Family Economics Review [1983, Number 1]

              PROPrRTY OF TH
URRtmy
EB 3 19"
Family
Economics
Review
Editors
Kathleen K. Scholl
Katherine S. Tippett
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
Family Economics Review is published each
quarter by the Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transaction
of the public business required by law of
this Department. Use of funds for this
periodical has been approved by the
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget through March 31, 1987.
Contents may be reprinted without
permission, but credit to Family Economics
Review would be appreciated.
Use of commercial or trade names does not
imply approval or constitute endorsement
by USDA.
Sug gestions or comments concerning this
publication should be addressed to:
Kathleen K. Scholl, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDA/ ARS, Federal
Building, Room 442A, Hyattsville, Md.
20782.
For s ubs cription information, see p. 35.
For ale h.•· the Superintendent of Document•. e.S. Government Printing Office WaKillngton. U.C. 20402
Fa mily Eco n omi cs Revie w 19 83 No .1
j Family
Economics
Review
Contents
Unemployment: The Effects on Family Income and Expenditures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Colien Hefferan
Farm Women's Triad of Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Kathleen K. Scholl
Income and Poverty Rates: Farm and Nonfarm Residence • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • . • • • 16
Kathleen K. Scholl
Interpreting Statistical Data in Family Economics • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21
Colien Hefferan, Katherine S. Tippett, and Joyce M. Pitts
Abstracts
Workdays Missed Without Pay ......................................................... 9
Census of Agriculture • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Characteristics of Households Receiving Selected Noncash Benefits, 1981 • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 20
Marital Status and Living Arrangements • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 26
Fertility of American Women, June 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Characteristics of American Children and Youth, 1980 • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 30
Bud gets for a Retired Couple--Final Report • • • • • • • . • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 31
Consumer Price Index: Changes in Homeowners hip Component.......................... 32
Prescribed Medicines: Use, Expenditures, and Sources of Payment..................... 35
Regular Features
Current Research Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Some New USDA Charts • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Cost of Food at Home .......................................... ·. ·.................... 34
Some New USDA Publications ................................ · · · · · · · • · · ·• · · · · • · · · ·•.... 36
Index of Articles in 1982 Issues ..................... · ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. ·.. 37
Issued February 1983
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review
Unemployment: The Effects on
Family Income and
Expenditures
By C olien Hefferan
Economist
Recent sharp upturns in unemployment have
focused attention on the effects of em ploy­ment
problems on family economic well- being.
In 1981, about one in five persons in the
labor force experienced unemployment some­time
during the year. Of the 23 . 4 million
workers unemployed, 3 million were
unemployed for the full year. 1 With monthly
unemployment rates reaching post-World
War II highs in the third and fourth quar­ters
of 1982, the total number of persons
experiencing unemployment is expected to in-
2 . crease in 1982. Even as the economy begms
to recover, high rates of unemployment may
persist. Historically, reduction in the rate
of unemployment lags other indicators of
economic recovery by about 4 months.
Employers tend to wait for strong and
sustained signs of economic recovery before
they call laid-off workers back or hire new
or replacement employees . Recovery from the
1982 recession may appear especially slow
because of an increase in new workers,
especially women, entering the labor force
in 1981 and 1982 . During the recession, job
opportunities have not adequately expanded
lThese figures exclude "discouraged
workers," who are defined as those who re­port
they would like to work but have ceased
looking for jobs because they cannot find
one. The number of discouraged workers has
trended upward since 1980, and as of the
third quarter of 1982 it has stood at 1. 6
million (5).
2Monthly estimates of the unemployment
rate are available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, about
1 week after the end of the month . Annual
estimates of the number of persons or house­holds
experiencing unemployment, however,
have a much longer lag time. Consequently,
official information concerning the number
of persons experiencing unemployment in 1982
will not be available until mid-1983.
2 Family Economics Review 1983 No . 1
to meet this influx of workers. Consequent ­ly,
unemployment is especially high among
new entrants and reentrants to the labor
force . A bout one- half of the recent increase
in unemployment is attributable to new
entrants and reentrants, with the rest
attributable to layoffs, permanent
separations, and voluntary resignatio ns .
As unemployment persists as a major prob­lem
in the economy, what are the conse­quences
for family income and expenditures?
This article presents information on the
incidence and duration of unemployment for
different types of workers, the relationship
of unemployment and income for individuals
and in families with one or two workers , a nd
expenditure patterns in families in which
the household head has experienced unemploy­ment
compared with families in which there
has been no recent unemployment.
I ncidence and Duration of Unemployment
The overall unemployment rate was 10 . 8
percent in November 1982 . This is the per­centage
of the civilian labor force that did
not have a job but who were available for
work and who had made specific efforts to
find wor k during the month . It also includes
those who were laid off and were waiting to
be recalled and those expecting to report to
a job within 30 days . It does not include
discouraged workers.
The overall rate conceals a great deal of
variation in unemployment rates for workers
with different characteristics and in dif­ferent
occupations and industries (table 1) .
Rates were highest among teenagers and low­est
among married men with spouses present.
Blue-collar workers, particularly those
working as operatives (e. g . , machinists and
assembly-line workers), were more likely to
experience unemployment than those in white­collar
or service occupations. Workers in
the construction industry and durable goods
manufacturing experienced higher than
average unemployment, whereas government
workers and those in finance, service,
transportation, and utilities industries ex­perienced
lower than average unemployment.
..
Table 1. Unemployment rates for selected groups of workers, 16 years and over, 1981-82
[seasonally adjusted}
Category Noveni:>er
1981
July
1982
August
1982
September October November
Total ...................................... .
Characteristic:
en 20 years and over ••••..•••.••••••.
Women 20 years and over •....•.••••••••
Both sexes 16-19 years ••••.••••••.•.••.
~1arried men, spouse present ..••.••.•••
.1arried women, spouse present, ••••••••
Women who maintain families .•••••••••• ,
Full-time workers ••••.••.•.•••••.•• , •••
Part-time workers ••••••••••...•.••..•••
Labor force time lost 1 ••••••••• , •• , •••••
nccupation:
White collar workers ••••..•.... , .••••••
Professional anct technical ••..••••• , •.
lanagers and administrators
(except farm) ••••..•••.•••.•.••••.•.
Sales workers •••.•.•..••.•.••.•••.•..
Clerical workers •••••••.•••••• , ••••.••
Blue collar workers •.•••.••••.•.••••.••
Craft anct kindred workers .•.••••••. ,
Operatives, except transport ..•••••.•
Transport equipment operations ••••••
Nonfarm laborer •••••••.•.•.•••.••..•
Service workers .•.•••••••••••.•.••••...
Farm workers •.••.••••••••.••••.••.••.•
Industry:
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary workers ••••••.••••••••.••••
Construction ••••••..••••••••••••.•••.
Manufacturing ••••••••.••••••••.•••.••
Durable goods •.••••••••••••..•.•.••
ondurable goods •••.••.••.••••.•••
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade .••..••.•...
Finance and service industries ..•.••••
Government workers •••.••...••..•••••••
gricultural wage and salary workers ••
8.3
7. 1
7.2
21.4
5.2
6.5
10.8
8.1
10.2
9.5
4.2
2.7
3.0
5.0
6.0
11.8
8.5
14.1
10.4
16.0
9.7
6.2
8.4
17.8
9.4
9.5
9.3
5.5
8.6
6.1
5.2
14. 1
9.8
8.8
8.4
24.1
6.6
7.4
12.()
9.5
11.4
10.7
4.9
3.3
3.7
5.4
6.9
14.4
10.9
17.4
11.6
18.6
10.5
6.1
10.2
20.3
12.0
12.7
11.0
6. 1
10.5
7.0
4.6
13.8
1982 1982 1982
Percent
9.8
8.9
8.2
24.0
6.7
7.1
11.6
9.6
10.3
10.7
4.8
3.1
3.8
5.5
6.7
14.2
10.6
17.5
12.5
17.4
10.6
6.9
10.1
20.3
12.1
12.9
10.8
7.0
9.8
7.0
4.6
14.3
10.1
9.6
8.3
23.7
7.3
7.5
12.4
10. 1
10.5
11.7
4.8
3.2
3.6
5.4
6.7
15.6
11.4
20.2
11.6
19.2
10.7
5. 1
10.7
22.6
13.8
14.9
12.3
6.9
9.8
6.8
4.9
12.5
10.4
9.8
8.6
24.0
7.6
7.9
11.2
10.5
10.1
12.1
5. 1
3.5
3.6
fi. 1
7. 1
15.9
10.9
21.1
12.7
19.8
10.6
6.6
11.1
23.0
14. 1
16.0
11.2
8.1
10.3
7.1
4.8
12.6
10.8
10.1
9.1
24.2
7.7
8.4
12.5
10.7
11.4
12.4
5.6
3.8
3.9
6.3
7.9
16.5
12.2
21.2
14. 1
19.4
11.2
7.7
11.5
21.9
14.8
17. 1
11.4
8.7
10.5
7.7
5.2
15.9
1 ggregate hour lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons ns a percent
of potentially avRilable labor force hours.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Lahor Statistics, 1982, The employment situation,
News U DL Pub. No. 82, p. 454.
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review J
Although specific rates of unemployment
change from month to month, the unemploy­ment
patterns for groups of workers are
somewhat more stable. For example, workers
in the construction and mining industries
consistently have a greater incidence of
unemployMent than do workers in service
industries. Similarly, young workers tend to
have unemployment rates two to three times
greater than the overall rate. Some groups
of workers, such as blacks and young people,
have high unemployment rates because they
experience a high turnover, whereas others,
such as women, have high unemployment rates
because they move in and out of the labor
force more often than men and consequently
spend long periods as reentrants looking for
work (_!). In a study of unemployment among
male heads of households, Dickinson Cl) re­ported
that education, occupation, and wage
rates have strong effects on unemployment.
He suggested that other factors, such as
race, which appear to be associated with
unemployment, affect unemployment only to
the extent that they are associated with
education, occupation, and wage rates.
Table 2. Duration of unemployment, 1981-82
[seasonally adjusted]
Length of unemployment
(weeks)
Average duration ••••.••••••
Median duration ••.••••••••••
Total unemployed1
•••••••••• ,
Less than 5 ••...••.•.•.••.
5 to 14 ...................
15 and over 1 ..............
15 to 26 ................
27 and over .............
November
1981
13. 1
6.9
100.0
42.3
31.7
~6.0
13. 5
12. 5
July
1982
15.6
8.3
100.0
37.2
29.5
33.4
16.7
16.7
1Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Household heads tend to have a lower inci­dence
of unemployment than do other workers,
but among unemployed heads the duration of
unemployment tends to be longer than aver­age.
Currently, the duration of unemployment
also tends to be longer for men than women.
In 1980, the median duration of unemployment
was 13 weeks for men compared with 11 weeks
for women. About one in four women was un­employed
less than 1 month compared with one
in six men (!). Similarly, although older
persons are less likely to become unemployed
than are younger persons, they tend to
remain jobless longer when unemployed. The
median weeks of unemployment for workers
over 55 years of age exceeded 13 weeks in
1980.
Recent trends in the distribution of
unemployed workers by the number of weeks
unemployed are shown in table 2. The average
duration of unemployment tends to decline
when the unemployment rate increases
August
1982
September
1982
Nunber
16.2
8.2
16.6
9.5
Percentage distribution
100.0 100.0
36.1 35.1
30.4 31.3
33.4 33.6
16.7 16. 1
16.8 17.5
October
1982
17.2
9.6
100.0
33.8
30.3
35.8
16.6
19.2
November
1982
17.2
10. 1
100.0
32.8
29.7
37.5
18.3
19.2
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982, The employment
situation, News USDL Pub. No. 82, p. 454.
4 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
,.
rapidly. This is because the influx of newly
unemployed persons, coupled with the dropout
of discouraged, long-term unemployed workers
from the labor force, suppresses the
average. As high unemployment persists,
however, the average duration increases,
reflecting long-term lack of jobs.
Because of the dynamic nature of the labor
force, the total number of persons experi­encing
unemployment sometime over the year,
or the past sev~ral years, is significantly
greater than the number experiencing unem­ployment
at one time. In 1980, for example,
2. 7 times as many persons experienced unem­ployment
sometime over the year as in any
one month (4). Analysis of data from the
Panel Study -of Income Dynamics indicates
that 15.3 percent of household heads experi­enced
unemployment during 1976, whereas the
U.s. average monthly rate of unemployment
was 7. 7 percent for that year (_!). Over a
10-year period from 1967 to 1976, about 4 in
10 household heads had some period of unem­ployment.
For most workers, unemployment is
a relatively short-term, transient problem.
For about 5 percent of all workers, however,
unemployment poses chronic and severe
problems (2).
Since most workers live in families,
unemployment affects families as well as
individuals. In 1980, about 27 percent of
all families had at least one family member
unemployed sometime during the year. In
most of these families (83 pet), only one
person was unemployed; in 15 percent, two
persons were unemployed. The percentage of
families experiencing unemployment and the
number of members unemployed are expected
to be higher in 1981 and 1982.3 There is
preliminary evidence of a slight decline
since 1981 in the number of two-worker
households as a result of unemployment.
Weekly earnings data show a drop of 600,000
in the number of multiearner families from
1981 to 1982. Although about 60 percent of
all married couples have two persons
3See footnote 2, p. 2.
actively working or seeking work, only 56
percent of married couples have two persons
with current earnings. This is down about
two percentage points over the past year.
Unemployment and Income
Unemployment results in lost income.
Although a portion of this lost income may
be replaced by unemployment compensation,
food stamps, public assistance, and other
transfer programs, unemployment significant­ly
alters the economic status of many
individuals and families.
Workers experiencing no unemployment
earned about 2-1/2 times as much as those
who were unemployed during all or part of
1980. Earnings of persons who encountered
unemployment relative to earnings of
employed persons varied by personal charac­teristics.
Blacks who experienced some unem­ployment
earned about 22 percent of that
earned by employed blacks, whereas whites
with some unemployment earned about 41
percent of that earned by employed whites.
Married men with some unemployment earned
about one-half of that earned by employed
married men. Women who maintained families
and experienced unemployment, however,
earned less than one-fourth of the income
earned by employed female household heads
(table 3).
Families with one or more unemployed
persons during 1980 had a median income of
21 percent less than families experiencing
no unemployment (table 4). The economic
impact of unemployment was far less severe
in husband-wife families than in families
headed by females. In husband-wife families,
the impact was most severe when the husband,
rather than the wife or other family member,
was the person unemployed. Median family in­come
was about 19 percent lower in husband­unemployed
families than all husband-wife
families experiencing unemployment. A
husband's unemployment also increased the
incidence of poverty in husband-wife fami-lies
experiencing unemployment from 9 to 14
percent. In female-headed families, unem­ployment
was often associated with entry
into poverty (60 pet).
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 5
Table 3. Median annual earnings of employed and unemployed persons, by marital status, 1980
Marital and
family status
All persons ••••••••••••••••
Husbands
Wives ••••.•.•.••••••.••••
Women who maintain
families alone •••••••••••
Men who maintain
families alone •••••••••••
Unrelated men ••••••••••••
Unrelated women •••••••••
Persons with no
un<mployment
10,760
18,708
7,183
9,288
15,243
14,031
9,689
-Dollars
Persons with
unemployment
4,046
9,514
3,218
2,097
6,385
6,070
4,157
Ratio of earnings
for 2 categories
.38
.51
.45
.23
.42
.43
.43
Source: Data derived from Sylvia L. Terry, 1982, Unemployment and its effect on family
income in 1980, Monthly Labor Review 105(4): 35-43.
Table 4. Median family income and incidence of poverty in families experiencing
unemployment, 1980
Category
All families in labor force
Families with no members unemployed ••••••
Families with at least 1 member
unem played ............................. .
Husband-wife families with at least
1 member unemployed ••••••••••••••••••••
Husband unemployed ••••••••••••••••••••
Wife unemployed ...•.....................
Husband and wife unemployed •••••••••••
Families maintained by women with at
least 1 member unemployed •••••••••••••••
Householder unemployed •••••••••••••••••
Other related family member unemployed.
Families maintained by men with at least
1 member unemployed ••••••••••••••••••••
Householder unemployed •••••••••••••••••
Other related family member unemployed •
Median family
incane
Dollars
22,700
24,020
19,076
21,448
17,432
21,455
14, 840
9, 157
5,527
14,670
15,649
11,656
19,852
Below poverty
line
Percent
8.0
5.5
14.7
9.0
14.0
4.3
15.9
39.1
60.1
18.2
15.0
24.6
5.4
Source: Data derived from Sylvia L. Terry, 1982, Unemployment and its effect on family
income in 1980, Monthly Labor Review 105(4): 35-43.
6 family Econo mics Review 1983 No .1
Programs such as the Federal/State unem­ployment
insurance system, created in 1935
as part of the Social Security Act, amelio­rate
the initial effects of unemployment on
family income for some workers. Under the
system, States set their own eligibility and
benefit levels. These rules and levels,
though created within general Federal guide­lines,
vary widely among States. The system
is financed through State unemployment taxes
levied on employers, which averge 2.6
percent nationwide, and a Federal tax of
0.7 percent of the first $6,000 of each
covered worker's earnings. 4
Unemployment insurance provides for 26
weeks of benefits for covered workers, with
13-week extensions provided in areas of high
unemployment. Currently, slightly less than
one-half of all unemployed workers receive
benefits. Average weekly benefits are about
$120, based on worker earnings and, in some
States, number of dependents. Unemployment
insurance provides for the recovery of about
one-fourth of the disposable income lost
when a household head is unemployed C!).
Recent analysis by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics suggests that poverty and severe
economic hardship are no longer necessary
consequences of employment problems (_§_). For
two-earner households, for example, the
impact of unemployment may be cushioned by
both the earnings capability and status of
the employed spouse and the long-term finan­cial
security established by two earners.
For other types of families, especially
those maintained by women, unemployment
continues to be strongly linked with severe
economic hardship.
The long-term consequences of unemployment
on family income and economic status are
difficult to assess. Although middle-income
families and families with multiple earners
may not fall into poverty as a result of
short-term or intermittent unemployment,
maintenance of an established level of
4 These taxes are scheduled to increase as
part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsi­bility
Act of 1982, P.L. 97-248, passed in
August 1982.
living or attainment of financial goals may
be precluded. Possible consequences of unem­ployment
for these families include mounting
debt and foreclosures. In one of the few
studies of the long-term consequences of un­employment,
Corcoran and Hill (~_) estimated
that household heads experiencing unemploy­ment
at least once over a 10-year period
lost about 5 percent of their committed
worktime and 4 percent of their disposable
income.
Expenditures in Employed and Unemployed
Families
By reducing the amount of money a family
has to spend, unemployment affects expendi­ture
levels and patterns. In table 5, the
proportion of family income and the budget
share used for selected expenditures in
families in which neither the head nor the
spouse, if there was one, experienced unem­ployment
during a 1-year period are compared
with expenditure patterns in families in
which the head had experienced unemployment.
These data are from the 1972-73 Consumer
Expenditure Survey and include nonretired
families. The income losses for families
experiencing unemployment in the survey
period are comparable to income losses for
unemployed families today. The average
annual income for unemployed families was
about 56 percent of that for families with
no unemployment.
Families with no unemployment spent about
69 percent of their income on consumption
and used the remainder for taxes, savings,
and the acquisition of property and other
forms of wealth. Families with heads
experiencing unemployment spent 84 percent
of their income for consumption items.
Although unemployed families spent a larger
portion of their income, their absolute
level of expenditures in each category was
lower than that for families with no unem­ployment.
Generally, necessities such as
medical care, housing, and transportation
claimed a significantly smaller portion of
the family budget and family income in em­ployed
than unemployed families. In spite of
low income, unemployed families spent nearly
the same amount of money on doctors and hos­pitals
as employed families ($167 compared
with $178), but they spent less on dental
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 7
care, orthodontics, and eye care ($67
compared with $117). 5 For food, employed and
unemployed families used the same portion of
the family budget for total food expendi-tures
(19.1 pet), but unemployed families
spent more of their food dollar for food at
home and less for food away from home than
did employed families.
Several seemingly discretionary categories
of expense, including personal care and
gifts, claimed a larger portion of the
family budget and income in unemployed than
employed families. These relatively small
5 These figures are for the survey years
1972 and 1973. The cost of medical care
services has increased about 148 percent
since the survey.
Table 5. Family expenditures
budget items appear to offer little room for
economizing in the event of unemployment.
The most significant categorical difference
between employed and unemployed families was
in the area of personal and social insur-ance.
Unemployed families spent far less of
their limited income for these expenses than
did employed families. This is probably
attributable to reduced social security and
other employment-related insurance programs
in unemployed families.
Most of the differences in expenditure
patterns between employed and unemployed
households are probably related to the
difference in income between the two groups.
This may not be true, however, for certain
fixed and contractual expenditures such as
home mortgages and leases. An analysis, in
which the housing expenditures of employed
No unemployment
during survey year-­($
15,623 incane)
Unemployed head during all
or part of survey year-­($
8,784 incane)
Category
Food at home ................... .
Food away ••••••••••...••.••..•.
Transportation •••••••••••••••••
Clothing ...•..........•........
Medical .••.••.•••..•...••••.•..
Recreation
Housing ....................... .
Personal care and sundries •••••
Gifts ......................... .
Personal and social insurance
Total ........................
Budget
share
14.5
4.6
10.2
6.2
4.1
4.7
33.8
6.9
4.4
10.6
100.0
Proportion
of in cane
10.1
3.2
7.1
4.3
2.8
3.2
23.4
4.8
3.1
7.4
69.4
Budget
share
Percent
15.1
4.0
10 0 9
5.4
4.7
4.2
36.8
7.4
4.1
7.4
100.0
Proportion
of incane
12.7
3.3
9.1
4.6
3.9
3.6
31.0
6.3
3.4
6.3
84.2
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 1972-73 Consumer
Expenditure Survey. Subsamples include only nonretired househ~lds.
8 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
and unemployed households at the same income
level were compared, indicates that house­holds
in which the head experienced
unemployment sometime during the year spent
significantly more on housing than did those
headed by employed workers. High-fixed
expenditures, such as housing and credit
obligations, may reduce families' ability to
respond to loss of income during
unemployment.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Barrett, Nancy S., and Richard D.
Morgenstern. 1974. Why do blacks and
women have high unemployment rates?
Journal of Human Resources 9(3) :453-464.
2. Corcoran, Mary, and Martha S. Hill.
1979. The incidence and consequences of
short- and long-term unemployment. ~
Greg J. Duncan and James N. Morgan,
editors, Five Thousand American
Families--Patterns of Economic Progress,
Volume 7. Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
3. Dickinson, Jonathan. 1972. Labor supply
of family members. ~ James N. Morgan,
et al., editors. Five Thousand American
Families--Patterns of Economic Progress,
Volume 1. Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
4. Terry, Sylvia L. 1982. Unemployment and
its effect on family income in 1980.
Monthly Labor Review 105 (4): 35-43.
5. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1982. Employment and
Earnings 29(7): 5.
6. 1982. Linking Employment
Problems to Economic Status.
Bulletin No. 2123.
Workdays Missed Without Pay
More than one in seven wage and salary
workers employed sometime during January
1979 missed at least 1 full day without pay
during the month, according to results of
the Income Survey Development Program 1 of
the Department of Health and Human Services
and the Bureau of the Census. They experi­enced
an average loss in earnings of about
$181 per worker.
Younger workers were more likely to miss
days without pay than were older workers;
20 percent of those 16 to 24 years of age
missed at least 1 day. The likelihood of
missing days without pay was also related
to occupation. Workers in the construction
industry were most likely to miss days.
One-third of these workers missed work
resulting in a loss of about one-fourth of
their average monthly earnings. Government
workers were least likely to miss days.
Personal illness (or injury) was the most
prevalent reason for missing days without
pay; 40 percent of those absent without pay
gave this reason only. Another 13 percent
missed days because of layoff, slack work,
strikes, or labor disputes; and 4 percent
missed days because of job-related injury or
illness. Other reasons or a combination of
reasons accounted for the remainder of
workers with days missed.
1Several new data items from the 1979
Income Survey Development Program Panel
data tapes are available for analysis of
earnings distribution and for examination
of characteristics of wage and salary
workers. Some of these new data items
include the number of days missed without
pay and reasons for the days missed.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Wage and salary
data from the Income Survey Development
Program: 1979, Current Population Reports,
Series P-23, No. ll8.
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 9
Farm Women's 'fii.ad of Roles
By Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
According to recent national data, one­fourth
of the farm women in the United
States are assuming a triad of roles-­homemaker,
farmer, and employee.
Although farm women work off the farm for
various reasons, the majority work as a re­sult
of financial need. Women employed off
the farm do household and farm tasks as
regularly as those not working off the farm.
Employed farm women, however, are less
satisfied with their farm lifestyles.
Rural farm women have entered the labor
force at a rate that exceeds that of their
nonfarm counterparts. In the 50 years be­tween
1930 and 1980, the labor force partic­ipation
rate of farm women almost quadru­pled,
whereas that of nonfarm women doubled:
Female labor force participation,
by residence, 1930-80
Population 14 years old and
Year over in the labor force
Total
1980 50.1
1970 39.6
1960 34.5
1950 28.9
1940 25.4
1930 2
••••• 22.1
Rural
farm
Percent
Nonfarm1
45.8 50.2
28.3 40.0
22.9 35.4
15.7 30.9
12.1 28.7
12.3 24.9
1Urban plus rural nonfarm.
2 Percent of population 10 years old and
over.
Sources: Data compiled by Vera Banks,
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, from the following: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1970,
1960, 1950, 1940, and 1930; U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Survey, 1980.
10 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Traditionally, farm women have been less
likely than nonfarm women to take paid
employment, probably because of the demands
of farm life and lack of employment oppor­tunities
in rural areas. By 1980, however,
farm women were closing the gap: 46 percent
of farm women were employed, just slightly
less than the 50 percent of nonfarm women
employed.
Why Women Work Off the Farm
Farm women have entered the work force
for a variety of reasons, including profes­sional,
social, and financial. ln the 1980
National Farm Women Survey, 1 57 percent of
the employed women reported that they
worked off the farm to provide money for
their households and farms. Social reasons
were reported by 18 percent as the main
reason for their off-farm employment, 16
percent wanted to keep up or use their
career skills, and the remaining 9 percent
gave other reasons.
Off-farm employment by farm family members
is predominant in providing resources for
farm and household needs. Since 1967 (with
the exceptions of 1973 and 1974), off-farm
income has been greater than net farm income
for farm operator families. Of the employed
farm women who reported working because
they needed the money, more than two-fifths
needed the income mainly or partially for
farm-related expenses; about three-fifths
reported that this income was needed for
other purposes. The large proportion employ­ed
off the farm to provide financial support
for the farm operation suggests that working
women have an important role in keeping the
farm financially secure.
The farm family may choose to have a
member(s) employed off the farm to provide
the family financial protection that is
generally not economical for the farm busi­ness
to purchase for the family members.
These nonwage compensations include such
items as group health insurance, group life
insurance, social security, and unemployment
insurance contributions. These financially
For a description of the survey, see
abstract in Family Economics Review
1982(3):9-10.
I~
related reasons may have been reported
within the "other" general category, and
thereby cause a possible undercount of the
farm women who work off the farm for
financial reasons.
Marked differences appear in reasons for
off-farm employment between part-time and
full-time employed farm women (fig. 1).
Women who cited financial reasons for work­ing
were more likely to be employed 35 hours
or more per week in a full-time job; whereas
those reporting social, professional, or
other reasons were more likely to be part­time
workers. Of those farm women citing a
financial need as the main reason for work­ing,
full-time working women were more
likely to be providing capital for the farm
operation than those employed part time.
'Triad of Roles
One-third of the farm women interviewed
for the 1980 National Farm Women Survey
were working off the farm at the time of the
survey. Of these, almost three-fourths were
participating in the triad of roles by work­ing
off the farm, doing at least one farm
task regularly, and regularly performing
household tasks. One-fourth of the employed
farm women did not assume the role of
farmer. A comparable proportion (one-fifth)
of the not-employed farm women were also
inactive in farmwork.
Chart 63
Reasons for Women's Off-Farm Employment
Percent
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
Part-time
Professional Social Other Financial
1980 data.
Figure 1
Farm
Farm and
other
Farm and Household Tasks
The frequency of participation of women in
both farm and household tasks was measured
in the 1980 National Farm Women Survey, in
which women were found to be actively in­volved
in farm tasks and management on all
sizes of farming enterprises. The involve­ment
of women on the farm was so extensive
that 55 percent of the women considered
themselves one of the main operators of
their farms; almost 60 percent of the
married women reported that they could run
the operation if necessary without their
husbands.
Almost 80 percent of the women reported
that they regularly do at least one farm
task; over 98 percent reported regularly
performing at least one household task. 2 As
regular duties, farm women reported doing
household tasks, taking care of a vegetable
garden or animals for the family's food
consumption, looking after children, keeping
financial records, and running farm errands
(fig. 2). Half or more of the farm women
2For a detailed description of the farm
and household task participation of farm
women, see Family Economics Review
1982(3):3-9.
Chart 66
Women's Participation in Farm Tasks
Percent
100-
Never
75 -
Occasionally
50-
0
Market- Harvest- Caring Doing
ing ing for farm
animals errands
1980 data. Reported by women on farms where tasks are done.
Figure 2
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 11
reported that they occasionally cared for
farm animals, harvested crops or other
products (including the operation of
machinery or trucks), and supervised the
farmwork of other family members.
The proportions of employed farm women
performing household and farm tasks were
similar to those reported by women not
employed off the farm (table 1). The mean
3 scores of the frequency of task performance
were statistically tested for each task to
measure significant differences between the
two groups of farm women--employed and not
employed. Such a difference between the
scores was found for the farm task category
that included bookkeeping, maintaining rec­ords,
paying bills, or preparing tax forms
for the farm operation . The farm women who
were not employed off the farm reported
doing these financial records more regularly
than the employed farm women. Also, not­employed
farm women reported doing general
household work and taking care of a vege­table
garden or animals for the family's
food consumption significantly more often
than employed farm women.
Since the income level or the type of
farming operation could affect the task
participation of farm women, further statis­tical
tests were performed to determine if
the previously described differences were
consistent in various types of farming
operations" or in different net farm income
categories. 5 For the task of keeping farm
3Farm women were asked if they perform
the tasks regularly or occasionally, or
never did them. If the woman reported that
a task was not done on the farm operation,
it was not calculated in the mean score .
"The percent of total gross farm sales
from crops as opposed to livestock products
was used to classify the types of farming
operations into crops, mostly crops, equal
proportion of crops and livestock products,
mostly livestock, livestock, and no
response.
5Net farm income categories were negative,
no income ($0), $1,000 to $13,000, $14,000
and above, and no response . The mean net
farm income was $14,000 . Over one-third of
the farm women did not respond.
12 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
financial records , significant differences
were found in less than half of the type of
farm operation subgroups, but in more than
half of the net farm income subgroups . ln
general, although not consistently across
all income or type of farm subgroups , the
not-employed farm women do farm financial
recordkeeping more regularly than farm
women employed off the farm .
ln contrast , the disparities between the
not-employed and employed farm women for the
two household task categories weakened when
they were tested across net farm income sub­groups
and types of farming operations . In
the household work category, the mean scores
for both groups of farm women were the same
for all net farm income subgroups and all
types of farm operations. In the category of
caring for animals and a garden for the
family's food consumption, the mean scores
were similar except for farms above the mean
net farm income and for farms that had a
product mix of mostly crops. The statistical
tests by subgroup did not confirm the over­all
finding that farm women not employed off
the farm did these tasks more frequently
than employed farm women.
In summary , data from the 1980 National
Farm Women Survey indicate that as farm
women assume the third role of employee ,
they are likely to remain involved in the
farm operation and to do both farm and
household tasks with the same regularity as
their counterparts who are not employed .
Only the task of maintaining farm records is
likely to be done less regularly by employed
farm women versus those not employed.
Satisfactions With Farm Life
The 1980 National Farm Women Survey
measured the satisfactions women had with
the community where they live, farming as a
way of life, and farming as a way to make a
living. In general, farm women indicated
they were satisfied with their rural
locations and with farming as a way of life;
they were less satisfied with farming as a
way to make a living. Upon separating the
Table 1. Farm and household task involvement of farm women, 1 by employment status
Employed off the fann Not employed off the fann
Tasks
Farm:
Plowing, disking, cultivating,
or planting •.•.•.•••••••.•.•.•••.•
Applying fertilizers, herbicides,
or insecticides ••••...•.••••.•••.•
Doing other fieldwork without
machinery ••••..•••.••••.•.....•.••
Harvesting crops or other
products, including running
machinery or trucks •••••••..•..•.•
Taking care of farm animals,
including herding or milking
dairy cattle ...................... .
Running farm errands, such as
picking up repair parts or
supplies ......................... .
Making major purchases of farm
or ranch supplies and equipment
Marketing farm products, that is,
dealing with wholesale buyers or
selling directly to consumers
Bookkeeping, maintaining records,
paying bills, or preparing tax
forms for the operation ••..•••.•.•
Supervising the farmwork of
other family members •...•••••.•..•
Supervising the work of hired
farm labor •.•.•.•••••.•.••••••••..
Household:
Taking care of a vegetable garden
or animals for family consumption ••
Doing household tasks like pre­paring
meals, house cleaning ••.•.•
Looking after children ••.•...•••••.
Regular Occa- Never Regular Occa-duty
sional done
duty
10
5
16
20
32
45
15
15
58
22
9
70
96
76
26
13
26
36
34
42
25
18
17
26
23
16
3
11
64
82
58
44
34
13
60
67
25
52
68
14
1
13
duty sional
Percent
12
6
18
23
39
48
14
15
63
25
11
76
98
73
duty
26
11
25
26
27
36
22
17
16
25
27
12
1
14
Never
done
62
83
57
51
34
16
64
68
21
50
62
12
1
13
1 Not all respondents (2, 509) are included. Respondents who reported that a particular
task was not done on the farm operation or for their household were excluded.
Source: 1980 National Farm Women Survey Data, National Opinion Research Center,
Chicago, Ill.
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 13
women by employment status, the employed
women were found to be less satisfied with
farming as a way of life and with farming as
a way to make a living than those not
employed off the farm. These findings hold
when tested across net farm income subgroups
(table 2) and type of farm operation
(table 3). The most pronounced difference is
shown in the farm women's satisfactions
toward farming as a way to make a living;
8 out of 11 subgroups were significantly
different. Several reasons may account for
these differences. Perhaps farm women who
obtain satisfaction in performing farm tasks
lose part of this satisfaction when they
spend their time in gainful employment; or,
perhaps, farm women who find less fulfill­ment
in working on the farm are those who
seek off-farm employment.
Table 2. Farm women's satisfaction scores 1 for farming and community, by employment status
and net farm income
Satisfaction with--
Community in which
to live
Farming as a way of
life
Farming as a way to
make a living
Farm
wanen's
employment
status
and
average
scores
Employed,
1.3
Not
employed,
1.3
Employed,
2 1.5
Not
employed,
1.3
Employed,
22.3
Not
employed,
2.0
Negative
N=36
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.9
3.2
3.2
Net farm incane
No incane
($0)
N=395
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.3
$1,000-
$13,000
N=662
1.3
1.2
1.4
2.1
$14,000
and up
N=475
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.8
No
response
N=941
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.0
11 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = somewhat dissatisfied, and 4 = very
dissatisfied.
2Significant at p.2_. 05.
Source: 1980 National Farm Women Survey Data, National Opinion Research Center,
Chicago, Ill.
14 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Farm women who worked off the farm to
provide money for the farm operation were
significantly less satisfied with farming as
a way to make a living than women who worked
off the farm for other reasons; some farm
women must work to keep the farm going and
are apparently not satisfied with this
arrangement.
As farm operator families become more
dependent on off-farm income and on farm
women taking off-farm employment to supple­ment
the farm or household income, more farm
women will find themselves in the triad of
roles as homemaker, farmer, and employee--
a situation that provides less satisfaction
with the farm lifestyle than the dual roles
of homemaker and farmer.
1 Table 3. Farm women's satisfaction scores for farming and community, by employment status
and type of farming operation
Farm women's
employment
Type of farming operation
Sat is fact ion Equal
with-- status and Crops Mostly product Mostly Livestock No
mean scores
Community in Employed,
which to live 1.3
Not
employed,
1.3
Farming as a Employed,
way of life 21.5
Not
employed,
1.3
Farming as a way Employed,
to make a living 2 2.3
Not
employed,
2.0
N=658
1.2
1.3
21.6
1.3
2 2.4
2.0
crops
N=343
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
22.3
1.9
1 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3
dissatisfied.
2Significant at p2_. 05.
=
Source: 1980 National Farm Women Survey Data,
Chicago, 111.
mix livestock
N=128 N=321 N=804
1.3 1.4 1.3
1.3 1.3 1.3
1.5 21.5 21.4
1.3 1.3 1.3
2.3
2 2.4 2 2.4
2.0 2.0 2.1
somewhat dissatisfied, and 4 =
response
N=255
1.3
1.3
21.6
1.4
2.1
1.9
very
National Opinion Research Center,
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 15
Income and Poverty Rates: Farm
and Non1arm Residence
By Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
Although many farm family members work
off the farm to supplement the household
and farm units, farm families thus far have
not assumed the economic characteristics of
their nonfarm counterparts . Recent statis­tical
data indicate that in 1979-81, farm
families experienced lower money income and
much higher poverty rates than nonfarm
families. As more farm families work and
shop outside their farm units and local
rural communities, economic differences
between farm and nonfarm households may
gradually disappear.
According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Census),
median family income for 1981 was $22,388
for all families, $22,554 for nonfarm
families, and $17,082 for farm families
(table 1). Median family income of farm
families tends to fluctuate more than the
income of nonfarm families . For example,
from 1979 to 1980, after adjusting for
inflation, farm families experienced a 14 .8
percent decline in real income; from 1980
to 1981, however, their real income did not
change. In comparison, nonfarm family
median income declined 5. 3 percent from
1979 to 1980 and 3.4 percent between 1980
and 1981. 1
1These declines experienced by nonfarm
families were similar to real income losses
for all families (5. 5 pet from 1979 to 1980
and 3. 5 pet from 1980 to 1981). With less
than 3 percent of the U.S. population
living on farm residences, the wide
fluctuations from year to year of the money
incomes of farm families have a limited
effect on the median income reported for
all families and households.
16 Family Economics Review 1983 No . 1
An examination of major sources of farm
family income indicates that farm operator
families are becoming more dependen t on off­farm
income (table 2) . In 8 of the last 10
years, off-farm income has been greater than
net farm income for these families . Accord-ing
to U.S. Department of griculture (USDA)
statistics, off-farm income was twice as
high as net farm income in 1981, with net
farm income declining for a second year
after reaching a high of $11, 002 per
operator family in 1979 .
Large differences in estimates of farm
income are indicated in tables 1 and 2.
Farm income data published by Census and
USDA are not directly comparable for several
reasons •
• Farm self-employment income published by
Census excludes nonmoney income, such as
crops grown for food consumption; USDA
includes such income in net farm income .
• Census includes persons who do not live
on a farm but do have farm income; USD
excludes these persons .
• USDA includes in net farm income the
rental of farms to other farmers; Census
classifies these receipts as income other
than earnings .
There are methodological as well as con­ceptual
differences between the two farm
income estimates. The USDA estimates are
based on data derived from farm, business,
and governmental sources; whereas Census
estimates are compiled from data collected
in sample surveys of households.2
The Census estimates of median farm family
income may more clearly indicat funds
available to the farm family for consumption
or saving than the USDA income estimates .
The USDA estimates of income per farm
operator family include such items as the
rental value of dwellings, which are not
easily liquidated or convertible to other
consumer goods . Also, some of net farm in­come
may be in the form of h ld inventories
or may be automatically reinvested by the
farm family into the farm operation . Th
farm family probably does not have ready
access to all the funds indicated in the
USDA income estimates .
2See pp. 24-26 for a further description
of income differences from aggregate and
household sources.
Table 1. Median money income in current dollars of families and households by residence,
1979-81
Selected characteristics 1981 1980 1979
All families 1
...................... $22,388 $21,023 $19,587
Nonfarm ....................... 22,554 21,151 19,678
Farm .......................... 17,082 15' 755 16,281
All households2
••••••••••••••••••• e) 17,710 16' 461
Nonfarm ....................... (3) 17,783 16,491
Farm .......................... (3) 14,786 15,280
1The term "family" refers to a group of 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or
adoption and residing together.
2A household includes related family members and all unrelated persons who share the
housing unit; may include lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees.
3Household data are not yet available.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982, Money income of
households, families, and persons in the United States: 1980, Current Population Reports,
Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 132. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census 1982, Money income and poverty status of families and persons in the United
States: 1981, (advance data from the March 1982 Current Population Survey), Current
Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 134.
Table 2. Income per farm operator family (including farm households) by major sources,
1979-81
Incane source
Net farm income 1
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Off -farm in carne •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Total income from farm and
off-farm sources .•••••..•••••••••••••••••
1981
$8' 042
16,145
24,187
1980
$10,057
15,061
25,118
1979
$11,002
13,902
24,904
1Net farm income before inventory adjustment; includes Government payments, value of
farm products consumed in farm households, and rental value of farm dwellings.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1982, Economic
Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1981, ECIFS 1-1.
1983 No.1 family Economics Review 17
Both the number and percentage of persons
below the poverty level increased
significantly from 1980 to 1981 because of
the recession that began in mid-1981 and the
accompanying rise in the unemployment rate.
The poverty rate rose from 13.2 to 14.0
percent (table 3), with an increase of 2. 2
million persons. The poverty rate for farm
families exceeds the rates for all persons
and other residence categories. The small
proportion of farm population has little
effect, however, on the overall rate.
The poverty threshold differential for
farm families has been eliminated (see box
on p. 19). Use of the same threshold as for
nonfarm residence increased the number of
farm families in poverty in 1980 by about 20
percent from the old threshold (table 3).
This outcome was expected because the
thresholds applied to farm families are
approximately 15 percent higher under the
new poverty definition.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service . 1982 . Economic
Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and
Balance Sheet Statistics, 1981. ECIFS 1-1.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 1982. Money income of house­holds,
families, and persons in the United
States: 1980. Current Population Reports.
Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 132.
3. 198 2. Characteristics of the
population below the poverty level: 1980.
Current Population Reports. Consumer
Income, Series P-60, No. 133.
4. 1982 . Money income and poverty
status of families and persons in the
United States: 1981 (advance data from
the March 1982 Current Population Survey)
Current Population Reports. Consumer
Income, Series P-60, No. 134.
Table 3. Poverty rate, all persons and by residence, 1980-81
Selected characteristic
All persons
Residence:
Nonfarm .. ......................... .
Farm .............................. .
In metropolitan areas •••••••••••.••
Outside metropolitan areas •••••••••
19811
14.0
13.8
23.0
12.6
17.0
1Utilizes modified poverty threshold (see box on p. 19).
Percent
13.2
13.0
21.2
11.9
15.7
1980
(fo~r definition)
13.0
12.9
17.5
11.9
15.4
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982, Characteristics of
the popUlation below the poverty level: 1980, Current Population Reports, Consumer
Income, Series P-60, No. 133. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982,
Money income and poverty level: 1980, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income,
Series P-60, No. 134.
18 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
CHANGES IN THE DEFINITION OF POVERTY
The Federal Government has revised its official statistical definition of poverty.
The revised poverty definition, which is the basis of the standard poverty data
series that began with reports based on the March 1982 Current Population Survey,
includes three modifications. The combined effect of the three modifications on the
poverty population is small. The total number of poor persons in 1980 was 29.3
million under the former definition and 29.6 million under the new definition; the
poverty rate changed from 13.0 to 13.2 percent (table 3).
Elimination of the Farm Differential
The poverty threshold for farm families previously set at approximately 85 percent1
of the threshold for nonfarm families has been eliminated. The distinction between
farm and nonfarm families has become less meaningful over time since most farm income
is derived from off-farm employment. The modification also eliminates the inequitable
treatment between farm and nonfarm families. Previously, nonmoney income (e.g., con­sumption
of farm products) was considered income for farm families, whereas nonmoney
income (e . g., housing or insurance benefits provided by the employer to nonfarm
families) was ignored.
Elimination of Distinctions Based on Sex of Householder
The poverty thresholds are based on food costs of individuals multiplied by 3. 2
Because food costs vary by age and sex, the calculations of poverty thresholds for
some family compositions headed by females and the threshold for unrelated females
differed from other corresponding family types and male individuals. Applying the
multiplier to the food costs, which were adjusted for sex differences, also affected
the nonfood items that comprised two-thirds of the poverty threshold, although there
is no research showing a sex differential for most nonfood expenditures. The changes
compensate for the food cost sex differential for most nonfood items and reflect
increased sensitivity to the need for equitable treatment of men and women. The new
poverty cutoffs for each family size combination are calculated by averaging the
thresholds for (1) male and female unrelated individuals and for (2) familjes with a
female householder (no husband present) and all other families.
Extension of t he Poverty Matrix
Poverty levels are listed in tables by size and composition of families. The poverty
"matrix" formerly ended with a family size of seven or more persons; the new matrix
will be extended to include families of seven, eight, and families of nine or more
persons.
1The farm differential was originally proposed as 60 percent. The proportion was
raised to 70 percent when the poverty measure was used by the Social Security
Administration prior to its official designation in 1969. Based on USDA research
that demonstrated little or no difference, the farm differential was changed in 1969
to 85 percent.
2Food is assumed to take one-third and nonfood items two-thirds of consumption
costs.
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 19
Census of Agriculture
Forms for the 22d Census of Agriculture
were mailed to 2. 5 million farm operators
throughout the Nation in December. Data
collected for the 1982 calendar year include
the number and characteristics of farms,
acres in farms, average value of land and
buildings, harvested acreages, and number of
livestock on farms. Questions on expendi­tures
include feed, fertilizer, pesticides,
lime, gasoline and other farm fuels, live­stock
and poultry purchases; customwork;
and farm labor.
Rapid changes in agriculture make the
census extremely important to the Nation's
policymakers as well as to the farmers. The
farm census data are used by commodity
marketing firms to more efficiently buy and
sell farm products; by farm organizations
evaluating programs and policies affecting
the farmer; by railroads allocating cars to
market crops; by farm suppliers meeting
demands for fertilizer, seeds, and equip­ment;
by researchers developing new farm
technology; and by elected representatives
writing farm p:r:ograms.
Farmers and ranchers will not be the only
group involved in a census for 1982. The
Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of
Commerce also will conduct the 5-year
economic censuses that cover manufacturing,
transportation, mining, retail and wholesale
trades, and the service industries. Taken
together, these censuses will document
rapidly changing patterns in production,
income, capital spending, and other facts
vital to the Nation's economy.
Information reported to the Census Bureau
is held confidential by law. Data from the
reports are seen only by sworn Census Bureau
employees, who are subject to fine and
imprisonment for revealing any individual
information. Published reports contain
aggregate numbers that prevent identifi-cation
of single farms. Farm operators are ·
urged to complete the questionnaire by the
February due date.
20 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Characteiistics of Households
Receiving Selected Noncash
Benefits, 1981
Noncash benefits are those received in a
form other than money that serve to enhance
or improve the economic well-being of the
recipient. They include public noncash
transfers (food stamps, school lunches,
public and other subsidized housing, medi­care,
medicaid, and VA health insurance) and
employer- or union-provided benefits to
employees, such as pension plans and group
health insurance plans.
A household's income and/ or assets
(resources) must fall below specified guide­lines
in order to qualify for food stamps,
free or reduced-price school lunches,
publicly owned or other subsidized housing,
and medicaid. These noncash benefits are
called "means-tested." The number of house­holds
receiving these means-tested noncash
benefits increased from 14.3 million in 1980
to 14.6 million in 1981. The number of
households receiving--
• Food stamps increased by 5 percent to a
total of 7. 1 million in 1981.
• Free or reduced-price school lunches
decreased by 3 percent to 5.4 million in 1981.
• Public or other subsidized housing in­creased
to 2. 9 million, up 4 percent from
1980.
• Medicaid increased by 2 percent from 8. 3
million in 1980 to 8 . 5 million in 1981.
Food stamps were received by 9 percent of
all households and by 31 percent of female­headed
households. Free or reduced-price
school lunches were received by 20 percent
of all households with school age children
and by 46 percent of these households
maintained by women .
Of all households with a householder under
65 years of age, 55 percent had one or more
members covered by a pension plan at work
and 71 percent had at least one member
covered by an employer- or union-provided
group health plan .
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Characteri~tics
of households receiving selected noncash
benefits: 1981, Current Population Reports,
Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 135.
Interpreting Statistical Data in
Family Economics
By Colien Hefferan, Katherine S. Tippett,
and Joyce M. Pitts
Economist, supervisory home economist, and
home economist, respectively
Access to data on family economic issues
has become widespread. Generally this has
resulted in a clearer understanding of fami­ly
economic decisions and the environment in
which they are made. Occasionally, however,
it results in contradictory explanations or
predictions of family economic status or
behavior. Often the contradictions are not
the result of poor quality information but
failure to understand the differences
between alternative sources of information
or varying analytic techniques.
In analyzing and interpreting trend infor­mation
in family economics, different data
sources and methods can be used to study the
same problem. Analysis of data from several
sources or from one source using alternative
techniques is often a good way to verify
interpretation of family economic trends.
Several characteristics of data and data
analysis techniques can affect the accuracy.
appropriateness, and completeness of inter­pretation
of trend information in family
economics. These characteristics include the
following:
Unit of measurement. Data can be
collected from individual households (as
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). the
USDA's Household Food Consumption Survey,
and the Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey (CPS)) to create microdata bases; or
data can be aggregated from business and
institutional sources (as with the Bureau of
Economic nalysis' National Income and
Product ccounts (NlPA) and the Federal
Reserve Board's Flow of Funds Accounts
(FoF)) to create macrodata bases.
Definitions of concepts. Basic con­cepts,
such as what constitutes a household
or what is included in earnings, can vary
among data sources. For example, the house­hold
section of the FoF is defined to include
parts of the economy (e. g., nonprofit
organizations) not generally included in
microdata bases used in family economics.
Construction of variables within data
bases. Household economic characteristics
can be measured, calculated, or estimated.
Personal savings, for example, are measured
through direct household questioning in the
1977 Federal Reserve Board Survey of Con­sumer
Credit by the University of Michigan
and through deposit information from finan­cial
institutions in the FoF. In the NIPA,
however, savings are calculated from
disposable personal income and personal
expenditures (parts of the NIPA).
Weighting techniques. In constructing
statistical measures and indexes, the rela­tive
importance of interrelated economic
characteristics and behavior is ret1ected in
weighting techniques. The information or
ass urn ptions underlying weights can vary.
For example, the relative importance of
items in the Consumer Price Index (CPO is
based on a market basket of goods developed
from the CES, whereas the weighting of items
in an alternate measure of int1ation, the
Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE)
implicit price det1ator, is calculated from
aggregate personal consumption expenditures
drawn from the NIPA.
Changes over time. Data can be ad­justed
to reflect changes over time. These
adjustments affect the comparability of
information. For example, earnings can be
expressed in constant dollars (adjusted for
changes in the level of prices) or current
dollars (unadjusted). Panel and cross­sectional
data are also frequently used to
provide measures of changes over time. Panel
(longitudinal) data, however, represent
changes made by the same households over a
period of years, whereas cross-sectional
data are obtained at one point in time.
Panel data thus allow analysts to examine
how individuals and families with specific
characteristics respond to changes over
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 21
t1me, whereas comparison of several cross­sectional
data sets allows only for the
identihcation of general trends.
Previous issues of Family Economics Review
(FER) have included discussions on a number
of data sources and their use in family
economics research and education. An article
by Pennock (4) in the December 1~70 issue
discussed differences in the data derived
from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and
from the Personal Consumption Expenditure
part of the NIPA. Peterkin (~) clarified
this further by showing how estimates of the
amount of income spent for food differed
depending on the data source. Other articles
have shown how estimates of the cost of
raising a child vary according to whether
current or constant dollars are used (~) and
how inflation varies depending on the type
of index (6).
There has been a good deal of discussion
in the press in recent years relating to two
areas of concern to family economists:
Consumer credit and family income. In the
following two sections, several ways to
measure trends in these areas are discussed.
The first section shows how several data
sources and analytic techniques can be used
to substantiate trends in consumer credit.
The second section shows how differences in
data bases and presentation techniques can
result in conflicting trend information
about family income.
Consumer Credit Trends
Trends in consumer credit over time are
generally measured using four approaches.
All use aggregated data--that is, macrodata
derived primarily from business or industry
transactions rather than from households.
All or any of these approaches can appro­priately
describe the effect of consumer
22 Family Econom ics Re v iew 1983 No.1
credit levels on the hnancial condition of
the consumer sector as a whole. 1
Using Government data, Durkin (_!_) traced
the trends in consumer credit using these
four approaches. The data show that, for the
economy as a whole, the consumer sector is
not currently overburdened with short-term
debts.2
Ratio of credit outstanding to liquid assets.
The ratio of consumer installment credit
outstanding to consumer financial assets
follows a somewhat cyclical pattern, usually
rising slightly before the business cycle
peak and falling during recession as con­sumers
slow their credit use while holding
onto assets. 3 This ratio peaked at 21
percent in 1979 and since has declined to
around 18-1/2 percent (table 1). Durkin
noted that an interesting aspect of this
relationship is its trendless nature over a
long period of time. The range of 18-1/2 to
19 percent seen recently is the same range
as in 1960 (1).
1Analysts caution, however, that none show
how the debts (or assets) are distributed
among households. When the heaviest debt is
held disproportionately by a few vulnerable
households rather than spread among a large
number of households, a better method of
determining the effects of debt load is to
look at measures directly reflecting financial
difficulties in households, such as increas-es
in loan delinquency rates and bankruptcy
filings (1_). For more information on bank­ruptcy,
see FER, spring 1982, "Bankruptcy
in the United States," by William C.
Dunkelberg, pp. 16-19, and "Bankruptcy
Reform," FER, summer/fall 1980, pp. 37-38 .
2 This work was done for the National
Consumer Finance Association, a trade
association serving the consumer credit
industry, which monitors and interprets
economic and legislative trends affecting
the industry and provides information to
credit extenders, policymakers, educators,
and consumers.
3 Consumer installment credit outstanding
includes automobile credit, revolving
credit, mobile home credit, personal loans,
home improvement loans, and other consumer
goods credit. Consumer financial assets
include currency, deposits, and money market
funds.
z
0
...,
"3...' . .
.....
"<
1"'1
n
0
::>
0
3.. ..
n
"' :0
<"..'. .
"' :{
N
"'
Table 1. Trends in consumer credit using 4 approaches, 1960-82
Approach
1. Ratio of consumer credit
outstanding to liquid assets
2. Ratio of credit extended to
personal consumption expenditures ••.•••
3. Debt burden--ratio of credit repayment
to disposable personal income ••••••••••
4. Changes in consumer credit outstanding:
Constant ••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•.••
Current .....•........ , •..............
1. Ratio of consumer credit
outstanding to liquid assets
2. Ratio of credit extended to
personal consumption expenditures •.•...
3. Debt burden--ratio of credit repayment
to disposable personal income •••••••••••
4. Changes in consumer credit outstanding:
Constant •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••
Current •••.••••••••.•.•.••.••••••••••
1 First quarter.
2Not available •
1960
19.0
16.0
13.2
1972
18.4
20.5
15.2
+8.0
+12.6
1961
18.0
14.6
13.5
+1.5
+2.0
1973
19.1
21.0
15.3
+9.1
+16.4
1962
18.1
16.1
13.4
+8.8
+10.9
1974
19.2
19.6
15.2
-3.2
+6.1
1963
18.2
17.1
14.0
+11.7
+13.3
1975
18.1
18.0
14.3
-3.0
+4.7
1964 1965 1966
18.8 HJ.2 19.4
18.0 18.3 18.1
14.1 14.6 15.1
Percent
+11.9 +10.0
+13.5 +12.8
1976 1977
17.8 18.5
19.1 21.2
14.3 15.9
+3.4
+7.3
1978
19.8
22.2
16.4
Percent
+7.9
+12.5
+12.0
+19.0
+10.0
+18.6
1967
18.5
17.7
15.1
+1.7
+5.3
1979
21.0
21.3
16.4
+6.0
+14. 0
1968
18.4
18.7
15.1
+5.2
+10.3
1980
19.6
16.5
15.3
-8.4
+,4
1969
19.6
19.0
15.4
+5.0
+10.4
1981
18.5
18.7
14.8
+.8
+6.4
1970
19.4
18.5
15.5
-.1
+4.2
11982
17.4
14.1
1971
18.6
20.2
15.2
+7.0
+12.1
Sources: Data format based on analysis developed by the National Consumer Finance Association. Data from the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System: 1979. Annual total flows & year-end assets and liabilities, Flow of Funds Accounts 1949-1978; 198 2, Flow of Funds
Accounts, First Quarter 1982-Seasonally Adjusted and Unadjusted, Pub. No. Z.L
Ratio of credit extended to consumption.
The ratio of the Federal Reserve Board's
data on consumer installment credit extended
by all credit grantors compared with the
U.S. Department of Commerce's data on per­sonal
consumption expenditures fluctuates in
response to the business cycle. During
expansions, consumers increase both their
personal consumption expenditures and the
amount of credit they use; during business
downturns, consumers reduce credit expendi­tures
more rapidly than they reduce all
other expenditures. Credit grew relative
to consumption in the late 1970's, peaking
at 22 . 7 percent in 1978, but the growth did
not greatly exceed its usual cyclical
pattern. Part of the growth in this ratio
may be attributed to changes made in 1971 by
the Federal Reserve System in the definition
of installment credit to include oil company
credit cards and shifts by consumers from
department store credit (not a component of
installment credit) to bank credit cards (a
component of installment credit) (!).
Ratio of credit repayments to personal
disposable income: Debt burden. The ratio
of consumer installment credit repayments
(typically monthly repayments on all consumer
installment credit outstanding) to personal
disposable income (income less taxes and
social insurance in the NIPA) also tends to
follow normal cyclical patterns, rising during
business cycle expansions and declining dur­ing
cycle downturns. Consumers have main­tained
their debt burden at approximately
the same level in spite of an ever changing
economic situation (_!).
Change in credit outstanding. Infla-tion
can distort the growth trends of eco­nomic
indicators expressed in current dollar
terms. A large part of the rapid increase in
credit outstanding of past years was due to
inflation rather than to abnormally large
increased borrowing by consumers. When con­stant
dollars are used, changes in consumer
installment credit outstanding follow the
general pattern of the business cycle. For
example, during each of the major periods of
expansion of the last two decades, highest
growth has come in advance of the business
cycle peak and slower or declining growth
24 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
during periods of recession . During each
expansion, the rate of increase in consumer
installment credit outstanding peaked at
about 12 percent real growth (l) ·
Money Income
Two sources of data are frequently used
to describe personal or family income . In
1981, these two sources differed on whether
income was keeping up with inflation
(table 2) . Data from the CPS of the Bureau
of the Census, U.S . Department of Commerce,
indicated that the median income of all
families in the United States in 1981 was
$22 , 390, 6.5 percent higher than the 1980
median . After adjusting for a 10 . 4-percent
increase in consumer prices between 1980 and
1981, however, real median family income
decreased by 3. 5 percent. In contrast, data
from the NIPA, also from the U. S . Department
of Commerce, indicated that disposable
personal income (DPI) had gone up 11.2
percent between 1980 and 1981--an increase
of 2.5 percent in real dollars . How can one
source from the U.S. Department of Commerce
indicate that real incomes have increased by
2. 5 percent , whereas another source from the
same Department indicates that real incomes
have declined by 3. 5 percent?
Variance in these two pictures of money
income may be the result of differences in
the data on which they are based and the
manner in which the data are expressed . DP I
is calculated from aggregate data on the
total income of the household sector of the
economy, whereas family income, which comes
from household surveys , is calculated as a
median . Total income can rise as a result of
a general increase in the incomes of all
households, an increase in the incomes of
specific segments of the household sector,
or even growth in the number of new house­holds.
Median income data can reflect these
changes; it will also reflect changes in the
distribution of income among families, where­as
total income will not reflect distribution
changes. Total income and estimates of mean
household income that might be derived from
it tend to indicate that income is high r
than that suggested by median income
figures. This is because household income
has narrower limits on the low side than the
high side. For most households the lower
limit for annual income is zero dollars,"
whereas the upper limit can extend into the
millions of dollars. Consequently, mean
income figures tend to be higher than median
figures.
"Only about 1 percent of the households in
the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey
reported negative incomes.
The difference between change in total and
median income is likely to be especially
pronounced in periods of growing unemploy­ment
coupled with high inflation. Unemploy­ment
shifts some households into low income
groups, whereas inflation may result in
increased wages and salaries for those who
are employed. These two factors tend to off­set
one another in determining total income
of the household sector; thus, total income
may show little or no change. At the same
time, movement of unemployed households into
the bottom half of the income distribution
Table 2. Year-to-year income changes .in constant (real) and current dollars, 1974-81
Change from preceding year
Type of income
measure
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Percent
Constant dollars: 1
Disposable personal income2
••• -1.5 1.8 3.6 4.0 4.9 2.7 0.2 2.5
Median family income 3
••••••••• -4.0 -2.1 3.1 .5 2.4 .1 -5.8 -3.5
Current dollars:
Disposable personal income2
••• 9.2 10.1 9.0 10.0 12.2 12.0 10.5 11.2
Median family income3
••••••••• 6.5 6.3 9.0 7.0 10.2 11.6 6.8 6.5
11972 was used as the base year to calculate changes in income expressed in constant dollars, although in calculating
year-to-year changes a base year need not be fixed. Income expressed in constant dollars is calculated as follows:
Current income X Price index for previous period
Constant dollar income = Price index for current period
Change in constant dollar income from year-to-year is calculated as follows:
Percent change in dollar income = (Constant income in period 2 - Constant income in period 1) 100
(Constant income in period 1)
2 0isposable personal income is an aggregate figure from the National Income and Product Accounts; it is derived by
subtracting personal taxes from pe~rsonal income. Personal income is the sum of wage and salary disbursements, other
labor income, proprietors' income, rental income of persons, dividends, personal interest income, and transfer payments
to persons, less personal contributions to social insurance.
3Median family income is derived from households in the Current Population Surveys of the Bureau of the Census. It
includes money income before payments of Federal, State, local, or social security taxes and before any other kind of
deductions.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, l:lureau of Economic Analysis, 198ll, Survey of Current Business, Vol. 62,
No. 7 . U. S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980, Money income and poverty status of families and
persons in the United States, 1979, (advance report), Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 125 . u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 198~, Money income and poverty status of families
and persons in the United States, 1981, (advance report), Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 134.
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 25
tends to suppress the median level of house­hold
income. The large discrepancy between
DPI and median family income from 1980 to
1981 may be attributable, in part, to grow­ing
unemployment and high inflation during
this period.
The two income measures also reflect a
different treatment of taxes. DPI is an
after-tax figure, whereas family income is a
before-tax figure. The difference in the tax
treatment may account for part of the dif­ference
between the DPI and median family
income estimates for 1981. In 1981, there
was an across-the-board tax decrease of
5 percent, which increased income available
for savings or consumption. Since DPI real
income changes are calculated only on the
part of income available for savings and
consumption, whereas household real income
changes are calculated on total income
(taxes plus savings and consumption), the
effect of the tax decrease will be reflected
in a rise in DPI. Tax changes will have no
effect on the before-tax median family
income estimates.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Durkin, Thomas A. 1982. Finance Facts .
January to April issues. National
Consumer Finance Association.
2. Edwards, Carolyn S. 1979 . Users' guide
to USDA estimates of the cost of raising
a child. Family Economics Review, summer
issue, pp. 3-15.
3. Luckett, Charles. 1982. Recent develop­ments
in the mortgage and consumer
credit markets. Federal Reserve Bulletin
68(5): 281-290. Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
4. Pennock, Jean L. 1970. Sources of expen­diture
data. Family Economics Review,
December issue, pp. 3-5.
5. Peterkin, Betty. 1974. The part of
income that goes for food. Family
Economics Review, winter issue,
pp. 6-8.
6. Schwenk, Frankie N. 1981. Two measures
of inflation: The Consumer Price Index
and the Personal Consumption Expenditure
implicit price deflator. Family
Economics Review, winter issue,
pp. 13-18.
26 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Marital Status and Living
Arrangements
The median age at first marriage for both
men and women has increased by 1-1/2 years
since 1970. By March 1981, median age at
first marriage for men was 24 . 8 years and
22.3 years for women . The tendency to post­pone
or forego marriage in favor of continu­ing
education and career advancement has
resulted in a higher median age at first
marriage and a greater percentage of young
people who have never married . In 1981, 52
percent of women aged 20 to 24 years had
never married , compared with 36 percent in
1970 . For men in this age group, 70 percent
had never mar ried in 1981, up from 55 per­cent
in 1970 . For women aged 25 to 29 years,
the never married rate more than doubled,
from 10 to 22 percent in 1970 and 1981,
respectively; the rate for men in this age
group who had never married rose from 19
percent in 1970 to 34 percent in 1981.
The increase in American divorce is mea­sured
by the divorce ratio, or the number of
divorced persons per 1,000 persons who are
married and living with their spouses. The
divorce ratio was 109 in 1981, more than
twice the 1970 ratio of 47 . Women had a
higher divorce ratio than men (129 versus
88), indicating that men are more likely to
remarry and do so more quickly after divorce
than women . The divorce ratio for black
persons (233) was higher than for white
persons or for those of Spanish origin; the
ratio for black women was highest at 289 .
Children living in one- parent families
accounted for 20 percent of all children
under 18 years old, compared with 12 percent
in 1970 . Of the 12 . 6 million children living
with one parent, 90 percent lived with their
mothers, a proportion unchanged since 1970 .
The number of persons living alone has
risen by 75 percent since 1970 . In 1981,
23 percent of all households consisted of
persons living alone . The majority (62 pet)
of persons who lived alone in 1981 were
women. The proportion of women living alone
who were divorced or never married increased
from 29 percent in 1970 to 38 percent in
1981; 71 percent of men living alone in 1981
were either divorced or never married,
compared with 60 percent in 1970 .
The number of households maintained by two
unrelated adults of opposite sex (unmarried
couple households) more than tripled since
1970. Unmarried couple households include a
variety of living arrangements not commonly
considered as an unmarried couple, such as
an elderly woman and male college boarder or
an elderly man and a live-in housekeeper.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Marital status
and living arrangements: March 1981, Current
Population Reports, Population Characteris­tics,
Series P-20, No. 372.
Current Research Projects
IMPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES IN
RURAL AREAS
Project Number: NE-129 (Regional)
Contact Person:
Kenneth P. Wilkinson
Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pa. 16802
814-86 5-0455
Cooperating States:
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland,
New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Vermont
Starting Date : October 1979
Termination Date: September 1983
Objectives:
To determine the effects of sociological
characteristics on the distribution of
socioeconomic resources among rural and
urban areas and within rural areas.
To identify and evaluate public policy
alternatives intended to increase equity in
the distribution of socioeconomic resources.
Findings:
Community case studies are being analyzed
and made available to policymakers and
agency officials on how health resources,
CET A1 and other Federal development pro­grams,
rapid growth in energy development
counties, and other sociological character­istics
impact on the well- being of rural
people. The following are some examples:
• Arkansas analysis of health resources
led the State association of nurses in
Oregon to establish political action pro­grams
concerned with water quality, alter­native
power sources, regulation of nuclear
wastes, immunization, and other issues •
• New York's analysis of community social
characteristics was used to identify busi­ness
opportunities for young people in a
federally financed economic development
program.
• Vermont's program in which regional
planning offices, via computer terminals,
have immediate access to socioeconomic in­formation
about communities has been used by
the State Department of Health, the State
Planning Office, the State Department of
Employment Security, and the State
Environmental Board.
Selected Publications:
1. Miller, Michael K., and Albert E. Luloff.
1981. Who is rural: A typological approach
to the examination of rurality. Rural
Sociology 46(4) :608-625.
2. Wilkinson, Kenneth P., James G.
Thompson, Robert R. Reynolds, Jr., and
Lawrence M. Ostresh. 1982. Local social
disruption and western energy development:
A critical review. Pacific Sociological
Review 25(3): 275-296.
lComprehensive Employment and Training
Act.
1983 No.1 f amil y Economics Review 27
..
Some New USDA Charts
Chart 130
Cost of Raising Western, Rural, Nonfarm Children
Housing 32%-----------,
Food 22%---------------'
June 1982 data. Moderate cost level. birth to age 18.
Chart 141
Living Arrangements of the Elderly
Percent
Men Women
100-
80 -
60-
40-
Alone
or with
nonrelative
With other
relative
20-
l:::::;:;:;:;:::=::::t-With
spouse
0-
65-74 75+ 65-74 75+
Age
1981 data.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
28 Family Economics Review 1963 No.1
Chart 138
Sales Price of New One-Family Homes
$thousand
22.5 FmHA
1975
25.8
37.7
1977
41.6
53.4
1979
1981
1981 preliminary. Median sales price.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
Conventional
Chart 125
Debt and Saving of Households
% of disposable income
15
10
5
,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,
1111
'''''''' 1111111u111uu•••"'
Saving rate
0
1972 74 76 78
Source: Federal Reserve Board.
Chart 127
Distribution of Individual Savings
Securities 4%--------------..
Demand deposits 5% --------,..~::;!!'
Nonfarm homes 13%
Other tangible
assets 15% -------or;~
Life Insurance and
pension plans 25%--------'
80
Chart 131
Change in Energy Prices
%of 1967
800
700 Fuel oil
-·-·-Utility gas
600 , .................... H, Gasoline
- - - - Electricity
500
400
300
200
100
1967 72
Annual averages 1967-81; June data for 1982.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1981
77
Money market funds accounted for less than 1 percent in 1976. Other tangible assets includes consumer durables, nonresidential fixed assets, and
Inventories.
Source: Federal Reserve Board.
82
1983 No.1 Family Ec onomic s Revi ew 29
Fertility of American Women,
June 1981
The average number of lifetime births
expected by married women 18 to 34 years
old declined from 3.1 in 1967 to 2.2 in 1979,
from which time it has remained unchanged.
In 1981, single women 18 to 34 years old
expected to have, on the average, only
1. 8 births per woman.
Women currently not in the labor force
report a higher average number of lifetime
births expected (2. 3 births) than do women
currently in the labor force (1.9 births).
Among employed women, birth expectations
are lowest for women in professional or
managerial occupations (1, 7 births); 19
percent of the women in these occupations
expect to have no children.
In 1981, nearly 75 percent of all births
occurred to women under age 30 and 40
percent to women 18 to 24 years old.
The number of births per 1, 000 women
18 to 44 years old (fertility rate) was
70.9 in 1981 for the Nation as a whole.
Fertility rate for the Hispanic population
was considerably higher, 99.2 per 1, 000
women. High fertility rates were also
recorded for women who had never finished
high school (88. 2) or were residents of a
census-designated poverty area (83. 0).
Fertility rate for women in professional or
managerial positions in 1981 was 37.2 per
1, 000 women.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Fertility of
American women: June 1981 (advance report),
Current Population Reports, Population
Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 369.
30 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Characteristics of American
Children and Youth, 1980
• In 1980, 92 million people, or about
4 out of every 10 Americans, were under 25
years old. Approximately two-thirds of these
children and youths lived in metropolitan
areas, predominantly in the suburbs .
• Approximately 50 percent of all children
3 to 5 years old were enrolled in either
nursery school or kindergarten, up from 29
percent in 1966.
• A bout 53 percent of all children under
18 years old who were living in families had
mothers in the labor force; about 43 percent
of those under 6 years old had mothers who
were working or seeking work. Approximately
77 percent of children under 18 years old
lived in families in which both their parents
were present, a decline from 85 percent in
1970.
• In 1979, 9.7 million children under 18
years old were living in families with in­comes
below the poverty level. This repre­sents
approximately 16 percent of all
children under 18 years old living in
families.
• The proportion of young people 18 to
24 years old who voted in Presidential
elections has continued to decline since
1972, the first year all 18- to 20-year-olds
were eligible to vote. In 1972, about 50
percent of these youths 18 to 24 years old
voted, whereas only about 40 percent voted
in 1980.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Characteristics
of American children and youth: 1980,
Current Population Reports, Special Studies,
Series P-23, No. 114.
Budgets for a Retired Couple­Final
Report
The Bur eau of Labor Statistics, U. S.
Department of Labor, has updated three
hypothetical annual b ud gets for a retired
couple and related area indexes that can be
used to compare the cost of these budgets
in selected urban areas . Changes in prices
between autumn 1980 and autumn 1981 are
reflected in this updating.
The estimated U.S. average annual cost,
excluding personal income taxes, of the
lower budget for an urban retired couple was
$7,226 (see table). The intermediate and
higher budgets were $10,226 and $15,078,
respectively . The costs of the budgets are
generally lowest in nonmetropolitan areas
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is
discontinuing budgets for a retired
couple. The updated "three budgets
for a retired couple" for autumn 1981
is the final release.
and in southern cities and highest in
Anchorage, Alaska, and northeastern and
western cities .
Between 1980 and 1981, the total cost of
the lower budget rose by 8.8 percent, the
intermediate budget by 8.4 percent, and the
higher budget by 8. 3 percent. These increas­es
are approximately 2 percentage points
less than those reported for the comparable
1979-80 period, with more moderate increases
in the food component contributing to the
smaller increases.
Ann ual budg ets f or a ret i r ed couple at 3 levels of living, urban United States, autumn 1981
Component
1 Total bud get • .••.••.••• • .. • • •
Total family consumption •• • •
Food . . . .. ...... . ....... . . .
Housing ......... . .... .... .
Transportation • • •••.•••.• •
Clothing .... . . . .. .. ...... .
Personal care .••••• • .....•
l\1 ed ical care 2
•••••••••• • ••
Other family consumption •.
Other items • ••. • ••.•• •• . •• . •
Lower
budget
$7,226
6,914
2,183
2,377
553
244
198
1,085
275
311
Intermediate Higher
budget budget
$10,226 $15,078
9,611 13,960
2,898 3,642
3,393 5,307
1, 073 1,960
409 629
290 424
1, 091 1,098
457 901
615 1,118
lBeginning with the autumn 1973 updating of the budgets for a retired couple, the total
budget is defined as the sum of "total family consumption" and "other items." Income taxes
are not included in the total budgets.
2The autumn 1981 cost estimates for medical care contain a preliminary estimate for
"out-of-pocket" costs for medicare.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Source: u . S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982, Three budgets for a
retired couple, autumn 1981, News, USDL 82-266.
1 98} No.1 Fa mi l y Eco nom ics Review J1
•'
Medical care and transportation again
showed the largest increases. Medical care
costs increased approximately 15 percent at
all three levels; transportation rose about
14 percent at the lower, 13 percent at the
intermediate, and 12 percent at the higher
levels.
The retired couple is defined as a hus­band,
age 65 or over, and his wife. They are
assumed to be self-supporting and living in
an urban area. The couple is considered to
be in reasonably good health, and they are
able to take care of themselves. Qualities
and quantities of goods and services provid­ed
for each level vary according to differ­ences
in consumption patterns. Area indexes
reflect variation in climate and type of
transportation facilities. Three hypothet-ical
lists of goods and services were speci­fied
in the midsixties to portray three
relative levels of living--lower, inter-mediate,
and higher--for a retired couple.
The cost of the lower budget is not intended
to represent the income necessary for sub­sistence
at the poverty level; it simply
represents a level relatively lower than the
intermediate budget.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1982, Three budgets for
a retired couple, autumn 1981, News, USDL
82-266.
Consumer Price Index: Changes
in Homeownership Component
Effective with the publication of data for
January 1983, the homeownership component
of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All
Urban Consumers will be changed to a rental
equivalence measure. A similar change for
the CPI for wage earners and clerical work­ers
will be effective with January 1985 data.
The current homeownership component is
based on the concept that consumers are
purchasing an asset. Data on house prices
and mortgage interest from the Consumer
Expenditure Survey are collected only from
those consumers who purchased a house in
32 Family Economics Review 1983 No.1
the base period. 1 The computations used to
derive the homeownership index assume a
long-term mortgage at fixed interest rates.
Recent changes in financial markets, how­ever,
such as the variable rate mortgages
and the trend toward seller financing, are
not reflected in the CPl. Also, data on
house prices are obtained from the Federal
Housing Administration; this data base is
relatively small and represents a special-ized
segment of the housing market, creating
estimation problems.
Increasingly, members of Congress, the
media, and the general public are becoming
aware of the issues surrounding the measure­ment
of homeownership costs in the CPl. The
current use of the CPI as a wage escalator
and its future use for escalation of income
tax brackets and the personal exemption
amount, as required by the Economic Recovery
Tax Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-34), necessi­tate
that the CPI be changed to reflect the
experience of consumers to the fullest
extent possible.
The rental equivalence measure is based on
the concept that consumers are purchasing
shelter (rather than an asset). Data used to
derive the rental equivalence component will
come from all families who lived in owned
homes during the base period; the component,
therefore, will cover the entire stock of
owned homes, rather than just those homes
·purchased in the base year. Current rent
paid for homes, like those that are owned by
families surveyed in the Consumer Expendi­ture
Survey, will serve as the basis for
extimating the rental value of all owner­occupied
houses.
1 Data on property taxes, property insur­ance,
home maintenance, and repair are
collected from all homeowners in that base
period.
Sources: U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981, Statement
of Dr. Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner of
Labor Statistics, regarding changes in the
Consumer Price Index, News, USDL Pub.
No. 81-506. Gillingham, Robert, and Walter
Lane, 1982, Changing the treatment of
shelter costs for homeowners in the CPI,
Monthly Labor Review 105(6):9-14, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
[1967 = 100)
Group
All items ................................ .
Food ••....••••••••.••••..••••.••••.••••
Food at home ........................ .
Food away from home ••••••••••.•••.••
Housing ............................... .
Shelter ............................. .
Rent ••.••...•..••.•••..•...•••....•
Homeowners hip ............... ! •••••
Fuel and other utilities ••••••••••••••
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas •••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••.•.•••.
Household furnishings and
operation . .......................... .
Apparel and upkeep ••••••••••••••••••.•
Men's and boys' •..•.•••........••••.•
Women's and girls' ................... .
Footwear ............................ .
Transportation ........................ .
Private ............................. .
Public .............................. .
r.1edical care .......................... .
Entertainment ••••••.•••••..•••••.•••.••
Other goods and services ••..•••••..•••
Person~ care ••••••••••••••••••••.•••
Oct.
1982
294.1
287.0
279.4
310.7
320.7
342.8
228.9
382.8
363.4
677.2
413.4
235.4
195.5
188.6
163.0
206.8
295.5
291.1
356.3
338.7
240.3
271.2
252.9
Sept.
1982
293.3
287.6
280.6
309.8
319.7
342.6
226.9
383.0
359.5
662.8
409.2
234.2
194.9
186.5
163.6
206.2
295.3
291.1
353.3
336.0
238.3
266.6
251.1
Aug.
1982
292.8
287.4
280.8
308.7
320.1
344.2
226.0
385.9
356.3
659.9
404.4
233.4
191.8
183.7
159.2
204.4
296.2
292.4
348.1
333.3
237.4
258.3
250.6
Oct.
1981
279.9
277.6
272.1
296.2
303.5
326.6
213.6
366.7
330.1
672.7
360.6
225.6
191.5
183.6
161.2
204.2
287.2
283.9
330.8
304.8
225.5
245.2
236.9
Source: U.S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1983 No .1 Family Economics Review 33
"" ~
...,. ,
3.. ..
......
'<
1'1
()
0
::J
0
.3. ..
()
CD
"" CD
.<.. .
CD
~
"' CD
"' z
0
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, October 1982, u.s. average1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 rronth
Sex-age groups
Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan2 plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:3
20-54 years •••.••• , ••.•••••••••••••• $33.90 $43.70 $54 .70 $65.60 $146.50 $189.30 $236 .90 $283.80
55 years and over ••••••••••••••••••. 30.40 38.90 48.20 57.40 131.70 168.70 208.70 249 .00
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years •••••••••••••.•.. 48.00 61.20 76.30 91.30 207.60 265.40 330.60 395.50
6-8 and 9-11 years •..••.••.••••••• 57.90 74.10 92.70 111.10 250.70 321. 10 402.00 481.00
INDIVIDUALS~
Child:
7 months to 1 year •••••••••••••••••• 6.80 8.20 10.00 11.90 29.60 35.70 43.50 51.40
1-2 years ............................ 7.80 9.80 12.10 14.30 33.60 42.50 52.30 62.10
3-5 years ••••••••••••..••.•••••••••• 9.40 11.70 14.50 17.40 40.80 50.80 62.90 75.40
6-8 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12.00 15.30 19.10 22.90 52.10 66.20 82.80 99.00
9-11 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15.10 19.10 23 .90 28.60 65.40 82.80 103.80 124.00
Male :
12-14 years ......................... 16.10 20.30 25.40 30.30 69.60 88.00 110.00 131.40
15-19 years ......................... 17.60 22.40 28.00 33.70 76.30 97.10 121.50 145.80
20-54 years ......................... 17.00 22.00 27 .70 33.30 73.50 95.20 119.90 144.10
55 years and over •.•.•. , ••••••.•••.• 15.10 19.40 24.10 28.80 65.40 83.90 104.20 125.00
Female:
12-19 years ......................... 14.20 18.10 22.40 26.70 61.70 78.40 97.00 115.60
20-54 years •••.•.••••••••.•.•••••.•• 13.80 17.70 22.00 26.30 59.70 76.90 95.50 113.90
55 years and over .................. 12.50 16.00 19.70 23.40 54.30 69.50 85.50 101.40
Pregnant ••.•.•••.•...•....•••••••.•• 17.20 21.90 27.00 32.00 74.70 95.00 116.80 138.70
Nursing ••..••••••••.••..•.•..•.••••• 18.30 23.30 28.90 34.30 79.40 100.80 125.20 148.80
1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each plan were com­puted
from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal
plans) issues of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using prices paid in 1965-66 by house­holds
from USDA's Household Food Cosumption Survey with food costs at 4 selected levels. USDA updates these survey prices to
estimate the current costs for the food plans using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "Estimated Retail Food Prices
by Cities" from 1965-66 to 1977 and "CPI Detailed Report," tables 3 and 9, after 1977.
2 Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
3 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
~The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are
suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person-- subtract 5 percent;
7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
NOTE: Starting with the next issue of Family Economics Review, the "regional" food cost tables will be included in the
No. 2 issue each year.
n
0
~
.0... .
torj
0
0
0. a.
::z=
0 s (J)
Prescribed Medicines: Use,
Expenditures, and Sources of
Payment
Approximately 58 percent of the U.S.
population obtained at least one prescribed
medicine in 1977. The use of prescribed
medicines was most frequent among the very
young and the elderly--at least one pre­scribed
medicine was obtained by 66 percent
of those under 6' years of age, 69 percent
between 55 and 64 years, and 75 percent of
those 65 years or older. Females were more
likely than males to have obtained prescrib­ed
medicines (65 percent compared with 51
percent); and whites were more likely to
have obtained prescribed medicines than
blacks and Hispanics (63 percent, 52 percent,
and 55 percent, respectively).
Among users of prescribed drugs, a total
of 7. 5 prescribed medicines per person was
reported. Rate of use for females was higher
than that for males (8.3 compared with 6.4).
The average charge per prescribed medicine
in 197 7 was $6. 24 with no variations among
the population groups. Overall, the share of
the cost of prescribed medicines paid by the
family was 74 percent, 12 percent by private
insurance, 8 percent by medicaid, and
6 percent by other sources.
About $5.5 billion were spent in 1977 for
prescribed medicines, an average of $46 per
user of prescribed medicines. Average annual
expenses for users were highest for persons
65 years and older ($93 per person) and
those 55-64 years ($79 per person).
Source: Kasper, Judith A., 1982,
Prescribed medicines: Use, expenditures, and
sources of payment, National Health Care
Expenditures Study, DI·IHS Pub. No. (PHS)
82-3320, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of Health Research,
S ta tis tics, and Technology.
ORDER FOAM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit C•rd Orders Only
Enclosed is$ 0 check, • Total charges$ Fill in the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my
Deposit Account No. Credit ,.--,---r--r-r--r--r--r-r--r--.--,-....-..--,--rl--,--,1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-0 lffi"-""•'] eant No. I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Expiration Date I I I
Order No. Month/Year . . .
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
at $8.50 per year. (Add $2.15 for other than U.S. mailing).
Company or peraonaJ name
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Addltion8l address/ attention line
~~r~tl ad~r~ss I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l..!.l UcJ..l I I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIII
(or Country)
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
PLEASE PAINT OA TYPE
For Office UH Only
Ouant•ty Charges
....... Enclosed
.. .. . ..... To be mailed .............. .
SubscnptiOf>S ............... .
Postage .................... .
Fore~gn handhng ............................ .
MMOB ...................................... .
OPNA .
UPNS
Otscount
Refund
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 35
Some New USDA Publications
CORRECTION
The following are for sale by the Superin­tendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402:
In the 1982 No. 3 issue of Family
Economics Review, the following correc­tions
should be made:
COMPOSITION OF FOODS. Revised
July 1982. Stock No. 001-000-04283-1.
$7.
Household and Farm Task Participa­tion
of Women, table 1, p. 4--the
year of data collection for New York
farm homemakers should be 1936,
THE FORTIFICATION OF FOODS: instead of 1926.
A REVIEW. July 1982. Stock No. 001-
000-04278-5. $4.50.
Survey of American Farm Women,
p. 10, col. 1, line 13--somewhat
satisfied, instead of not satisfied.
GETTING STARTED IN FARMING ON
A SMALL SCALE. April 1982. Stock
No. 001-000-04259-9. $3.25
tr U.S. GOVsRNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:
Family
Economics
Review
1983 - 381-227 - 814/2070
Attach last subscription
label here.
36 Family Economics Re view 198 3 No.1
CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM
HAIL THIS fORM TO:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Wa s hington, D.C. 20402
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
NAME-FIRST, LAST __________________ _
COMPANY NAME ____________________ _
ADDRESS _____________________ _
CITY ________________________ _
STATE _____________ ZIP CODE ______ _
(OR COUNTRY)·---------------------
Index of Articles in 1982 Issues
CLOTHING
Clothing and Textiles: Sup plies, Prices, and Outlook for 1982 ••••••••••••••••
Cost of Doing Laundry •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••
Home Sewing Trends ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••
FAMILY FINANCE
Assets of the Elderly as They Retire ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••
Bankruptcy in the United States ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••
Budgets for a Retired Couple ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Charges and Sources of Payment for Visits to Physician Offices ••••••••••••••.
The Continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Economic Well- Being of the Elderly: Recommendations
From the White House Conference on Aging ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The Family in the Eighties' Economy ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••
Federal Income Taxation and the Two-Earner Couple ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Final Report on Urban Family Budgets ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Income and Living Arrangements Among Poor Aged Singles •••••••••••••••• • ••
Money Income and J:>overty Status of Families and Persons ••••••••••••••••••••
New Child Cost Bulletin ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
New York Family Budget Annual Price Survey, October 1980 ••••••••••••••••••
FAMILY LIVING
Family Support Seminar ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Households and Families, By Type: !Aarch 1980 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Households and Families, March 1981 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Single-Parent Households: An Alternative Approach •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
FOOD
Cost of Meats and Meat Alternates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Family Food Budgeting For Good Meals and Good Nutrition •••••.••••••••••••••
Food Outlook ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •
Food Stamp Allotment and Diets of U.S. Households •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Household Size and Prices Paid for Food ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION
Household and Farm Task Participation of Women •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••
Is the Modern Housewife a Lady of Leisure? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • •
Measuring Household Production for the GNP ••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• • •
New Methods for Studying Household Production •••••••••••••••• ••·• • • • • • • • • • •
Of Time, Dual Careers, and Household Productivity •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sources of Time-Use Data for Estimating the Value of Household Production •••
Workload of Married Women ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HOUSING
Alternative Mortgage Instruments •••••••••••••••••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Housing Research, Reports, and Forthcoming Data ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The Outlook for Housing and Mortgage Markets ••••••••• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
MISCELLANEOUS
Fertility of American Women: June 1979 ••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Heating with Wood ••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LABSTAT Data File Available •••••••••••••• ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.
New Look for Family Economics Review •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1980 Census Subject He ports •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States: t,1arch 1980 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Postponement of Rebasing of Consumer Price Index • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Social and Economic Characteristics of Americans During Midlife • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Survey of American Farm Women ••••••••••••••• ••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Page
3
17
19
29
16
24
33
21
23
10
3
32
19
23
32
35
20
16
37
11
28
22
22
23
27
3
34
16
30
26
34
10
1
36
12
27
43
33
1
32
35
43
24
9
Issue
Spring
Winter
No . 4
Spring
Spring
Spring
Winter
Spring
No. 4
Spring
Winter
No. 4
Spring
Spring
Winter
Winter
Spring
Winter
No. 3
Winter
Winter
No. 4
Spring
Winter
No . 4
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 4
Winter
Spring
Winter
Winter
No. 4
No. 4
Winter
Winter
No. 3
Spring
No. 3
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 37
Index of Articles in 1982 Issues
CLOTHING
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1982 ••••••••••••••••
Cost of Doing Laundry ••••••••.••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
Home Sewing Trends •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
FAMILY FINANCE
Assets of the Elderly as They Retire •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Bankruptcy in the United States •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
13 udgets for a Retired Couple ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
Charges and Sources of Payment for Visits to Physician Offices •••••••••••••••
The Continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
Economic Well-Being of the Elderly: Recommendations
From the White House Conference on Aging ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••
The Family in the Eighties' Economy ••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••
Federal Income Taxation and the Two-Earner Couple ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••
Final Report on Urban Family Budgets ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Income and Living Arrangements Among Poor Aged Singles •••••••••••••••••••
Money Income and J:'overty Status of Families and Persons ••••••••••••••••••••
New Child Cost 1:1 ulletin ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••••
New York Family Budget Annual Price Survey, October 1980 ••••••••••••••••••
FAMILY LIVING
Family Support Seminar .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Households and Families, By Type: t.1arch 1980 ••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••••••
Households and Families, March 1981 ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Single-Parent Households: An Alternative Approach •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
FOOD
Cost of Meats and Meat Alternates •••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.
Family Food Budgeting For Good Meals and Good Nutrition ••••••••••••••••••••
Food Outlook ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• •• • • • • · • • • • • • •
Food Stamp Allotment and Diets of U.S. Households ••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••
Household Size and Prices Paid for Food ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION
Household and Farm Task Participation of Women ••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••.•••
Is the Modern Housewife a Lady of Leisure? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Measuring Household Production for the GNP •••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • •
New Methods for Studying Household Production •••••••••••.•••••••.• • •••• · • · •
Of Time, Dual Careers, and Household Productivity •••••••••••• • • ••• • • • • • • • • •
Sources of Time-Use Data for Estimating the Value of Household Production •••
Workload of Married Women ••••••••.•••••••••••• • •• • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HOUSING
Alternative Mortgage Instruments ••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing Research, Reports, and Forthcoming Data •..•••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • •
The Outlook for Housing and Mortgage Markets •.•••••.• •• • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
MIS CELLAN EO US
Fertility of American Women: June 1979 ••••••••• • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Heating with Wood •••.••••••••••••••••• ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LABSTAT Data File Available •••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
New Look for Family Economics Review ••••••••• · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1980 Census Subject Reports •••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States: t.1arch 19!!0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Postponement of Rebasing of Consumer Price Index •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Social and Economic Characteristics of Americans During Midlife • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Survey of American Farm Women ••••• ••••••• • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Page
3
17
19
29
16
24
33
21
23
10
3
32
19
23
32
35
20
16
37
11
28
22
22
23
27
3
34
16
30
26
34
10
1
36
12
27
43
33
1
32
35
43
24
9
Issue
Spring
Winter
No. 4
Spring
Spring
Spring
Winter
Spring
No. 4
Spring
Winter
No. 4
Spring
Spring
Winter
Winter
Spring
Winter
No. 3
Winter
Winter
No. 4
Spring
Winter
No. 4
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 3
No. 4
Winter
Spring
Winter
Winter
No. 4
No. 4
Winter
Winter
No. 3
Spring
No. 3
1983 No.1 Family Economics Review 37