.88
4.62
2 .24
.48
5-87
2 .62
Number
0 .12
.46
.12
1.24
4 .92
10 .95
2 . 56
(2} )
.33
2 .83
2 .14
9 -09
2.30
.66
12 to 15
years
Dollars
20 .45
14.38
28 .03
3 .07
·75
.56
8 .85
(2})
25 .64
7.14
2 .79
.83
6 .21
3 .23
16 and 17
years
Average prices paid
18 to 24
years
Dollars Dollars
27.67
18.80
42 .91
4.00
.88
.67
11.27
5.71
33 .79
10.23
3 .20
.85
7.48
3·97
39.70
19.09
50 .17
4.29
·93
.71
12 .40
8 .36
44 .50
·12 .54
3.38
.92
8 .71
4 .96
Average quantity purchased
Number Number Number
0 .14
.48
.19
1.71
5·35
11.93
2.54
(2})
.37
1.82
2 .40
8 .64
2 .44
.58
0.10
.36
.12
1.79
5-09
11.25
1.69
.09
.33
1.80
2 .14
15 .27
2 .26
.66
0 .10
.30
.17
2 .24
4 .88
10 .70
1.34
.13
.32
2 .19
2 .00
21.57
2 .24
.71
25 to 64
years
Dollars
55 .74
19.58
62 .16
4 .40
1.01
.71
14.04
9 .89
58 .47
14.11
3 .69
1.00
10.87
6 .33
Number
0.07
.20
.18
2 .15
4.40
10.02
1.03
.26
.23
1.96
1.61
16 .34
1.84
.86
2/ With or without fur for women .
~ Socks for children under 12. 2} Not available .
65 years
and over
Dollars
58.08
22 .12
51.80
4.27
1.09
.73
13.56
9 .60
66 . 58
14.72
3.68
1.09
11.99
6 . 50
Number
0 .05
.06
.o8
1.01
1.45
4.o4
.51
.26
.13
·93
.72
6 . 56
-92
.64
Prices Paid for Clothing and Quantities Purchased
Variations in the clothing expenditures between groups of individuals may be due to
differences in the prices they pay for clothing items, or the quantities they buy, or both.
The Survey of Consumer Expenditures gives information about these details of clothing
expenditures for males and females of different ages and at different income levels .
Table 4 .--Average prices paid for selected garments and average quantities purchased per person in a
year by selected sex -age groups at five levels of family income after taxes;
Sex -age group and
type of garment
MALES
6 to ll years :
Overcoats -- ------------------­Heavy
jackets ----------------­wool
suits -------------------­street
shoes ------------------
25 to 64 years :
Overcoats, heavy -------------­Heavy
jackets ----------------­Year
-round 2 -piece suits ------
Street shoes ------------------
FTh!ALES
6 to ll years :
Heavy winter coats -- - --------­Daytime
or school dresses ----­Street
or dress shoes ---------
25 to 64 years:
Heavy winter coats -----------­Street
dresses ---------------­Street
or dress shoes ---------
MALES
6 to ll years :
Overcoats ---------------------
Heavy jackets ----------------­Wool
suits -------------------­street
shoes ------------------
25 to 64 years :
Overcoats, heavy -------------­Heavy
jackets ----------------­Year
-round 2 -piece suits ------
Street shoes ------------------
FEMALES
6 to ll years :
Heavy winter coats -----------­Daytime
or school dresses ----­Street
or dress shoes ---------
25 to 64 years :
10
Heavy winter coats -----------­Street
dresses ---------------­Street
or dress shoes ---------
urban United states, 1960-61
$3, 000
to
$3 , 999
Dollars
13.03
9.84
14.38
5.40
39.23
18.66
52.61
12.38
14.80
3 .71
5 .24
47 .96
11.31
9·94
Number
.12
.41
.14
2 .27
.08
.19
.13
.88
.21
2.48
1.81
.22
1.56
1.66
$4 , 000
to
$4,999
$5,000
to
$5, 999
Average prices paid
$6,ooo
to
$7 ,499
Dollars Dollars Dollars
11.70
10.03
14.51
5.70
53.05
18.50
53 .37
12 .65
17 .21
3 .84
4 .87
58.42
12.46
9 ·99
13.13
9 · 59
12.49
5·95
44 .50
17.01
55.94
12 .71
14 .88
4 .14
5·73
48.74
12.34
9 .91
13.23
11.17
17 .90
6 .83
49.92
17.45
56 .13
13 .46
18 .05
4.86
5 .94
52 .86
12 .90
10 .55
Average quantities purchased
Number Number Number
.14
.41
.12
2 .61
.06
.20
.14
.88
.34
3.48
2 .30
.21
1.74
1.61
.12
.47
.10
2 .66
.05
.23
.13
.92
.32
2 .98
2 .36
.23
1.62
1.55
.11
.44
.OS
2 .53
.07
.21
.17
1.03
.32
2 .57
2 .26
.24
2 .00
1.76
$7 , 500
to
$9, 999
Dollars
14.44
11.56
18 .15
7.34
58 .06
21.60
63 .11
14 .61
19 .54
5.05
6 .39
63 .46
14 .26
11.01
Number
.15
. 58
.14
2 .75
.OS
.24
.20
1.17
.35
2 .81
2 .50
.27
2 .40
2 .24
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Differences related to age.--For females, the average price paid per garment in­creased
with the age of the person and was highest for the oldest group (table 3). For
males, the peak price was paid as oftenby the 25-to-64 as by the 65-and-overage group.
Prices paid for most of the selected garments were 2 or 3 times as high for persons aged
65 and over as for young children. The difference was even greater for such major items
as overcoats and suits for males and coats and dresses for females.
The average number of garments bought per person peaked at a relatively early
age and was generally smaller for persons aged 65 and over than for young children. For
most of the selected items, the largest number was bought for boys and girls 12 to 15
years old. Dress shirts for males and hosiery for females peaked at 18 to 24 years, and
women 25 to 64 years old bought the largest number of hats. One item--street or simi­lar
dresses--had an earlier peak--6 to 11 years.
In general, then, rising clothingexpense as the childgrows is dueto both increas­ing
quantities of many items and increasing prices paid for them. The decline in cloth­ing
expense with advancing age is due to a decline in quantities bought that more than
makes up for the increase in prices paid. For elderly men, lower prices as well as
smaller quantities contributed to lower clothing expense.
Differences related to income.--Average prices paid and quantities bought of cloth­ing
items generally rose with family income. However, they advanced irregularly and
at a lower rate than income. Table 4 shows, for a few major clothing items, average
prices paid and quantities bought for boys and girls, men and women in families at 5 in­come
levels between $3, 000 and $10, 000. (These persons were 60 percent of the urban
population at these levels and almost 50 percent of the total urban population.) As in­come
increased from $3,000 to $3,999 up to $7, 500 to $10,000 (150 percent), average
prices generally increased less than 35 percent and average quantities less than 50 per­cent.
For example, men's heavy jackets increased 16 percent in price and 26 percent in
quantity bought, and women's winter coats increased 32 percent in price and 23 percent
in quantity.
--Virginia Britton
FOOD PRICES IN CHAINSTORES IN HIGH- AND LOW-INCOME
AREAS OF SIX CITIES .!/
Questions have been asked recently whether retail food chains charge the same
prices in stores located in high- and low-income areas of large cities. Concerned be­cause
of the effect food prices have on the usefulness of the Food Stamp Program, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a survey in February 1968 to study variation
in prices and --to a lesser extent--in product quality among stores of a chain.
Prices were compared for 17 commonly used food items, using specified brands of
packaged and canned items. Comparisons of quality were made of selected meat items
bought in high- and low-income area stores of a chain within a city. The survey included
1/ u.s. Dept. of Agr. Comparison of Prices Paid for Selected Foods in Chainstores
in-High and Low Income Areas in Six Cities. 115 pp. Washington, D.C., June 1968.
SEPTEMBER 1968 11
both low- and high-income area stores in two leading chains in each of six major cities
--134 stores in all. Here, in brief, are some of the findings from the study:
Average prices paid. --Comparisons of average prices paid for each food item 1
showed no evidence of price discrimination. Differences that did exist were no greater
than would be expected among stores of the same chain within an income area. A pre­dominance
of higher average prices in the low-income area stores was found in only one
of the 12 food chains studied, and, even there, the differences were minor.
Quality of meat.--When samples of beef ground, packaged, and sold within a store
were tested for fat content, 7 percent of those bought in low-income area stores and 2 per­cent
from high-income area stores were above the 30 percent level given in the Federal
Standard which applies only to federally inspected ground beef. About 22 percent of those
from high-income and 7 percent from low-income area stores were lean or extra lean.
Of the 13 samples of frankfurters that contained more than the Federal tolerances
allowed for added water, 8 were from high-income and 5 from low-income area stores.
Although fat content in pork chops was, on the average, slightly higher in those bought
from low-income stores, the difference was not statistically significant.
Appearance of stores.--The sample stores were subjectively rated as to size, ar­rangement,
variety of merchandise, and general appearance. They were generally sat­isfactory
and showed no consistent pattern of difference by income area.
THE COST OF COOKED LEAN IN SELECTED CUTS OF MEAT
About one-fourth of the dollar spent for food by U.S. households goes for meat-­beef,
veal, pork, and lamb--according to a national food consumption survey made in the
spring of 1965. Because meat is a major expense and the range in costs of the different
types and cuts is great, the homemaker needs to select meat carefully if she wants to
make the best use of her money.
Finding the best buys at the meat counter is not always easy. The economy of a
cut depends on the amount of cooked lean meat it provides, the nutritive value of the lean
meat, and the price per pound. In general, the nutritive value of lean cooked meat from
the various meat animals differs only slightly, except that pork provides more thiamine
and organs and glands are usually higher in iron and vitamins than other meats. The
homemaker's principal considerations in finding good meat buys are the yield of cooked
lean meat and the price perpound. Thus, she needs to compare the costof equalamounts
of cooked lean from the various cuts and types of meat a vail able.
The table opposite shows the approximate cost of 3-ounce servings of cooked lean
meat from selected kinds and cuts of meat at various retail prices per pound. Locate in
the list the kind and cut you plan to buy, then follow the line on which it appears to the col­umn
headed by the price most like the current price at your market. The figure at this
point is the approximate cost of a 3-ounce serving of cooked lean. For example, for a
3-ounce serving of lean from a chuck roast--bone in --priced at 50 cents a pound, the cost
would be 22 cents, and from ground beef at 55 cents a pound, the cost would be 14 cents.
--Beatrice Evans
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
00
t?:j
I'd
~
t?:j g
t?:j
!=d
~
tJ:) m
00
• • ">" -# • . •
Cost of a 3-ounce serving of cooked lean meat from selected kinds and cuts of meat at specified retail prices
Price per pound of retail cuts (cents)
Kind and cut of meat
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170
Beef
Roasts :
Brisket, bone in ...... 16 18 21 23 26 29 31 34 36 39 42 44 47 49 52 55 57 60 62 65 68 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 89
Chuck, bone in ........ 13 16 18 20 22 25 27 29 31 33 36 38 40 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 67 69 71 74 76
Chuck, bone out ....... 10 12 14 16 17 19 21 23 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 56 57 59
Ribs -7th, bone in ..... 13 16 18 20 22 25 27 29 31 33 36 38 40 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 67 69 71 74 76
Round, bone in ........ 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45 47 48 50 52 54 55 57
Round, bone out ....... 9 11 12 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53
Rump, bone in ......... 13 15 17 20 22 24 26 28 31 33 35 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 55 57 59 61 63 66 68 70 72 74
Rump, bone out ........ 10 12 14 15 17 19 20 22 24 26 27 29 31 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 48 49 51 53 55 56 58
Steaks :
Chuck , bone in ....... .
Chuck, bone out ...... .
Club, bone in ........ .
Porterhouse, bone in ..
Round, bone in . .. .... .
Round, bone out . . ... . .
Sirloin, bone in ..... .
Sirloin, bone out .... .
T-bone, bone in .. .... .
Ground beef . ...... .. ... .
Shortribs .............. .
Pork, fresh
Roasts:
13 16 18 20 22 25 27 29 31 33 36 38 40 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 67 69 71 74 76
10 12 14 16 17 19 21 23 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 56 57 59
17 20 23 26 28 31 34 37 40 43 45 48 51 54 57 60 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 82 85 88 91 94 97
16 18 21 23 26 29 31 34 36 39 42 44 47 49 52 55 57 60 62 65 68 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 89
10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40. 42 43 45 47 48 50 52 54 55 57
9 11 12 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53
13 15 17 19 21 23 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
12 14 16 18 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 66
17 19 22 25 28 30 33 36 39 41 44 47 50 52 55 58 61 64 66 69 72 75 77 80 83 86 88 91 94
8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44
18 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 96 99
Loin, bone in ......... 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 36 38 41 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 61 63 66 69 71 74 76 79 81 84 86
Loin, bone out ........ 10 12 14 16 17 19 21 23 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 56 57 59
Picnic, bone in .... ... 16 19 21 24 27 29 32 35 37 40 43 45 48 51 53 56 59 62 64 67 70 72 75 78 80 83 86 88 91
Chops:
Loin .................. 13 16 18 20 22 25 ·27 29 31 33 36 38 40 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 67 69 71 74 76
Rib . ....... . ...... .... 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 36 38 41 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 61 63 66 69 71 74 76 79 81 84 86
Pork, Cured
Roasts:
Butt, bone in ........ .
Ham, bone in ......... .
Ham, bone out ..... .. . .
Picnic, bone in ...... .
Picnic, bone out ..... .
Ham slices ... .......... .
Lamb
Roasts:
11 13 14 16
10 12 14 16
8 9 10 12
14 16 18 21
11 12 14 16
9 11 12 14
18 20 22 23 25 27 29 31 32 34 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 51 52 54 56 58 6o 61
17 19 21 23 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 56 57 59
13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44
23 25 27 30 32 34 37 39 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 57 59 62 64 66 68 71 73 75 78
18 19 21 23 25 27 28 30 32 34 35 37 39 41 42 44 46 48 49 51 53 55 57 58 6o
16 17 19 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53
Leg, bone in ... ..... .. 12 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 65 67 69 71
Shoulder, bone in ..... 14 16 18 21 23 25 27 30 32 34 37 39 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 57 59 62 64 66 68 71 73 75 78
Chops:
Loin .... . .. .... .... ... 14 16 18 21 23 25 27 30 32 34 37 39 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 57 59 62 64 66 68 71 73 75 78
Rib .................. . 17 19 22 25 28 30 )3 36 39 41 44 47 50 52 55 58 ·61 64 66 69 72 75 77 80 83 86 88 91 94
~ Yield data from U. S.Dept.Agr. ,HERR No.3l, Proximate Composition of Beef ... , and U.S .Dept . Agr . ,AH No.284, Purchasing Guide for Group Feeding.
OUTLOOK CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN FEBRUARY 1969
The next Annual National Agricultural Outlook Conference--the 46th--is to be held
February 17 to 20, 1969, in Washington, D. C. Having the conference in February instead
of November, its usual time, will enable those taking part to consider the outlook in rela­tion
to the Economic Report of the President and the Federal Budget. This will give them
a better perspective on economic developments. The program will include three or four
family living sessions, presenting material planned for home economists and others in­terested
in improving levels of living. Papers from the Outlook Conference will be pre­sented
in the March 1969 issue of Family Economics Review.
SPENDING FOR SERVICES
Consumers spent $204 billion onservicesin1967, upfrom $129 billionin1960, ac­cording
to the U.S. Department of Commerce (table 1). This was an average.of $1,024
per person in 1967comparedwith $712 in1960. Duringthis period, expendituresperper­son
for services increased 44 percent--about the same as the rate of gain for consumer
durables--45 percent--but considerably higher than that for nondurables--30 percent.
The rise in spending for services in the 1960's has been slow compared with the
sharp gains of the 1950's. Between 1950 and 1960, spendin,g per person for services in­creased
74 percent, while consumer durable goods advanced only 26 percent and nondur­able
goods 30 percent. The share of the personal consumption dollar allocated to ser­vices
increased from 33 to40cents in the 1950's, and has remained at about40 to41cents
since. In the 1960's, durable goods--whichinclude such items as automobiles and house­held
furnishings and equipment--have replaced services as the fastest growing of the
three major consumer expenditure groups.
Table 1.--Personal consumption expenditures, 1960 and 1967
Total Average per person
Item
1960 J 1967 1960 11967
Increase
1960 to 1967
Bil. dol. Bil. dol. Dol. Dol. Pet.
Total personal consumption
expenditures -------- 325.2 492.2 1,800 2,472 37
Services --------------- 128.7 203.8 712 1,024 44
Housing -------------- 46.3 70.9 256 356 39
Household operation -- 20.0 29.0 lll 146 32
Transportation ------- 10.8 15.0 6o 75 25
Other ---------------- 51.6 88.9 286 446 56
Nondurable goods ------- 151.3 215.8 837 1,084 30
Durable goods ---------- 45.3 72.6 251 365 45
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
..
Table 2.--Consumer Price Index for Services and Goods
(1957-59 == 100)
Year All items Services Durable goods Nondurable goods
1960 --------- 103.1 106.6 100.9 101.9
1961 --------- 104.2 108.8 100.8 102.8
1962 --------- 105.4 110.9 101.8 103.6
1963 --------- 106.7 113.0 102.1 104.9
1964 --------- 108.1 115.2 103.0 106.0
1965 --------- 109.9 117.8 102.6 107.9
1966 --------- 113 .. 1 122.3 102.7 111.8
1967 --------- 116.3 127.7 104.3 114.0
Higher prices have accounted for much of the increase in spending for services.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' index of prices for services rose from 106. 6 in 1960 to
127.7 in 1967 (1957-59=100) (table 2). This was a much steeper rise than that for either
durable or nondurable goods. In constant ( 1958) dollars, per capita spending for ser­vices
increased 20 percent, durable goods 41 percent, and nondurable goods 16 percent.
Spending for groups of services. --Services as reported by the Department of Com­merce
include four major groups: Housing (space rental value), household operation
(utilities, telephone, and domestic service), transportation (auto repair, tolls, and in­surance;
and public transportation), and other (services related to medical care; per­sonal
business--such as bank charges, funeral services, and legal fees; recreation; edu­cation;
clothing; personal care; foreign travel; and religion).
Housing and other are by far the most important of the four groups of services in
terms of amounts spent for them. Together they accounted for almost four-fifths of the
service dollar in both 1960 and 1967, as shown below:
Service group
Household operation --------------­Transportation--------------------
Housing --------------------------
Other ----------------------------
Percent of the service dollar in--
1960 1967
16 14
8
36
40
7
35
44
Expenditures per person for housing increased at a greater rate than did outlays
for other services between 1950 and 1960 ( 83 and 71 percent, respectively). So far in
the present decade, however, the other group has gained more--56 percent, compared
with 39 percent for housing. Much of the gain in spending for other services is due to
.. sizable increases for medical care and personal business services. Spending per person
for household operation rose 32 percent and for transportation 25 percent from 1960 to
1967.
--Katherine D. Smythe
SEPTEMBER 1968 15
INSTALLMENT CREDIT AND RETAIL SALES PRACTICES OF RETAILERS
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA_!/
The Federal Trade Commission recently completed a survey of installment credit
and sales practices invo 1 ving household furnishings and appliances in the District of
Columbia. The purpose was to get information about finance charges, prices, gross
margins and profits, legal actions taken in collecting delinquent accounts, and assign­ment
relationships between retailers and finance companies. The survey included 96
retailers of furniture and appliances having sales of $100,000 or more in 1966.
Use of installment credit. --Of the retailers surveyed, 65 used consumer install­ment
sales contracts regularly, and 31 sold only for cash or on a regular or revolving
charge account basis. The retailers using installment contracts included 18 that sold
primarily to low-income customers, and 47 selling to a more general market. There­tailers
selling to low-income customers used installment credit much more extensively
--93 percent of their sales compared with 27 percent in general market stores.
Markup and prices.--Without exception, retailers selling to the low-income mar­ket
had higher average markups and prices than general market sellers. On the average,
they marked up a $100 wholesale purchase to sell for $255, compared with $159 in gen­eral
market stores. The contrast in markup was most apparent when similar makes and
models of products were compared. For example, for a portable TV set costing about
$110 at wholesale, the price of the general market sellers was about $130, the price of
the low-income market retailers was $220. A dryer, wholesaling about $115, was sold
for $150 and $300 by the respective dealers.
Finance charges on installment credit. --The effective annual rate of finance
charges on installment purchases ranged from 11 to 33 percent in low-income and 11 to
29 percent in general market stores. However, nearly half of the credit sales by low­income
retailers were at finance rates from 26 to 33 percent, compared with less than
1 percent of those by general market stores. The distributions of annual finance rates
on installment contracts were as follows:
Annual finance rate
11 through 16 percent -------------
17 through 22 percent -------------
23 through 28 percent -------------
29 through 33 percent ------------­Not
available---------------------
Percent of total value of
installment contracts of--
Low-income General
market retailers market retailers
4.0 11.9
48.1 64.6
35.2 21.4
12.7 .3
1.8
Some low-income market retailers kept their finance charges below the actual
cost of granting credit, thus making it seem that they were absorbing the cost them-
Y Federal Trade Commission, EconomicReporton Installment Credit and Retail Sales
Practices of District of Columbia Retailers. Washington, D. C. March 1968.
16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
t.
selves. While this practice may give the buyer the idea that he is getting "easy credit,"
he may be paying dearly for credit in the form of higher prices for his purchases.
Low-income market retailers held most of their own installment credit contracts
( 80 percent by dollar value). General market retailers assigned a larger proportion of
their contracts to finance companies and banks ( 98 percent in appliance stores and 57
percent in furniture stores).
Profits and expenses. --Despite their substantially higher prices, low-income
market retailers made only a slightly higher net profit on sales than the general market
retailers and their return on net worth was considerably lower as shown in the following
tabulation:
Retailer
Low-income market --------------­General
market:
Department store --------------­Furniture
and furnishings -------­Appliance,
radio, TV------------
Average return (after taxes) on--
Net sales Net worth
Percent Percent
4.7 10.1
4.6 13.0
3.9 17.6
2.1 20.3
Salaries and commissions, bad debt losses, and other expenses appeared to be
higher for low-income than the general market retailer. Door-to-door selling with fol­lowup
demonstrations, personal collection and recordkeeping of installments made for
high personnel expense. Court action also increased their expenses since some of the
low-income market retailers made frequent use of the courts to collect on their install­ment
contracts. Of the 18 low-income market stores in the survey, 11 reported 2, 690
judgments in 1966. These legal actions ended in 1, 568 garnishments and 306 reposses­sions.
This group of stores filed one suit for every $2, 600 of sales; general market
sellers filed one for every $232, 000 of sales.
Conclusions. --Findings from this study indicate that what competition there is
among low-income market retailers of appliances and home furnishings is in the form of
easier credit rather than lower prices. They also indicate that low-income families do
little comparative shopping for these goods, and that they lack information about credit
charges and credit source alternatives, and about the price and quality of goods avail­able
in general market stores.
Several types ofaction aresuggestedas necessary to solvethe problemof install­ment
credit for low-income families: ( 1) Require finance charges to be clearly and con­spicuously
stated; ( 2) make reasonable credit more accessible; ( 3) provide counseling
services that will encourage consumers to do comparison shopping; ( 4) equalize the legal
rights of buyers and creditors in installment credit transactions; ( 5) encourage more
businesses to enter the low-income market; and (6) provide more consumer protection
by Federal and local governments, to eliminate fraud and deceptions in advertising and
offering of credit.
SEPTEMBER 1968 17
OWNERSHIP OF HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT IN 1967
An important part of the general upgrading of the U.S. level of living is the in- creasing amount of equipment for convenience md comfort in homes. In 1967, according
to the Census Bureau, 93 percent of all households owned one or more television sets,
85 percent a refrigerator, and 72 percent a washing machine (see table). Although own­ership
rates were lower for the other items surveyed--clothes dryers, dishwashers, air
conditioners, and radio and phonograph equipment costing $100 or more--they had made
substantial gains over their 1960 levels.
A TV set is evidently one of the early purchases (or gifts) of young households,
since 86 percent of those headed by a person under 25 years and 95 percent in the 25 to
34 age group owned a TV in 1967. Ownership of radio and phonograph equipment costing
at least $100 is about as high in the youngest households--41 percent--as at its peak of
46 percent in the next two age groups (25 to 34 and 35 to 44).
Households owning specified equipment in 1967, by age of head,
income before taxes, residence, and tenure
Age of head, in- Radio,
come before taxes, Refrig - Washing Clothes Dish- Air con- TV phono-residence,
tenure era tor machine dryer washer ditioner set graph y
Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.
All households 85 72 30 12 20 93 35
AGE OF HEAD
Under 25 years 52 40 14 2 9 86 41
25 to 34 years 80 73 38 11 19 95 46
35 to 44 years 90 82 44 18 23 96 46
45 to 54 years 90 80 36 16 25 95 40
55 to 64 years 87 72 25 10 24 93 29
65 years and over 86 62 11 5 15 89 14
INCOME
Under $3,000 77 53 6 1 8 82 10
$3,000 to $4,999 - 80 64 17 3 14 93 23
$5,000 to $7,499 - 86 75 31 6 20 97 36
$7,500 to $14,999 90 84 52 20 31 98 53
$15,000 and over - 91 85 64 51 45 99 72
RESIDENCE
Farm ------------- 96 86 33 6 13 91 18
Nonfarm ---------- 90 76 31 11 18 92 32
TENURE
Owner ------------ 99 86 41 17 26 96 38
Renter ----------- 62 49 13 3 11 89 31
y Radios and phonographs (or their component parts) together costing $100
or more.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Unlike TV sets and radio and phonograph equipment, appliances for housework
(washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and dishwashers) and air conditioners are
much less likely to be owned by young families than by those in the middle and upper­middle
age groups. This is due, in part at least, to the fact that many young families
live in rented apartments or houses rather than owned homes. As renters they mayhave
refrigerators and possibly dishwashers and air conditioners provided by the landlord.
They may also have access to coin-operated laundry equipment. Households in the old­est
group (65 and over) have lower ownership rates than those headed by persons 25 to 64
years old--especially for dryers, dishwashers, air conditioners, and radio and phono­graph
equipment costing $100 or more.
Ownership of each item of equipment increased as income rose. However, income
seemed to have least effect on television ownership. The proportion with TV sets was
high--82 percent--even among families with incomes under $3, 000, rising to 99 percent
for those in the top income group. Households owning dishwashers increased from only
1 percent at the under-$3, 000 to 51 percent at the $15, 000-and-over level.
Compared with nonfarm families, those on farms are more likely to own washing
machines, clothes dryers, and refrigerators, but less likely to own dishwashers, air
conditioners, and radio and phonograph equipment costing $100 or more. Farm families
had just about caught up with nonfarm in TV ownership by 1967, though they had been
considerably lower 7 years earlier.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Special Report on House­hold
Ownership and Purchases of Automobiles and Selected Household Durables: 1960 to
1967. U.S. Bur. Census, Ser. P - 65, No. 18. August 1967.
EDUCATION AND LIFETIME EARNINGS
Does it pay to stay in school long enough to get a high school diploma or a college
r degree? Census Bureau estimates of expected lifetime earnings of men--based on data
from the 1960 Census--indicate that it does. The estimates assume (1) probability of
death before age 65 in line with current death rates; (2) retirement at age 65 if still liv­ing;
and ( 3) average income changes over the worklife due to age and experience. As­suming
also that earnings increase at the rate of 3 percent a year due to growth in pro­ductivity
in the economy, a 22-year-old man with average income for his age and educa­tion
can expect the following earnings during his working lifetime:
$354, 000 if he had only an 8th grade education;
$482, 000 if he had completed 4 years of high school ; and
$862, 000 if he had completed 4 or more years of college.
These figures are averages for all occupations . Since income varies from one oc­cupation
to another, however, an individual needs to take the kind of work he does into
account in estimating future earnings. The following table gives expected earnings for
22-year-old men in each major occupational group, based on the assumptions noted above.
SEPTEMBER 1968 19
Expected lifetime earnings for men 22 years old in the experienced civilian
labor force with earnings in 1959 (assuming 3 percent annual
increase in earnings), by education and occupation
Occupation
All occupations ---------------------­Professional,
technical, and kindred
Managers, officials, proprietors
(except farm) ---- - ---------------­Clerical
and kindred --------------­Sales
workers ---------------------­Craftsmen,
foremen, and kindred ----
Operatives and kindred ------------­Service
workers, including household
Farmers and farm managers ---------­Farm
laborers and foremen ---------­Laborers
(except farm and mine) ----
~ Not available.
8th
grade
Thou.dol.
354
444
523
361
399
392
350
279
237
170
282
High school, College,
4 years 4 or more years
Thou.dol. Thou.dol.
482 862
564 860
700 1,165
417 514
516 774
453 621
390 445
338 383
311 490
247 (y')
322 365
Data on lifetime earnings can be used to estimate the present value of a man's life
as well as his future income. The present value of lifetime earnings is needed, for ex­ample,
in a legal suit involving a man's death in an automobile accident, when a cash
settlement to his family for loss of his earnings is being considered. In such a case, the
estimated lifetime earnings are usually discounted, because a dollar one does not expect
to receive until 30 or 40 years from now is not worth a dollar to him today. One dis­count
rate sometimes used to reduce future earnings to present value is the interest rate
on long-time Government investments. An additional adjustment sometimes required by
courts to estimate net loss of earnings to the family is to subtract the cost of the work­er's
maintenance during his expected worklife. For a 22-year-old carpenter (craftsman)
with a high school education, the present value of his future earnings might be calculated
as follows: His expected future earnings--assuming the 3 percent annual increase for
productivity--would be $453,000. The present value of this sum, discounted at 4 percent
a year, would be $186,000. The present value minue $1,000 a year for maintenance dur­ing
his expected worklife would be $154, 000.
The Census report from which this information is taken gives estimates of life­time
earnings for men 18 to 64 years old in the experienced civilian labor force in 1959,
assuming annual gains in output per man hour of 0, 2, 3, or 4 percent, by age, occupa­tion,
and color ; the present value of these expected earnings, discounted at the rate of 0,
3, 4, or 5percent a year; and the amounts to be deducted for personal maintenance costs
of $1,000, $2,000, and $3,000 a year.
Source: Miller, H. P., and Hornseth, R. A. Present Values of Estimated Lifetime
Earnings. U.S. Bur. Census Tech. Paper No. 16. 1967. For sale by the Supt. of Doc­uments,
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, for 40 cents.
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
J
A NEW POVERTY STATISTIC
For a number of years, the Social Security Administration and the Bureau of the
Census have prepared estimates of the number of U.S. families and unrelated individuals
living in poverty and also descriptions of these families. These estimates have beende­veloped
by comparing the income reported by each family and unrelated individual in the
Census Bureau's Current Population Survey for March to the Social Security Administra­tion's
"poverty line" for a family of its size and composition.
Now another measure of our poverty problem has beendeveloped--an estimate of
the amount of income needed to raise poor families above the poverty line. In 1965, the
only year for which this estimate is now available, the amount needed to raise the median
poor white family above the poverty line was $872, and for the median poor nonwhite
family $1, 165. Counts of the poor ~ave shown that relatively more nonwhite than white
families are living in poverty. Also, according to the new measure, poor nonwhite fami­lies
are deeper in poverty than poor white families.
This information--and much more about poverty in this country--is published in
the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, "The Extent of Poverty in the
United States, 1959 to 1966," Series P-60, No. 54.
SPENDING FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL
U.S. residents spent $4 ::V4 billion onforeign travel in 1967, about 17 percent more
than in 1966, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce . .!/ More than 3. 4 million
travelers spent $1. 5 billion in overseas countries and millions more spent nearly $1. 7
billion in Canada and Mexico. (The other $1.5 billion was paid to foreign ships and air­lines
for transoceanic transportation.)
U.S. outlays for travel in Europe and the Mediterranean area rose 11 percent.
This reflected a 15 percent rise in the number of visitors, offset in part by a 3 percent
decrease in average amount spent.
Expo 67 and the Canadian Centennial drew millions of U.S. visitors, who spent
$1. 07 billion in Canada. Travel spending in the Caribbean area, including the West
Indies and Central America, was nearly 14 percent over 1966 and came from more than
1. 2 million visitors. The number of travelers to South America rose 35 percent, but
the average amount spent per person declined. Fewer persons visited Japan and Hong
Kong and expenditures there declined.
A trip to Europe in 1967 cost U.S. travelers an average of $1,022, including $460
for transocean fare and $563 while there. Visits averaged about 33 days at $17.06 a day.
This was 4 days shorter but 8 percent more costly per day than the average European
trip in 1966.
1/ Miller, E. H. u.s. Spending for Foreign Travel Totaled $4 3/4 Billion in 1967.
U~S. Dept. Com., Survey of Current Business; Vol. No. 48, 14-17, 58. June 1968.
SEPTEMBER 1968 21
THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF U.S. WORKERS
The general upgrading of the educational level of the U.S. population is naturally
reflected in the labor force. As of the mid-1960's, 56 percent of all workers 25 years
old and over had at least a high school education and 12 percent had completed 4 or more
years of college (see table). Just 7 or 8 years earlier, only 46 percent had finished high
school and 10 percent were college graduates. Workers with no more than an elemen­tary
school education decreased from 35 to 26 percent of the labor force during the pe­riod.
By 1975, according to projections of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 66 percent of
the labor force will have at least a high school education, 15 percent will have graduated
from college, and only 16 percent will have completed 8 grades or less.
The educational gap between younger and older workers is declining as young
people replace those who retire. In 1964-66, 69 percent of workers aged 25 to 34 years
compared with 39 percent of those 55 to 64 years old had a high school education or bet­ter.
By 1975, 79 percent of the younger and 53 percent of the older group are expected
to attain this level.
The average (median) number of years of schooling of workers 25 years old and
over was 12. 2 in 1964-66 and is expected to be 12.4 by 1975.
Distribution of civilian labor force 25 years of age and over,
by highest number of years of school completed
Years of school 1975 I March 1951-59 March 1964-66
completed average average projected
Percent Percent Percent
All ------------------------- 100 100 100
Elementary, 8 years or .less
High school, 1 to 3 years -
High school, 4 years -----­College,
l to 3 years ----­College,
4 years or more
35
19
28
8
10
26 16
19 18
33 40
10 11
12 15
Median years of school
completed ------------------ 11.4 12.2 12.4
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review, April
1968, pp. 10-13; and Special Labor Force Reports No. 53, 65, and 83.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402 : (Please give your ZIP code.)
HELPING FAMILIES MANAGE THEIR FINANCES. Research Report No. 21-­Revised
June 1968. 40 cents.
CALORIES AND WEIGHT: THE USDA POCKET GUIDE. HG No. 153. 25 cents.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, June 1968, U.S. average !(
y Cost for l week Cost for l month
Sex-age groups
Low-costlModerate- Liberal Low-cost/Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years 3/---- 16.70 21.10 25.80 72.40 91.60 112.10
55 to 75 years Y---- 13.60 17-70 21.10 59-30 76.40 91.40
Family of 4:
Preschool children 4/ 24.20 . 30.70 37.20 105.10 133.10 161.30
School children 2/-~- 28.20 35-90 43.80 122.30 155-30 189.80
INDIVIDUALS §/
Children, under l year 3.2Q 4.10 4.50 14.00 17.60 19.60
1 to 3 years -------- 4.10 5 .20 6 .20 17-90 22.40 26.70
3 to 6 years -------- 4.90 6.30 7.50 21.40 27.40 32.70
6 to 9 years -------- 6.00 7.70 9.50 26.00 33.20 41.20
Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 6.80 8 .80 10.20 29 .60 38.00 44.30
12 to 15 years ------ 7-50 9-70 11.70 32.70 42.10 50.70
15 to 20 years ------ 7.70 9.70 11.40 33.30 41.80 49.50
Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 7.00 9.00 10.80 30.40 38.80 46.70
12 to 15 years ------ 8.20 10.70 12.70 35.60 46.40 55.10
15 to 20 years ------ 9.50 12.00 14.40 41.00 51.80 62.30
Women, 20 to 35 years - 7.00 8 .90 10.70 30.50 38.60 46.30
35 to 55 years ------ 6 .70 8 .60 10.30 29.20 37.10 44.60
55 to 75 years ------ 5.70 7.40 8.80 -24.80 31.90 37-90
75 years and over --- 5.20 6 .60 8.00 22.50 28 .40 34.60
Pregnant ------------ 8 .40 10.40 12.30 36.30 45.10 53.10
Nursing ------------- 9.80 12.00 14.00 42.20 52.10 60 .80
Men, 20 to 35 years --- 8 .20 10.30 12.80 35-30 44.70 55.60
35 to 55 years ------ 7.60 9 .60 11.70 32.80 - 41.50 50.60
55 to 75 years ------ 6 .70 8 .70 10.40 29.10 37.50 45.20
75 years and over --- 6 .30 8.30 10.00 27.20 36.10 43.40
I. 1/ Estimates computed from quantities 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.
l( 10 percent added for family size adjustment . For derivation of factors I• for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs , USDA, HERR No. 20.
4/ Man and woman, 20 to 35 yearsj children l to 3 and 3 to 6 years.
• 5/ Man and woman, 20 to 35 yearsj child 6 to 9j and boy 9 to 12 years.
b/ Costs given for persons in families of 4. For other size families, adjust
thus: 1-person, add 20 percentj 2-person, add 10 percentj 3-person, add 5 per­centj
5-person, subtract 5 percentj 6-or -more-person, subtract 10 percent.
SEPTEMBER 1968 23
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ··
(including single workers )
(1957 -59 = 100)
July May June Group 1967 1968 1968 l
All items ----------------------------- 116.5 120.3 120.9
Food -------------------------------- 116.0 118.8 119.1
Food at home ---------------------- 113.3 115.6 115.8
Food away from home --------------- 129-...7 135.1 135·7
Housing ----------------------------- 114.5 117.8 118.7
Shelter --------------------------- 118.1 121.6 122.9
Rent ---------------------------- 112.4 114.6 114 .9
Homeowner ship ------------------- 120.5 124.3 126.1
Fuel and utilities ---------------- 108.9 110.3 110.3
Fuel oil and coal --------------- 111.4 115.3 115.4
Gas and electricity ------------- 108.3 109.5 109.4
Household furnishings and operation 108.2 112.5 112.9
Apparel and upkeep ------------------ 113.7 119.5 119.9
Men's and boys' ------------------- 113.9 119.5 120.1
Women's and girls' ---------------- 109.2 116.2 116.5
Footwear -------------------------- 125.4 131.2 131.7
Transportation ---------------------- 116.2 119.1 119.7
Private --------------------------- 114.1 116.8 117.4
Public ---------------------------- 132.7 137.3 138.4
Health and recreation --------------- 123.6 129.2 129 .7
Medical care ---------------------- 136.9 144.0 144.4
Personal care --------------------- 115.5 119.6 120.1
Reading and recreation ------------ 119 .8 125.3 125 .6
Other goods and services ---------- 117.8 122.6 123 .5
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics .
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
( 1957-59 = 100)
Item Aug. March I April May June July
1967 1968 i 1968 1968 1968 1968
All items ----------------- 113 116 117 117 117 118
Food and tobacco -------- - 117 - - 120 -
Clothing ---------------- - 128 - - 129 -
Household operation ----- - 115 - - 115 -
Household furnishings --- - 100 - - 102 -
Building materials, house - lll - - 113 -
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
Aug.
1968
118
--
-
-
-
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
1t U. B. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 343- ~ 69/12