Family Economics Review [1970, Number 3]

              \
l
3 The Family Economics Review Evaluation Survey
5 Expenditures and Value of Consumption of Farm and
Rural Nonfarm Families in North Carolina
9 Poverty in the United States, 1959-69
11 The Cost of Meats and Meat Alternates
13 Medical Care Expenditures
15 Food Canning by U.S. Households
16 Income of People Aged 65 and Older
17 Use of Bank Credit Cards Grows
18 Cost of Food at Home
447A
19 Consumer Prices
20 Some New USDA Publicati~ PERTY OF THE
ARS 62-5
September 1970
LIBRARY
SEP 211970
UNIVt.n::.llY Uf i'ouh I H '-'"nul-INA
AT GREENSBORO
As this issue of Family Economics Review goes to press,
Dr. Emma G. Holmes, who has guided its development for
more than half its existence, retires from Federal serv­ice.
We are sure her many friends among the readers of
Family Economics Review will join the Division's staff in
wishing her a new life as personally rewarding as her years
in the Division have been to her profession.
Florence Forziati, Acting Director
Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division
Family Economics Review is a quarterlyreport 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 prepared primarily for home
economics agents and home economics specialists of the Co­operative
Ex tension Service.
•
THE FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW EVALUATION SURVEY
The Consumer and Food Economics Research Division appreciates the response
Family Economics Review readers have made to the evaluation questionnaire in the
March 1970 issue. By July 6, answers had been received from 1, 140 persons--about
16 percent of the mailing list--and were still coming. These replies are letting us know
what readers do and do not like about this publication. They are also providing some
ideas for future issues and asking some questions we are glad for an opportunity to an­swer
for readers.
Reader Uses of Family Economics Review
From answers to the questions about use of the 1969 issues, we learned that a­bout
two-thirds of the persons who responded had read articles from all of the subject
• matter areas represented. Articles on food, family finance, and housing--each read by
about 90 percent of the respondents-- were of interest to somewhat more people than
those on clothing and textiles, which 80 percent read. The most-used regular feature
was the current cost of food in the USDA food plans.
..,
We are pleased to know that most of the readers find Family Economics Review
of enough value to file their copies for future reference and share them with other people.
Reader Questions and Suggestions
Distribution. --Many readers asked questions about the distribution of Family
Economics Review. This publication is free and is prepared primarily for the Exten­sion
Service. A large proportion of the copies printed must be used for Extension and
other USDA workers. The number of other persons who can be placed on the mailing
list is limited. General distribution policies are as follows:
The Extension Service sets its own distribution policy and handles all distribu­tion
to Extension personnel. The Extension Publications Officer in Washington, D.C.,
sends in bulk to each State the number of copies the State Director has ordered for his
staff. The Publications Officer in the State then distributes the copies directly to the
individuals designated to receive them or sends them to the State specialist to distrib­ute.
Extension workers who want more copies than they are receiving or who have ques­tions
about service should direct their requests and inquiries to their State office.
Teachers in colleges, universities, and high schools may be placed on the mail­ing
list upon request. We cannot send teachers enough copies to distribute to their
classes. However, teachers are free to have copies made of any articles they want to
give to students .
Over 500 libraries that are depositories for U.S. Government publications re-ceive
Family Economics Review. Other libraries may receive it upon request.
Other professional workers, such as welfare and nutrition workers and members
of the press, may be placed on the mailing list upon request.
students may not be placed on the mailing list because the number of copies
printed is too limited.
SEPTEMBER 1970
3
Homemakers may not be placed on the mailing list unless they are also em­ployed
as professional workers.
Subject matter. -- Many readers suggested topics for articles they would like to
see in Family Economics Review. Some of these topics will be used in future issues;
others are not within the scope of this publication.
Family Economics Review's purpose is to "report on research of the Consumer
and Food Economics Research Division and on information from other sources relating
to economic aspects of family living." Major emphasis is on the research of this Divi­sion
( C FE). Studies by State Experiment Stations in cooperation with or under grant
from C FE are reported also. As space in an issue and staff time for writing permit,
information on pertinent research and consumer programs of other U. S. Government
agencies and on Federal laws affecting consumers may be included.
With these limits, Family Economics Review cannot meet all of the information
needs of the many professional workers receiving it, for their interests vary widely.
Some, for example, wanted less emphasis on food whereas others wanted more. The
reason many of the articles are about food is that much of the research in family eco­nomics,
both in CFE and elsewhere, is concerned with food. CFE has no research that
will provide information on such subjects as home decorating, selection of household
appliances and furnishings, home laundering, or clothing design and construction. In­formation
from other U.S. Government agencies on textiles research, housing, budgets,
consumer prices and credit, and family characteristics will continue to be reported when
available.
Several readers asked for up-to-date figures on family expenditures. The prob­lem
here is lack of data. Nationwide surveys that provide such data are conducted only
at long intervals, and tabulation and analysis of findings take time, too. The most re­cent
nationwide survey of consumer expenditures covered spending in 1960-61. The next
nationwide survey is scheduled to be conducted in 1972-73 and cover expenditures made
in 1971-72. Results will appear in Family Economics Review as theyare released. In­formation
on family spending from studies in limited areas is published as it becomes
available. For example, information from a study of spending in 1967 by ruralfamilies
in North Carolina is given in the June 1970 issue (p. 3) and in this issue (p. 5).
From time to time, Family Economics Review publishes estimates of personal
consumption expenditures that are provided by the Office of Business Economics (OBE)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce. An article giving the most recent figures from
this source will be included in a later issue.
General. --Several suggestions were made that we would like to follow but can­not
at the present time because our staff is too small or they would add too much to
preparation time or cost. Among these suggestions were ( 1) prepare six or 12 instead
of four issues a year, ( 2) give regional food cost estimates every quarter, and ( 3) use
photographs or pictures to make it more attractive.
Many readers said they like Family Economics Review as it is. Although we
may not be able to add glamor, we do hope to continue to give accurate, up-to-date in­formation
that will be useful to its varied audience.
--Emma G. Holmes
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
J I
•
EXPENDITURES AND VALUE OF CONSUMPTION OF FARM AND RURAL
NONFARM FAMILIES IN NORTH CAROLINA
Farm and rural nonfarm families in North Carolina in 1967 had about the same
average level of living as measured by value of consumption. However, farm families
maintained this level on lower expenditures than did nonfarm families. Value of con­sumption
averaged about $4, 650 for each group but expenditures averaged $4, 110 for
farm and $4,470 for rural nonfarm families, according to a survey conducted for the
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division by the Research Triangle Institute. 1/
(Value of consumption includes expenditures for nondurable goods and for services, plus
the value of home-produced food and fuel, the value of goods received as gift or pay, and
the use-value of housing and durable goods in the possession of the family.)
The Families
The average farm family in North Carolina in-1967 had a head 54 years old with
7.8 years of schooling (table 1). It had 3.7 members, of whom 1.3 were under 18 years
of age, and about 0. 9 full-time earner.
The average rural nonfarm family had a head 50 years old with 8. 7 years of
schooling. It consisted o:!: 3. 4 persons, of whom 1. 3 were under 18 years. It had 0. 8
full-time earner.
A majority of both groups of families owned a home and one or more automobiles.
Homes were owned by 72 percent o£ the farm and 68 percent of the rural nonfarm fami­lies,
and automobiles by 87 and 72 percent, respectively. Income after personal taxes
(personal property and Federal, State, and local incocne taxes) averaged about $4, 265
for farm and $4, 964 for rural no.nl:arm families.
~nditures and Value of Consumption
Farm families were able to maintain the sam·e level of consumption as rural non­farm
families wtth less expenditure because ( 1) they produced more of their food and
fuel, ( 2) they made smaller increases in their stocks of durable goods, and ( 3) they
spent less on their homes in relation to use-value. Of these three, home food produc­tion
was the most important, contributing $421 to the value of consumption of farm fami­lies
compared with $92 to that of rural nonfarm families (tables 2 and 3).
Farm families spent less for food than rural nonfarm-- $943 compared with
$1,143. Both groups had small amounts of free food from such sources as school lunch
and donated food programs and meals received as pay. Farm families used food valued
at $126 more than rural nonfarm, but they also had more members to feed. As a result,
the value of food used per person was about the same for both groups. Food per farm
family accounted for 30 percent of the value of consumption but only 23 percent of ex­penditures.
In rural nonfarm families, food accounted for 27 percent of consumption
and 26 percent of expenditures.
~ y Another article based on this study appeared in the June 1970 issue of Family
Economics Review.
SEPTEMBER 1970 5
Table 1 .--Number, distribution by income, and characteristics of rural farm and rural nonfarm families , North Carolina, 1967
Rural farm Rural nonfarm
Item All Income after personal taxes1/ All Income after personal taxesJV
fami - Under I ~"1 , 500 -~ ~} , 000 -~ ~"":_.500 -~, ~o , ooo fami - Under j $"1 , 500-, $} , 000-, $}-:_, 500-, $1:l,ooo
lies $1, 500 $2 , 999 $4,499 $7 , 999 or more lies $1,500 $2 , 999 $4,499 $7,999 or more
Families
Estimated total----number-- 119, 593 22 ,192 29,081 22,831 27, 850 17,639 665 , 991 109,490 80,589 144, 326 183, 020 148,566
Distribution------percent-- 100 19 24 19 23 15 100 16 12 22 27 22
Characteristic
Family size !/-----number-- 3.7 3. 2 3. 5 3. 5 4. 3 4.0 3.4 2. 0 3.1 ] .8 3. 7 3.9
Children under 18--number-- 1. 3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.4
Age of head----------year-- 54 56 58 55 53 50 50 67 56 50 45 43
Schooling of head----year-- 7.8 6.6 6. 7 8. 4 8. 3 10.0 8.7 5. 2 6. 7 8.7 9.7 10. 9
Full-time earners --number-- 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.4 0. 8 0 .0 0.2 0. 7 1.0 l.q
Homeowner ---- - ----percent -- 72 71 59 73 81 83 68 44 64 62 74 85 '
Auto owner ~- ----percent -- 87 76 77 89 100 97 72 14 48 72 94 98
With persons 65 yr .
and over---------percent-- 32 40 37 32 32 12 28 63 50 28 15 8
Income before per-sonal
taxes ]/---dollars -- 4, 627 859 2,162 3,595 6, 038 12,541 5,443 960 2, 249 3, 757 6,108 11,296
Income after per-sonal
taxes ]/---dollars -- 4,265 811 2,083 3,431 5,615 11,154 4, 964 958 2, 223 3,612 5,621 9, 909
-- -
Preliminary
!/ In year-equivalent persons, derived by dividing by 52 the total number of weeks of membership reported.
gj Automobiles and trucks used for family living purposes.
]/ Personal property and Federal, State, and local income taxes.
~
~
~
~
~
.; 00
C) :g
0 6 C)
~
~
~
<
~
t.O
gj Table 2. --Expenditures for family living and value of consumption of farm families , by income after personal taxes, North Carolina, 1967
~
t-3
tzj
9 tzj
::0
~ co
...;J
0
...;J
Average expenditures Aver~ e value of consumption
Item All Under $1,500- $3, 000- $4, 500-
$8, 000 All Under $1, 500- $3, 000- $4, 500 $8 , 000
fami-
$1, '500 $2 , 999 $4,499 $7 , 999
or fami - $1,500 $2 , 999 $4,499 $7,999
or
lies more lies more
Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol.
Total ----------------------- 4,lll 3,025 2, 871 3,575 5, 205 6,474 4,651 3, 621 3, 550 4,221 5, 643 6,752
Food, total --------------- 943 715 705 821 1,195 1,383 1,376 1,171 1,098 1,168 1, 685 1, 874
Purchased !/ ------------ 943 715 705 821 1,195 1,383 943 715 705 821 1,195 1, 383
Home-produced ----------- - - - - - - 421 431 380 330 487 489
Other gj ---------------- - - - - - - 12 25 13 17 3 2
Tobacco ------------------- 60 59 47 57 67 73 60 59 47 57 67 73
Housing, total ------------ 1,231 908 943 1,147 1,523 1,756 1, 336 1,054 1,080 1,321 1, 539 1,805
Shelter ----------------- 537 402 434 484 649 768 609 481 496 6o6 660 879
Household operation ----- 481 357 371 486 605 615 521 410 424 519 639 635
Furnishings and equipment 213 149 138 177 269 373 206 163 160 196 24o 291
Clothing ------------------ 406 288 232 326 585 662 443 321. 349 412 541 635
Personal care ------------- 112 75 65 94 155 189 116 77 70 97 158 195
Medical care -------------- 406 342 366 389 428 543 406 342 366 389 428 543
Recreation ---------------- 118 85 51 91 160 235 109 72 49 73 151 232
Reading and education ----- 79 50 37 65 ill 150 81 50 37 67 118 151
Automobile 11 ------------- 698 421 393 528 919 1,422 665 387 416 5'79 890 1,182
Other transportation ------ 22 7 10 21 41 30 25 12 13 23 46 31
Miscellaneous ------------- 36 75 22 36 21 31 36 75 22 36 21 31
Pet . Pet. Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet . Pet .
Total ----------------------- 100 ,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100 .0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Food, total --------------- 22 . 9 23.6 24.6 23.0 23 .0 21.4 29. 6 32 . 3 30. 9 27.7 29 .9 27 .8
Purchased !/ ------------ 22 .9 23.6 24.6 23.0 23 .0 21.4 20 . 3 19.7 19.9 19. 5 21.2 20.5
Home-produced ----------- - - - - - - 9.1 11.9 10.7 7.8 8. 6 7.2
Other gj ---------------- - - - - - - . 3 .7 . 4 . 4 .1 (!±./)
Tobacco ------------------- 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1. 3 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1
Housing , total ---------- -- 29.9 30 ,0 32 .8 32.1 29. 3 27.1 28 .7 29.1 30 .4 31. 3 27 . 3 26.7
Shelter ----------------- 13.1 13. 3 15.1 13. 5 12.5 11.9 13.1 13.3 14.0 14.4 11.7 13.0
Household operation ----- 11.7 11.8 12.9 13. 6 11.6 9. 5 11.2 11.3 11.9 12. 3 11. 3 9.4
Furnishings and equipment 5. 2 4.9 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.8 4.4 4.5 4. 5 4.6 4.3 4. 3
Clothing ------------------ 9. 9 9. 5 8.1 9.1 11.2 10. 2 9. 5 8. 9 9. 8 9. 8 9.6 9.4
Personal care ------------- 2.7 2. 5 2. 3 2.6 3.0 2. 9 2. 5 2.1 2.0 2. 3 2.8 2.9
Medical care -------------- 9. 9 11.3 12.7 10.9 8. 2 8 .4 8.7 9.4 10.3 9.2 7.6 8.0
Recr eation ---------------- 2. 9 2.8 1.8 2. 5 3.1 3. 6 2. 3 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.7 3.4
Reading and education ----- 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.8 2.1 2. 3 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.2
Automobile 11 ------------- 17.0 13. 9 13.7 14.8 17.7 22 . 0 14.3 10.7 11.7 13.7 15 .8 17.5
other transportation ------ .5 .2 . 3 .6 .8 . 5 . 5 . 3 .4 . 5 .8 . 5
Miscellaneous ------------- . 9 2. 5 .8 1.0 . 4 . 5 . 8 2.1 .6 .9 .4 . 5
-- -- ----
Preliminary, Detail malf not add to total because of rounding.
!/ Includes food purchased for use at home, purchased meals awalf from home, and alcoholic beverages. gj Includes meals as palf, free
school lunches, commodities obtained through t he Food Donation Program. 3/ Automobiles and trucks used for family living purposes,
expenditure for purchase or value of consumption and operating expenses . ~ Less than 0,05 percent •
00
~
~
~
~
trj
0
0 z
0
~
0
U).
~
trj
~
trj
~
Table 3.--Expenditures for family living and value of consumption of rural nonfarm families ,
by income after personal taxes, North Carolina, 1967
Average expenditures Aver~ ge value of consumption
Item
All I I $3 f . Under $1,500- , ooo- ~ $4,500-1 $1:.l~~oo Al~ I Under $1,500-l $3,000- I $4 500- 1$8 , 000
f~l- $1 500 ' or
1a;:s- $1, 500 $2,999 $4, 499 $7, 999 more lles ' $2 , 999 $4, 499 $7, 999 more
Dol . Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol.
Total ----------------------- 4, 469 1,514 2, 452 3,459 5,101
Food, total --------------- 1,143 497 767 1,081 1,310
Purchased !/ ------------ 1,143 497 767 1,081 1, 310
Home-produced ----------- - - - - -
Other gj ---------------- - - - - -
Tobacco ------------------- 65 28 52 62 74
Housing, total ------------ 1,347 572 806 985 1, 463
Shelter ----------------- 568 258 302 338 641
Household operation ----- 545 256 349 466 578
Furnishings and equipment 234 58 155 181 244
Clothing ------------------ 392 67 204 279 437
Personal care ------------- 123 28 59 94 148
Medical care -------------- 394 234 265 344 432
Recreation ---------------- 153 12 37 81 184
Reading and education ----- 62 8 24 38 54
Automobile 1/ ------------- 725 46 218 450 909
Other transportation ------ 33 12 14 28 19
Miscellaneous ------------- 32 10 6 17 71
Pet. Pet . Pet. Pet. Pet .
Total ----------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Food, total --------------- 25.6 32 .8 31. 3 31.3 25.7
Purchased!/------------- 25 .6 32 .8 31. 3 31.3 25 .7
Home -produced ----------- - - - - -
Other g/----------------- - - - - -
Tobacco ------------------- 1. 5 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.5
Housing, total ------------ 30.1 37.8 32 .9 28. 5 28 .7
Shelter ----------------- 12.7 17.0 12.3 9.8 12.6
Household operation ----- 12.2 16.9 14.2 13.5 11.3
Furnishings and equipment 5. 2 3. 8 6. 3 5.2 4.8
Clothing ------------------ 8. 8 4. 4 8.3 8.1 8.6
Personal care ------------- 2.8 1.8 2. 4 2.7 2.9
Medical care -------------- 8.8 15.5 10.8 9-9 8. 5
Recreation ---------------- 3. 4 .8 1.5 2. 3 3.6
Reading and education ----- 1.4 . 5 1.0 1.1 1.1
Automobile 1/-------------- 16.2 3.0 8.9 13.0 17.8
other transportation ------ .7 .8 .6 .8 .4
Miscellaneous ------------- .7 .7 .2 .5 1.4
Preliminary. Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
!/ Includes food purchased for use at home, purchased meals away from home,
school lunches, commodities obtained through the Food Donation Program. 3/
expenditure for purchase or value of consumption and operating expenses . 5/
Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol.
7, 943 4, 660 1,869 2,818 3, 956 5,322 7,584
1,676 1,250 587 909 1,199 1,414 1,773
1,676 1,143 497 767 1,081 1 ,310 1,676 - 92 56 115 98 96 94
- 15 34 27 20 8 3
91 65 28 52 62 74 91
2, 419 1,356 691 918 1,178 1,456 2,125
1,072 592 314 420 514 650 894
901 558 282 365 481 586 905
446 206 95 133 183 220 326
789 492 185 254 413 550 853
224 129 32 61 98 160 227
584 394 234 265 344 432 584
349 134 20 39 76 159 295
158 67 10 29 38 64 162
1,539 706 56 265 499 922 1 , 358
83 36 16 19 31 19 84
31 32 10 6 17 71 31
Pet . Pet . Pet. Pet. Pet . Pet . Pet.
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
21.1 26 .8 31.4 32 . 3 30 .3 26 .6 23.4
21.1 24.5 26 .6 27 .2 27 . 3 24 .6 22.1 - 2.0 3.0 4.1 2. 5 1.8 1.2
- .3 1.8 1.0 .5 .2 (.Y)
1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
30 . 5 29.1 37 .0 32 .6 29 .8 27 . 4 28 .0
13.5 12.7 16.8 14.9 13.0 12.2 11.8
11.3 12.0 15.1 13.0 12.2 11.0 11.9
5.6 4.4 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.1 4.3
9.9 10.6 9-9 9.0 10.4 10.3 11.2
2. 8 2.8 1.7 2.2 2. 5 3.0 3.0
7. 4 8.5 12.5 9.4 8.7 8.1 7.7
4. 4 2.9 1.1 1.4 1.9 3.0 3.9
2.0 1.4 . 5 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.1
19.4 15.2 3.0 9. 4 12.6 17.3 17.9
1 .0 .8 .9 .7 .8 . 4 1.1
. 4 .7 .5 .2 . 4 1.3 . 4
and alcoholic beverages . gj Includes meals as pay, free
Automobiles and trucks used for family living purposes ,
Less than 0. 05 percent .
Both farm and rural nonfarm families bought more durable goods than they used
up in 1967. Farm families added more to their stock of automobiles and rural nonfarm
families more to furnishings and equipment.
Effect of income.--Differences between high- and low-income families in amounts
spent and values of consumption were less on farms than off. Each $100 of after-tax in­come
resulted, on the average, in $32 in expenditures and $26 in value of consumption
for farm families and $72 and $61, respectively, for rural nonfarm families. This dif­ference
between the two groups is related largelyto the difference in the nature of their
incomes. Farm families have incomes that vary muchmore from year to year, yet they
tend to maintain their usual level of living by spending at about the same level. There­fore,
farm families had higher spending and consumption than rural nonfarm at the low­est
income level and lower expenditures and consumption than rural nonfarm families
at the top level.
Expenditures increased faster than value of consumption as income rose. Ex­penditures
of farm families averaged 84percent of consumption at the low-income level
(under $1, 500) compared with 96 percent at the high-income level ($8, 000 and over).
For rural nonfarm families at these levels, expenditures were 81 and 105 percent of
consumption, respectively. Spending increased fasterthan consumption because, as in­come
rose, families (1) bought a largerproportion of their food, (2) spentmore on dur­ables
and homes in relation to the use-value of those they owned, and ( 3) bought more of
their clothing, made less of it, and received less as gift or pay.
Clothing and autos took larger shares of expenditures and values of consumption
at high than at low income levels in both groups of families, while food and housing took
smaller shares. The differences were usually greater in expenditures than in value of
consumption.
--Lucile F. Mork and Jean L. Pennock
POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1959-69
Persons below the poverty level.--The number of persons below the poverty level
declined from 39 million to 24 million--or from 22 to 12 percent of the P,Opulation--be­tween
1959 and 1969, according to the Bureau of the Census (see table).!l In both years,
the poverty rate was about three times as great among persons of Negro and oth~r races
as among whites.
The number of poor persons living in families headed by a man declined about
one-half between 1959and 1969, but the numberin familiesheaded by a woman remained
about the same. As a result, 29 percent of the poor were in families headed by a wom­an
in 1969 compared with 18 percent in 1959 .
.!/ u.s. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Curren.t Population Re­ports
(available for the prices given from Supt. Doc., U.~. Govt. Prmt. Off. • Wash­ington,
D.C. 20402): (1) Poverty in the United States. Sene~ .P-60, No. 68 (Dec. 19~9).
$1. 00; and (2) Selected Characteristics of Persons and Fam1hes: March 1970. Ser1es
P-20, No. 204 (July 1970). 15 cents.
SEPTEMBER 1970
9
Number of persons and families below t he poverty l evel in 1969 and 1959, by race
All races White Other
Item Number ~~Change, 1959 Number iiChange, 1959 Number i I Change , 1959
1969 I 1959 to 1969 1969 I 1959 to 1969 1969 1 1959 to 1969
Mil. Mil , -Pe-t . Mil. Mil. Pet . M-il-. Mil. -Pet-. PERSONS
All ------------------- 24.3 39.5 - 38 16.7 28.5 -41 7.6 11.0 -31
In families --------- 19.4 34.6 -44 12.7 24.4 -48 6.7 10.1 -34
With male head ---- 12.4 27.5 - 55 9.1 20 .2 -55 3.3 7.3 - 55
With female head -- 7.0 7.0 0 3.6 4.2 -14 3.4 2.8 +21
Unrelated individuals 4.9 4.9 0 4.0 4.0 0 .9 .9 0
Male -------------- 1.5 1.6 -6 1.0 1.2 -17 . 3 .4 -25
Female ------------ 3.4 3.4 0 2.8 2.9 -3 .5 .5 0
FAMILIES
All - ------------------ 4.9 8. 3 -41 3.6 6.2 -42 1.4 2.1 -33
With male head ------ 3.1 6.4 -52 2.5 5.0 -50 .7 1.5 -53
With female head ---- 1.8 1.9 -5 1.1 1.2 -8 .7 .7 0
Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Unrelated individuals 14 years old and over were also a larger proportion of the
poor in 1969 than in 1959 (20 and 12 percent, respectively). Poor women living as un­related
individuals--that is, alone or with persons who were not their family--increased
from 9 to 14 percent of all poor. Men unrelated individuals increased from 4 to 6 per­cent
of the poor.
Families below the poverty level. -- Families with incomes below the poverty
level totaled 3.4 million less in 1969 than in 1959--a decline of 41 percent. The number
of poor white families declined about 42 percent, poor families of other races, 33 per­cent.
"Poverty level" defined.-- The definition of poverty used in these counts of the
poor was established by a Federal Interagency Committee. The poverty thresholds or
lines differ according to family size and composition. Poverty thresholds set by the
Social Security Administration for nonfarm families for 1963 are used as the base for
calculating those for other years. These thresholds were three times the cost of USDA's
economy food plan for families of three or more and slightly higher for smaller families.
The poverty thresholds are adjusted each year with the movement of the Consumer Price
Index. The thresholds for farm families are 85 percent of those for nonfarm families
of like size and composition.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
THE COST OF MEATS AND MEAT ALTERNATES
Meat, poultry, and fish are usually the most expensive items in a meal. They
are valued nutritionally for their protein and for B-vitamins and minerals. Eggs, dry
legumes, peanut butter, and cheeses also provide worthwhile amounts of these nutrients
and are therefore suitable alternates for meat in meals. Replacing expensive meats with
inexpensive ones or with meat alternates can save money without loss of food value.
The nutritive value of equal amounts of lean cooked meat from various meat ani­mals
differs only slightly, except that pork is higher in thiamin and organs and glands
are usually higher in iron and thiamin than other meats. Therefore, the homemaker
can find good buys in food value in meats by comparing the cost of amounts of various
cuts and types of meat that will"provide equal amounts of cooked lean. She can do this
roughly by comparing the cost of amounts large enough to serve her family a meal or
amounts large enough for individual servings.
Estimated costs in March 1970!/ of 3 ounces of cooked lean from selected types
and cuts of meat, poultry, and fish are shown in table 1. A serving might be about
3 ounces or larger or smaller depending on personal preference or 0n the size of pieces,
such as chicken parts, chops, or steaks.
A 2- to 3-ounce serving of cooked lean meat from beef, pork, lamb, veal, chick­en,
turkey, or fish provides about 20 grams of protein. This is about a third of the rec­ommended
daily allowance for a 20-year-old man. To provide this same amount of pro­tein
requires about nine slices of bacon, four frankfurters, six slices of bologna, or
five fish sticks. These items are not protein bargains, even though the amounts ordi­narily
served usually cost less than a 3-ounce serving of most meats.
Somefoods otherthan meats--such as drybeans and peas, peanut butter, cheese,
and eggs--are good buys in protein. Amounts needed to provide 20 grams of protein are
larger than the usual serving-- for example, more than a cup of cooked or canned dry
beans, 4 1/2 tablespoons of peanut butter, 3 ounces of American processed cheese, or
2/3 cup of cottage cheese. Estimated costs of equal amounts of protein from selected
meats and meat alternates are given in table 2.
More information on the selection and preparation of economical meats and meat
alternates is given in "Money Saving Main Dishes" (Home and Garden Bulletin No. 43),
available free from the Office of Information, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash­ington,
D.C. 20250. Include your ZIP code with your request.
--Betty Peterkin
1/ The food prices used in this article are based on average prices for U.S. cities
in-March 1970, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor.
SEPTEl.\ffiER 1970 11
Table 1.--Cost of 3 ounces of cooked lean from specified meat, poultry,
and fish at June 1970 prices
Item
Hamburger ------------------­Beef
liver -----------------­Ocean
perch, fillet, frozen -
Chicken, whole, ready-to-cook
Turkey, ready-to-cook ------­Haddock,
fillet, frozen ----­Chicken
breasts ------------­Pork
picnic ----------------­Ham,
whole -----------------­Pork
sausage ---------------­Ham,
canned ----------------­Chuck
roast, bone in --------
Pork loin roast ------------­Rump
roast, boned ----------­Round
steak ----------------­Rib
roast of beef ----------­Pork
chops, center ---------­Veal
cutlets ---------------­Sirloin
steak --------------­Porterhouse
steak ----------­Lamb
chops, loin ------------
Retail price
per pound
Dollars
0.66
.68
.64
.41
.57
.88
.74
.58
.78
.80
1.22
.72
.83
1.29
1.30
1.10
1.17
2.21
1.35
1.59
1.84
Cost of 3 ounces
of cooked lean
Dollars
0.17
.18
.19
.20
.23
. 26
. 26
.26
. 27
• 3l
• 31
.32
.42
.44
.44
.50
. 53
. 55
.58
.83
.85
Table 2.--Cost of 20 grams of protein from specified meats and
meat alternates at June 1970 prices
Item
Dry beans ------------------­Peanut
butter --------------­Chicken,
whole, ready-to-cook
Eggs, large ----------------­Beef
liver -----------------­Hamburger
------------------­Tuna
fish ------------------­American
processed cheese ---
Ham, whole -----------------­Round
steak ----------------­FrankfUrters
----------------
Bologna ---------------------
Rib roast of beef ----------­Bacon,
sliced ---------------
12
Retail price
per pound
0.19
.63
.41
Dollars
.51 (dozen)
.68
.66
.39 (6 l/2 oz. can)
.50 (8 oz. pkg.)
.78
1.30
.84
.56 (8 oz.)
1.10
.97
Cost of 20 grams
of protein
Dollars
o.o4
.10
.1.2
.12
.16
.17
.17
.19
.27
. 30
• 3l
.42
.42
.46
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
MEDICAL CARE EXPENDITURES.!/
Medical care expenditures totaled $60.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1969--that is,
the 12 months from July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.~/ This compares with $26.4 billion
in FY 1960 and $12.1 billion in FY 1950. Higher prices caused half of the increase be­tween
1950and 1969. Other reasons for the increase were population growth; increased
use of medical care services--doctors, dentists, and hospitals; and greater availability
and use of costly new medical supplies and techniques.
Public Spending for Medical Care
The public share (Federa:l, State, and local) of medical care financing increased
rapidly after 1966 when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. Government provided
37 cents of every medical care dollar in FY 1969 compared with 26 cents in FY 1966
(fig. 1). Government spending on medical care totaled $22.6 billion in FY 1969, up from
$10. 8 billion in FY 1966. Medicare accounted for 55 percent of the $11. 8 billion in­crease
and Medicaid, the major health program under public assistance, accounted for
The medical care dollar is financed from private and public funds
... and the federal share is growing
FY 1950
$12.1 BILLION
FY 1966
$42.3 BILLION
Figure 1
FY 1969
$60.3 BILLION
1/ u.s. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administra­tio~.
The Size and Shape of the Medical Care Dollar--Chartbook 1969. For sale for
$0.40 by Supt. Doc., u.s. Govt. Print. Off., Washingto~, D. C. 20402.
2/ The u.s. Government fiscal or accounting year begms 6 m?nths befor.e the calen-d
a-r year, coverm· g th e p er1·od Jul. y 1 to June 30 · For example, fiscal 1969 IS from July
1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.
SEPTEMBER 1970
13
Medicare pays 45% of the personal health care bill of the aged
FY 1966
$7.9 BILLION
FY 1967
$9.4 BILLION
Figure 2
FY 1968
$11.4 BILLION
23 percent. The other 22 percent was accounted for by public programs providing sup­port
for public hospitals, Defense Department and Veterans Administration hospitals and
medical care, and medical research and construction.
Relatively more of the public than of the private medical care dollar went for
hospital and nursing home care, while more of the private dollar went for professional
services, drugs, and appliances. Of every $1 from public sources, 50 cents went for
hospital care, 8 cents for nursing home care, 14 cents for professional services, and
1 cent for drugs and appliances. Of every $1 from private sources, 30 cents went for
hospital care, 1 cent for nursing home care, 37 cents for professional services, and
20 cents for drugs and appliances. The remaining 27 and 12 cents of each dollar from
the respective sources went for such items as construction and medical research.
Medical Care Spending for the Aged
In FY 1968, about one-fourth of the amount spent for medical care directly bene­fiting
individuals was for persons 65 years of age or older, who made up one-tenth of
the population. Public programs paid 70 percent of the bill for this age group--Medi­care
45 percent and Medicaid and the programs of the Veterans Administration and State
and local governments 25 percent (fig. 2). In FY 1966--the year before Medicare and
Medicaid became effective-- public programs paid 31 percent of the health bill of the
aged.
Medical care expenditures per person in FY 1968 averaged three times as high
for the aged as foryounger persons--$590 and $195, respectively. The amount per per­son
for hospital care was more than 3 1/2 times as high for the aged -- $282 compared
with $77 for those younger. Spending for physicians' services averaged about twice as
large for the older as for the younger person--$97 compared with $50.
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FOOD CANNING BY U.S. HOUSEHOLDS
Changes in home food preservation practices are of interest to educators work­ing
with families, food retailers and processors, and equipment manufacturers. Ac­cording
to the most recent nationwide food consumption surveys conducted by the USDA,
only 34 percent of U.S. households canned any food for home use during 1964 compared
with 44 percent 10 years earlier. In both years, relatively more farm than rural non­farm
or urban households did canning. Many more households canned vegetables and
fruits than meats. Although 70 percent of the farm households had produced some meat
for home use in 1964, only 15 percent canned any.
The proportion of households canning food in 1964 differed from region to re-gion,
as follows:
Fewer urban households in the Northeast than in the other three regions
canned any food during the year--13 percent, compared with 25 percent in
the North Central, 28 percent in the South, and 27 percent in the West (see
table).
Households canning food for home use , by r egion, urbanization, and t ype of food, 1964
Meat ,
Region and Any poul try,
urbanization food Any other Any other fish ,
game
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
United States
All --------- 34 24 17 19 29 25 19 2
Urban ------- 23 14 9 10 19 17 10 1
Rural nonfarm 54 42 29 35 46 39 32 3
Farm -------- 84 73 57 62 78 68 62 15
Northeast
15 10 12 17 14 11 1
All --------- 21
Urban ------- 13 9 5 7 10 9 6 (y)
Rur al nonfarm 46 35 23 28 37 30 26 1
Farm -------- 89 76 56 63 81 68 68 16
North Central
30 21 24 33 28 24 3
All --------- 39
16 11 12 20 16 12 (y) Urban ------- 25
Rural nonfarm 62 51 35 42 53 44 42 5
84 73 71 18
Farm -------- 89 79 62 68
South
22 23 34 30 19 2
All --------- 40 29
Urban ------- 28 18 13 11 24 21 11 (y)
Rural nonfarm 51 40 29 35 44 39 26 3
56 60 72 65 54 13 Farm -------- 80 71
West
16 11 10 29 27 19 2
All --------- 32
8 7 24 22 14 2
Urban ------- 27 12
Rural nonfarm 62 40 30 29 58 53 52 2
38 73 66 60 15
Farm -------- 76 49 42
y Less than 0.5 percent .
SEPTEl\.ffiER 1970 15
• Fewer rural nonfarm households in the Northeast ( 46 percent) and South
(about 50 percent) than in the North Central and West (62 percent each)
canned any food.
Fewer farm households in the West canned any vegetables during the year
than in the other three regions (about 50 percent in the West and 7 5 per­cent
in each of the others). About 70 percent of the farm households in the
West and South and 80 percent in the Northeast and North Central regions
canned some fruit. The percentages of farm households canning meat,
poultry, fish, or game were small and varied little from region to region.
Data on quantities of foods canned during the year are not available from the survey.
--Ruth Redstrom
INCOME OF PEOPLE AGED 65 AND OLDER1)
Formal retirement programs at the end of 1967 were paying basic benefits to a­bout
9 in every 10 married couples with one or both members aged 65 or older and the
same proportion of nonmarried (single, widowed, divorced, or separated) persons of
that age. Old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance (OASDHI) provided reg­ular
benefits to more than 5 million aged couples and 7. 5 million nonmarried persons
and special benefits to another 800,000 aged units (couples or nonmarried persons).
Retirement programs for railroad and Government workers provided basic support for
an additional 0.5 million aged units and some income for nearly 1 million OASDHI bene­ficiary
units. Private pensions supplemented the OASDHI benefits of about 1. 8 million
aged units.
Public assistance provided all or most of the support of about 600, 000 nonmar­ried
persons--mostly aged widows--and a few couples not eligible for OASDHI benefits.
Of the aged couples receiving OASDHI benefits, about 40 percent also had money
from employment and 25 percent had more than one pension. About 25 percent depended
on OASDHI for almost their entire support, having not more than $600 from other sources.
By 1967, only about one-sixth of the population 65 and over were not receiving
regular OASDHI benefits. Some of these people were still working and probably chose
to postpone retirement. Most of the others received a pension from another source.
Least well off were the 1. 1 million women without husbands who were not receiving
OASDHI. Nearly one-half of these women had incomes under $1,000 and many had to
turn to public assistance for their main support.
Of the total income of the aged in 196 7, 26 percent was from OASDHI, 11 percent
from other retirement programs, 30 percent from earnings, 25 percent from assets,
and 8 percent from such sources as veterans' benefits, public assistance, and contribu­tions
from relatives .
.!/ From: Bixby, Lenore E. "Income of People Aged 65 and Older: Overview from
1968 Survey of the Aged." Social Security Bulletin, April 1970. pp. 3-27.
16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
USE OF BANK CREDIT CARDS GROws.!/
Nearly all major banks and many smaller ones now engage in credit card opera­tions.
Most of these operations have been developed since 1966. A few commercial
banks adopted credit card plans ip the 1950's, but these plans were relatively unsuc­cessful.
Credit card plans of banks are now growing much faster than revolving credit
plans of other lenders. During 1968-69, credit outstanding on bankcard plans increased
225 percent. No other type of revolving credit outstanding gained more than 50percent,
as the following figures show:
Credit plan
Bank credit cards -------------­Oil
company cards ------------­Department
store revolving credit
Retail charge accounts---------­Travel
and entertainment cards--
Other -------------------------
All types ---------------
Amount outstanding
Dec. 31, 1967 Dec. 31, 1969
Bil. dol. Bil. dol.
0.8 2.6
1.0 1.5
3.5 4.2
5.9 6.7
.1 .1
.2 .2
11.5 15.3
Increase,
1967-69
Percent
225
50
20
14
0
0
33
The growth of bank credit card plans has been aided by the development of re­gional
and national interchange arrangements. Most banks engaged in credit card oper­ations
are members of the Interbank (Master Charge) or Bank America organizations.
About 26 percent of U.S. households had a bank credit card in mid-1969. The
proportion with cards varied from 10 percent of the under $3, 000 to 44 percent Jf the
$15, 000-and-over income group, according to a Federal Reserve Board study.~ The
credit limit for bank credit cards is typically $300 to $500 for most new cardholders.
Many small merchants give credit through bank credit card plans because they
find it less troublesome and costly to do this than to operate their own credit facilities.
1/ From a statement by Andrew F. Brimmer, Board of Governors of the Federal
Re~erve System, before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 10,
1970. Reported in Fed. Reserve Bulletin, June 1970. pp. 497-505.
~/ Study of Consumer Awareness of Credit Costs, summarized in the June 1970 issue
of Family Economics Review, pp. 17, 18.
SEPTEMBER 1970 17
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, June 1970, u.s. average ~
Cost for l week Cost for l month
Sex-age groups ?) Low-cost I Moderate-LI Liberal Low-costiModerate~~Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years 1/---- 18.50 23.40 28.70 79-90 101.50 124.50
55 to 75 years ]1---- 15.10 19.60 23.40 65.40 84.80 101.60
Family of 4:
Preschool children ~ 26.70 34.00 41.20 ll5.70 147.10 178.80
School children~--- 31.10 39.60 48.50 134.50 171.70 210.40
INDIVIDUALS §./
Children, under l year 3._60 4.50 5.00 15.40 19.30 21.60
l to 3 years -------- 4.50 5.70 6.80 19.70 24.70 29.50
3 to 6 years -------- 5.40 7.00 8.30 23.40 30.10 36.10
6 to 9 years -------- 6.60 8.40 10.50 28.60 36.60 45.60
Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 7.50 9.70 11.30 32.50 41.90 49.00
12 to 15 years ------ 8.30 10.70 13.00 35.80 46.50 56.20
15 to 20 years ------ 8.40 10.70 12.70 36.60 46.20 54.90
Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 7.70 9.90 11.90 33-30 42.80 51.60
12 to 15 years ------ 9.00 11.80 14.10 39.00 51.20 61.00
15 to 20 years ------ 10.40 13.20 15.90 45.00 57.10 68.90
Women, 20 to 35 years - 7.80 9.90 11.90 33.70 42.80 51.50
35 to 55 years ------ 7.50 9.50 u.4o 32.30 41.20 49.60
55 to 75 years ------ 6.30 8.20 9.70 27.40 35.50 42.20
75 years and over --- 5.70 7.30 8.90 24.90 31.50 38.50
Pregnant ------------ 9.20 11.50 13.60 40.00 49.90 59.00
Nursing ------------- 10.70 13.30 15.50 46.50 57.60 67.30
Men, 20 to 35 years --- 9.00 11.40 14.20 38.90 49.50 61.70
35 to 55 years ------ 8.30 10.60 13.00 36.20 46.00 56.10
55 to 75 years ------ 7.40 9.60 11.60 32.10 41.60 50.20
75 years and over --- 6.90 9.20 11.10 30.00 40.10 48.30
~ 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.
3/ 10 percent added for family size adjustment. :£I Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children l 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.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
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 recreation -----------­Other
goods and services ----------
July
1970
135.7
133.4
128.7
156.2
136.2
146.2
123.8
155.0
ll7 .2
122.3
115.7
123.0
131.4
132.8
125.8
147.5
131.4
127.2
170.8
144.3
165.8
130.6
136.6
137.3
June
1970
135.2
132.7
128.0
155.3
135.6
145.6
123.4
154.4
116.2
121.2
115.3
122.8
132.2
134.2
126.8
147.7
130.6
126.7
167.8
143.7
164.7
130.2
136.1
136.7
May
1970
134.6
132.4
127.8
154.7
135.1
144.7
123.0
153.3
116.4
121.0
115.8
122.5
131.9
133.9
126.6
147.6
129.9
125.9
166.6
142.9
163.6
130.3
135.2
136.1
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor StatlStlcs.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1957-59 = 100)
July June May April March
Item 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970
All items --------------------- 128 128 128 127 127
Food and tobacco ------------ - 131 - - 130
Clothing - 145 - - 145 --------------------
Household operation - 124 - - 123 ---------
Household furnishings ------- - 108 - - 108
Building materials, house --- - 122 - - 122
July
1969
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
July
1969
123
--
--
-
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
19
SEPTEMBER 1970
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these. )
The following is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
• HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE OZARKS REGION ..• With Emphasis on
the Poor. AER No. 182. 60 cents.
Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Information,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250:
•
20
PESTICIDE SAFETY IN YOUR HOME. PA-895.
CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF GOVERNMENT GRADES FOR
SELECTED FOOD ITEMS. MRR 876.
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOODS. HG No. 72. Revised.
I,·· ,
"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: J970-434-915/ES.J6
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW