Family Economics Review [1983, Number 3]

              I For Building Use Only I
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
t'eriodical 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.
Suggestions 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 cript ion information, see p. 27.
For sa le by the Superlnl<•ndent of Document•. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402
Family Economics Review 1983 No . 3
Family
Economics
Review
CONTENTS
Household Wealth·, 1962-81............................................................. 2
Colien Hefferan
Food Shopping Skills of the Rich and the Poor.... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8
Betty B. Peterkin and Mary Y. Hama
Consumer Perspectives: Imported vs. U.S. -Made Apparel • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13
Kitty G. Dickerson
Abstracts
Federal Student Aid Programs, 1983-84 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16
Sources of Retirement Income... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Nation's Families, 1960-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Households and Families, March 1982................................................... 21
Revised Labor Force Series From Current Population Survey • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22
Journey to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . • 2 3
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications .....•.....••.•...............••.....•...•••. • ·. ·•...••... 12
Some New USDA Charts ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • · • • • • • •. • • 24
Cost of Food at Home . ..•.•...............•.•.....• · · · · · · · · • • • • • • • · · · · • · · · · · • • • · · • • • • · · 2 5
Consumer Prices • .....................•.•.•.•... · • • • • • · · • · • • • • • · · · · · · · · · • • • • • • · • · • • · • · · 26
Agricultural Outlook '84--New Date Announced ••••• •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28
Issued July 1983
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review
-·
Household Wealth, 1962-81
Colien Hefferan
Economist
Households can increase their wealth in
two ways--either through saving a portion of
current income in excess of liquidations and
new credit obligations or increasing the
value of assets already owned. Between 1962
and 1981 household wealth in the United
States increased significantly as the result
of both of these processes. During the same
20-year period households made fundamental
changes in their portfolio of assets. In 1962
households held about 28 percent of their
assets in tangible form, such as real estate
and consumer durables, and the remaining 72
percent in financial assets. By 1981 the
importance of tangible assets had increased
to 36 percent and financial assets had
declined to 64 percent. This shift in the
household portfolio was the result of sus­tained
investment in tangibles, especially
owner-occupied housing, and rapid increases
in the value of real property.
The amount of wealth held by households
and the rate at which they accumulate it are
important indicators of family economic
well-being and financial progress. Further­more,
the forms in which wealth is held
provide a good measure of how responsive
households can be in meeting financial
crises. This paper reviews the level and
composition of household wealth in the
United States from 1962 to 1981 and examines
the implications of these wealth patterns
for family economic stability and security •1
1 Trend information in this paper on the
household sector of the economy or
households as a group is based on aggregate
data from the National Income and Product
Accounts and the Flow of Funds Accounts
(see "Interpreting Statistical Data in
Family Economics," Family Economics Review
1983(1): 21-26). Information on the wealth
and asset holdings of specific types of
households is based on survey data (_!_, .~).
2 f am il y Ec onom ics Re vi ew 1983 No.3
Increases in Wealth
One way households assess their financial
progress is to periodically review their net
worth position, that is, the difference
between their assets and liabilities. Recent
unemployment and rising bankruptcy rates
indicate that some households have made
little or no financial progress during the
past several years. Nonetheless, households
as a whole have increased their level of
wealth in every year since 1962. The net
worth of the household sector grew from
approximately 1. 2 trillion dollars (about
$18,000 per household) in 1962 to approxi­mately
8.9 trillion dollars (about $108,000
per household) in 1981. In constant (1972)
dollars household net worth tripled during
the 20-year span; on a per household basis,
net worth increased from $15,400 in 1962 to
$36,600 in 1981.
Personal saving contributed significantly
to household wealth during the past 20
years. The annual growth in net worth, how­ever,
reflects not only the personal saving
rate, but also the revaluation of assets to
reflect their changing market value. The
rate of net worth change is much more
volatile than the national saving rate, and
one rate cannot be predicted or calculated
from the other (table 1). During the period
of 1962-82 the saving rate averaged 6.6
percent within a relatively narrow range of
4.9 to 8.2 percent. The rate of change in
net worth, however, ranged from -0.3 percent
to 15.3 percent, averaging 8.3 percent.
Generally, during economic upturns the rate
of net worth change rises more rapidly than
does the personal saving rate. Similarly,
during downturns the saving rate does not
appear to slow as much as the rate of net
worth change. This suggests that households
may not change their saving habits in
response to economic changes as rapidly as
the market applies new values to household
assets in the event of an economic recession
or recovery.
As the general level of household wealth
rose during the sixties and seventies, not
all types of households benefited equally.
Comparison of findings from two household
surveys of saving and wealth indicates that
low- and middle-income households may have
benefited slightly more from the increase in
wealth than did high-income households.
High-income households have traditionally
held the vast majority of financial assets,
and in many cas~s these assets comprise
their primary form of wealth. The revalua­tion
process that occurred as part of the
growth in household wealth during the past
20 years favored holders of tangible rather
than financial assets. Middle- and low­income
households, which tend to hold a
large portion of their wealth in houses and
automobiles, therefore, often saw their
wealth growing at a more rapid pace than
that of financial asset holders.
The percent of wealth concentrated in
high-, medium-, and low-income groups in
1962 and 1979 is shown in table 2. In 1962
high-income households held an estimated 48
percent of total household wealth; by 1979
their share had decreased to 44 percent.
Much of the decline in the wealth share of
high-income households is attributable to
the redistribution of housing wealth between
1962 and 1979. In 1962 the lowest 80 percent
of income earners held only 58 percent of
all home equity. In 1979 this group held 65
percent of home equity. In 1979 the highest
income households continued to hold almost
three-fifths of all financial, business, and
other assets, down only slightly from their
1962 shares.
Table 1. Measures of saving, and rates of change in household net worth, 1962-82
Rate 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Household saving1 5.5 4.9 6.0 6.4 6.9 7.4 6.7 6.0 8.0 8.2
Net worth change2 -.3 7.3 7.0 7.8 2.5 11.6 11.9 1.1 4.7 9.3
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Household saving1 7.8 7.3 7.8 6.9 5.9 6.1 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Net worth change2 4.2 4.5 12.8 12.6 8.7 13.9 13.1 15.3 6.2 3NA
1 As calculated in the National Income and Product Accounts:
. Personal saving
SaVIng rate = Disposable personal income
where disposable personal income is total personal income less personal tax and nontax
payments, and personal saving is disposable personal income less personal consumption
expenditures, interest paid by consumers to business, and personal transfer payments to
foreigners. Calculated from National Income and Product Accounts, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1962 to 1982, inclusive.
2Calculated from annual asset and liability data in the household sector balance sheets,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1982, Balance Sheets for the U.S.
Economy 1945-81, Flow of Funds.
3Not available.
1972
6.2
10.6
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review J
Changes in the Household Portfolio
There were several important changes in
the household portfolio of assets between
1962 and 1981. These changes reflected
economic conditions, especially inflation in
real estate and housing; the preferences of
households, especially young families form­ing
new households; and changing regulations
and new offerings in the financial markets,
especially the expansion of pension programs
and the introduction of money market funds.
The combined result of these changes was an
increase in the relative importance of
tangible assets in the household portfolio
and a decline in financial assets.
The principal change in the portfolio has
been an upward trend in the value and rela­tive
importance of home equity and land
(table 3). Most of this increase is attribu­table
to a rapid upward trend in property
values rather than increased saving and
investing in these assets by households.
Table 2. Wealth concentration by income levels, 1962 and 1979
Percent of aggregate wealth concentrated in
households with:
Household wealth Total
Highest Middle Lowest
20 percent 40 percent 40 percent
of inccme of inccme of inccme
1962 1
Total wealth concentration ••••• 48 32 20 100
Equity in home, ••••••••••••••• 42 38 20 100
Equity in automobile ••••••••••• 30 51 19 100
Financial assets ••••••••••••••• 58 32 10 100
Equity in own business
and I or· farm .................. 61 25 14 100
1979 2
Total wealth concentration ••••• 44 34 22 100
Equity in home •••••••••••••••• 35 40 25 100
Equity in automobile ••••••••••• 30 47 23 100
Financial assets ••••••••••••••• 56 30 14 100
Equity in own business
and I or farm .................. 58 29 13 100
1Calculated from estimates of wealth held by income groups and estimates of income
distribution, in Survey of Changes in Family Finances, by Dorothy S. Projector, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1968.
2Data taken from "Composition of the personal wealth of American households at the start of
the eighties," by Robert B. Pearl and Matilda Frankel (paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Economic Association, Washington, D.C., December 1981).
4 Fam i ly Economics Review 1983 No.3
Generally, households devote a large portion
of their savings to housing, but the share of
the household savings dollar used for the
acquisition of housing and other tangibles
varied from year to year and recently trended
downward (table 4).
Another factor may have influenced the
growth in home equity and land in the house­hold
portfolio. Survey data on household
wealth in 1962, 1972-73, and 1979 show a
broadening base. of home ownership. In the
Survey of Financial Characteristics of
Consumers conducted for the Federal Reserve
Board in 1963 (covering wealth in 1962), 57
percent of the households reported home
equity among their assets (_~). In the
1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey, the
percentage reporting home equity was 59
percent. In the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services 1979 Income Survey
Development Program, 64 percent reported
holding equity in a home (1).
Another major change in the household
portfolio has been the decline in importance
of corporate equities. Between 1962 and 1981
corporate equities dropped 10 percentage
points from about 21 percent to about 11
percent of the household portfolio. This
drop is primarily the result of declining
value of corporate equities over the 20-year
period rather than declining savings addi­tions
to these assets or diminishing numbers
of investors. As would be expected in a
price sensitive environment such as the
stock market, annual investments in corpo­rate
equities ranged from net withdrawals to
5.5 percent of the total savings dollar. The
proportion of households owning corporate
equities has increased from 16 percent in
1962 to 20 percent in 1972-73 and 1979 (!.• 2).
Table 3. Distribution of household assets, selected years 1962-81
Assets 1962 1967 1972 1977 1981
Percent distribution
Total .......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tangible assets .............. 28.4 27.2 29.9 35.7 35.9
Housing .................•.. 15.1 13.9 15.8 19.5 19.9
Consumer durables ••••••••• 9.5 9.4 9.8 10.7 10.1
Land ••••••.••••••••••.••••• 3.8 3.9 4.3 5.5 5.9
Financial assets ............. 71.6 72.8 70.1 64.3 64.1
Currency, check deposits .. 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.8
Small time and saving
deposits .................. 9.9 11.2 12.6 14.0 11.7
Money market fund shares •• .1 1.7
Large time deposits ••••••••• .1 .2 .6 .9
Credit market instruments •• 7.5 6.5 6.1 6.7
1.7
7.1
Corporate equities ......... 20.9 24.1 21.1 11.1
Life insurance reserves .... 4.4 3.9 3.3 2.8 11.2
2.2
Pension fund reserves •••••• 5.2 6.2 7.5 7.1 7.6
Equity in noncorpora tion
business ·················· 19.5 16.5 14.8 17.6 17.6
Security and miscellaneous
credit .................... .7 .8 .8 .9 .9
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1982, Balance Sheets for the U.S. Economy
1945-81, Flow of Funds.
1983 No. J Family Economics Review 5
Life insurance reserves have also declined
in importance in the household portfolio
from 4.4 percent of assets in 1962 to 2.2
percent in 1981. This trend has mirrored the
decline in annual investment in cash value
life insurance.
At the same time that life insurance
reserves have declined as a percent of
household assets, pension reserves have in­creased.
Annual additions to these reserves
have claimed an increasing share of the
savings dollar. The increase in pension re­serves
is the product of two factors. There
was a moderate increase in the number of
workers covered by pension plans during the
seventies which may have resulted in more
dollars flowing into this asset. The age
distribution of the population, however,
accounts for more of the increase than other
factors. The influx of the large "baby boom"
generation into the labor force has added
net contributors to pension assets and has
not yet genera ted many draws on these
accounts. Pension assets will probably con­tinue
to increase both in absolute amount
and as a percent of household wealth until
this generation of workers begins to retire.
The most recent shifts in household assets
have been in saving and checking accounts,
certificates of deposit, and money market
funds. Through the mid -seventies households
maintained about 3.4 percent of their assets
in currency and demand deposits. In 1976 a
small number of households began to use a
new financial instrument--interest-bearing
money market fund shares--to meet the
liquidity needs provided previously by
demand deposits. The shift from no-interest
and low-interest accounts to higher yield
money market funds and time certificates of
Table 4. Distribution of annual additions to assets, selected years 1962-81
It en 1962 1967 1972 1977 1981
Increase in all assets 1 $67.9 $110.8 $214.7 $350.9 $465.1
Percent distribution
Tangible assets .............. 40.2 36.4 38.7 33.4 23.6
Housing •••••••••••••••••••• 18.8 9.8 13.0 14.9 9.4
Fixed assets ............... 7.0 6.5 8.7 3.5 4.6
Durables ••••••••••••••••••• 12.1 18.9 16.1 14.1 8.2
Inventories ................ 2.3 1.2 .9 .9 1.4
Financial assets ............. 59.8 63.6 61.3 66.6 76.4
Currency, check deposits ••• -1.8 8.9 6.5 5.7 5.6
Time and saving deposits ••• 38.4 31.8 34.7 30.6 14.1
Money market fund shares •• .1 23.1
Securities (corporate
equities) ................. -.3 1.1 5.5 4.1
Life insurance reserves .... 5.4 4.5 3.1 3.2 2.1
Private pension reserves ••• 8.2 7.4 5.2 9.6 11.1
Government insurance and
pension reserves •••••••••• 5.1 5.0 5.4 6.4 8.0
Miscellaneous financial
assets .................... 4.8 6.0 5.3 5.5 8.2
1 Billions.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds, 1962 to 1982, inclusive.
6 family Economics Review 1983 No.3
deposit intensified through 1981. The share
of household assets held in money market
funds increased from 0.1 percent in 1977 to
1. 7 percent in 1981 (table 3). Large time
deposits also increased from 0. 9 percent of
household assets to 1. 7 percent in 1981.
During this same period currency and check­ing
deposits declined to 2.8 percent of
household assets.
In 1981 money market fund shares claimed
23 percent of th~ annual savings dollar, the
largest component of saving in that year
(table 4). 2 Money market funds did not exist
in 1962. In 1981 an estimated one in eight
households held shares in these funds.
Implications of Current Wealth Patterns
Gains made in the acquisition of wealth
between 1962 and 1981 allowed households to
gradually assume increased financial risks
over that 20-year period. 3 This is evident
in several financial patterns which develop­ed
during that period. First, as household
wealth increased, the liabilities of the
household sector also increased, resulting
in a slow but sustained rise in the debt/
asset ratio of households (table 5). Much of
the debt incurred by households was used to
finance the purchase of housing and other
tangibles which greatly appreciated in value
and enhanced the net worth position of some
housholds. Debt, like wealth, is not evenly
distributed among all households, however.
The increase in the debt/asset ratio has
taken place concurrently with rising rates
of default and personal bankruptcy.
2Recently the percent of household assets
held in money market fund shares has
declined rapidly as households have made
large withdrawals from the funds. Between
December 1, 1982, and February 28, 1983,
the total assets held in these funds declin­ed
by almost 20 percent. This sharp decline
has been attributed to the introduction of
federally insured bank and thrift associa­tion
accounts competitive with the funds and
a rally in stock market prices which began
in August 1982.
30ther economic changes, such as increased
labor force participation rates for married
women, may also have contributed.
The second factor indicating increased
exposure to financial risks in households
today is the recent shift from insured and
liquid assets to uninsured and illiquid
assets in the household portfolio.. The
general trend toward increased emphasis on
tangible assets in the portfolio and the
very recent surge in the acquisition of cor­porate
equities may place some households,
particularly middle- and high -income ones,
Table 5. Debt/asset ratio of households,
1962-81
Year Debt/asset ratio
1962 ................. 12.5
1963 ................. 12.9
1964 ................. 13.2
1965 ................. 13.4
1966 ................. 13.8
1967 ................. 13.3
1968 ................. 13.0
1969 ................. 13.7
1970 ................. 13.7
1971 ................. 13.8
1972 ................. 14.0
1973 ................. 14.9
1974 . ................ 15.3
1975 ................. 14.7
1976 ................. 14.6
1977 . ................ 15.4
1978 ................. 15.7
1979 ................. 15.9
1980 ................. 15.2
1981 ................. 15.4
Source: Calculated from asset and liability
data, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 1982, Balance Sheets for the
U.S. Economy 1945-81, Flow of Funds.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 7
in a position where they cannot respond
rapidly to economic change or financial
crises.
If the acquisition of household wealth
continues to be goal specific (as trends in
housing wealth and retirement assets indi­cated
in the sixties and seventies); house­holds
may need to make special efforts to
build and maintain liquid assets to meet
financial setbacks and problems. Some of the
long-term growth in debt may, in fact, be
related to increased illiquidity. House-holds
may be substituting credit lines for
liquid assets in order to meet short-term
and unanticipated needs for money.
Households have become very sensitive to
the yields earned by their assets and have
demonstrated a willingness to change their
portfolio in response to changing yields. To
be effective in exercising this flexibility,
households will need to work to improve
their financial planning and management
skills.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Pearl, Robert B., and Matilda Frankel.
1981. Composition of the personal wealth
of American households at the start of
the eighties. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Economic
Association. [Washington, D.C., December
1981.1
2. Projector, Dorothy S., and Gertrude S.
Weiss. 1966. Survey of Financial
Characteristics of Consumers. Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
8 Family Economics Review 1983 No.3
Food Shopping Skills of the Rich
and the Poor
By Betty B. Peterkin and Mary Y. Hama
Deputy director and economist
Consumer Nutrition Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
Expertise in shopping for food is the
ability to select food with qualities the
shopper values most. Two qualities that many
food shoppers seek are low cost and high
nutrient content. High energy (calorie)
value is considered desirable by some
shoppers and undesirable by others-.
In this study the nutrient return per
dollar's worth of food and the amount of
nutrients per 1, 000 calories (nutrient
density) in food used by households have
been employed as indicators of food shopping
expertise. Food use data are for households
with different economic characteristics
included in the Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey 1977-78. Generally, food shopping
expertise of households with low food costs,
with low incomes, and receiving food stamps
was as good or better than that of other
households.
Approach
Over 14,000 housekeeping households from
a stratified area probability sample in the 48
conterminous States were selected for this
study. Housekeeping households are those
with at least 1 person having 10 or more
meals from household food supplies during
the survey week. In the survey an inter­viewer
collected information on quantity and
cost of foods used during the week prior to
the interview. "Food used" refers to food
and beverage (alcoholic and nonalcoholic)
that disappeared from household food sup­plies.
This included food and beverage eaten
at home, carried from home in packed meals,
thrown away, and fed to pets (other than
commercial pet food). Information was also
obtained on income, food program participa­tion,
and other factors expected to affect
food consumption.
The nutritive value of food used was
calculated using standard reference tables
of food composition compiled from USDA's
Nutrient Data Bank. Values were for the
edible portion of food as brought into the
household, except that vitamin values were
adjusted for losses during cooking. "Edible
portion" refers to all food except those
parts that are clearly inedible such as
bones in meat. All fat on retail meat cuts
was considered to be edible. Dietary levels
of protein, calcium, iron, magnesium,
phosphorus, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin,
niacin, vitamin Bs. vitamin B12• and vitamin
C were calculated. Calcium, iron, magnesium,
and vitamins A, B6, and C were given
special consideration because they were
found in an earlier study to be present in
less than recommended amounts in many diets
(1). The amount of energy provided per
dollar and the percentage of energy from fat
were also studied.
The money -value of food used for a week
(food dollars) included the reported cost of
purchased food and the estimated value of
food that was home produced or received as
gift or pay. Estimated value was based on
the average price per pound paid for the
food by survey households in the same region
and season.
Food shopping expertise of groups of
households with different food costs and
incomes was studied. Food cost level was
defined as the money value of food per
"equivalent" person. An equivalent person
was counted as 21 meals from home food sup­plies
in a week (based on 3 meals for 7
days). The equivalent person was used to
attempt to adjust for variation among house­holds
in the number of meals eaten from home
food supplies by household members and
guests. Two indicators of income were used:
the previous year's income as a percent of
the Federal poverty threshold, and eligibility
for the Food Stamp Program as determined
from the survey data.
Nutrients Per Dollar's Worth of Food
Households with lower money value of food
per person received greater average return
per dollar in energy and all nutrients than
households with higher money value (table 1).
For example, - households that had food costs
in the thrifty food plan cost range ($8 to
$11.99 per person per week in 1977-78)
selected foods that provided 9 to 25 percent
more of nutrients per dollar than households
with about twice that food cost ($16 to
$19.99 per person). This may be attributed
partly to the differences in their household
size (table 2) and the economies associated
with buying and using food in large as
opposed to small households. The effect of
household size and other factors on the
nutrient return per dollar is under study.
Households with low food costs, despite
their higher nutrient return per dollar,
were less likely to have diets that provided
recommended levels of nutrients than house­holds
that spent more dollars for their food
(2). Also, the higher average return in
n~trients per dollar's worth of food does
not mean necessarily that these households
consciously choose more nutritious foods
than households with lower return per
dollar. Diets that are low in cost usually
include some relatively inexpensive foods in
large quantities. Some of these foods--such
as enriched and whole-grain flour and
bread, some cereals, dry beans, and
potatoes--furnish substantial amounts of
several nutrients.
Households with incomes below the poverty
thresholds had lower average home food costs
per person and made selections that provided
more nutrients per dollar than households
with higher incomes. Likewise, households
that were eligible for food stamps (recipi­ents
and nonrecipients) had lower average
food costs per person and higher average
nutrient return per dollar than households
not eligible for food stamps. Households
receiving food stamps had higher food costs
and about the same or slightly higher return
in 9 of the 11 nutrients studied than did
households eligible for but not receiving
food stamps. The two exceptions, calcium and _.
magnesium, are among the problem nutrients.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 9
~ I 1 o Table 1. Nutrients per dollar's worth of food used at home
....,
3" ' .,........
'<
r"'1
n
0
::J
0
.3.. ..
n
"' ;;o
(1)
<.... .
Households 2
All households •••••••••••••••••••
Money value
of food
per person 3
per week
Dollars
17.00
Food
energy
Kcal
1,236
Ol.lcium
~
457
Iron
~
8.4
Magnesium Vitamin
~
170
A value
IU
3,333
Vitamin Vitamin
B6 c
~
0.91
~
57
~ I Money values of food per
"a>'
"'
z
0
"'
person3 per week:
Under $8 ...................... .
$8 to $11.99 •.••••••...•.••••.••
$12 to $15.99 •••••......••••••..
$16 to $19.99 •..•....••••••.•.•.
$20 to $29.99 ••••.•••••••.•••••.
$30 and over .................. .
Past year's income as percent
of poverty threshold: 4
0 to 99 (below threshold) ••••••
100 to 199 .•...•..•••••..•.•••.•
200 and over .................. .
Food stamp status: 4
Eligible ....................... .
Receiving ................... .
Not receiving ............... .
Not eligible ................... .
6.57
10.24
14.01
17.86
23.74
37.17
14.16
15.36
18.20
14.72
15.15
14.44
17.69
1,669
1,463
1,342
1,240
1,137
970
1,423
1,344
1,165
1,388
1,416
1,389
1,203
620
557
515
461
407
331
510
489
439
501
497
503
447
12.1
10.3
9.2
8.5
7.7
6.5
10.1
9.4
7.9
9.9
10.2
9.7
8.1
222
197
183
170
158
136
186
182
163
185
182
187
167
3,922
3,782
3,533
3,390
3,145
2,750
3,792
3,709
3,094
3,832
3,972
3,739
3, 218
1.22
1.08
.98
.92
.85
.73
1.04
1.00
.86
1.03
1.06
1.01
.89
62
63
60
58
55
47
60
61
55
60
61
60
56
1 Includes nutritive value and money value (1977-78) of food used by household members and guests that was bought,
home produced, or received as gift or pay.
2 Over 14.000 housekeeping households (those with 1 person having 10 or more meals from household food supplies during
week of survey) from USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78.
3 A person is equal to 21 meals from household food supplies during week.
4 Some households excluded because of missing data.
....
'D
OJ
"' z
0
"'
...,
."3.'. .
......
'<
r'1
0
0
::J
0
.3.. .
0
(JJ
"ro'
.<... .
ro
~
Table 2. Nutrients per 1,000 calories in food used at home 1
Households 2 fuusehold Fat Calcium Iron Magnesium Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin
size A value Bs c
Persons Pee ~ ~ ~ ni ~ M.g_
All households ...................... 2.76 43.2 370 6.8 137 2,696 o. 74 46
Money values of food per
person~ per week:
Under $8 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3.63 40.1 371 7.2 133 2,350 .73 37
$8 to $11.99 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 3.32 42.0 381 7.0 135 2,585 .74 43
$12 to $15.99 ••••••••••••••.••••••• 3.02 42.9 384 6.8 137 2,634 .73 45
$16 to $19.99 •••••••••••••••••••••• 2.74 43.3 372 6.8 137 2,735 .74 47
$20 to $29.99 •••••••••••••••••••••• 2.34 43.9 358 6.7 139 2,767 .74 48
$30 and over .........•.•........•. 1.79 44.6 341 6.7 140 2,834 .75 49
Past year's income as percent
of poverty threshold : 5
0 to 99 (below threshold) ••••••••• 2.77 42.3 359 7.1 130 2,665 .73 42
100 to 199 ••••••••.••.••..•.••.••.• 2.78 42.8 364 7.0 136 2,761 .74 45
200 and over ...................... 2.75' 43.6 377 6.8 140 2,656 • 74 47
Food stamp status :5
Eligible ...•.•....•.•.•..•......••• 2.84 42.6 358 7.0 132 2,737 .73 43
Receiving ....................... 3.19 42.8 351 7.2 129 2,805 .75 43
Not receiving ................... 2.66 42.4 362 7.0 134 2,692 .72 43
Not eligible ....................... 2.68 43.3 371 6.8 139 2,676 .74 46
1 Includes nutritive value of food used by household members and guests that was bought, home produced, or received
as gift or pay.
2 Over 14,000 housekeeping households (those with 1 person having 10 or more meals from household food supplies
during week of survey) from USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78 •
3 Percent of energy provided by fat.
~A person is equal to 21 meals from household food supplies during week.
5 Some households excluded because of missing data •
Compared with all households, those receiv­ing
food stamps obtained 7 to 29 percent
more of the 11 nutrients per dollar's worth
of food used •
The food shopping practices that lead to
differences in nutrient return per dollar
are under study. Greater nutrient return
appears to be associated with the use of
larger shares of food dollars for milk, eggs,
legumes, and grain products, and smaller
shares for meat, poultry, fish, and
alcoholic beverages.
Nutrients Per 1, 000 Calories
Selecting a diet that provides recommended
amounts of nutrients and is not excessive in
calories is difficult for many people. There­fore,
nutritionists sometimes assess the
quality of a diet by its nutrient content
per 1, 000 calories. Nutrient dense diets-­those
with high vitamin and mineral content
per 1, 000 calories--are considered to be most
desirable. Diets that have extremely high fat
density, on the other hand, are considered
to be undesirable.
Over 43 percent of the energy in edible
foods brought into households and used dur­ing
the survey week came from fat (table 2) /
The proportion of energy from fat was
slightly lower for households with iower
rather than higher food budgets, those with
lower rather than higher incomes, and those
eligible rather than not eligible for food
stamps.
The nutrient density differences among
groups of households studied were small and
inconsistent among nutrients. Generally,
households on tight food budgets had slight­ly
more calcium and iron and slightly less
vitamins A and C per 1, 000 calories than
households spending more for food. The
presence of more children in the relatively
large size, low-budget households, and the
children's use of milk may account for the
slightly higher calcium density.
1As defined earlier, edible food used
includes fat on meat and cooking and salad
oils, some of which probably was not actual­ly
eaten. Therefore, the percent of energy
from fat in this study is a measure of fat
available for consumption in the home, not
fat intake.
12 family Economics Review 1983 No.1
Households with high incomes selected
diets that were slightly more dense in
calcium, magnesium, and vitamin C but in
none of the other eight nutrients studied.
These relationships occurred both when
income was measured relative to the poverty
threshold and to standards for eligibility
for food stamps. Diets of households receiv­ing
food stamps were as nutrient dense or
slightly more dense than those of eligible
households not receiving food stamps for 9
of the 11 vitamins and minerals. Exceptions
were calcium and magnesium.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Pao, Eleanor M., and Sharon J. Mickle,
1981, Problem nutrients in the United
States, Food Technology 35(9):58-69.
2. Peterkin, Betty B., and Richard L. Kerr,
1982, Food stamp allotment and diets of
U.S. households, Family Economics
Review, winter issue, pp. 23-26.
Some New USDA Publications
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,
(202) 783-3238.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE WEST, SPRING 1977,
NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION
SURVEY 1977-78. September 1982.
Stock No. 001-000-04302-1. $8.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE SOUTH, SPRING 1977,
NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION
SURVEY 1977-78. September 1982.
Stock No. 001-000-04301-3. $8.50.
Consumer Perspectives:
Imported vs. U.S.-MadeApparel
By Kitty G. Dickerson
Associate professor and department chairman
Department of Clothing and Textiles
University of Missouri-Columbia
Effects of Imported Apparel in the
United States
If American consumers were to take an
inventory of· their closets, most would find
they now own a sizeable, and perhaps sur­prising,
quantity of garments produced in
other countries. At one time most of the
imported apparel items seen in the United
States were sweaters, children's shirts,
inexpensive men's shirts, and other low- to
moderate-priced garments. Now, imported
apparel is present in virtually all categories
and price lines, including those carrying
expensive, prestigious brand names. For some
garments, more imported items are sold in
U.S. markets than comparable domestic gar­ments.
The ratios of imported to domestic
garments for several women's and children's
categories are given in the table on this page.
Imported textile and apparel shipments for
1982 were the highest in history, creating a
trade deficit of over $6 billion (_~). Only the
oil and auto industries had greater trade
deficits (_!). Data indicate that shipments
of imported apparel have increased at a far
greater rate than domestic shipments· of U.S.
apparel manufacturers (£).
If one issue were singled out as the one
of most concern to the U.S. textile and
apparel industry, it would be that of import­ed
products and the resulting impact on
domestic manufacturing. Imports are viewed
by the U.S. textile and apparel industry as
a major factor in the steady decline of
employment in this sector--from the employ­ment
of 2.5 million persons in 1973 to 2.16
million persons in 1980 (~). This sector's
share of the Nation's industrial work force
declined from 12.0 to 10.6 percent between
1973 and 1980. The combined fiber/textile
apparel industries are, however, the
Nation's largest industrial employer, pro­viding
jobs for one out of every eight
persons in manufacturing (!). Unemployment
Women's and children's appa~el--impact
of imports
[For · certain product categories in women's,
girls', and infants' apparel in 1979]
Item
Coats:
Cotton
Manmade fiber •••••••
Playsuits, cotton •••••
Blouses:
Cotton ......•.......
Wool ••••••••••••••••
Knit shirts:
Cotton .••.•.•.•....•
Manmade fiber •••••••
Skirts:
Cotton ............. .
Wool ••••••••••••••••
Suits, wool .......... .
Sweaters:
Cotton ...•..•..•.•..
Wool ••••••••••••••••
Manmade fiber •••••••
Trousers and slacks:
Cotton .....••.......
Manmade fiber •••••••
Brassieres, manmade
fiber ............... .
Imports per 100
garments produced
in the United States
170
63
36
215
80
104
54
65
27
30
177
261
133
64
35
60
Source: Apparel Job Training and Research
Corporation, 1981, Analysis of Problems and
Needs of the Import Impacted Segments of
the Women's and Children's Apparel Manu­facturing
Industry, p. 41, U.S. Departme-nt
of Commerce, International Trade Administra­tion.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Rev i ew 1J
tends to run higher than that for all other
manufacturing--especially for portions of
1982. When unemployment was about 10 per­cent
for the country as a whole. the jobless
rate ranged between 15 and 19 percent for
textiles and apparel, particularly during
the summer and early fall months of 1982.
While imports alone cannot be blamed for the
decline of U.S. industry or for the
disproportionate unemployment rate. the
domestic industry suffers to the extent that
imports replace U.S. products in sales.
U.S. companies are at a distinct disadvan­tage
in competing against imported clothing.
A great deal of labor is required to manu­facture
clothing because automation cannot
be applied as successfully in this industry
as in many others. Frequent fashion changes
also minimize efficiencies of volume produc­tion
needed to justify expensive automation.
Thus. low labor costs in developing coun­tries
facilitate apparel production at costs
far below that in the United States. Although
workers in the U.S. clothing industry earn
less than two-thirds the average wage of all
manufacturing in this country. their average
pay of $4.50 per hour--or slightly over $7
including benefits--is considerably higher
than that of an apparel worker in Hong Kong.
Taiwan. and Korea who makes slightly over
$1 per hour including benefits (~_). Opera­tors
in Thailand and the Philippines earn
less than 50 cents an hour; those in Sri
Lanka. less than 20 cents. These wages make
it difficult for American industries to
compete.
U.S. textile I apparel industry leaders have
fought for tariffs, quotas. and other mea­sures
to protect the domestic sector from
the influence of imports. Most economists
say. however, that the U.S. consumer is
better off economically not to limit imports
They assert that the consumer has a right to
be able to buy items as cheaply as possible.
and if another country can produce an item
for less than the United States, then con­sumers
should be able to buy from that
country.
While the American industry argues that
the resulting demise of the textile/apparel
14 Family Economics Review 1983 No.3
sector will be costly both at present and in
the long run to U.S. citizens in their roles
as consumers and taxpayers. importers and
retailers contend that consumers save by
buying imported goods. Groups from both
perspectives have produced impressive
studies which support their respective posi­tions
with regard to limiting imported
apparel shipments into the United States.
Consumers' Views
To give the consumer an opportunity for
input on this issue. a study was conducted
to register consumer views on several issues
related to imported versus U.S. -made
apparel. The study focused on apparel since
the term "textiles" would have been inter­preted
quite differently from one consumer
to another. Funding for the study was
provided by the Virginia Agricultural
Experiment Station and the Agricultural
Research Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. A total of 1, 350 consumers in
32 States participated in the study through
a telephone survey. A profile of the demo­graphic
characteristics of persons inter­viewed
indicated that the study included a
cross section of the U.S. population. 1
Responses provided a consistent, and some­what
surprising, message regarding imported
versus U. s.-made apparel. 2 Overall, con­sumers
expressed preference for domestic
garments over imports and concern for the
effects of foreign-made items on U.S. in­dustry.
Despite the limited media attention
1Description of portions of the first
phase of the survey can be found in Kitty G.
Dickerson. 1982. Imported versus U.S.­produced
apparel: Consumer views and buying
patterns, Home Economics Research Journal
10(3):241-252; and Kitty G. Dickerson. 1982,
Consumers' views on restricting imported
apparel, Journal of Consumer Studies and
Home Economics 6(2):161-174.
2More detailed information on consumer
responses can be found in How Do Consumers
Feel About Apparel Imports? Copies available
from Kitty G. Dickerson. Department of
Clothing and Textiles. College of Home
Economics, 137 Stanley Hall, University of
Missouri-Columbia. Columbia. Mo. 65211.
given the apparel trade deficit, consumers
were accurately aware that the United States
imports far more clothing than it exports;
they say they are concerned for what this
means for the U.S. industry and workers'
jobs, and indicated that this concern influ­ences
their purchasing situations. Further,
they perceive a comparative wage advantage
for most importing nations. In addition, 55
percent of the respondents favored stronger
laws to limit imports. This was particularly
surprising at a· time when consumers appear
to want no additional government regulations.
Consumers' expression of strong preference
for domestic products was not anticipated by
the researcher nor was the degree of concern
shown for the effects of imports. The
researcher had anticipated that consumers
would give little concern to the country of
origin for their clothing purchases if
product qualities and price were appealing.
Results suggest that consumers are not
apathetic nor indifferent to the issue of
whether the apparel they buy has been pro­duced
in the United States or elsewhere. No
doubt some of this concern is a reflection
of current public sentiment related to the
trade deficit and unemployment in this
country associated with auto imports. This
study was completed, however, prior to the
peak of publicity on the auto industry
dilemma, as well as before the escalation of
joblessness in this country.
Consumers have obviously encouraged the
influx of imported apparel products by buy­ing
them. Thus, one might ask whether their
actions are inconsistent with responses
given in the survey. Several possible expla­nations
exist. Some consumers may have
answered as they thought they should so
they did not seem unpatriotic. Others may
abandon patriotism to favor their wallet if
imports are cheaper. In some instances, a
comparable U.S. -made item is not available
to the consumer. Furthermore, obscure
labeling makes it difficult for the most
dedicated consumer to determine where an
item was made. Foreign country of origin
labeling is required if more than 50 percent
of the value 3 of a garment is added in
another country (_~). No similar requirement
exists for U.S. -manufactured clothing.
Hence, because of difficult-to-find labeling,
the consumer may at times buy foreign-made
items with the misconception that they are
American-made.
Consumers may underestimate the total
impact of small, relatively inexpensive
clothing purchases. Media sources have
sensitized the American public to the auto
trade deficit to such an extent that a great
many consumers at least consider the effects
their purchases will have on the U.S. econ­omy,
even if they finally opt for foreign
cars. Few consumers are likely to give the
same consideration to the purchase of cloth­ing
items. Yet, the total impact of imported
apparel purchases in the United States will
result in a record trade deficit for 1982.
Pro-American views of the respondents in
the study run counter to most economists'
views that consumers benefit from having
goods produced where they can be made most
cheaply. On the other hand, political and
economic events of the last few years may
have stirred consumers' loyalties, counter­balancing
to a degree the desire for
bargains.
The issue of apparel imports is a highly
controversial one for which there is no
simple solution. International trade in this
sector, like all others, involves not only
economic issues but also many political and
social aspects of global relations as well.
The United States cannot simply cut off'
imports from other countries and retain a
politically favorable position with those
nations. Imposing trade barriers usually
results in retaliation by other countries.
Furthermore, these industries are critical
to the economic development of third world
countries. Apparel production, in particular,
may be the first and most important industry
in a third world country's effort to develop.
Arguments could be made that the United
States might otherwise subsidize a developing
country; its fledgling apparel industry at
least allows the people an opportunity to
preserve dignity through earning foreign
exchange.
3 Manufacturing cost.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 15
While there is no easy answer to the ques­tion
of imports, America has become, in
fact, a melting pot of goods from all over
the world. One who makes a purchase is now
indeed a consumer of the world. That person
is also a citizen of the world as well. Thus,
consumer awareness of the broader issues
involved is important, for the choice between
a domestic or foreign-made item should be an
informed decision and not one of casual
indifference. The consumer vote does count-­economically,
politically, and socially--both
within this country and the broader world.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Business Week. 1979. Apparel's last stand.
May 14 issue, pp. 60-63.
2. Federal Trade Commission, Division of
Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protec­tion.
1982. Telephone conversation with
FTC representative in September 1982.
3. McKenna, Laurie C. Apparel. 1982. 1982
U.S. Industrial Outlook, pp. 317-325.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
4. O'Sullivan, Richard. 1982. Textiles. 1982
U.S. Industrial Outlook, pp. 309-316.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
5. U.S. International Trade Commission.
1982. Emerging Textile-Exporting
Countries. [Report on Investigation No.
332-126, under Section 332 of the Tariff
Act of 1930.] USITC Publication No. 1273.
6. Women's Wear Daily. 1982. A record trade
gap is looming. December 12 issue,
PP• 1, 8.
Federal Student Aid Programs,
1983-84
College education is costing more each
year. Even with careful planning the rising
cost may well exceed many families' re­sources.
Although Federal aid is becoming
more difficult to obtain, it is still the
major source of financial aid for college
students.
This abstract provides a general overview
of five Federal financial aid programs: Pell
Grant, Guaranteed Student Loan, Supple­mental
Educational Opportunity Grant,
16 Family Economics Review 1983 No. J
College Work Study, and National Direct
Student Loan Information is also provided on
a federally funded loan that is not
dependent on a student's needs--Parental
Loans to Undergraduate Students.
Pell Grant
Designed to provide a foundation of
financial aid for needy students, the Pell
Grant is one of the largest student aid
programs. This grant does not have to be
repaid, and students receiving a Pell Grant
may also receive aid from other sources.
Students must meet certain financial
criteria to qualify for the Pell Grant. The
U.s. Department of Education (DOE) uses a
standard formula to evaluate information on
a student's application. 1 This formula
produces a student aid index number that
determines a student's eligibility for a
Pell Grant.
The amount that a student can receive for
the 1983-84 academic year (July 1, 1983 to
June 30, 1984) will depend largely upon
program funding and eligibility needs-­approximately
2 million students received up
to $1,800 for the 1982-83 academic year.
Guaranteed Student Loan
The Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) pro­gram
provides guarantees of repayment in
case of default to private lenders, such as
banks, credit unions, or savings and loan
associations, who are willing to provide
student loans. Students from families with
an adjusted gross income of less than
$30,000 automatically qualify for GSL's. If
a student's family income exceeds $30,000,
then eligibility is determined by a finan-cial
needs test that adjusts for family
income, family size, school expenses, and
the number of family members attending col­lege.
An estimated 3.5 million students
from families earning less than $30,000 were
eligible for GSL's in the 1982-83 academic
year.
1The Family Contribution Schedule, which
describes the formula in detail, can be
obtained by writing to Federal Student Aid,
P.O. Box 84, Washington, D.C. 20044.
The maximum amount that undergraduate
students can borrow through the GSL pro­gram
is $2,500 per year; graduate students
can borrow $5,000. The total GSL debt for
undergraduate students cannot exceed
$12,500; graduate students' total debt can
not exceed $25,000, including loans received
during their undergraduate years.
GSL's carry a 9 percent interest rate for
new borrowers. Students who currently have
a 7 percent GSL are assured that rate on
additional GSL's ~ Loan repayments run from
5 to 10 years depending upon the amount of
the loan. Borrowers who have a loan at a
9 percent interest rate begin repayment
6 months after leaving school; borrowers who
have a 7 percent interest rate begin repay­ment
9 to 12 months after leaving school.
Lenders can charge an "origination fee"
of 5 percent which is deducted before a
student receives the loan. An insurance
premium is also required and varies in
amount; it cannot exceed 1 percent .of the
outstanding principal balance of the loan.
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
The Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grant (SEOG) is a campus-based Federal aid
program. Annually, DOE provides a specified
amount of funds to colleges for distribution
as SEOG's. These grants are for undergrad­uates
only and do not have to be repaid.
The maximum amount a student can receive
is $2,000 per year depending on his or her
need, the availability of SEOG funds at the
educational institution, and the amount of
other aid the student is receiving.
College Work-Study
The purpose of the College Work-Study
(CWS) program is to provide undergraduate
and graduate students part-time employment.
The total CWS award depends on a student's
need, the amount of money the school has
available, and other aid the student is
receiving. Students must work for a public
or private nonprofit organization; they are
paid the Federal minimum wage, and are
limited in the number of hours they may work
per week.
National Direct Student Loan
Through the National Direct Student Loan
(NDSL) program, low-interest loans are made
available to undergraduate and graduate
students via the college's financial aid
office. This· program is not offered at all
educational institutions.
Students who are enrolled in a vocational
program or have completed less than 2 years
of a program leading to a B.A. or B.S.
degree may borrow a total of $3,000. Under­graduate
students who have completed 2 years
of study toward a B.A. or B.S. degree and
have achieved third year status may borrow
a total of $6,000, including funds borrowed
for the first 2 years of study. Graduate
students may borrow a total of $12,000,
which includes any amount the student
borrowed as an undergraduate. Interest rates
for NDSL's are 5 percent. The maximum loan
repayment period is 10 years and begins
6 months after the student graduates.
Parental Loans to Undergraduate Students
An additional Federal program, Parental
Loans to Undergraduate Students (PLUS) was
designed to give parents the opportunity to
borrow on behalf of their children. Students
are not required to take a financial needs
test for this program.
PLUS loans are made by lending institu­tions,
as are GSL's. The maximum loan limit
for undergraduate and graduate students is
$3,000 per year, for a total of $15,000 for
full-time students. Independent undergrad­uate
students may borrow . up to $2,500 per
year. PLUS loans that are combined with
GSL's cannot exceed the yearly and total GSL
undergraduate limits of $2,500 and $12,500.
The interest rate is 12 percent, and there
is no "origination fee." An insurance
premimum is required and usually varies in
amount; the premium cannot exceed 1 percent
of the outstanding principal. Repayment be­gins
within 60 days of obtaining the loan.
Sources: National Commission on Student
Financial Assistance, [no date], The 97th
Congress and student financial assistance.
U.S. Department of Education, 1982, The
Student Guide: Five Federal Financial Aid
Programs, 1982-83. U.S. Department of
Education, 1983, The Student Guide: Five
Federal Financial Aid Programs, 1983-84.
1983 No.3 family Economics Review 17
-·
Sources of Retirement Income
In 1980 there were 19 million aged house­holds
in which at least one member was 65
years old or older. Of these, 8 million con­tained
married couples, while 11 million
contained one or more persons who were
either unrelated or related other than by
marriage. Thirty-five percent had incomes
less than $5,000, 31 percent had incomes of
$5,000 to $9,999, 23 percent had incomes of
$10,000 to $19,999, and 12 percent had
incomes of $20,000 or greater. 1
1Because income was self-reported, the
data are subject to underreporting errors.
Social security was the most common source
of income (table 1). About 90 percent of the
households received social security bene-fits.
Asset income was the next most common
source, with 66 percent reporting asset
income. Earnings were received by 23 percent
A comparison by Radner of 1972 Current
Population Survey adjusted income levels to
social security and Federal income tax records
found the adjusted 1972 income would be 41
percent higher than reported. (Daniel B.
Radner, 1982, Distribution of family income:
Improved estimates, Social Security Bulletin
45(7):13-21.)
Table 1. Importance of income sources for aged households, 1 by total money income, 1980
Incane source
Percent of all households with income
from--
Earnings .•..........................
Retirement pensions •••••••••••••••••
Social security ................... .
Government employee ••••••••••••••
Private ........................... .
Asset income ....................... .
Public assistance ••••••••••••••••••••
Percent of all households receiving 50
percent or more of total money income
from--
Earnings ........................... .
Retirement pensions •••••••••••••••••
Social security ................... .
Government employee ••••••••••••••
Private ........................... .
Asset income ...................•....
Public assistance ••••••••••••••••••••
All
house­holds
23
93
90
12
22
66
10
10
75
59
4
2
9
3
Total money income
Less than $5,000 to
$5,000 $9,999
6 19
88 98
87 94
3 10
4 24
38 72
24 5
1 5
86 84
84 73
1 3
1 2
2 6
8 1
$10,000 to
$19,999
36
96
92
20
39
89
1
16
62
33
8
3
14
0
1 Households in which at least 1 member was aged 65 years or older.
$20,000
or more
58
91
84
28
36
97
0
32
29
1
8
2
27
0
Source: Upp, Melinda, 1983, Relative importance of various income sources of the aged,
1980 Social Security Bulletin 46(1): 3-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Social Security Administration.
18 family Economics Review 1983 No. J
of all aged households, private pensions by
22 percent, and public assistance by 10 per­cent.
Low-income households were less likely
than high -income households to report income
from earnings and assets, and more likely to
report income from public assistance. Fifty­nine
percent of all aged households received
half or more of their income from social
security; among low-income households, 84
percent relied on social security for at
least half of their total income.
A smaller percent of nonmarried person
households than of married couple households
had income from earnings and private pensions
(table 2); whereas, a larger percent report­ed
public assistance income.
The percentage of. households with income
from earnings has dropped from 36 percent
in 1962 to 23 percent in 1980 (table 3).
Accompanying this decline has been an
increased reliance on social security, other
pensions, and assets. Public assistance has
declined in importance.
Source: Upp, Melinda, 1983, Relative
importance of various income sources of the
aged, 1980, Social Security Bulletin 46(1):
3-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
Table 2. Importance of income sources for
aged households, 1 by marital status, 1980
Incane source
Percent of all house-holds
with income from--
Earnings ............
Retirement pensions •
Social Security ••••
Government-employee
•••••••••
Private ...•.... ....
Asset income ••••••••
Public assistance ••••
Married Nbnmarried
couples persons
36 13
95 93
92 90
15 9
32 14
69 52
5 14
1Households in which at least one member
was aged 65 years or older.
Source: Upp, Melinda, 1983, Relative
importance of various income sources of the
aged, 1980, Social Security Bulletin 46(1):
3-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
Table 3. Total money income: Relative importance of specified sources for all aged
households, 1 selected years
lncane Source
Percent of households with income from--
Earnings .................................... .
Retirement pensions ......................... .
Social security ....................•.. · · · · · ·
Private .................................... ·
Government employee •••••••••••••••••••• • • •
Asset income ....................... · . • · · • • • • •
Public assistance ..................... · • · • • • · ·
1962
36
74
69
9
5
54
13
1971
31
90
87
17
6
49
10
1980
23
93
90
21
12
66
10
1Households in which at least one member was aged 65 years or older.
Source: Upp, Melinda, 1983, Relative importance of various income sources of the aged,
1980, Social Security Bulletin 46(1):3-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Social Security Administration.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 19
The Nation's Families, 1960-901
The Joint Center for Urban Studies of
MIT2 and Harvard University has issued a
report focusing on the demographic and
socioeconomic trends of the Nation's' popula­tion,
households, and families. Past and
future trends and the implications of these
trends are presented in the report.
Past trends of three generations are
examined using birth cohort analysis--that
is, a group of individuals born in the same
years are followed as they age. Cohorts born
before 1921 represent the older generation,
those born between 1921 and 1940 represent
the middle generation, and births from 1941
to 1960 are included in the younger genera­tion.
Data used to study the three cohorts
came from a variety of sources, including
Decennial Censes of Population and .Housing,
Current Population Surveys, Panel Study of
Income Dynamics, and Annual Housing
Surveys.
Past trends indentified as having a major
impact on the Nation's household composition
are decreased formation of married-couple
households and increased formation of other
types of households; smaller households; and
more two-earner, married -couple households.
These trends are strongly related to women's
participation in the paid labor force that
enabled them to maintain independent house­holds,
delay marriage, and delay having
children.
These past patterns are expected to con­tinue
largely because of the attachment of
younger women to the paid labor force. By
1990 the Nation's families will experience
further increases or decreases in the
following trends :
A decrease in married-couple households
as a proportion of all households.
An increase in households headed by
young people, single parents, divorcees, and
the elderly, resulting in a rise in "other"
households as a proportion of all households.
A drop in the number of children in all
households.
1Abstracted with permission of authors.
2Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
ZO fam il y Ec onomics Review 1983 No.3
A decline in household size as a result
of the increase in formation of "other"
types of households and the predicted
decline in the birth rate.
A slight increase in the proportion of
two-earner, married -couple households.
A decrease in one-earner, married­couple
households, but an increase in other
types of one-earner households.
An increase in no-worker households as
a result of an increase in the proportion of
households maintained by the elderly, young
students, and single parents.
The attachment 3 of wives to the labor
force may result in two-worker families
investing in timesaving tools, purchasing
more services, and looking for convenient
housing near school and recreation facili­ties.
Women who head families are expected
to increase their attachment to paid work.
Subsequently, they are expected to have
higher incomes and more stable consumption
patterns. Reliance on public assistance is
expected to decrease, whereas reliance on
educational advancement, vocational training,
and job placement programs is expected to
increase. Future working mothers will proba­bly
expand their use of child care arrange­ments
to include public schools as child
care facilities for preschoolers and for
older children after school hours. More
young men and women in the future will stay
unmarried longer. As these young adults
accept their single way of life, they may
become less mobile and more home oriented-­that
is, they will begin to purchase homes
and spend more time and money in their
homes.
The proportion of households maintained by
men and women over 65 is expected to in­crease.
These elderly citizens tend to have
relatively low incomes, a high rate of
3Attachment is the degree to which a
woman's commitment to her work is permanent
and substantial.
residential stability, and a high rate of
ownership. The capital-gains tax provisions
for the one-time exclusion of gain on prin­cipal
residences and the development of new
retirement communities may encourage the
elderly to sell their homes and migrate to
these communities, thus making existing
housing available for other groups.
Source: Masnick, George and Mary Jo Bane,
1980, The Nation's Families: 1960-1990,
Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Copies are available from Auburn House, 131
Clarendon Street, Boston, Mass. 02116, for
$10.95, paperback, and $19.95, hardback,
plus postage.
Households and Families,
March1982
Of the estimated 83.5 million households
in the United States in March 1982, 61.0
million, or about three-fourths, were family
households (two or more persons who are
related and living together). Married couples
represented 81.3 percent, female households
(no husband present) 15.4 percent, and male
households (no wife present) 3.3 percent of
all family households. The remaining 22.5
million households were made up of persons
living alone (86.2 percent) or with unrelat­ed
persons (13.8 percent).
Between 1970 and 1982 the average house­hold
size and the average family size
decreased as follows :
1970 1982
Households:
Adults ................ 2.05 1.97
Children (under 18) ••• 1.09 .75
Total ................ 3.14 2.72
Families:
Adults ................ 2.25 2.24
Children (under 18) ••• 1.34 1.01
Total ......•......... 3.58 3.25
Almost all of the drop in family size was
attributable to a decrease in the average
number of children. Several factors account­ed
for the decrease in household size,
including a 78 percent increase in the
number of one-person households and a
decrease in the number of births.
Many young men and women are delaying
marriage. From 1970 to 1982, the proportion
of adults 20 to 44 years of age who had
never married increased. The greatest in­crease
was in the 25 to 29 age group. The
proportion of women 25 to 29 who had never
married doubled from 11 percent in 1970 to
23 percent in 1982. The percentage of men
who had never married in the same age group
increased from 19 percent to 36 percent. In
1982 more than half of all women and men in
the 20 to 24 age group had never married
(53 and 72 percent, respectively). The
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, predicts that most men and women
will eventually marry; during the interim,
however, some are choosing other living
arrangements, such as living as unmarried
couples. In 1982, there were about 1. 9
million unmarried couples, representing
about 4 percent of all unmarried and married
couples. In four-fifths of these cases, one
or both partners were less than 35 years of
age.
In 1982 most noninstitutionalized persons
age 65 and over resided with another rela­tive;
the proportion declined slightly from
70 percent in 1970 to 68 percent in 1982.
The remainder lived alone or with an unre­lated
person. Widowed persons 65 and over,
however, were more likely to live alone or
with an unrelated person (72 percent) than
in a family situation (28 percent).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, Households,
families, marital status, and living
arrangements: March 1982 (advance report),
Current Population Reports, Population
Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 376.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 21
Revised Labor Force Series From
Current Population Survey
Beginning with data for January 1983, the
Bureau of Labor Satistics made changes in
presentation, classification, and estimating
procedures in labor force data derived from
the Current Population Survey (CPS). In­cluded
in the changes that became effective
with the January 1983 data are four separate
modifications:
1. Persons in the Armed Forces stationed
in the United States are included in the
national labor force, in employment totals,
and in the base for the overall unemployment
rate. As a result, the overall unemployment
rate is reduced by one- or two-tenths of a
percentage point.
2. All occupations in the CPS are coded
according to the classification system devel­oped
for the 1980 decennial census, which
evolved from the 1980 Standard Occupational
Classification system. The new classifica­tion
system provides comparabilility between
the CPS and other data sources, but com­parisons
with historical CPS data are not
possible without major adjustments. Differ­ences
between 1970 and 1980 occupational
systems affect the classific~tions at all
levels, and only about 35 percent of the
occupational categories are directly or
nearly comparable, as shown in the table
below.
Occupational groupings based on the 1970 and 1980 census classification systems
1970
White-collar workers
Professional and technical workers
Managers and administrators,
except farm
Sales workers
Clerical workers
Blue-collar workers
Craft and kindred workers
Operatives, except transport
Transport equipment operatives
Nonfarm laborers
Service workers
Private household workers
Other service workers
Farm workers
Farmers and farm managers
Farm laborers and supervisors
22 Family Economics Review 1983 No.3
1980
Managerial and professional speciality
Executive, administrative, and managerial
Profesional speciality
Technical, sales, and administrative support
Technicians and related support
Sales occupations
Administrative support, including clerical
Service occupations
Private household
Protective service
Service, except private household and
protective
Precision production, craft, and repair
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
Machine operators, assemblers, and
inspectors
Transportation and material moving
occupations
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers,
and laborers
Farming, forestry, and fishing
3. Data are now being published for the
"black" population instead of for the
broader "black and other" category. Histor­ically,
blacks have predominated the "black
and other" group--92 percent in the 1960
census and 89 percent in the 1970 census.
By 1980, Asians, Indians, and Alaskan
natives made up 15 percent of the "nonwhite"
population. Labor market and other charac­teristics
varied considerably by race; the
broader categor:y no longer adequately repre­sented
black status. At present the "other
races" classification is too small to be
statistically reliable and is not being
published.
4. Data from the 1980 census are used to
adjust CPS sample areas which are chosen to
represent other sections of the country not
included in the sample. Adjustments
(weights) are needed to correct for differ­ences
existing at the time of the most
recent census between the distribution by
race and residence of the population in
sample areas and in represented areas.
Sources: Bregger, John E., 1982, Labor
force data from the Current Population
Survey to undergo revision in January 1983,
Monthly Labor Review 105(11) :3-6. Green,
Gloria Peterson, Khoan tan Dinh, John A.
Priebe, and Ronald R. Tucker, 1982,
Revisions in the Current Population Survey
beginning in January 1983, Employment and
Earnings 30(2):7-15.
Journey to Work
The Journey-to-Work Supplement to the
1979 Annual Housing Survey was sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Transportation for
the purpose of formulating transportation­related
energy policies, determining
national energy patterns, and predicting
future energy needs. Comparable data have
been collected each year since 1974. Means
of transportation, travel distance, and
travel time to work for the Nation were
determined by region, metropolitan or non­metropolitan
residence, race, sex of house­holder,
and family income. Findings include:
Median family income for householders
who used an automobile or truck to get to
work was about $19,400 in 1979, compared
with $14,000 for those who used public
transportation.
• Of all the householders in the United
States, 69 percent drove to work alone in
1979, while 17 percent rode to work in car­pools
and 6 percent used public transporta­tion.
• Average (mean) distance to work was
about 11 miles among household,ers in the
United States in 1979, while the average
travel time was approximately 23 minutes.
The distance of the typical trip to work
increased slightly between 1975 and 1979,
with no corresponding increase in average
travel time.
The rates of driving to work alone and
of using public transportation were essen­tially
the same in 1979 as they were in 1974.
The proportion of householders who carpooled
rose from 14 percent in 1974 to 17 percent
in 1979.
• Of all the householders in the United
States who used some form of public trans­portation
to get to work in 1979, 50 percent
lived in the northeast region of the country·
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1982, The journey to
work in the United States: 1979, Current
Population Reports, Special Studies, Series
P-23, No. 122.
1983 No.3 Family Economics Review 23
Some New USDA Charts
Chart 124
Family Purchasing Power
$ hundred per week
7
Husband and wife wage earners
5
4 r~------~-------------~
3 I- -
2 - -
I I I I I I I I I I I
Husband wage earner
-
I- -
I- Median gross earnings ,.,
.'\ ............ .. ..-.•"""'"
........... '''''"' .. "''''"''"'''
I-Purchasing
/ower,
1977 dollars
I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-
Female-headed family
I- -
I- -
-
-
'"''''''''Uiuu.,.,,.,,,,...,uttllfiiHtUt
~·"'''""'''"'"' - - - I I I I I I I I I I I
1979 80 81 82 1979 80 81 82 1979 80 81 82
Quarterly data.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chart 143
Poverty Rate of the Elderly
Percent
9.0 Men
White
16.8
31.5
Black :::::;.;.;::::::::::::::::: ;:;:;:;~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;,;::
42.6 ::::;:::::::::::::::::::::: ;:;::: ;:;:;:::;:;:1
;:;:;:;:;"
26.8
Hispanic 1:::;::::::;:::::::;: . :::;~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::l 34.4 ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::
(::::;:::::;;:::;:::,:;::::::: ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::l
1980 data.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
24 Family Economics Review 1983 No.3
Chart 126
Number of Personal Bankruptcies Filed
Thousands
500-
400 -
300 -
200 -
:;:::::;:::;:;:
::::::::
100 - :;:::::
:::::::::::::
:;:::::
::::::::
0
1978
::;:::
::::::
r:'::::::: ::::::::::::: ':::':
:::::: :':':
:::::::
::::::: ::;:::: :::::::
:;:::: :;:::;: :;::~:: J:':::;::::: :::::::::::
1979 1980
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
::;:: :::;: :=:::
::;:: ::;:; :}
::::: ::::: :;:::
::;::
'{
:;::: :::::
:;:::
:} ::;::
;:::: ;::::
:::::::::::
:::::;
!{: ::::: :::::
1:::::;:::: ::::: ::;::
1:::::;:::: :::::::::::
1981
-
-
-
-
"CD' .....
z
0
.....
...,
Q)
3.. ..
.....
'<
rTl
C"l
0
:::>
0
.3. ..
C"l
CD
::0
<.".'. .
:"['
N
VI
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels. April 1983, U.S. average1
FAMILIES
Family of 2 : 3
20-54 years
Sex-age group
55 years and over •••••••••••••••••••
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years •••••••••••••••••
6-8 and 9-11 years ••••••••••••••••
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
7 months to 1 year ••••••••••••••••••
1-2 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3-5 years .......................... .
6-8 years .......................... .
9-11 years •••••••••••••••••• , •••••••
Male:
12-14 years ........................ .
15-19 years
20-54 years
55 years and over •••••••••••••••••••
Female:
12-19 years ........................ .
20-54 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••
55 years and over •.•••.••••••••••••
Pregnant ........................... .
Nursing .................. ....... ... .
Thrifty
plan2
$34.50
31.10
49.10
59.10
7.10
8.00
9.70
12.30
15.40
16.40
18.00
17.30
15.40
14.60
14.10
12.90
17.60
18.70
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$44.50
39.90
62.60
75.80
8.50
10.10
12.00
15.70
19.60
20.70
22.90
22.40
19.80
18.60
18.10
16.50
22.40
23.80
1\t>derate­cost
plan
$56.00
49.50
78.20
95.10
10.40
12.40
14.90
19.60
24.60
26.00
28.70
28.30
24.70
23.00
22.60
20.30
27.70
29.60
Liberal
plan
$67.00
59.10
93.60
113.70
12.30
14.80
17.90
23.40
29.40
31.00
34.40
34.00
29.60
27.40
26.90
24.10
32.80
35.20
Thrifty
plan2
$149.70
135.00
212.40
256.20
30.70
34.50
41.80
53.20
66.90
71.10
77.90
75.00
66.90
63.20
61.10
55.80
76.40
81.10
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$193.50
173.10
271.70
328.70
37.00
43.70
52.10
67.90
84.90
89.90
99.20
97.30
86.00
80.40
78.60
71.40
97.20
103.00
1\t>derate­cost
plan
$242.60
214.60
339.00
411.90
45.10
53.90
64.60
84.90
106.50
112.50
124.'30
122.70
107.00
99.60
97.80
88.10
119.80
128.40
Liberal
plan
$290.40
255.80
405.30
492.90
53.30
63.90
77.40
101.60
127.30
134.40
149.20
147.40
128.20
118.70
116.60
104.30
142.30
152.50
1Assumes 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.
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 mpre-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
0
!'!1. e.
()1
0
0. a
0=
~
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Inde:x: for all urban consumers [ 1967 = 100]
Group
All i terns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food ........•........•...............•..
Food at home ..... .......•..•..••...•..
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••
Housing .......•....•.....•...........•..
Shelter ............................... .
Rent, residential 1
•••••••••••••••••••
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 .•.....•.........................
Medical care ....................... . .... .
Entertainment ......•...•.•....•.•.......
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••
Personal care •••.••.•••••••.••••..•.•.•
Apr.
1983
295.5
291.9
283.4
318.0
320.3
341.7
234.5
363.6
610.6
420.5
239.0
195.5
187.8
160.6
207.5
292.3
287.5
361.1
353.5
244.6
283.2
259.1
Mar.
1983
293.4
290.5
281.9
316.5
318.6
339.3
233.6
363.8
625.3
418.0
237.6
194.5
186.7
160.0
206.6
287.4
282.7
354.5
352.3
244.6
281.9
257.8
1 See "Consumer Price Index: Changes in Homeownership Component,"
Review 1983(1): 32 for explanation of rental equivalence measure.
Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Z6 f am i ly Ec onom ics Rev i ew 1983 No.3
Feb. Apr.
1983 1982
293.2 284.3
289.0 283.9
280.3 277.9
315.2 303.6
318.5 309.4
339.2 331.4
233.1 220.1
364.6 339.2
654.0 641.3
414.5 377.8
236.7 232.6
192.0 191.9
184.4 183.1
155.7 160.9
205.6 205.6
289.9 282.9
285.2 278.8
355.2 339.3
351.3 321.7
243.1 233.9
281.6 253.8
257.8 245.9
Famil~ Economics
ORDER FOAM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit Card Orders Only
Enclosed is S o check, •
0 money order, or charge to my · Total charges$ Fill in the boxes below.
Deposit Account No. Credit ,-,.---.-,-,--r--,.---.-.---.-,-.-r-r---.-,-.-,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-0 lEE,.,..-.) """' No. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Expiration Date I I
Order No. Month/Year .._.._.. ....- -'-....L....J
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
at $8.50 per _year. (Add $2.15 for other than U.S. m.ailing).
Company or personal 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 I I I I I
Additional address/ attention line
~ treI et 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 address
bit! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l.ale I ~) cldel I I
llllfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiWIIIIII
(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 OR TYPE
For Office UM Only
Quantity Charges
................ Enclosed
................ To be mailed ..... .......... .
.. .. . . .. . Subscriptions .
Postage ....... .
Fore1gn handling .......................... .
MMOB .................... ....... .
OPNR
............. UPNS
.. Discount
............ Refund
•••• •• 0 ................................................... 0 • 0 0 ••••• 0 •••• 0 • 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0 •••••••• 0 ••••••• 0 •••••• ~ ••• ••• 0
Family
Economics
Review
Attach last subscription
label here.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM
MAIL THIS FORM TO:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Ot!ice
Washington, D. C. 20402
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
NAME -FIRST. LAST ______________ _
COMPANYNAME _______________ ___
ADDRESS _________________ _
CITY
STATE ZIP CODE __ _
(OR COUNTRY)
1983 No, 3 Family Economics Review 27
Agricultural Outlook '84-New Date Announced
The Agricultural Outlook Conference will be held from October 31 to November 3, 1983.
"Home Economics: Outlook for Families" will feature several speakers who will address
problems facing families in a changing social and economic environment. This Conference
is free, and all are encouraged to attend. Please preregister by writing: Outlook '84,
Room 5143, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250. To obtain Conference materials and
a building pass, Conference participants are asked to go to the Patio in USDA's
Administration Building at 12th and Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, D.C.
An informal pre-Conference home economics brunch will be held on Monday, October 31,
at Hogates Seafood Restaurant, 9th and Maine Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. To make
a reservation please send a check for $12, payable to HE-170, to Velda Rankin, ES-USDA,
Room 5411, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250. The cost will be $13 at the door for
reservations not made or received by Friday, October 21. The time of the luncheon and
the speaker will be announced at a later date.
Information for the Outlook for Families program can be obtained from Kathleen K.
Scholl by writing to Family Economics Research Group, ARS-USDA, Room 442A, Federal
Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782, or by calling 301-436-8461.
28 Family Economics Review 1983 No.3