Family Economics Review [1972, Number 1]

              I
3 The Economic Policy and the Family in '72
5
9
10
--Edward G. Boehne
Some Current Population Trends
--Conrad Taeuber
Jean Pennock Retires
The Fastest Growing Minority: The Aging
--Herman B. Brotman
PR PEF:T'." , . I 'E
I r.:.:':;~1 r_y
APR281:172
UNIVI:.n;.,ii) '-'' , ._, , ;1 -r\'···-LIN
AT c:r;rnr, ll• o
D447A
14 Outlook for Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures
--Haz~n F. Gale
17 Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1972
--Virginia Britton
22 Computer-Assisted Instruction in Home Economics
23 Care· Labeling of Wearing Apparel
23 Address Changes
24 Some New USDA Publications
24 CPI Reflects Repeal of New Car Excise Tax
25 Cost of Food at Home, U.S. and Regions
28 Consumer Prices
ARS 62-5
MARCH 1972
THE CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
This issue is made up, for the most, of condensations of papers
prepared for the National Agricultural Outlook Conference, held
in Washington, D.C., February 22-24, 1972. For a copy of the
complete text, send your request--giving thetitle and the author
of the article--to the Consumer and Food Economics Research
Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 ..
Please give your ZIP code with your return address.
Family Economics Review is a quarterly report on research of
the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division and on in­formation
from other sources related to economic aspects of family
living. It is prepared primarily for home economics agents and
home economics specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service.
THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY AND THE FAMILY IN '72
Edward G. Boehne, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Economic objectives. --As a Nation we can reduce our economic Qbjectives to
~ three basic goals: (1) To provide jobs for those willing and able to work; (2) to prevent
inflation from undermining the value of the dollar; and (3) to keep our economic dealings
with the rest of the world in reasonable balance.
What we want and what we get, of course, are two different things. Rarely in
our economic history have we been able to achieve all of these goals at once. Typically,
we've achieved one or two to the detriment of the other. For example, in the latter
part of 1950's and early 1960's, we had stable prices and high unemployment. In the
late 1960's, we hap low unemployment but high inflation.
But just as w~'ve seldom hit all three objectives simultaneously, we've seldom
missed all three simultaneously . Yet, we were doing just that last summer--missing
all three. The unemployment rate was high, prices were rising rapidly, and for the
first time in this century we faced a year when our imports would exceed our exports.
Clearly, something had to be done quickly and decisively to shore up the confidence of
the American family in the economy.
Enter NEP. --This was the background to the President's dramatic speech last
August when he announced theN ew Economic Policy (NEP). First, he proposed special
incentives, such as repealofthe auto excisetax to stimulate spending that in turn would
create new jobs. Second, he imposed a 90-day freeze on wages and prices which was
followed by the Pay and Price Boards to hold the line on inflation. Finally, he took
steps that eventually led to devaluation of the dollar so that American goods could be­come
more competitive abroad.
Outlook for employment. --The consumer will probably open his wallet wider in
1972. He already is and will most likely continue to do so. A wild spending binge is
not likely. He is still going to be careful with his money, he'll be price conscious, and
more often than not in the months ahead you'll find the American consumer in the bar­gain
basement rather than at the high-price counter.
Businessmen, too, will be spending more in 1972. They will be modernizing
their production facilities to increase efficiency, and they'll be spending for pollution con­trolas
well. In addition, asthe economypicksup, they'llbe addingtotheirinventories.
Housing construction is in for another good year. Last year over 2 million
housing units were built--the best in 20 years--and with mortgage money available and
a strong demand for more housing, there is no reason to expect anything but another
2 million unit year.
Government spending, too, will add momentum to the economy. Federal pur­chases
of goods and services will rise nearly $10 billion this year over last. State and
local outlays will add another $15 billion to economic expansion.
So, add up the various components in the economy, and the outlook is for a healthy
expansion. The year 1972 should be the best year in terms of real growth since 1965.
How many new jobs will be created by the economic expansion? A rough guess
is that about 2 l/4 million more people will be working by the end of 1972 than were
working at the end of last year. Good news to the American family? To be sure, but
MARCH 1972 3
more people will also be looki.pg for jobs, especially young people. A rough calculation
indicates that there will be about 2 million entrants into the labor force this year. Simple
arithmetic tells us that with 2 1/4 million new jobs and 2 million new job seekers, unem­ployment
will be reduced one-fourth million by the end of the year. Progress, yes;
but there will still be a little under 4. 7 million unemployed as 1972 draws to a close.
This means, in particular, that teenagers and others looking for their first jobs will
have to pound the pavement to find them and some will go jobless for awhile. So you
ought to advise high school graduates this spring to start early and try harder to find
employment. It also means, for example, that wives going back into the labor force
after being out for several years likely will have to look hard and perhaps long before
coming up with a job, especially a good one.
Outlook for inflation. --There are three reasons why the rate of inflation will
probably be less this year compared to last. The first is that despite all the problems
that go with wage a~d price controls, the Pay and Price Boards are making progress
against inflation. The Pay Board especially has been tightening up in recent weeks
against exorbitant wage increases. They are attempting to close the gap between the
standards that, in fact, apply to unionized workers and nonunionized workers.
Second, the outlook for increasing productivity--output per manhour--is good.
The typical pattern during economic expansion is that businessmen are able to cut costs
per unit of output. This reduces cost push pressures on prices and puts a damper on
inflation.
Third, even though the economy is expanding, there is still excess capacity in
plants around the country. In other words, we're still in a buyers' market and it is
harder to raise prices in a buyers' market than a sellers' market.
While inflation will not end this year, it will be less--good news for the family.
International outlook. --Simply stated, when the dollar was devalued, American
produced goods became cheaper overseas and foreign-produced goods became more
expensive in the United States. The upshot of the devaluation, therefore, is that we
will export more and import less with a devaluation than without it. In time, the de­valuation
should create several hundred thousand jobs, and that, too, is good for the
American family.
A word of caution, however. Some people say that we ought to go further and
put additional restrictions on imports. Then, we would create still more American
jobs by keeping foreign goods out. The fallacy of that logic ought to be clear to every­one.
Trade is a two-way street. If we put more restrictions on foreign goods, then
other countries willputadditionalrestrictions on American goods. Allofus--U.S. and
her trading partners--would be the losers. Trade makes sense, it creates jobs and
makes production more efficient. Trade barriers are akin to killing the goose that lays
the golden egg. They make sense only until you start thinking about the consequences.
Outlook for interest rates. --As you know, market rates are well below what
they were last summer. Typically, mortgage rates and consumer loan rates are in­fluenced
by market rates with a lag. If this past relationship holds, as it should, we
can expect further moderation in mortgage rates and rates on consum:er-type loans in
the immediate months ahead . Again, good news for the American family.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
I '
•
I•
SOME CURRENT POPULATION TRENDS
Conrad Taeuber, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
Overall national trends. --On New Year's Day it was reported that we began the
year 1972 with a population of 208. 5 million persons. We had gained about 2 million
during the year 1971--the result of 3. 6 million births, 1. 9 million deaths, and a net
immigration of nearly 400, 000 persons. The rate of growth of near y 1 percent was
much the same as it had been in other recent years. It was reported at the same time
that the birth rate had continued its downward tre~d of recent years. Nevertheless, the
number of babies born was almost the same as in the baby boom of 194 7 when the national
population was about 50 million less. Th-3 number of babies born continues to be about
double the number of deaths. It would clearly require a drop in the number of births to
about half the present level, or a doubling of the number of deaths, if we were to reach
zero growth in the next years.
The outlook for the next years is one of continued increase in the Nation's popu­lation,
even though birth rates may continue the downward trend observed in recent
years. The reason for this is the relatively large number ofyoung adults, who will be
reaching the years of family formation in the next years. This is the consequence of
the baby boom of the late 1940's and the 1950's. The babies of the "boom" in 1947 are
reaching their 25th birthday this year and the babies ofthe next 10 years will be reaching
maturity during the 1970's: There were about 17 million persons ,between the ages of
20 and 24 in 1970, by 1975 the number will have grown to 19 million, and by 1980 it
will have reached 21 million--anincreaseofnearly one-fourth in 10 years. The number
in the next 5-year age group, 25 to 29, will increase by nearly one-half during the same
10 years, from 14 million in 1970to nearly 20 million in 1980. It seems fairly clear
that we can expect continued population growth, though the rate of that growth is less
easily forecast. A total population of 270 to 280 million persons by the year 2000 would
result ifwe continue the rates of growth experienced recently. However, ifthe women
who will be entering childbearing in the future restrict their fertility to the replacement
levels, and if there is no net immigration in the future, the total population might be
about 256 million in the year 2000. The importantquestion in relation to futuretrends
deals with the attitudes of the young people who will be contributing the bulk of the
children. Women who are not yet married will contribute about 80 percent of the babies
born in the next 10 years. Their attitudes toward family size and spacing of children
will play a very large role in determining population growth during that period and beyond.
The postwar baby boom was not a return to the large families of our pioneer
ancestors. It reflected, rather, a significant increase in the number and proportion
of women who took part in childbearing. Compared to even a generation ago, there
have been important changes in American patterns offamily formation and childbearing.
A larger proportion of women marry and they are marrying at a younger age. A larger
proportion of women are having children and they are completing their childbearing
within a shorter period of time. The no-child or the 1-child family of the thirties has
given way to the 2- or 3-child family. Fashions and practices in these matters are sub­ject
to change, as they have changed during the last generation. Surveys in which women
of childbearing age are asked how many children they expect to have regularly report
MARCH 1972 5
two or three as the preferred number. If women average only two children, we would
cease to grow, except as immigration would make up the deficit. If womel} average
three children, which is near the number which young married women say they expect
to have, we would grow at a rapid rate.
There have been major changes in American society since the days when a family
of 10 or more children was considered desirable. We have become a predominantly
urban society; our educational levels have increased substantially both for men and for
women, and we have become a more prosperous society. All of these changes have
served to reduce the size of families and the levels of fertility. There are still some
differences in the fertility of the several groups in our population. Urban rates are
below those of the rural population; the higher the educational level of a woman, the
lower her fertility; and on the whole the higher the family income, the lower the fertility.
There is every reason to believe that we will continue to become even more urban; that ~
we will continue to increase the proportion of women --and of men --who finish high school
and college; and that family incomes will increase. However, recent experience has
shown that although differences in fertility continue to exist, they may exist under
conditions when fertility is relatively high, as well as when it is relatively low. In
other words, the fact that we grow more urban, better educated, and more wealthy,
indicates, but does not in itself assure, that birth rates will decline.
The growth of metropolitan areas. --Throughout this century the metropolitan
areas have grown more rapidly than the rest of the country, and this trend continued
duringthe 1960's. Morethanfour-fifths ofthe nationalgrowthoccurred in the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's), which also increased their numbers from 212
in 1960 to 243 in 1970. Within theSMSA's more than four-fifths of the growth occurred
in the suburban areas; that is, those portions of the metropolitan areas that are,outside
the central cities. These areas have been increasing their population more rapidly than
the central cities since 1920, but it was only in 1970 that they exceeded the central cities
in total population. They now account for a total of 76 million persons, whereas the
central cities have a total of 64 million. The total population outside the metropE>litan
areas was 63 million--less than the population of the central cities.
About 16 million of the suburban residents live in areas that are classified as
rural, mostly outside incorporated places. In the more rural sections of the metro­politan
counties, there was relatively rapid growth. Nearly a third of the rural population
is living within the boundaries of the SMSA's. This is the part of the rural population
whichincreasedduring the 1960's. Ruralpopulationoutsidethese areas declined. The
statement that the rural population in 1970 was approximately equal to that in 1960 mask~
the difference in the growth of rural population in the shadow of the large cities and a
decline in the areas with less ready access to these cities.
Three-fourths ofthe gain in population ofthe metropolitan areas was due to the
excess of births over deaths; only one-fourth was due to migration into these areas, in­cluding
both the migration from other parts of the country and that from abroad.
The rural population. --The 1960's saw a continuationofthedeclineofthepropor­tion
ofthe Nation's populationliving inrural areas. The 1920 census was the first one
to report that the urban population included more than one-half of the national total. The
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
1970 census found that the proportion of the Nation's population that lives in rural areas
has dropped to 26. 5 percent. During the last 20 years there has been virtually no change
in the number of persons living in rural areas--in other words, virtually all of the gain
occurred in the urban sector.
The farmpopulationcontinuedto declineduring the 1960's, dropping from about
15 million atthe beginning of the decade to less that 10 million at its end. Thedecline
in the farmpopulationreflectsbothcontinuedmigration from farms, as well as changes
from an agricultural to a nonagricultural occupation, without giving upthe previous
residence, and discontinuing mostof the farming activities that were formerly carried
on.
Geographic shifts. --The growthofpopulation within the country has never been
evenly distributed. During the 1960's, there were shifts from the center of the country
to the seacoasts. In 1970 a little more than half of all our people were living within
50 miles of the seacoast, including the shores of the Great Lakes.
Changes among the States were very uneven. Three States and the District of
Columbia had losses (North and South Dakota and West Virginia). The States with gains
of less than 5 percent included Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Pennsyl­vania,
and Wyoming. Alabama and Nebraska barely exceeded the 5 percent growth rate.
At the other end of the scale was Nevada with a growth rate of 71 . 3 percent, and Arizona
and Florida with about 36 percent. In terms of absolute numbers, California led all
other States with an increase of 4. 2 million persons, while Florida gained 1. 9 million.
Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas each gained 1 million or more.
Internal migration. --Differences in the rates of growth of States and of other
areas are, in large part, the result of differences in the extent of migration. During the
1960's, the North Central States generally were areas of out-migration, the Northeastern
States had a small het in-migration. The West was clearly an area of in-migration.
California led all other States as the goal of migrants. It had a net gain of 2.1 million
migrants during the decade. The South, which had for many years been an area of out­migration,
had a net gain by migration during the 1960's. That gain was the result of
a net inflow of about 1. 8 million whites in contrast to a net out-migration of 1. 4 million
blacks. A large part of the net migration into the South was due to the movement of
population into Florida, which attracted a net of 1. 3 million persons. Pennsylvania led
all other States in the number of migrants that it contributed to other States, with a
total of nearly 400, 000. Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia each contributed
more than 200, 000.
Our largest minority. --The black population includes about 11 percent of the
total, up 0. 3 of a percentage point since 1960. This increase reflects the higher growth
rate of the black population as compared with the white. The black population at one
time was predominantly in the South, but that has been changing rapidly and at present
the South includes only 53 percent of the black people. Three of every four black persons
live in SMSA's, a higher proportion than among the white population. Outside the South
nearly all of the blackresidents are within the SMSA's--95 percent. Inthe South, too,
the majority, 56 percent, are in the metropolitan areas.
MARCH 1972 7
Within the metropolitan areas, the black population is found chiefly in the central
cities. There were somerelativeincreases inthe numberofblacks in suburbanareas,
but the numbers involved are small, and the proportion of blacks in suburban areas was
almost the same in 1970 as it had been in 1960--about 5 percent.
Within the central cities of the SMSA's, there was a decline in the number of
white and an increase in the number of black residents. The number of black residents
in these cities increased by 3. 2 million, whereas the white population declined by
600,000. As a result, the percentage ofthepopulation ofthe central cities that is black
increased from 16 percent in 1960 to 21 percent in 1970. The increase was especially
marked in the largest cities--those with half a million or more inhabitants.
Although there has been considerable emphasis on the role of migration, most of
the increase in the black population of central cities (with some exceptions) was the
result of the excess of births over deaths in that population group. About three-fifths
of the increase of blacks in central cities is the result of their own natural increase-­two-
fifths is the result of net in-migration.
Continued growth of the black population in metropolitan areas is clearly indi­cated.
Even if migration into these areas were to be reduced below the levels of the
1960's, there would be a substantial growth in their black population due to excess of
births over deaths. Blacks in these areas are relatively young, with large cohorts of
children and youth who will be moving into adult ages in the next decades.
Living arrangements. --Increasing affluence and some decline in family size are
onlytwo ofthe developments during the decade that affected living arrangements. The
number of households increased more rapidly than the population, with the result that
there was a decline in the average size of household. A major element was the increase
of 1-person households, which grew by more than 50 percent. About one household in
every six is a 1-person household. The increase in 1-person households reflects not
only a greater tendency on the part of elderly people to maintain their own homes, but
also some increase in the proportion of young people who leave the parental roof to
establish their own households.
There was also a rapid increase in the number and proportion of 2-person house­holds,
reflecting the growing number of couples who maintain their own homes after the
children have left home, as well as some delay in the arrival of the first child in newly
established families. Increases in the number of households with more than two persons
were small in comparison with the increases of 1- and 2-person households.
There has also been a substantial increase in the number of families headed by a woman. The number of such families increased by a third during the decade. Nearly 11 percent of all families are in this category, but among black families approximately
a fifth are headed by a woman.
TheN ation' s housing reflects some of the changes in the style of life that occurred
during the decade. By 1970, about half of the housing had been built since the end of
World War II. During that time, including the last 10 years, the average quality of
housing increased. One index of quality is the presence of complete plumbing facilities
(bathtub or shower, hot running water, flush toilet) for the exclusive use of the house­hold.
In 1950, about a third of the housingunits in the country lacked these facilities,
by 1970 this had been cut to 7 percent. Within the metropolitan areas, it was only half
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the national figure. The proportion for black households who lack these facilities also
declined sharply during the 1960's, though it is still higher than that for whites in the
central cities and outside. More than half the housing units in the South that are not in
metropolitan areas and are occupied by black households do not have these facilities.
Home ownership has long been a prized value in American life. There has been
a steady increase in the proportion of owner-occupied homes since the depression years
of the 1930's . That percentage increased from 44 in 1940 to 62 in 1960. During the
1960's, the rise in home ownership was only 1 percent; however, this resulted in over
7, 000,000 additionalhomeowners. Housing units in structures of 2-or-more units in­creased
much more rapidly than those in single-family dwellings, and this was parti­cular
ly true in the suburbs. The number of suburban housing units in multiunit structures
almost doubled during the decade. Morethan half the units in multiunit structures are
still found in the central cities, but the suburban areas increased their share from 20
to 28 percent. This trend is continuing. In recent years more housing units in multi­unit
structures have been erected in the suburban areas than in the central cities. Never­theless,
a little more than two-thirds of all housing units in 1970 were classified as
single-family dwellings.
The increased po1-.... w.::-ity of mobile homes is reflected in the growth of the number
of occupied mobile homes by about 150 percent during the 1960's. They now account
for nearly 3 percent of the national housing inventory.
Despite the growing use of trailers and apartments, the average housing unit
in 1970 was slightly larger in terms of number of rooms than its 1960 counterpart.
With larger homes and smaller households, there was a decline in the proportion of
homes that can be considered as crowded; that is, having more persons than rooms.
The proportion of crowded units declined especially rapidly in the suburbs.
Summary. --Continued population growth, though at a lower rate than in the recent
past, is indicated. The babies of the postwar baby boom are grown up and are reaching
marriage age, and consequently, we can expect an increase in marriage and in new
families through the 1970's. Increasingly these families will demand the services and
facilities that have become important elements in the ever-rising levels of living. For
the most part, they are likely to be suburban or small city residents rather than big
city or rural residents. How these additional persons are distributed and what social
arrangements are developed to cope with the new situations created by the increased
concentration in urban and metropolitan areas will have long range consequences for
the quality of life in the United States.
JEAN PENNOCK RETIRES
Jean Pennock, formerly Chief of the Family Economics Branch, retired on
January 14, 1972, after 30 years of Federal service. Her many contributions to Family
Economics Review will be missed.
9
MARCH 1972
THE FASTEST GROWING MINORITY: THE AGING
Herman B. Brotman, Administration on Aging, HEW
The way our country was founded and grew has guaranteed us an ample supply
of minorities. Based on a wide variety of differences, we have racial minorities, ethnic
minorities, religious minorities, and others. Of late, we also have new groups, like
youth and women's lib, claiming minority status or treatment and willing to struggle for
their version of justice. But the newest and most rapidly growing minority of all is the
aging--the 65 and overs. Oddly enough, though this group eventually encompasses all
the other minorities as well as the majority and though everyone struggles to live long
enough to join it, it is not a well-treated minority. Perhaps the truth is that the alter­native
to aging is even less desirable.
During the recent past, militancy among the minorities has grown apace. Most
of them forcefully demand new and expanded rights and participation. The struggle
among the aging is different. Rather than militancy, for most of the elderly it amounts
to a struggle for economic sur vi val; for many it is a struggle for some social status;
for all it is a struggle against being pushed out of the mainstream into a subculture-­a
subculture of poverty and of social uselessness.
It is a particularlyfrustrating irony that progress in man's search for a longer
life should produce the "problems" of aging. In fact, the very successes "in economic,
medical, and industrial "progress" that now permit such a large proportion of our
population to reach old age, also have produced the changes that make the elderly a
generally dependent group and have robbed them of their most important and traditional
functions, roles, and statuses.
The rural multigeneration family has been supplanted by the urban nuclear family,
with the elderly living in separate households and without their former roles in family
life. The individually owned family farm or craft shop, where the older head of the
family owned the "wealth" and the means of production, has been replaced by corporate
ownership and a wage economy in crowded urban settings. Even occupational "know
how, " until very recently passed on to the younger generation by the parents or through
an apprenticeship, .h as been replaced by vocationai education in the schools. All- these
have contributed to the wiping out of the former roles and statuses of the elderly--with-out
satisfactory replacements--and to further reduction of ties with adult children.
Further, the growing availability of retirement income and of mandatory retire­ment
provisions, coupled with the technologically induced lower total manpower require­ments
and the rapid obsolescence of old skills, has resulted in the majority of older
persons being squeezed out of the labor force.
Most older people are dependent for all or a very high proportion of their income
on retirement payments of various types--all of which, if traced back far enough, flow
from a social policy decision and depend on the willingness of the younger populationl
in the so-called productive ages, to share the current "national product" by transferring
purchasing power through a series of fiscal and financial arrangements.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
I
I
I
j
r
A large aged population is a rather new phenomenon, new to this century. Since
1900, the 65 and over population has grown much faster than the rest of the population
and the 75 and over segment has grown even faster. At the turn of the century, there
were three million older persons, every 25th American; today, there are 20 million,
every lOth American. The 65 and over group is 6 1/2 times as large as in 1900; the
under 65 is only 2 1/2 times as large. Ifpresent very low birth rates continue, by the
year 2000, we will have almost 29 million older Americans, every ninth American.
This dramatic increase does not mean that older people are living very much
longer, just that more people are reaching old age. ·The real increase in life expectancy
has occurred in infancy and childhood. Since 1900, life expectancy at birth increased
from an expected 47-year life span to an average of 70 years or 23 years longer. For
65-year olds, the increase has been only 2 to 3 years. However, if major medical
breakthroughs are achieved, dramatic changes can be anticipated. If we could com­pletely
eliminate deaths after age 65 from the number one killer of older persons, major
cardio-vascular-renal disease, life expectancy at age 65 would jump from 15 years
to 25 years.
Generalized figures on average life expectancy, however, mask a modernde·­velopment
that has created many problems in aging, both personal and social. Life
expectancy for women has increased much faster than for men. This has resulted in
a growing preponderance of women as we climb the age scale.
More boy babies are born than girl babies. Male death rates are higher, however,
from the beginning so that by the twe,nties there are equal numbers of young men and
women. Thereafter, femalesincreasinglyoutnumberthemales. At ages65to 74, there
are 130 women per 100 men; after 75, there are 160 women per 100 men. The average
for the total 65 and over group is 140 women per 100 men.
Obviously, this means lots of widows in the population but the situation is further
aggravated by our social custom for men to marry women several years younger than
themselves. Thus, with 40 percent of older married men having wives who are under
6 5 years of age, most older men are married and most older women are widows. Widows
outnumberwidowersbyfourtoone. Still, inanaverageyear, about 15,000 older women
and 35,000 older men get married.
Currently, the oldest part of the older population is growing fastest; the median
ageoftheelderlyhas risen slowly to age 73. On the older side, four of every 10 older
people or some 8 million, are 75 and over and of these, better than a million are 85
and over. On the younger side, better than a third, or 7 million, are under 70.
But all this could be misleading because it paints a static picture. It would be
of some help if I told you that by tomorrow at this time there will be 1, 000 more ,older
people than there are right IfOW. It would be more useful to you to know that the 1, 000
is a net increase. Actually, about 4, 000 Americans will reach age 65 and about 3, 000
already 65 and over will die. Thus, our planning must take account of not merely the
1, 000 increase but the 4, 000 a day or 1. 5 million a year who are newcomers to the ranks
of the aged. They are quite different from those already aged and worlds apart from
the thousands of centenarians.
There is another difference to remember--perhaps best illustrated by the stor_y
of the 80-year-old square dancer who went to a geriatric clinic when knee pains began
to interfere with his dancing. After a thorough examination, the geriatric specialist
11
MARCH 1972
gently explained the biology of the aging process, such as how it affects the different
types of cells, organs, connective tissues, and metabolic and physiological processes.
"You see," the doctor snmmed up, "its a normal aspect of growing older, do you under­stand?"
"No," said the old gentleman, "if it's so normal, why is my right knee fine?
It's just as old as the left!"
So we have to remember three kinds of differences: Those between the young
and the old as group averages; those between different individuals within the older group;
and those within the single older individual. All are related to aging.
Urbanization brought the population into the city where it has aged; suburbani­zation
has taken the younger population out of the city but has left the elderly behind.
On a national basis, a slightly larger proportion of older people live in nonmetropolitan
areas than do younger people (40 percent vs. 35 percent) and they live in towns rather
than on the farms, a trend made possible by social security coverage which permits
farmers to retire. Among the over 60 percent of the population now living in metro­politan
areas, on the other hand, most of the young group live in the suburbs while
most of the elderly live in the central city.
Geographically, older Americans are distributed among the States in a pattern
quite similar to that for the total population. The three most populous States, California,
New York, and Pennsylvania, accounted for just over a quarter of the older population
and just under a qua;1;erof the total population. Adding the next three States, Illinois,
Ohio; and Texas, !..rings the six-State proportions to just over 40 percent. The 10
largest States, adding in Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, had about
56 percent of the olr' ~r population and 55 percent of the total.
Stated anoth. r way, a quarter of all older Americans lives in just three States,
half lives in just eii ;ht, and three-quarters live in 19. At the other extreme, the 21
smallest States it. tou.l populationaccountedforonly 10 percentofthe older populat~on.
Problems of daily living, whether urban or rural, present special difficulties to
older persons. In transportation alone they face growing crises such as in shopping,
in visiting friends nd relatives, in getting to social, cultural, or entertainment oppor­tunities
, and in ge ing to a medical office or facility (if it exists).
Someofthe~:o \problems maybe eased or made worse by the older person's living
arrangements. Mort. than 80 percent of older men live in a family setting, 70 percent
with a wife present. Another 16 percent live alone or with nonrelatives and only less
than 4 percent are in institutions. Among older women, on the other hand, only 61
percent live in a family setting and only 34 percent with a husband present. An astonish­ing
35 percent live alone or with nonrelatives and over 4 percent in institutions.
Thus, quite contrary to one of the most troublesome and false stereotypes, over
95 percent of older Americans do live in the normal community--not in institutions-­and
they depend on community resources and services for survival.
We know that older people tend to have more and longer hos1-1tal stays, more
doctor visits , more days of some degree of disability, and that they spend more on
medicine--usually to treat a chronic condition. What does this mean for mobility?
Chronic conditions range from a visual impairment corrected by eyeglasses to
completely disabling arthritis. Of the older people outside of institutions, 14 percent
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
have no chronic conditions at all and 6 7 percent have chronic conditions that do not inter­fere
in any way with their mobility. In other words, a total of 81 percent of the aged
in the community have no limitations on their mobility. Another 8 percent have some
trouble getting around but can still manage on their own, sometimes using a mechanical
aid. Another 6 percent need the help of another person to get around, and only 5 percent
is homebound.
The popular picture of the decrepit, doddering oldster is so gross an exaggeration
as to be completely misleading. The overwhelming majority of older people can easily
manage in the community if society permits. They could manage even better if society
would encourage such activity through the provision of essential services.
Now for some economics. The median income of older families and individuals
is consistently less than half of that of their younger counterparts. In 1970, the median
income of older couples was about $86 a week and of older people living alone or with
nonrelati ves, $3 7 a week.
According to the officialpoverty index, in 1970 almost 5 million, or a quarter,
of all older Americans lived in households with total income below the poverty thres­hold
for that type and location of household. Of the aged poor, about 65 percent were
women and 85 percent were white. Although the total number of poor is decreasing,
the aged poor form a slowly increasing porportion of the total. The aged make up 10
percent of the population but 20 percent of the poor. If you're old, you're twice as
likely to be poor.
As might be expected, older people, having half the income, spend about half
as much as do younger consumers. By the same token, their consumption pattern is
different, revealing the interaction between continuing needs and restricted income.
Proportionately, older consumers spend more of their income on food, housing,
household opera.tions, and medical care than do younger units. To compensate for
these larger expenditures for essentials, they spendproportionately less than younger
units on transportation, clothing, household furnishings, and recreation. However,
studies of consumption by units at the same income level show similar expenditure
patterns regardless ofage. We mustconclude, therefore, thatitisn'tthatolder people
need so much less, they just can't afford a more reasonable standard of living.
Paying the costs of purchasing health care for the older population is compli­cated
not only by the fact that their needs increase just as their incomes are slashed
by retirement, but also by the fact that their needs change to long term care as a result
of the prevalence of chronic conditions, diseases, and impairments. In fiscal year 1970,
per capita health care expenditures for older persons were 3 l/2 times as high as those
for under 65 persons ($791 vs. $226) and two-thirds of the bill for older persons was
paid by public programs. The older population makes up 10 percent of the total popu­lation
but used 2 7 percent of the value of health care ($15. 7 billion out of $58 billion).
Group data can supply only a general or average background, but some day some­body
in a specific community will have to apply this knowledge to specific people at a
specific time to meet specific needs in a specific environment. You are the experts in
community organization--in the less urban U.S. The eight million more disadvantaged
older people in your areas need and deserve your interest and help.
MARCH 1972 13
OUTLOOK FOR FOOD PRICES, CONSUMPTION, AND EXPENDITURES
Hazen F. Gale, Economic Research Service, USDA
Food prices. --The retailfoodpriceindexrose 3 percent in 1971, much smaller
than the 5. 5 percent increase in 1970. Larger supplies offood products brought a slow­down
in farm prices, and marketing charges increased much more slowly.
The food-at-home componentofthe index was 2. 4 percent higher and the away­from-
home component jumped 5. 2 percent in 1971. These were sharp cutbacks from
the 4 and 7. 5 percent increases in 1970.
Prices offood in grocery stores began 1971 only slightly ahead of a year earlier.
From there the gap widened until midyear. It narrowed briefly during Phase I wage
and price controls and spurted in the final 2 months.
The rise in prices of meals and snacks eaten away from home continued unabated
until price controls were invoked. Even then, they continued to creep upward, but in
December the increase was the smallest monthly rise in several years.
Prices of crop products accounted for much of the increase. Fats and oils prices
averaged more than 9 percent above 1970. Fresh fruit, processed fruits and vegetables,
and bakery and cereal products also were up significantly. Livestock product prices
edged up as increases for fish, beef, and dairy products were nearly offset by sharp
declines for pork and eggs.
Food prices may increase around 4. 5 percent in 1972 with the food-at-home com­ponent
climbing 4 percent. Meats will account for much of the increase because of
much higher prices of pork and moderately higher beef prices. Price increases also
are expected for eggs, fish, and processed fruits and vegetables. Barring cold weather,
fresh produce prices are expected to remain stable for the next few months, but could
dip below last year's levels when cold weather last winter and spring reduced supplies
of vegetables and destroyed part of the citrus crop. Prices of many processed foods
will increase at about the same rate as in 1971.
As 1972 began, the food price indexwas about4. 5 percent above a year earlier,
but in the next few months the year-to-year rise may narrow if supplies of some live­stock
products increase as expected.
Phase II will have two major impacts on food prices. First, retail prices will
be held down bythe rules laiddownby the Price Commission. For many food products
the controls may be fairly effective. Many housewives are quite familiar with a wide
range of items in grocery stores, and they are in a good position to monitor price
changes. Also, food brands and specifications frequently are easy to identify, which
facilitates direct price comparisons. The high turnover rate increases the shopper's
familiarity with the products and their prices, making it easier to spot sharp changes
for particular items. Because of the high visibility of food price changes, most mar­keting
firms may restrict price increases to those items where increased raw material
costs strongly justify higher prices.
The second major impact of Phase II on food prices will be on the marketing
cost side. Over time the difference between retail prices and the returns to farmers
is approximately the same as the cost of labor and other goods and services purchased
by processors, wholesalers, and retailers, and includes a small profit margin. With
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
wage increases limited by the 5. 5-percent guideline and the expected winding down of
industrial price rises in 1972, cost pressures on marketing firms may ease later in
the year. This will keep marketing charges from resuming the rapid rate of increase
in 1970. Nevertheless, the spread between farm and retail prices will likely increase
this year at least as much as last year, perhaps between 2. 5 and 3. 5 percent.
Per capita food consumption. --Food consumption per person increased another
1 percent in 1971, the sixth consecutive annual increase. This is the longest and steepest
rise since World War II. Substantial gains in consumption of meat and processed fruits
accounted for the 1971 increase. Consumption of poultry, eggs, and cereal products
also totaled more than in 1970. Partly offsetting were decreases for fish and fresh
vegetables.
All of the 3 percent increase in meat consumption came from a 10 percent rise
in per capita consumption of pork. Beef consumption was nearly the same· as in 1970,
the first time in several years that beef consumption failed to increase. The small
rise in poultry consumption came from a 6 percent gain for turkey·. Dairy products
consumption was unchanged last year as 6 percent more cheese overcame decreases
for most other products. The boost in consumption of canned and frozen citrus pro­ducts
accounted for much of the gain in use of processed fruit. If it had not been for
the freeze in January 1971, consumption of citrus products would have been larger.
Cold weather caused reduced output and late crops for many vegetables, so total vege­table
consumption edged lower. Potato consumption increased again continuing a re­covery
from the low levels of the 1950's.
The 6-year rise in per capita food consumption may come to an end in 1972, but
it should remain close to 1971's record level. Meat will again be a leader, but this
time on the downside. A boost in beef consumption will not fully compensate for declines
in consumption of pork, veal, and lamb and mutton. Despite a prospective decline in
pork use, per capita porkconsumption will still be larger than in any year since 1959.
An increase in poultry consumption will help offset the decline for meat, but the
rise is expected to be smaller than in many other years of the past decade. Egg con­sumption
may decrease this year, stopping a modest 2-year upturn.
Dairy products could edge lower again in 1972, though larger cheese consumption
may again soften the fall. Fluid milk and cream consumption likely will continue its
downward trend. In 1971 the product weight was 10 percent below the 1960 total and
on a milk equivalent basis it was down 20 percent.
Use offats and oils has been booming for a number of years, but in 1971, total
domestic use was curbed by large exports of butter and soybean oil and the accompanying
sharp increase in prices of shortening, margarine, and cooking oils. Exports may
ease in 1972 and lower prices encourage greater domestic consumption of vegetable
oils. These gains will be partly offset by smaller supplies of lard associated with the
cutback in hog production.
With normal weather and some moderate increases in planted acreage, vegetable
consumption may edge up a little. Winter and spring crops may total a little larger
this year than last .
. Potato supplies are heavy again this year, so per capita consumption may equal
lastyear'stotal. However, the switchfromfreshto processed use likely will continue.
MARCH 1972 15
Since 1960 fresh use has 8eclined 30 percent and processed use has risen 125 percent.
Citrus crops have escaped serious damage from cold weather so far and a crop
about the same as last year is in prospect.
The large grain crop in 1971 will have very little influence on per capita con­sumption
of food in 1972. Products made from wheat generally respond little to price
changes and the farmer's share of the retail price is relatively smaU so that large
changes in farm prices have little effect on retail prices. Also, the effect of the large
wheat crop on farm prices is reduced by price supports.
Food expenditures. --The slowdown in food prices last year was chiefly responsi­ble
for the slower rate of increase in total food spending. In 1971 personal expenditures
for food rose $4. 4 billion and totaled $ll8. 4 billion. In 1970 the increase was nearly
$8 billion. The gain could be somewhat larger in 1972 than in 1971, as higher prices,
larger population, and some pickup in spending for food away from home all combine
to push total food expenditures towards $125 billion.
The acceleration in food expenditures will be far smaller than the increase in
income, so the share of disposable income sperit on food will likely decline again in 1972.
In 1971 it averaged 16 percent, down substantially from 1960 (see figure).
16
FOOD EXPENDITURE -INCOME TRENDS
% OF196o------T1 ---------.---------.--------~
300r--------r------~r-------~------~
- Displsable
200 1-----Personal. income ~ I ' -_L ::::---· -
100 --·
PERC
20
15
ENT
-
-
10
1960
I
I
--~- j ------- l
I I
Food expenditures
I I I I I I I 1
I Food shar~ of income .......... I \ ._.,
H
I I I l l I I ~
1964 1968
SASED OH DATA OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
A ,.RELIMIHARY.
-
-
I I I
-
I I I
1972 1976
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 8656-72 (2) EGONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
l
j
•
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1972
Virginia Britton, Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, USDA
Clothing expenditures and prices. --Consumers spent an average of $275 per
person on clothing and shoes in 1971, according to preliminary figures. This was $18
higher than in 1970. Abouthalf of the increase was caused by inflation, but half was a
real increase-3 percent in terms of dollars of constant value (table 1).
The price level for apparel and upkeep continued to increase in 1971, though
less rapidly than in any year since 1966. As normally occurs, the rise in the apparel
and upkeep index was less than the rise in the all-items index of the Consumer Price
Index (table 2).
With a growing economy in 1972 and price increases of perhaps 3 percent under
price controls, more dollars will be spent on clothing by the average person than in 1971
and expenditures in terms of dollars of constant value will show some further advance.
Use of raw materials. --Use of all fibers by U.S. mills during 1971 was esti­mated
to have increased aboutone-tenth as textile activity revived from the slow level
of 1970. Use of cotton gained 3. 5 percent while use of manmade fibers gained nearly
20 percent. Given a continued recovery in textile activity; mill use of total fibers will
probably increase further in 1972. On a per capita basis, about 5.1 pounds of fiber were
usedbyU.S. mills in1971, including 19 pounds ofcotton, 1 ofwool, and 31 of manmade
fibers. In addition, there were substantial net imports of textile products.
From 1960 to 1971, while mill use of all fibers increased 64 percent, mill use
of cotton declined 6 percent and wool declined 54 percent; manmade fibers increased
nearly 250 percent. The result was that manmade fibers accounted for 61 percent of
estimated total fiber use in 1971 compared with 29 percent in 1960.
Future growth of imports of manmade fiber textiles and wool textiles and of
apparel will be restrained by the bilateral noncotton textile agreements which became
effective October 1, 1971 with Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea. Imports
of cotton textiles are already limited by a similar agreement. These quotas and the
reduced vaiue of the U.S. dollar are expected to decrease competition for domestic
producers of textiles and apparel products by limiting low-price imports.
Fabric flammability. --Flammability standards have gone into effect for large
carpets and rugs and for small carpets and rugs, and a standard will go into effect in
1972 for children's sleepwear. A proposed standard for flammability of mattresses
has been issued for comment by the public and industry. These standards, :issued by
the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), are summarized in table 3. In addition, a
draft of a proposed standard for blankets is under review in the Office of Flammable
Fabrics, National Bureau of Standards at DOC. During 1972, the Bureau will institute
testing for flam:::nability of children's dresses, upholstered furniture, and draperies.
For children's sleepwear, an earlier mandatory compliance date than July 28,
1973, was not feasible because the machinery and the procedures do not presently exist
for fire-retardant treatment of about 80 percent of the volume of sleepwear now being
marketed. Industry sources claim that the flammability standard for children's sleep-
MARCH 1972 17
Table 1.--Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes, 1929-71
Percent of
Per capita expenditures Aggregate
Years y expenditures for personal expenditures
consumption
1958 I Current 1958 ~ Current 1958 I Current
Bil. Bil.
-Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -do-l. -do-l.
1929 ------------ 149 77 13.0 12.1 18.2 9.4
1930-40 --------- 122 51 11.8 10.7 15.6 6.5
1941-46 --------- 151 100 11.8 12.9 20.7 13.7
1947-61 --------- 144 140 9.0 9.4 23.5 22.9
1962-65 --------- 160 170 8.4 8.3 30.6 32.4
1966 ------------ 185 204 8.7 8.6 36.4 40.3
1967 ~ --------- 184 213 8.5 8.6 36.6 42.3
1968 ------------ 188 231 8.3 8.6 37.8 46.3
1969 ------------ 192 248 8.3 8.7 38.8 50.3
1970 ------------ 190 257 8.2 8.5 38.9 52.6
1971 11 --------- 196 275 8.3 8.6 40.6 57.0
-
y Earlier years are grouped on basis of similarity in level of per capita
expenditures in 195b i Jllars.
~ Revised data for 1967 to 1970.
]../ Preliminary.
Source: Dep~rtment of Commerce.
Table 2.--Annual percentage change in selected indexes of consumer prices,
1967-71 . --r--·-r 1~9 I
Consumer Pricei::::x -----------1 ~~: 1 ~~: Apparel and Upkeep Index y -- +4.1 +5.4
Men's and boys' clothing--- +3.6 +5.7
Women's and girls' clothing- +4.6 +5.9
Footwear ------------------- +4.9 +5.3
+5.4
+5.8
+6.3
+5.5
+6.2
1970
+5.9
+4.1
+4.2
+3.8
+5.3
1971
+4.3
+3.2
+2.7
+3.5
+3.2
y Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel up­keep
services, for which separate indexes are not available.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
~
~
0
::t:
f-l
t.O
-;:J
1:-V
f-l
t.O
Items covered
Large carpets and rugs
(All large items . )
Small carpets and rugs
(Items no longer than
6 feet with an area
no greater than 24
square feet. Bath
mats are included.)
Children's sleepwear
(Pajamas, nightgowns,
robes, and other
sleepwear, in sizes
up to and including
6x, as well as fab­rics
intended for
use in children's
sleepwear . )
Mattresses
(Mattresses,
mattress pads . )
Table 3 .--Flammability standards issued
Standard takes effect
on items manufactured
after--
April l97l
December l97l
July l972 to July l973
July 28 , l 973
Coverage
All items must meet the
standard
Any item not meeting the
standard must be so
labeled.
All garments not meeting
the standard must be
labeled: "Flammable (Does
not meet the U. S. Depart­ment
of Commerce Standard
DOC FF- 3-7l). Should not
be worn near sources of
fire ."
All garments must meet the
standard.
Nature of standard
In a controlled test using a
lighted pellet to simulate a
lighted match, a fire goes out
after spreading less than 3
inches.
Same test as for large carpets
and rugs .
Fabrics and garments must not
ignite and burn when tested in
a vertical position by a brief
exposure to flame . Provision
is also made for fabrics which
melt and drip on contact with
flame .
Proposed standard requires that
3 cigarettes be burned on
specified mattress locations,
both on the bare mattress and
between 2 sheets on the mattress
without causing the mattress to
ignite. (Cigarettes have been
found to be the principal cause
of bedding fires . )
wear will make it difficult for the consumer to purchase lightweight, cool, absorbent
nightwear for hot-weather use; that durable-press blends will not be available; that
many nightwear items will have reduced service life, perhaps by 33 to 50 percent; and
that children's nightwear wil: -:ost substantially more, perhaps 25 to 50 percent. DOC
estimated that a garment might cost as much as $1 more as a result of meeting the
standards.
Actions enforcing the Flammable Fabrics Act and the flammability standards
established under it were taken by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1971. The
FTC found dangerously flammable certain items, mostly imported, such as organdy,
silk organza, brocade lace, nylon scarves, children's sweat shirts if worn with fleecy
sides exposed, ladies' pajamas, feathered cuffs on dresses and jump suits, and fake
fur car coats. In October 1971, the FTC found some shag rugs being produced in the
United States t.o be dangerously flammable. The FTC is applying the flammability stand­ards
also to wigs and hairpieces since the DOC determination t:1at these are apparel.
The FTC announced in November 19'71 that it had set up a Flammable Fabrics
Information Center designed to provide consumers and others with information about
FTC actions involving enforcement of the Flammable Fabrics Act. Any person may
telephone questions, toll free, (800) 424-8589, Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m., eastern time. The FTC will issue a press release only when some formal
action is taken by the FTC regarding flammable products. The FTC will not -publish
lists of retailers who may have sold the flammable products, but this inf01..nation can
be obtained by calling the toll-free number.
To understand and interpret flammability standards, the consumer should under­stand
factors affecting degree of flammability--the combination of fabrics and findings
used, the fibers from which they are made, and special finishes used. A garment may
be flammable because one part or fiber supports combustion readily. The weight and
construction of the fabric affect flammability, with a heavy tightly woven fabric having
more flame resistance than a sheer or pile fabric. Flame resistance is improved by
the application to some fabrics of special flame-retardant finishes, but these are affected by the method and amount of subsequent laundering and drJ.cleaning. The flammability of various fibers may be summarized briefly as followsL --(1) Some fibers are natu.- rally flame-resistant: wool, silk, glass, modacrylic, vinyon, and saran. (2) Some
fibers can be given a flame-retardant treatment with some loss of other properties
such as durability and aesthetics. Without treatment, the following fibers ignite readily
and are not· self-extinguishing: cotton, linen, acetate, triacetate, and rayon. (3) Some
fibers are not readily ignited, but when ignited, they burn and have other unpleasant
reactions: spandex, rubber, some olefins, nylon, and polyester. (4) Acrylic ignites
and burns readily.
Flame-retardant finishes have recently been developed for cotton-tufted rugs;
cotton knits and sleepwear; cotton printcloth and sateen; wool; cellulosic materials
including cotton, rayon, and paper; and nylon, polyester, and other manmade fibers.
y' For furtherdetails , seeBlandford, Josephine M., andGurel, Lois M., Fibers and
Fabrics. U.S. Dept. Comm. , Nat. Bur. Standards, Consum. Inform. Ser. 1, 1970.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 65 cents a copy.
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Flame-retardant fabrics have been announced in tricot, lace, flannel, polyester print­cloth,
pile, and nylon.
Product developments. --Product developments announced during the past year
consisted largely of improved finishes, particularly for durable press and washability
as well as fire-retardance.
Improvement of durable press and abrasion-resistance properties of cotton fab­rics
is promised by research underway at USDA's Southern Marketing and Nutrition
Research Division (SMNRD). Work includes the following: (1) Cotton and cotton blends
that have been treated for durable press remain smooth and durably creased after
laundering and line drying as well11s tumble drying (the common requirement). (2) Gar­ments
made from durable-press cottons can be altered and pressed at home or at the
store when a catalyst is added to the durable-press finish. (3) Improvement of cotton
raincoats is sought in research on durable-press finishes that are durably water repel­lent,
but permit fabrics to be laundered effectively. (4) The advantages of mercerization
of cotton with liquid ammonia have encouraged the development of processing equipment
for continuous treatment of woven fabric and its adaptation to circular knit goods.
(5) For knit goods, blends of cotton with no more than 35 percent polyester increased
resistance to flat abrasion and increased bursting strength while maintaining good
moisture absorption.
SMNRD also reports that cotton lace that stretches was made by treating cotton
lace with a process originally developed to give stretch to woven cotton.
Improvements for wool reported from research by USDA's Western Marketing
and Nutrition Research Division includes: (1) Woven fabrics oflOO percent wool that can
be machine washed and tumble dried without felting and shrinkage and that suffer little
from mechanical shrinkage. (2) Hand-knitting yarns may become the first application
of the Division's electrical plasma treatment for wool and wool blends which produces
yarns that are soft, strong, and resistant to repeated machine laundering.
Industry has also announced improvement in treatment of cotton and wool fabrics,
as well as improvements for manmade fibers and fabrics. (These improvements are
discussed in the complete text of this paper. To order, see p. 2 for instructions.)
Improved hides and leathers have been reported. The superior bedpads of shear­lings
(sheepskins with the wool evenly eli pped) when tanned by the glutaraldehyde process
developed at USDA's Eastern Marketing and Nutrition Research Division have proved
successful in 3 years of tests in institutions. The shearlings have maintained their
original shape after 54 launderings in a washer and dryer. This tanning process and a
process for wash-fast leather dyes developed by the Division are being used on leather
for shorts, shirts, and golf gloves.
Developments in standards and labels for textile products. --In addition to the
permanent care labeling discussed on page 23 of this issue, other developments have
occurred. The FTC issued complaints of misbranding and false advertising of textiles
against various manufacturers and sellers as the FTC continued its efforts to enforce
the labeling acts for wool products, fur products, and textile fiber products. About
2, 600 laboratory tests on fabrics are run each year by the FTC--about 29 percent were
tests for fiber labeling and 80 percent for flammability in the 1970-71 fiscal year.
MARCH 1972 21
Voluntary standards for body size measurements of apparel have been approved
by the National Bureat~ of Standards and are now in effect for boys' apparel, women's
patterns and apparel, and young men's apparel. A revised standard has been proposed
for girls' apparel. Interested parties have until March 3, 1972, to file comments with
the Bureau on measurements for slims, regular, and chubbies, in size 7 to 16.
Developments in knitted fabrics. --The knitting industry estimates that knits
accounted for more than a third of all apparel fabrics in 1970 and will continue to in­crease.
In addition to the special properties of knits, rapid fashion changes, appro xi­mating
6 to 8 seasons a year, have played a part in the growth of knits. Manufacturers
of knit fabrics are able to respond quickly to fashion changes because of the flexibility
of the knitting process and the relative profitability of short production runs compared
with weaving.
To compete with knits, stretch is being added to woven fabrics by using textured
polyester filament, by blending spandex with polyester-rayon and polyester-cotton, by
adding anidex (a stretch fiber), by mechanical shrinkage, and by chemical treatment.
It seems likely that woven fabrics will continue to be used for durable staples such as
jeans, as well as for tailored sujt~ and other garment~ that are highly constructed.
Knitted fabrics, providing stretch and wrinkle-resistance, have long been used
in underwear and nightwear and in recent years have become popular for women's
dresses, slacks , and suits and are increasingly used for men's slacks, sport jackets,
shirts, and suits.
Double-weft knits (sold mostly for women's clothing) have been the fastest growing
segment of the industry, but there has been some recent slowdown and clearance sales.
Modified raschel and tricot knits are expected to be increasingly important for men's
suitings in wool blends and cotton blends during the coming years. These warp knits
are more stable than double-weft knits and present fewer tailoring problems.
COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN HOME ECONOMICS
The Department of Agriculture will cosponsor a workshop for home economists
in extension and college and secondary school teaching on the use of computer materials
in educational programs. Several computer-assisted instructional programs on con­sumer
credit, financial management, family food management, and other home eco­nomics
topics will be presented to workshop participants , with aids on the use of these
materials in lessons , curriculum plans , and work with families.
Additional materials for computer-assisted dissemination are being developed
in the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, USDA.
The workshop will be held on the Michigan State University campus June 30 to
July 14, 1972. Furtherinformationmaybe obtained by writingto Dr. Frances Magrabi
at the address given on page 2 of this issue.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CARE LABELING OF WEARING APPAREL
Permanently attached care labels will soon appear on most articles of wearing
apparel as a result of a new rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission. The rule
is intended to help consumers select apparel according to the type of care necessary
and a void damage to items through improper care. The care instructions, which apply
to articles leaving manufacturing plants after July 3, 1972, must (1) fully inform the
purchaser about regular care and maintenance procedures, (2) warn the purchaser of
any care methods usually applicable to similar articles that should not be used, (3) remain
legible for the useful life of the article, and (4) be made readily accessible to the user.
All domestic and imported garments and hosiery are covered by the rule . In
addition, fabrics sold to consumers for home sewing of wearing apparel must be accom­panied
by care labels that can be attached permanently by sewing, ironing, or other
household methods. Footwear, other than hosiery, and articles used exclusively as
headwear or handwear are excluded from the rule.
The care instructions must apply to the entire item including nondetachable
linings, trim, and other details. Any exceptions must be indicated on the label. An
intentionally removable part, such as a zip-out liner, must be labeled separately when
it requires a different care procedure from the main garment. With approval from the
FTC, nonpermanent labeling, s,uch as a hang-tag, will be allowed on it.ems that would
be substantially impaired by a permanent label, and (with approval) items priced at $3
or less that are completely washable will. be exempted from any labeling.
ADDRESS CHANGES
If you are moving, changing your name, or otherwise altering your mailing addr-:Jss,
be sure to send us the current address label from Family Economics Review when
you request the change. Having the label helps us to make the proper changes more
quickly and accurately. Extension agents -- please inform your State office of any
changes.
MARCH 1972 23
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order t.\lese.)
The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , 20402:
RURAL HOMEOWNERS' USE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT IN THE
OZARK REGION. AER 211. 30 cents.
FOOD GUIDE FOR OLDER FOLKS. HG 17. Revised. 20 cents.
ROSES FOR THE HOME. HG 25. 15 cents.
VEGETABLES IN FAMILY MEALS--A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS.
HG 105. Revised. 20 cents.
BREADS, CAKES, & PIES IN FAMILY MEALS:-A-GUIDE FOR
CONSUMERS. HG 186. 20 cents.
CONTROLLING HOUSEHOLD PESTS. G 96. 20 cents.
COCKROACHES: HOW TO CONTROL THEM. L 430. 10 cents.
5-BEDROOM HOUSE, PLAN NO. 7186. M 1198. 5 cents.
HOW TO BUY FOOD: A BILINGUAL TEACHING AID. (note: Spanish
and English) PA 976. 50 cents.
CPI REFLECTS REPEAL OF NEW CAR EXCISE TAX
The Consumer Price Index for November 1971 and succeeding months does not
include the Federal excise tax on new cars that was repealed by the Revenue Act of 19 71.
Sincetheactprovidedforrefundofthetaxtopersons who boughta new car on Augustl5,
1971, or later, the Consumer Price Index for August, September, and October 1971 was
recalculated to reflect the refunds. The revised and previously published data (shown
in the December issue of FER) are as follows:
(1967 = 100)
Item
1 October 1971 September 1971 August 1971
iRevisedlPreviously Revised!Previously RevisediPreviously
i ·1 published published i published
l
All items ----------- ~ 122.4
Transportation ------! ll9.3
Private ----------- : 117.2
122.6
120.6
118.6
Source : BLS News, December 22, 1971.
122.2
ll8.6
ll6.4
122.4
119.8
ll7.8
122.1
119.3
117.3
122.2
120.1
118.1
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, December 1971, U.S. average !J
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups ~/
Low-cost,Moderate-~Liberal Low·-cost I Moderate-~Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years ]/ --- 19.00 24.20 29 .90 82.4o 105.20 129.40
55 to 75 years }/ --- 15.50 20.20 24.30 67.50 87.70 105.60
Family of 4:
Preschool children ~/ 27.60 35.10 43.00 119.60 152.60 185.90
School children ~/ -- 32.10 41.00 50 .60 139.00 178.00 218 .80
INDIVIDUALS 6 I
Children, under 1 year 3.70 4.60 5.20 15.90 20 .10 22 .50
1 to 3 years -------- 4.70 5.90 7.10 20 .40 25.70 30.70
3 to 6 years -------- 5.60 7.20 8 .70 24.30 31 . 30 37 .60
6 to 9 years -------- 6.80 8.80 11.00 29 .60 38.00 47.50
Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 7 .80 10.00 11.80 33 .60 43.50 51 .00
12 to 15 years ------ 8 .60 11.10 13.50 37 .10 48.20 58 .40
15 to 20 years ------ 8 .70 11.10 13.20 37 .90 47.90 57 .00
Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 8 .00 10.20 12.40 34.50 44.40 53.70
12 to 15 years ------ 9 .30 12.20 14.60 40.30 53.10 63.30
15 to 20 years ------ 10.70 13.60 16.50 46.40 59.10 71 .50
Women, 20 to 35 years - 8 .00 10.20 12.40 34.80 44.4o 53 .60
35 to 55 years ------ 7.70 9 .90 11.90 33 .40 42.70 51.60
55 to 75 years ------ 6.50 8 .50 10.10 28 . 30 36.70 43.90
75 years and over --- 5. 90 7.50 9.20 25 .70 32.70 40.00
Pregnant ------------ 9 .60 12.00 14.20 41.40 51.80 61 .4o
Nursing ------------- 11.10 13.80 16.10 48.00 59 .70 70.00
Men, 20 to 35 years --- 9 .30 11.80 14.80 40.10 51.20 64.00
35 to 55 years ------ 8.60 11.00 13.50 37.30 47 .60 58 .30
55-75 years --------- 7.60 9.90 12.00 33.10 43.00 52 .10
75 years and over --- 7.10 9.60 11.60 30 .90 41.40 50.10
1/ Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Eco­nomics
Review, October 1964. Costs of the plans w·ere 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.
~ Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children 1 to 3 and 3 to 6 years .
5/ Man and w·oman, 20 to 35 years; child 6 to 9; and boy 9 to 12 years.
!iJ 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.
MARCH 1972 25
t:..:J
0':>
~ >
~
~
M
0
0 z
0
~
0
(/)
~
M s
~
Table 2 . --Cost of l w·eek' s fo od at home estimat ed for food plans at 3 cOst
levels, December 1971, for Northeast and North Central Regi ons ! /
Sex- age groups ~/
FAMILIES
Family of tw·o, 20 to 35 years 3/ - - ­Family
of tw·o, 55 to 75 years 3/ --­Family
of four, preschool children 4;
Family of four, school children ~/ ~
INDIVIDUALS §_/
Children, under l year -------------
1 to 3 years ---------------------
3 to 6 years ------------------ ---
6 to 9 years ---------------------
Girls, 9 to-12 years ---------------
12 t o 15 years ----------------- --
15 to 20 years ------------ - -----­Boys,
9 to 12 years ----------------
12 to 15 years -------------------
15 to 20 years -------------------
Women, 20 to 35 years --------------
35 to 55 years -------------------
55 to 75 years -------------------
75 years and over ------------- ---
Pregnant ------------------------­Nursing
--------------------------
Men, 20 to 35 years ----------------
35 to 55 years -------------------
55 to 75 years -------------------
75 years and over ----------------
Low- cost
plan
Dollars
21.10
17 .20
30 .60
35 .60
4 .10
5.20
6 .20
7 .60
8 .60
9 . 50
9.70
8 .80
10 . 30
11. 90
8 . 90
8 . 50
7 .20
6 . 50
10 . 50
12 . 20
10. 30
9 . 50
8 . 40
7 .90
See footnot e s l to 6 of table l , p . 25
Northeast
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
26 .70
22.20
38 .90
45 . 40
5. 20
6 .60
8 .00
9 . 70
11. 20
12 . 40
12 . 30
11. 40
13.60
15 .10
11. 30
10. 90
9 . 30
8 . 30
13 . 20
15 .20
13 .00
12 .10
10 .90
10 . 50
Liberal
plan
Dollars
31 .60
25 .80
45 . 50
53 .60
5 . 50
7 .60
9 . 20
11 . 70
12 . 50
14. 50
14.10
13 .20
15 .60
17 . 50
13 .10
12 .60
10 .80
9 .90
15 .00
17 .10
15 .60
14. 20
12 .70
12 . 30
North Central
Low·- cost I Moderate-plan
cost plan
Dollars
19. 00
15 .60
27 .60
32 .00
3 .70
4.70
5 .60
6 .80
7 . 70
8 . 50
8 . 70
7 .90
9 . 40
10.80
8 . 00
7 .60
6 . 50
5.90
9.60
11 ; 20
9 . 30
8 .70
7 .70
7 . 20
Dollars
23 .20
19 . 40
33 .70
39 . 40
4 . 40
5.60
6 . 90
8 . 40
9 .60
10 .60
10 . 50
9 .80
11.70
13 .10
9 .80
9 . 40
8 .10
7 . 20
11. 40
13 . 20
11. 40
10 .60
9 . 50
9 .20
-- __________ ..._
Liberal
plan
Dollars
28 .80
23 . 30
41.50
48 .80
5 .00
6 . 90
8 . 40
10 .60
11. 40
13 .00
12 .60
12 .00
14 . 30
16 .10
11 .80
11 . 40
9 . 60
8 .80
13 .60
15 .70
14. 40
13.10
11.60
11. 20
~ ()
::Il
f-'
(.0
-:j
t-.:l
t-.:l
-:j
Table 3 .--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for f ood plans at 3 cost
l evels, December 1971, f or Southern and Western Regi ons };./
Sex- age groups ~/ Low- cost
plan
Sout h
Another
low·- cost
plan 1)
Moderate­cost
plan
Li ber al
plan
Low- cost
plan
West
Moder at e­cost
plan
Li beral
plan
Dollars Dol l ars Doll ar s Dollars 1 Dol lars Dol lars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of tw·o , 20 t o 35 years 3/ --­Family
of two, 55 to 75 years 3/ --­Family
of four, preschool children j
Family of four , school children ~--
INDIVIDUALS 6/
Children, under l year -------------
1 to 3 years ---------------------
3 to 6 years ------------- --------
6 to 9 years ---------------------
Girls, 9 to 12 years ---------------
12 to 15 years -------------------
15 to 20 years ------------------­Boys,
9 to 12 years --- - -- - ---------
12 to 15 years -------------------
15 to 20 years -------------------
Women, 20 to 35 years --------------
35 to 55 years ------ - ------------
55 to 75 years -------------------
75 years and over --- - ------------
Pregnant --------- - ---------------
Nursing --------------------------
Men, 20 to 35 years ----------------
35 to 55 years -------------------
55 to 75 years -------------------
75 years and over ----------------
See footnotes l to .6 of table 1, p . 25
17. 70
14. 40
25.60
29.80
3. 4o
4 . 30
5. 20
6 . 30
7 . 20
7 .90
8 .10
7 . 40
8.60
9 .90
7 . 50
7.10
6 .00
5. 50
8.80
10.20
8 .60
8 . 00
7.10
6.60
16 .90
13 .60
24 .60
28 .60
3 . 30
4.20
5.00
6 .20
6 .80
7 .60
7 .70
7 .00
8.40
9 .60
7 .10
6 .80
5.60
5. 20
8 .60
10 .00
8 . 30
7 .60
6 .80
6 . 40
22 .70
19.00
32 .80
38 . 30
4.30
5 . 50
6 .70
8 . 20
9 . 40
10. 40
10 . 40
9 . 50
11 . 40
12 . 70
9 .60
9 . 30
8.00
7 .10
11.20
12 . 90
11.00
10 .20
9 . 30
9 . 00
~7 . 60
22 .60
39 .80
46 .80
4 .90
6 .60
8 .10
10. 20
11. 00
12 .60
12 . 40
11. 50
13.60
15 . 30
11. 50
l l. lO
9 . 40
8 .60
13 .20
14. 90
13 .60
12 . 40
l l.lO
10 . 70
19 . 50
1 5. 80
28 . 30
32 .90
3 ;80
4 .80
5 .80
7 .00
8 .00
8 .80
8 . 90
8 .20
9 .60
11.00
8 .20
7 .80
6 .60
6 .00
9 .70
11 . 30
9 . 50
8 . 80
7 .80
7 . 30
23 .60
19 .80
34 . 40
40 .00
4 . 50
5 .80
7 .10
8 . 50
9 .80
10. 90
10 .80
10.00
11. 90
13 . 20
10.00
9 .60
8 . 30
7 . 30
11 .60
13. 40
11.50
10.70
9 .70
9 . 30
29 . 40
24 .00
42 .10
49 . 50
5 .00
6 .90
8 . 50
10.70
11.50
13 .20
12 .80
12 .10
14 .20
16 .00
12 .20
11.70
10 .00
9 .10
13 . 90
15 .70
14. 50
13 .20
11.80
11 . 30
11 Special adaptation of low·- cost plan especially suitable for food habits in the Southeastern States .
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967 = 100)
Group
All items -------------------------------­Food
-----------------------------------
Food at home -------------------------1
Food away from home ------------------1
Housing --------------------------------1
Shelter -----------------------------­Rent
-------------------------------
Homeownership ---------------------­Fuel
and utilities -------------------1
Fuel oil and coaJ ------------------~·
Gas and eJ.ectricity --------------- ­Household
furnishings and operation --
Apparel and upkeep ---------------------1
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 -------------
Jan.
1972
123.2
120.3
118.2
128.6
127.3
132.3
117.1
137.8
lL8.7
118.7
119.0
119.5
120.2
119.9
120.2
122.7
119.0
116.4
143.4
124.3
130.5
118.1
121.4
123.5
123.1
120.3
118.2
128.3
126.8
131.6
116.9
l3r( ,0
117.9
118.1
118.2
119.6
121.8
121.6
123.2
123.1
118.6
u6.3
139.7
123.9
130.1
117.9
121.1
123.0
Nov.
1971
122.6
119.0
116.7
128.2
126.4
131.3
116.6
136.7
116.8
118.1
116.2
119.5
121.9
121.8
123.4
123.2
118.8
116.6
139-3
123.7
129.7
117.9
120.8
122.8
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1967 = 100)
Item
All items -----------------­Food
and tobacco --------­Clothing
----------------­Household
operation ------ 1
Household furnishings ---­Building
materials, house
Feb.
1972
123 121 121 120 120
117
129
118
115
128
120
116
128
118
115
126
Jan.
1971
119.2
115.5
113.4
123.4
122.7
128.0
112.9
133.4
112.1
116.7
111.5
115.4
117.6
118.0
117.4
119.8
117.5
115.8
133.9
119.8
124.9
115.3
117.3
118.9
Feb.
1971
117
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service .
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW