Family Economics Review [1984, Number 3]

              Editor
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
Family Economics Review is
for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Send subscrip-tion
orders. change of address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent of Documents.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con­cerning
this publication should
be addressed to:
Katherine S. Tippett. Editor.
Family Economics Review,
Family
Economics
Review
1984 No. 3
Contents
The Social Security Program of Self-Employed Farm Operator
Families
Kathleen K. Scholl
Developments in Consumer Product Standards
Frankie N. Schwenk
Child Cost User Data Updated to 1983
Carolyn Summers Edwards and Linda J. Beckham
Cost of Having a Baby
Some New USDA Publications
An Aging Society
Health Care Expenditures for the Elderly--Medicare Coverage
American Women--Three Decades of Change
Farm Population of the United States, 1982
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1982
Major Programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
1980 Census of Population and Housing Users' Guide--Part C
New Ruling for Mortgage Insurance Premiums
Synopsis of the Annual Energy Review and Outlook, 1982
Bureau of the Census Catalog, 1982-83
Agricultural Outlook '85--New Date Announced
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
Family Economics Research Group.
USDNARS, Federal Building,
Room 442A. Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Issued July 1984
1
10
13
19
20
20
21
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
27
The Social Security Program of
Sel1-Employed Farm Operator
Families
By Kathleen K. Sc;holl
Consumer economist
The social security program for self­employed
farm operator families is somewhat
different from the social security program
of wage-earner families. Fa·rm operators who
are sole proprietors have a higher social
security tax rate but have ways to shelter
farm income from this higher tax. One way to
shelter farm income is for the farm operator
to pay a salary to his wife since spouses of
sole proprietors are excluded from social
security coverage as individual workers.
This exclusion, however, may not always
benefit the family.
This article reviews the history of social
security coverage for farm families and
illustrates, through the use of two hypo­thetical
case studies, the differences in
social security tax rates for self-employed
farm operator families and wage-earner
families. The advantages and disadvantages
of using tax shelters available to the farm
family are also discussed.
HISTORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE
SELF-EMPLOYED
The decision to exclude farm laborers,
farm workers, and farm operators from the
social security program when it was
developed in 1935 was based upon problems in
administering the collection of funds (!)•
The social security legislation placed
primary responsibility on the employer for
the withholding of the employee's tax and
the paying of the employer's tax. No
mechanism was in place for collecting tax
from the self-employed. The present system
that farmers use in paying social security
tax along with personal income tax could not
be used at that time since many farmers did
not file income tax returns because of large
personal exemptions in the computation of
net self-employment earnings. Changes in the
personal exemptions after World War II and
the application of income tax to lower
income levels eliminated most of the admin­istrative
problems in collecting a social
security tax from the self-employed farm
operator. As a result of these income tax
changes, the Social Security Act was amended
in 1954 to include self-employed farm opera­tors;
they began reporting their earnings
for social security purposes in 1955.1
In determining what tax rate should be
applied to self-employment earnings, the
19 4 7-48 U. S. Advisory Cou neil on Social
Security recommended that the self-employed
person contribute to the social security
fund at 1-1/2 times the employee rate
(75 percent of the combined employee and
employer rates) (_~). The Council expressed
three reasons for this rate rather than a
rate that equaled the combined rates:
(1) Some of the self-employed would be pay­ing
tax on the income from capital invest­ment;
(2) if the combined employee and
employer rates were used, the high-income
self-employed might be overcharged for their
coverage in comparison with comparable
protection under private insurance; and
(3) self-employed individuals tend to retire
at a later age than wage and salary workers,
resulting in an overpayment to the trust
fund since their contribution period would
be longer and the benefit period shorter.
The self-employment rate recommendation of
the 1947-48 Council was implemented and
remained close to 75 percent of the combined
employee and employer rates (75 percent of
the combined rates for Old-Age, Survivors,
and Disability (OASDI) program and 50
percent of the combined rates for Hospital
Insurance) until the passage of the Social
Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law
98-21). In these amendments the OASDI tax
rate for self-employed persons was raised to
equal the combined employee and employer
rates. The National Commission on Social
1 The Social Security Act was amended in
1950 to include nonfarm self-employed
persons and hired farm laborers.
PROPtRT'/ OF TH:::
liRRAR1
/
JUL 13 198 J
'Pdsitory
Review
Security Reform (6) recommended this change
based on the need- to raise revenues for the
social security trust fund.
The full burden of the tax increase will
not be borne by the self-employed. Indi­viduals
will be able to use tax credits to
lower their full tax rate (columns 2 and 5
of table 1) to the real rate (columns 3 and
6). The difference between the full and real
rates will be taken from general revenues
and placed into the social security trust
fund. In 1984 a credit of 0. 3 percent is
allowed for employees and a credit of
2. 7 percent is given for self-employed
individuals. The employee credit will be
permitted for 1984 only, and the credit for
self-employed persons will be reduced to
2.3 percent for 1985 and 2.0 percent for
1986 through 1989. After 1989, the credit
will be replaced with special provisions
designed to treat the self-employed more
equitably with the income tax and social
security tax systems of employees and
employers.
TWO CASE STUDIES
The Families 2
Rural F. Jones was born on his family farm
on January 2, 1918. Jones became the sole
owner of the family farm when his parents
died in 1939, the year he married Carol.
Although the farm is a sole proprietorship,
Carol has always made a substantial contri­bution
with her farm labor. In 1955, the
first year farm operators paid into the
social security fund, Rural Jones began
paying self-employment taxes. For 28 years,
from 1955 to 1982, he earned the incomes as
reported in table 2. On January 2, 1983, at
the age of 65 years, Rural F. Jones retired.
2To present realistic portrayals of income
flows for these case studies, U.S. mean farm
incomes and median wage-earner incomes were
used for the families. Although the incomes
for these two families were taken from
aggregate data, the economic analysis should
not be redirected to the aggregate level
because of differences in definitions
between the two data sets used to obtain the
incomes.
Table 1. Social security tax rates as a percentage of earnings for employers and employees
(each) for the self-employed, by former and current legislation
flnployer and anployee rates Self-employed rates
Public Law 98-21 Public Law 98-21
Years
Prior Without With Prior Without With
law tax tax law tax tax
credit credit credit credit
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1984 ••..•..•.••• 6.7 7.0 1 6.7 9.35 14.0 11.3
1985 ••••.•...••• 7.05 7.05 7.05 9.9 14.1 11.8
1986-87 ......... 7.15 7.15 7.15 10.0 14.3 12.3
1988-89 ......... 7.15 7.51 7.51 10.0 15.02 13.02
1990 and later ••• 7.65 7.65 7.65 10.75 15.3 (2)
1 Employer rate remains at 7.0 percent.
2 After 1989 the credit will be replaced with special prov1s10ns designed to treat the
self-employed more equitably with the income tax and social security tax systems of employees
and employers.
Source: Svahn, John H., and Mary Ross, 1983, Social Security Amendments of 1983: Legisla­tive
history and summary of provisions, Social Security Bulletin 46 (7): 3-48.
2 family Economics Review 1984 No.3
Table 2. Maximum taxable earnings, tn...-..a ble l·ncome, t.n...-. ra t es, an d soc1·a 1 secur1• t y con t r1· b ut1· 0ns o f
Rural F. Jones and Wage B. Smith, 1955-82
Maxirrun
Rural F. Jones Wage B. Smith
Year taxable
earnings Taxable Self- Social Wage Social Social
farm e!Jl>loyment security income 2 security security
income 1 tax rate contributions tax rate contributions
Dollars Dollars Percent Dollars Dollars Percent Dollars
1955 ••••••• 4,200
1956 ••••••• 4,200
1957 ••••••• 4,200
1958 ••••••• 4,200
2,504 3.0 75.12 4,764 2.0 84.00
2,750 3.0 82.50 5,164 2.0 84.00
2,604 3.375 87.89 5,297 2.25 94.50
3,133 3.375 105.74 5,474 2.25 94.50
1959 ••••••• 4,800
1960 ••••••• 4,800
2,936 3. 75 ll0.10 5,704 2.50 120.00
3,169 4.5 142.61 5, 920 3.0 144.00
1961. •••••• 4,800 3,431 4.5 154.40 5,990 3.0 144.00
1962 ••••••• 4,800 3, 565 4.7 167.56 6,072 3.125 150.00
1963 ••••••• 4,800 3,639 5.4 196.51 6,259 3.625 174.00
1964 ••••••• 4,800 3,862 5.4 208.55 6,596 3.625 174.00
1965 ••••••• 4,800 4,190 5.4 226.26 6,980 3.625 17 4. 00
1966 ••••••• 6,600 5,037 6.15 309.78 7,318 4.2 277.20
1967 ••••••• 6,600 4,550 6.4 291.20 7,996 4.4 290.40
1968 ••••••• 7,800 4,946 6.4 316.54 8,440 4.4 343.20
1969 ••••••• 7,800 5,781 6.9 398.89 9,189 4.8 374.40
1970 ••••••• 7,800 6,077 6.9 419.31 9,776 4.8 374.40
1971 ••••••• 7,800 6,039 7.5 452.93 10,246 5.2 405.60
1972 ••••••• 9,000 8,063 7.5 604.73 11,001 5.2 468.00
1973 ••••••• 10,800 12,564 8.0 864.00 11,875 5.85 631.80
1974 ••••••• 13,200 12,180 7.9 962.22 12,549 5.85 734.12
1975 ••••••• 14,100 11,423 7.9 902.42 13,316 5.85 778.99
1976 ••••••• 15,300 11,622 7.9 918.14 14.096 5.85 824.62
1977 ••••••• 16,500 10,852 7.9 857.31 15,345 5.85 897.68
1978 ••••••• 17,700 14,567 8.1 1,179.93 16.271 6.05 984.40
1979 ••••••• 22,900 15,505 8.1 1,255.91 16,034 6.13 982.88
1980 ••••••• 25,900 15,111 8.1 1,223.99 17,569 6.13 1,076.98
1981 ••••••• 29,700 13,025 9.3 1,211.33 18.958 6.65 1,260.71
1982 ••••••• 32,400 11,205 9.35 1,047.67 19,389 6.70 1,299.06
Total •••• 204,330 14,773.54 283,588 13,446.60
1 The annual earnings were calculated from unpublished data and from data in the Economic Indicators of the
Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1981 (.!.!)• The earnings represen.t the average farm income
which farm operators would have paid self-employment tax. Earnings were compiled and social security contri­butions
were calculated by Isabelle Payton, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2The U.S. annual median earnings of wage and salary families for 1955-82 were used for the table. The
median earnings are of families with only wage and salary income. These include urban, nonfarm, and farm
families. (Also, the incomes are for families that include multi-earners. Historical data are not available for
one-earner families with only wage and salary income.) The annual earnings were obtained from source of
income tables in the Current Population Reports of the Consumer Income Series P-60 for the years 1955-79.
The titles of these reports have changed over the years but are currently titled, "Money Income of House­holds,
Families, and Persons in the United States: 1981" (_!!). Earnings from wages and salaries for 1980,
1981, and 1982 are unpublished data from the Bureau of tt"\e Census.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review J
Since 1955 Rural F. Jones reported a total
farm income of $204,330. Over these years
Rural paid $14,773 in self-employment tax.
Based upon his earnings record, Rural and
Carol Jones receive a monthly social
security benefit check of $852. 3
Wage B. Smith was also born on January 2,
1918. In 1935 Smith joined the U.S. Army and
in 1939 married Susan. Throughout their
married life, Susan did not work outside the
home. After 20 years of military service,
Wage Smith left the Army and began working
for a farm implement manufacturer. Smith's
annual earnings are reported in table 2. On
January 2, 1983, Wage Smith retired at the
age of 65. During the 28 years that Smith
worked in private industry, his employer
deducted the appropriate social security tax
from Smith's paychecks and matched those
contributions through an employer tax. Each
paid $13,447 for a total contribution of
$26, 894. Smith earned a total income of
$283,588 while he worked in manufacturing.
Wage and Susan receive a monthly social
security benefit check of $1,012.50, which
is based upon Smith's earnings record.
A Comparison
A comparison of income, social security
tax rates, social security contributions,
and benefit levels indicate sharp differ­ences
between the situations of Rural F.
Jones and Wage B. Smith. In the 28-year
period, Jones earned about $80,000 less than
Smith. When the income flows are converted
to constant 1982 dollars (1967=100), the
difference more than doubles to $194,000.
Rural Jones paid $1,327 more than Wage
Smith in social security contributions.
From 1955 to 1973, Smith paid the maximum
contribution, whereas Jones paid the maximum
tax only in 1973. Because Jones paid at a
higher rate, his monetary contribution was
higher than Smith's even with a lower income
flow. Jones paid 7 percent of his total
income (current dollars) in self-employment
tax; Smith paid 5 percent of his total
3 The monthly social security benefit
levels for a worker and spouse were calcu­lated
using the AIME formula. Benefit levels
were calculated by Michael Packard, Social
Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
4 family Economics Review 1984 No.3
earnings to the social security fund.
However, taking into consideration the tax
· that his employer also paid while Smith was
employed, a net difference of $12,120 in
social security contributions was paid on
behalf of Wage Smith above the amount that
was paid by Rural Jones.
Although Rural Jones as an individual paid
more into the social security trust fund and
paid a greater proportion of his income than
Wage Smith, the Jones family had a lower
monthly benefit level. The difference of
$160.50 per month in benefit levels of Smith
and Jones is attributable to the higher
level of Smith's wages. Benefits are deter­mined
by the amount of earnings, not on the
amount contributed to social security.
In summary, the farm family in comparison
with the wage-earner family has lower
income, has a higher social security tax
rate, pays more in social security contri­butions,
and receives lower benefits. The
higher benefits for the typical wage-earner
family have in effect been funded through
employer contributions to the fund. With the
increase in the rate of contribution for the
self-employed as directed in Public Law
98-21, the difference in the amount paid to
the fund by farm and wage-earner families
will become even greater. Farm families of
the future will pay an increased tax rate
and contribute a larger portion of their
income to social security, but will have
their benefits calculated in the same way
the levels are determined for nonfarm
families. From now until 1988, the amount of
taxes to be paid by future wage and salary
families will grow more slowly than that for
farm families.
TAX SHELTERS
Off-farm Income Tax Shelter
Since an individual with both wage and
self-employment income is taxed first on
wages, for social security purposes, farm
operators who work off the farm can subtract
those earnings from maximum taxable earnings
before applying the higher self-employment
tax rate to farm income. To take advantage
of this off-farm income tax shelter, the
farm operator's off-farm earnings should
equal the maximum taxable amount, so that
none of the farm income will be taxed for
social security purposes. Farm operators who
work off the farm generally work part time
and are unlikely to earn enough to shelter
all the farm income. Farm operators who work
off the farm but earn less than the taxable
amount may pay more total social security
tax by paying two different rates on two
types of income than they would pay on farm
income only. For example, if Rural Jones in
1978 earned $10,000 off the farm and had a
farm income of $14,567, he would have paid
$605 in social security tax -as an employee
and $624 in self-employment tax. The self­employment
tax would have been paid on
$7,700 of farm income--the difference be­tween
the maximum taxable earnings ($17, 700
in 1978) and off-farm income ($10,000). Even
though Jones was able to shelter $6,867 of
his farm income from the self-employment
tax, the total social security contribution
paid by the Jones family would have been $49
higher than the amount he would have paid
on farm income only. Jones will benefit at
retirement, however, because his benefit
level will reflect the fact that his total
income increased. As more farm families turn
to off-farm employment to supplement their
farm income, 4 more farm families will be
faced with this tax complexity.
Spousal Tax Shelter
Although Wage Smith could not alter his
level of contribution to the social security
fund, Rural Jones could have lowered his by
paying his wife part of his farm income. 5 In
4 In 1978, 46 percent of the farm operators
reported that they spent the majority of
their worktime in occupations other than
farming. Since 1967, with the exception of
2 years, off-farm income per farm operator
family has been greater than net farm
income.
5 For a more detailed discussion of paying
a spouse for farmwork by types of farm
organization, see reference ~· Special
provisions apply to sole proprietorships in
community property States. The United States
Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit, has docketed
Edwards et al, v. Heckler. This decision by
the court will clarify the allocation of
self-employment income between spouses in
community property States.
a sole proprietorship where one spouse is
the owner and operator of the farm operation
and employs the other spouse, self­employment
taxes are paid only on the
operator's income; neither self-employment
tax nor social security employee tax is paid
on the other spouse's farm income. The
splitting of income between spouses must be
based upon the contributions of each; these
may be in the form of labor, but also
include capital such as inherited farmland.
An example of a farm couple splitting farm
income by ·different types of farm
organizations is provided in table 3.
An illustration of this spousal tax
shelter can be made with the hypothetical
farm family. Suppose Carol Jones made sub­stantial
labor contributions to the farm in
the years 1969 and 1970; 40 percent of the
farm income could have been allocated to her
for those 2 years. Carol always did farmwork
and could have been paid 20 percent of the
farm income for 1955 through 1968. Assuming
her farmwork decreased after 1970, she could
have been paid 10 percent of Rural's income
for the years after 1970. If the Joneses had
elected to pay Carol for her labor contri­butions
throughout the years, their total
self-employment tax would have been lowered
by 12.8 percent to $12,889, a savings of
$1,884. The J oneses' retirement benefits,
however, would have been lowered by over
$90 per month to $759. If the Joneses had
taken the amount of money they did not pay
as self-employment tax for each year and
placed it into a savings account, the prin­cipal
in the account would have been about
$3,000 today. 6
6 Farm families are not likely to have
started a savings account for retirement
purposes, especially in the fifties. Studies
in four States between 1951 and 1954, a
period prior to the inclusion of farm
operators into the social security program,
indicate that two-thirds of the farmers had
not made retirement plans and that only one­half
thought they would be able to finance
their retirement from farming C..!.• _!, ~. .!.Q_).
The present value of the savings account
was calculated by use of 4-1/2 percent
compound interest factors.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 5
The social security program is not just a
retirement or annuity plan, however. Some
risk is assumed by the farm family when the
farm income is divided between the farm
spouses. Since the benefits are determined
by the earnings record, a premature death by
the self-employed farm operator might lower
the survivor benefits that his family would
receive. Also, disability and medical
benefits provisions of the social security
program are of major importance to farmers
who work in the second most dangerous occu­pation
CJ_). Premiums for private insurance
are high.
PROGRAM CHANGES TO INCLUDE SPOUSES
The disability and survivorship benefits
of social security are payable upon injury
or death of the self-employed farm operator.
With the exception of spouses working for
farm corporations or farm partnerships, farm
families cannot obtain social security
benefits based on the spouse's paid or
unpaid farmwork. When the farm spouse dies
or becomes disabled, the farm operator may
need to replace the farm labor of the
spouse with hired labor, thereby ra1smg
farm expenses and lowering family income.
Even though 95 percent of U.S. farms are
operated by men, research has shown that
farm women make a substantial contribution
to farmwork (_~) and that wives of farmers
have some risk of permanent injury from the
farmwork they perform (table 4).
Although some farm families are eligible
to receive benefits for the loss of the
wife's income, these benefits are generally
based upon the wife's off-farm earnings.
Data from the 1980 National Farm Women
Survey show that slightly less than one-half
of the married women interviewed stated they
were eligible to receive social security
benefits based on their individual earnings
record. The majority of farm women obtained
their credits through off-farm employment;
others were entitled as a result of self­employment
or employment with their farm
corporations or certain types of farm
partnerships.
Wives of self-employed farm operators are
regarded, for social security purposes, as
unpaid family workers or homemakers even if
they perform farmwork and are paid for their
Table 3. Social security employee tax or self-employment tax for a farm couple by type of
farm organization, 1984
Wife
Type of fann organization
Tax Income Tax Tax
rate paid rate
Percent Dollars - - Percent
Sole proprietorship •••••••• NA 0 NA 11.3
Do •••••••••••••••••••• NA 16,000 NA 11.3
Partnership:
Wife not a partner ••••••• 26.7 16,000 1,072 11.3
Wife is a partner •••••••• 11.3 16,000 1,808 11.3
Corporation ............... 26.7 16,000 1, 072 2 6. 7
1 In 1984 the self-employed pay 11.3 percent on income up to a
a maximum tax of $4, 271.40.
2 The farm business as employer also contributes 7. 0 percent.
NA = not applicable.
6 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
Husband
Total
tax
Income Tax paid
paid
- - - - Dollars -
40,000 1 4,271 4,271
24,000 2, 712 2,712
24,000 2,712 3,784
24,000 2,712 4,520
24,000 1,608 2,680
maximum base of $37,800 for
labor. Several recent proposals 7 designed to
address the exclusion of homemakers from
social security will have an impact on farm
women, if enacted. Evaluations of these
proposals generally focus on problems asso­ciated
with the valuation of the work of the
homemaker. Although farm spouses as home­makers
share many of the same problems
nonfarm homemakers have with social security
exclusion, many farm women perform work
that can be valued in the marketplace. These
wives, however, have the value of their
labor, in the form of farm income, credited
to their husbands. The following two pro­posals
are examined with respect to their
effects on the spouses of self-employed farm
operators. The first proposal does not
attempt to value household work; the second
proposal requires setting a specified dollar
value for work performed in the home.
7See Social Security and the Changing
Roles of Men and Women (13) for a detailed
description of earnings sharing, homemakers
credit, and other proposals.
"Earnings sharing," a system of splitting
earnings credits for years of marriage, is
currently being considered in Congress as
S.3 (Senate bill) and H.R.2742 (House bill).
The proposal requires that earnings of
spouses be shared equally and benefits be
based on the individual's earnings record.
Although there are several interpretations
of this proposal, earnings sharing would
eliminate some of the inequities caused by
the spousal tax shelter. For example, earn­ings
sharing would allow Carol Jones of the
hypothetical farm family to build an earn­ings
credit record based on one-half of the
farm income. Farm income could not be
sheltered by paying income to Carol, thus
requiring the Joneses to pay self-employment
tax on all farm income. But the Joneses'
social security benefit level at retirement
would be higher ($852 rather than $759 with
the tax shelter). Susan Smith, the nonfarm
homemaker, would receive credit under earn­ings
sharing for one-half of Wage's earnings.
The Smiths' level of benefits would not
change under some interpretations of earn­ings
sharing. Earnings sharing will also
Table 4. Farm and ranch work injuries by residency and severity
Residency
Husband •••••••••••••••••••
Wife •••••••••••••••• • • • • • • •
Son •................ · • • • • •
Daughter .. ................
Full-time employee •••••••••
Part-time employee ........
Other .••.•..•....•....•••.
Total .............•......
All
injuries
43.4
10.4
17.0
2.6
12.9
9.4
4.3
100.0
Slight 1
40.1
8.8
16.7
2.3
16.8
11.9
3.4
100.0
Severity
Severe2 Permment 3
Percent
44.1
11.5
17.3
2.7
11.3
8.4
4.7
100.0
56.1
6.1
19.7
1.5
6.1
6.1
4.4
100.0
1 A slight injury includes minor cuts, sprains, burns, etc.
2A severe injury includes a broken bone, cut ligament, sprained back, etc.
Fatal 4
47.6
0.0
19.1
o.o
4.8
14.3
14.2
100.0
3A permanent injury indicates some kind of crippling, such as loss of hand, finger, sight,
or use of limb(s).
4 A fatal injury is one that results in a death during the survey period.
Source: Hanford, William D., and others. 1982. 1982 Farm Accident Survey Report, National
Safety Council, Chicago, Ill.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 7
allow a spouse, upon divorce, to keep the
credit earned during the years of her
marriage.
"Homemaker credit" allocates social
security credits to an individual for work
done in the home. An imputed dollar value
for services performed in the home would be
determined and credited to her although no
income was paid for her work in the house­hold.
Homemaker credit would be helpful to
women who enter and exit the labor market
during various phases of their family life­cycle.
This proposal would also be helpful
to women who dissolve their marriages before
their husbands retire, and to families with
disabled homemakers. Depending upon the
individual circumstances, retirement bene­fits
for a married couple may or may not be
affected by the addition of homemaker
credits to the homemaker's personal earnings
record. Under the homemaker credit system
Susan Smith, the full-time homemaker, would
have the value of her household work in­cluded
in her personal earnings record.
Carol Jones, who spent part of her time in
farmwork, would not receive credits as a
full-time homemaker. Her "credit" for house­hold
work would be similar to that given to
a woman in paid employment. Since "home
maker credit" is intended to address only the
household work problem, Carol would not
receive credit as an individual for the
value of her farmwork.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Adkins, William G., and Joe R.
Motheral. 1954. The Farmer Looks at His
Economic Security. Bulletin 774. Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas
A&M College System, College Station, Tex.
2. The Advisory Council on Social Security
to the Senate, Committee on Finance.
1949. Recommendations for Social
Security Legislation. Senate Document
No. 208.
3. Galloway, Robert E. 1955. Farmers'
Plans for Economic Security in Old Age.
Bulletin 626. Kentucky Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.
4. Levy, Marcia. 19 7 4. Self -employment in
the Covered Work Force. U.S. Depart­ment
of Health, Education, and Welfare
8 family Economics Review 1984 No.3
[now known as U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services], Social
Security Administration, DHEW Publica­tion
(SSA-75-11853) Staff Paper No. 19.
5. McKain, Walter C., Jr., Elmer D.
Baldwin, and Louis J. Ducoff. 1953.
Old Age and Retirement in Rural
Connecticut. Bulletin 299. Storrs
Agricultural Experiment Station,
College of Agriculture, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, Conn.
6. National Commission on Social Security
Reform. 1983. Report of the National
Commission on Social Security Reform.
7. National Safety Council. 1983. Accident
Facts: 1983 Edition. Chicago, Ill.
8. Scholl, Kathleen K. 1982. Household and
farm task participation of women.
Family Economics Review 1982(3): 3-9.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service.
9. Scholl, Kathleen K. 1983. Classifica­tion
of women liS farmers: Economic
implications. Family Economics Review
1983(4):8-17. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service.
10. Sewell, William H., Charles E. Ramsey,
and Louis J. Ducoff. 19 53. Farmers
Conceptions and Plans for Economic
Security in Old Age. Research Bulletin
182. Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco­nomic
Research Service. 1982. Economic
Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income
and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1981.
ECIFS 1-1.
12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1983. Money income of
households, families, and persons in
the United States: 1981. Current
Population Reports. Consumer Income,
Series P-60, No. 137.
13. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare [now known as U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services].
1979. Social Security and the Changing
Roles of Men and Women.
CORRECTION
Please note the following corrections to issue 1983(4) in the article "Classification of
Women as Farmers: Economic Implications." In all farm partnerships, regardless of
whether or not a nonfamily member is a partner, the spouse pays social security tax.
Table 1, P• 13, should be as follows (also note update of this table with the 1984 tax
rates on p. 6 of this issue):
Table 1. Social security employee ta.r or self-employment ta.r for a farm couple by type of
farm organization, 1983
Wife Husband
Total
Type of farm organization armunt
Tax Income Alrount Tax Income Aloount paid
rate paid rate paid
-Pe-rce-nt Dollars - - Percent Dollars -
Sole proprietorship .•.•••••• NA 0 NA 9.35 40,000 13,338 3,338
Do ••••••••••••••••••••• NA 16,000 NA 9.35 24,000 2, 244 2,244
Partnership:
Wife not a partner ........ 26.7 16,000 1,072 9 . 35 24,000 2,244 3,316
Wife is a partner ••••••• •• 9.35 16,000 1,496 9.35 24' 000 2,244 3,740
Corporation ••••••••..•••••• 26.7 16,000 1,072 26.7 24,000 1,608 2,680
1The self-employed pay 9. 35 percent on income up to a maximum base of $35,700 for a
maximum tax of $3,337.95.
2The farm business as employer also contributes 6. 70 percent.
NA = not applicable.
P. 12, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph, should read as follows:
"In a partnership arrangement, if the wife is a partner, self-employment
taxes are paid on the income. In a partnership in which the husband is
a partner and the wife is not, if she is an employee of the partnership,
social security contributions are withheld from her pay at the employee
rate and the partnership, as the employer, contributes at the employer
rate."
P. 13, 1st column, lines 9 and 10, delete the following: "and a partner who is not a
member of the family."
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 9
Developments in Consumer
Product Standards
By Frankie N. Schwenk
Home economist
Standards are among the oldest forms of
consumer and producer protection. As early
as 7000 B.C., the Egyptian cubit stone was
used as a standard unit of measure, and by
45 B.C. Julius Caesar had mandated the
365!,;-day calendar. Today, standards cover
a wide range of consumer products. Recent
developments in the standards field include
increased consumer participation on commit­tees
that prepare standards, and a shift by
the Federal Government toward voluntary
standards and away from mandatory standards.
Product Standards
A standard is an agreed upon procedure
or material or a fundamental unit of measure
(see box for types of standards). It may be
mandatory or voluntary.
Mandatory standards are those enforced
by local, State, or national government
agencies. They may have been written by a
government agency or may be a standard that
was written as a voluntary standard, then
adopted and enforced by a government agency.
TYPES OF STANDARDS
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's
(CPSC) mandatory standards include those on
power mowers, cribs, toys, cellulose insula­tion,
fabric flammability, 1 and child-resistant
bottle closures. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) enforces mandatory stan­dards
for labels on the care of clothing
and information labeling on energy costs of
appliances. The Food and Drug Administration
has established standards for microwave
ovens, food products, and medical devices.
Other agencies that enforce mandatory stan­dards
include the Environmental Protection
Agency, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Federal Communications
Commission, and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
States have mandatory standards for
weights and measures and some standards for
services and products, such as energy
efficiency standards for major home
applicances. The energy efficiency standards
are part of building codes, energy codes, or
rulings of public utility commissions. Local
governments may also enforce mandatory
standards, such as building codes.
1 For further information, see Family
Economics Review, 1983(2): 8-9.
Physical measures. Definition or objects of measurement system. Example: Inch,
kilogram.
Standard definitions. Common language that defines product, material, system, or
service. Examples: Ice cream, type A child-resistant bottle closure.
Standard recommended practice or test procedures. May include sampling instructions;
installation, maintenance, and operation of testing apparatus; precise procedures for
apparatus, test specimens, and calculations. Example: Test for measuring bathtub slip
resistance.
Safety standards. May include material, design, strength, energy supply, thermal
conditions, noise, reliability, durability, edges, surfaces, location, spacing, operator
contact, stability, sanitation, and ultimate disposal. Examples: Match safety standard,
baby cribs.
Information disclosure standards. Includes quality certification and information
labeling. Example: Underwriter Laboratories label.
Specifications and classifications. Includes types, classes, grades, and ratings.
Example: Standard tables for classifying manmade and natural fibers.
10 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
Voluntary standards are those where
participation is voluntary in both the
development and use of the standards. They
may be used in business contracts, sales
agreements, or product design. Examples of
voluntary standards developed recently
include standards on video magnetic record­ing
tape dimensions, laminated hardwood
flooring classifications, and dehumidifier
safety.
There are more than 400 organizations in
the United States that write voluntary
standards. These include the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM), American Gas Association, Under­writers
Laboratories (UL), and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA).
A wide range of interested parties, such
as producers, trade association representa­tives,
consumers, and representatives of
government and academia, participate in the
development of a voluntary standard, which
increases the likelihood that the standard
will be accepted and used. An example of how
voluntary standards may be written is the
ASTM process. ASTM operates by consensus,
defined as "substantial agreement reached
by concerned interests." A task group
prepares a draft standard, which moves by
balloting procedures through a subcommittee
to the main committee and then to a member­ship
ballot, where any of ASTM's 31,000
members can comment on the proposed
standard. At each level of balloting, there
are requirements for the number of ballots
returned, the number of ballots cast
affirmatively, and discussion of each
negative ballot.
ASTM standards-writing committees operate
under established rules such as the
following:
The number of producer members must
not exceed the number of nonproducer
members.
Membership must be open to all
qualified individuals.
All negative votes must be considered
by the originating subcommittee. If judged
persuasive, the document is rewritten.
All committee meetings considering
technical matters must be open to visitors.
All standards actions must be equitable,
meaning every organization, large or small,
and every individual is given a vote (!).
The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) plays a prominent role by coordinat­ing
activities of standards developing
organizations. Standards developed by ASTM
or other organizations that prepare
standards may be submitted to ANSI for
acceptance as an American National Standard.
The 1984 Catalog of American National
Standards lists 9, 000 standards. American
National Standards often become voluntary
international standards issued by the Inter­national
Organization for Standardization
(ISO). ANSI is the u.s. member of ISO and
manages and coordinates U.S. participation
in ISO activities.
Consumer Participation in Standards
Development
Home economists, with an understanding of
consumers' viewpoints, have been making
contributions to standards development for
years. In the twenties, American Home
Economics Association representatives were
involved with safety codes for mechanical
refrigerators. In the thirties, home econo­mists
helped develop standard sizes for
children's garments and testified at FTC
hearings on labeling rules for rayon,
cotton, silk, and wool. In the next two
decades, contributions were made to stan­dards
for cooking utensils, nylon hosiery,
dress sizes, flat irons, and electric ranges
(_!, pp. 66, 84, 129). Recently, home econo­mists
have served on the ANSI Consumer
Interest Council and the ANSI Standards
Screening and Review Committee that reviews
all consumer standards submitted to ANSI. In
ASTM, membership of the Consumer Products
Standards Committee F-15 includes home
economists from Cooperative Extension,
universities, secondary schools, businesses,
and consumer organizations.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 11
Other than the long-term involvement of
home economists, however, consumers and
consumer organizations have not been well
represented in the standards development
process. One of the new trends in standards
development is the effort of organizations
that prepare standards to increase consumer
participation. A plan to include more con­sumers
and representatives from consumer
organizations was implemented by the
National Consumer League (NCL) and ASTM
in 1978. NCL agreed to provide consumer
representatives on designated committees
and to be responsible for their selection
and training (1, p. 120). ASTM underwrote
the expenses of the participants.
In addition to including consumer repre­sentatives
on more committees that prepare
standards, several consumer sounding boards
have been established. ANSI coordinates this
program. ASTM, UL, AHAM, NFPA, and the
National Bureau of Standards sponsor boards
composed primarily of consumers who are able
to view a product from a user's point of
view. Members discuss their experiences in
using a product, and their reactions and
recommendations are fully considered by the
standards-developing groups that request the
sounding.
For example, a sounding board in Maryland
met to discuss the standard for Energy Guide
labels required by the FTC for certain major
appliances. The board is sponsored by the
Office of Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department
of Commerce, and AHAM conducted the sound­ing.
The sounding board members felt the
Energy Guide labels should be continued but
revised to show the estimated amounts of
energy an appliance uses annually rather
than operating costs, since costs change
with inflation. The sounding board has also
met to discuss a CPSC consumer information
brochure on kerosene heaters. CPSC con­ducted
the sounding, and representatives of
NFPA, UL, and the National Kerosene Heaters
Association attended.
While consumers and consumer representa­tives
may not always have the technical
expertise to address some aspects of the
12 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
standard, they bring an important perspec­tive.
They help provide the balance of
interests needed to develop a standard that
provides safety, information, or convenience
for the consumer, yet is accepted and used
by the producer.
The Shift to Voluntary Standards
It is the policy of the Federal Government
to rely on voluntary standards whenever
feasible in its procurement and regulatory
activities. Circular A-119, entitled Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Standards, issued by the Office of
Management and Budget on October 26, 1982,
outlined this policy (_~_). The circular calls
for the use of domestic and international
voluntary standards for procurement of goods
and services for Federal Government use, and
encourages participation by Federal agency
employees in voluntary standards activities
to help eliminate the necessity for develop­ment
and maintenance of separate Government
standards. The circular also requires
agencies responsible for developing Govern­ment
standards to review existing standards
at least every 5 years and cancel those for
which appropriate voluntary standards can be
substituted.
Agencies that enforce regulatory standards
are becoming more involved in the voluntary
standards development process and are using
voluntary standards more. For example,
CPSC rules and regulations state the follow­ing:
"Voluntary standards now stand along­side
mandatory standards activities as
integral parts of ongoing Commission hazard
programs" (_~_). CPSC is working with ANSI
on a pilot program to promote voluntary
standards. Also, CPSC is choosing the use
of voluntary standards instead of mandatory
standards on some products, such as toy
chests.
Mandatory standards have the advantage
of covering all producers, which may be
essential for a product where a serious
safety problem exists. However, since stan­dards
often need frequent revision, the
costs of developing and maintaining a large
number of standards can be a financial
burden to a Government agency.
Voluntary standards, when developed by a
committee that is varied and balanced, may
be workable and satisfy the concerns of
many interests. If the committee composition
or the process is not adequate, however, it
is possible to construct a standard that
restricts competition or acts as a trade
barrier, or is inadequate to provide health
and safety protection. Also, because use of
the standard is voluntary, it is possible
that the producer with the product that most
needs the standard will not choose to use
that standard.
Whether mandatory or voluntary, well­written
standards provide ·protection,
information, and convenience to consumers.
Simplification for consumers and lower
inventories for merchants have resulted from
standardization of sizes. Useful information
results from standards for classification
and labeling, such as the new standard on
wallcovering. Safety and health are
protected by standards such as the carriage
and stroller standards recently developed.
Performance, reliability, or quality control
are improved by standards such as the
standard on insulated steel doors presently
being considered.
LITERATURE CITED
1. The American Society for Testing and
Materials. [No date]. Standardization
Basics. Philadelphia, Pa.
2. Angevine, Erma. 1982. Development of
standard setting: Government and
voluntary. In Erma Angevine, editor.
Consumer Activists: They Made a
Difference. Consumers Union, Mt. Vernon,
N.Y.
3. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
1981. Voluntary standards activities;
modification of policy. Rules and Regula­tions.
Federal Register 46(107): 29930.
4. Pundt, Helen. 1980. AHEA--A History of
Excellence. The American Home Economics
Association.
5. U.S. Office of Mangement and the Budget.
1982. Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary
Standards. Circular A-119.
Child Cost User Data Updated
to 1983
By Carolyn Summers Edwards and
Linda J. Beckham
Economist and social science aid
The USDA estimates of the cost of raising
a child are updated semiannually. Estimates
for children in urban and rural nonfarm
families living in the four regions of the
country and spending at the moderate cost
level are published regularly in Family
Economics Review. Costs updated to annual
average price levels appear in issue No. 2;
costs updated to June price levels appear in
issue No. 4. 1
Users of the estimates frequently request
information on their use and interpretation.
USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411
(MP 1411) 2 provides descriptive information
on the estimates as well as instructions on
how to adjust the estimates for application
to specific problems. Presented here are
five of the tables from MP 1411 updated to
1983 price levels. Table 1 provides updated
information for selecting the appropriate
cost level. Table 2 includes Consumer Price
Index data for adjusting the price levels of
the estimates to recent years. Table 3
presents an example of the effects of
backdating and projecting the child cost
estimates; estimates for a child in an urban,
north-central family spending at the moder­ate
cost level are adjusted to show current
dollar costs for a child born in 1966 and a
child born in 1984. Tables 4 and 5 provide
updated information on spending for child
care and costs of higher education,
respectively.
1 Estimates for children in farm families
or for families spending at other cost
levels are available from the Family
Economics Research Group, Room 442A,
Federal Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
2 USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a
Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpre­tation,
1981, by Carolyn Summers Edwards.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 13
Users of the estimates often request
information on other materials related to
the child cost estimates. Therefore, recent
references that are grouped into several
topic areas are given below.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Child Care
Kamerman, Sheila B. 1983. Child care
services: A national picture. Monthly Labor
Review 106(12): 35-39.
Lueck, Majorie, Ann C. Orr, and Martin
O'Connell. 1982. Trends in child care
arrangements of working mothers. Current
Population Reports. Series P-23, No. 117.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
O'Connell, Martin, and Carolyn C. Rogers.
1983. Child care arrangements of working
mothers: June 1982. Current Population
Reports. Series P-23, No. 129. U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Education
Frankel, Martin M., and Debra Gerald,
editors. 1982. Projections of Education
Statistics to 1990-91. U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Grant, W. Vance, and Leo J. Eiden. 1982.
Digest of Education Statistics, 1982.
U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. 1982. Private school enrollment,
tuition and enrollment trends: October 1979.
Current Population Reports. Series P-23,
No. 121.
Indirect Costs
Becker, Gary S. 1981. A Treatise on the
Family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Chiswick, Carmel U. 1982. The value of a
housewife's time. Journal of Human Resources
18(3):413-425.
Gauger, William H., and Kathryn E. Walker.
1980. [revision, originally issued 1973].
The Dollar Value of Household Work.
New York State College of Human Ecology
Information Bulletin No. 60. Ithaca, N.Y.
14 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
Juster, F. Thomas, and Frank P. Stafford.
[In press]. Time, Goods and Well-Being.
Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Peskin, Janice. 1983. The value of house­hold
work in the 1980's. Paper presented at
the 1983 Annual Meeting of the American
Statistical Association. [Toronto, Canada.]
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Virginia Agricultural Experiment
Station. 1981. Family Time Use: An Eleven
State Urban/Rural Comparison. Bulletin
VPI-2. Blacksburg, Va.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service. 1982. Special Issue: House­hold
Production. Family Economics Review
1982(3).
Expenditure Patterns
Robey, Bryant, and Cheryl Russell. 1983.
How consumers spend. American Demographics
5(10): 17-21.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. 1983. Consumer Expenditure
Survey, Diary Survey. Bulletin 217 3.
USDA Food Plans
Cleveland, Linda E., and Betty B. Peterkin.
1983. USDA 1983 Family food plans. Family
Economics Review 1983(2): 12-21.
Kerr, Richard L., Betty B. Peterkin,
Andrea J. Blum, and Linda E. Cleveland.
1984. USDA 1983 Thrifty food plan. Family
Economics Review 1984(1): 18-25.
The Changing American Family
Bianchi, Suzanne M., and Daphne Spain.
1983. American Women: Three Decades of
Change. CDS 80-8. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Glick, Paul C. 1984. How American families
are changing. American Demographics
6(1): 20-25.
Lowenstern, Henry, editor. 1983. Special
section: Families. Monthly Labor Review
106(12):16-44.
Masnick, George, and Mary Jo Bane. 1980.
The Nation's Familes: 1960-1990. Joint
Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass. [See abstract,
Family Economics Review 1983(3): 20.]
National Center for Health Statistics.
1982. Working Women and Childbearing:
United States. Series 23, No. 9. U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service. [Data from the National
Survey of Family Growth.]
Payton, Isabelle S. 1982 •. Single-parent
households: An alternative approach. Family
Economics Review, winter issue, pp. 11-16.
[Plus correction 1982 ( 4): 39.] U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service.
Watts, Harold W., and Donald J. Hernandez,
editors. 1982. Child and Family Indicators:
A Report with Recomendations. Social Science
Research Council, Center for Coordination of
Research on Social Indicators.
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and
Families
U.S. House of Representatives, 98th Congress,
1st Session. 1983. Children, youth, and
families: Beginning the assessment. [Hearing
held in Washington, D.C., April 28, 1983.]
_____ • 1983. Demographic and Social
Trends: Implications for Federal Support of
Dependent-Care Services for Children "and the
Elderly. [A report together with additional
views.]
-----• 1983. Families in crisis: The
private sector response. [Hearing held in
Washington, D.C., July 12, 1983.]
_____ • 1983. Prevention strategies for
healthy babies and healthy children.
[Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 30,
1983.]
-=-----· 1983. Supporting a family:
Providing the basics. [Hearing held in
Washington, D.C., July 18, 1983.]
-----• 1983. Teen parents and their
children: Issues and programs. [Hearing held
in Washington, D.C., July 20, 1983.]
_____ • 1983. U.S. Children and Their
Families: Current Conditions and Recent
Trends. A report together with additional
views, May 1983.
_____ • 1984. Federal Programs Affecting
Children. [A report together with supple­mental
views. 1
Child Support
Sanders, Ruth. 1981. Child support and
alimony: 1978. Current Population Reports.
Series P-23, No. 112. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
_____ • 1983. Child support and alimony:
1981 (advance report). Current Population
Reports. Series P-23, No. 124. U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Research on the Cost of Raising a Child
Boulier, Bryan L., and Robert A. Sylvester.
1983. Equivalence scales and estimates of
the cost of children for the United States.
Paper presented at the 53d Annual Conference
of the Southern Economic Association.
[Washington, D.C., November 22, 1983.]
Edwards, Carolyn S. 1981. The cost of
raising a child. American Demographics
3(7):24-29.
_____ , Janet S. Marr, and Brucy C.
Gray. 1982. The development of the USDA
estimates of the cost of raising a child.
Social Indicators Research 10(3): 227-271.
Espenshade, Thomas J. 1984. Investing in
Children: New Estimates of Parental
Expenditures. The Urban Institute Press,
Washington, D.C.
Olson, Lawrence. 1983. Costs of Children.
Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
The Cost of Having a Baby
Health Insurance Association of America.
1982. The Cost of Having a Baby. Washington,
D.C. [See abstract, Family Economics Review
1984(3):19.]
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 15
Table 1. Food plans 1 and child cost estimates, by size and income of family, 1983.
Family size
Income before taxes
!-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person
Under $5,000 ••••••••••••• T T T T T T
$5,001-$10,000 ••••••••••• L L Tor L T T T
$10,001-$15,000 •••••••••• M Lor M Tor L Tor L T T
$15,001-$20,000 •••••••••• M or Li Lor M Tor L Tor L T or L Tor L
$20,001-$30,000 •••••••••• Li M L L Tor L Tor L
$30,001-$40,000 •••••••••• Li M or Li M Lor M L L
$40,001-$50,000 •••••••••• Li Li M or Li Lor M Lor M Lor M
$50,001-$65,000 •••••••••• Li Li Li M Lor M Lor M
$65,001-$80,000 •••••••••• Li Li Li Li M L or M
$80,001-$95,000 •••••••••• Li Li Li Li Li M or Li
$95,001 or more •••••••••• Li Li Li Li Li Li
lT = thrifty, L =low, M = moderate, and Li = liberal.
Table 2. Annual average Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for updating and backdating
estimates of the cost of raising children
[1967=100]
Child cost budget
category
Food at home •••••••••••••
Food away from home •••••
Clothing ................ .
Housing •.................
Medical care •••••••••••••
Education •...............
Transportation •••••••••••
Other ............•.......
Annual totals of all
budget item categories
CP1 1
subindex
Food at home •••••••••••
Food a way from home •••
Apparel and upkeep ••••
Housing ............... .
Medical care •••••••••••
Personel and educa-tional
expenses •••••••
Transportation •••••••••
Personal care and
personal and educa­tional
expenses
average .............. .
All items •••••••••••••••
1980
251.2
270.1
177.4
263.2
267.2
236.4
250.5
224.6
247.0
1981
269.3
293.7
186.6
293.2
295.1
266.5
281.3
248.2
272.3
1Revised CPI for urban wage earners and clerical workers ( CPI-W).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
16 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
1982
278.3
309.6
190.9
314.7
326.9
302.4
293.1
274.4
288.6
1983
281.3
323.2
195.6
322.0
355.1
335.1
300.0
297.1
297.4
Table 3. Current dollar estimates 1 of the cost of raising a child 2 born in 1966 and in 1984 at the moderate cost
level in the urban North Central region
Year
Age of
child
(years)
Total
Food
at
home 3
Food
away
from
heme
Clothing Housing 4 Medical Educa- Transpor- Other 5
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Total 1966-83 ••
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total 1984-2001
Under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
$1,316
1,397
1,372
1,~48
1,620
1,688
1,829
2,027
2,254
2,463
2, 713
2,886
3,366
3,827
4,282
4,698
5,469
5,643
50,298
4,312
4,664
4, 561
4,789
5,327
5, 593
6,118
6,678
7,012
7,364
8,031
8,431
9,456
10. 17 5
10' 68 5
ll, 217
12,933
13. 581
140,927
$194
238
245
257
310
317
321
460
528
572
695
736
831
1,023
1,105
1,185
1,371
1, 385
11,773
571
736
773
812
979
1,028
1,044
1,352
1,419
1,490
1,863
1,956
2,099
2,449
2,572
2,700
3,174
3,333
30,350
care
Cost of raising a child born in 1966 6
0
0
0
0
$50
53
55
59
66
73
78
84
109
122
135
147
155
162
1,348
$66
69
ll8
125
130
134
190
197
2ll
221
229
239
357
373
397
418
592
607
4,673
$539
555
508
541
580
606
598
624
697
772
820
877
971
1,090
1, 262
1,406
1, 562
1,598
15,606
$70
75
79
85
90
96
99
103
112
126
138
151
164
179
199
220
244
265
2,495
Cost of raising a child born in 1984 7
0
0
0
0
172
181
190
199
209
220
231
242
305
321
337
354
371
390
3, 722
142
149
254
266
279
293
426
448
470
494
518
544
826
867
911
956
1,391
1,461
10,695
1,876
1,970
1, 819
1,910
2,005
2,105
2,095
2,200
2,310
2,425
2,547
2,674
2,911
3,057
3,210
3,370
3,663
3,846
45,993
278
292
307
322
338
355
373
391
411
432
453
476
500
525
551
578
607
638
7,827
tion tion
0
0
0
0
0
0
$43
44
47
51
53
56
70
76
83
94
107
ll8
842
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
174
183
192
202
212
222
234
245
258
270
284
2,642
$267
275
247
257
270
284
287
296
330
361
397
424
478
548
645
724
832
852
7,774
866
910
832
874
918
964
1,012
1,062
1,115
1,171
1,230
1, 291
1,456
1,528
1,605
1,685
1,953
2,050
22,522
$180
185
175
183
190
198
236
244
263
287
303
319
386
416
456
504
606
656
5,787
579
607
576
605
636
667
812
852
895
940
987
1,036
1,137
1,194
1, 254
1,316
1,504
1,579
17,176
1 Derived from table 8 of USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411, USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child:
A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation, October 1981, by Carolyn s. Edwards.
2 Child in family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
3 Includes home-produced foods and school lunches.
4 lncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
5 Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
6 Prices current in the years specified; calculated using indexes in table 2 rounded to nearest $1.
7 lnflated from 1983 constant dollar estimates at annual rate of 5 percent and rounded to nearest $1.
1984No.3 Family Economics Review 17
Table 4. Spending for child care by families with at least 1 member under 6 years old
Nuni:>er of
families with Proportion of Expenditures for child care
Family type at least 1 families
merrber Wlder reporting Average annual As proportion
6 years old arooWlt 1 of all family
spending2
Thousands Percent Dollars Percent
All families ............... 13,570 60 649 2.9
Husband-wife family ••••• 11,814 62 607 2.6
Nonblack •••••••••••••• 10,633 63 585 2.5
Black .•.•.••...•.••... 1,180 50 845 3.9
Wife employed ••••••••• 5,022 71 894 3.9
Wife not employed ••••• 6,536 55 312 1.3
Single-parent family ••••• 1, 756 48 1,024 7.3
Non black .............. 1,116 54 1,147 7.9
Black •••••..••......•. 641 39 724 5.7
Parent employed ••••••• 982 63 1,241 8.4
Parent not employed ••• 736 27 274 2.5
1Data derived from Public Use Tapes, Consumer Expenditure Survey--1972-73, U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. All expenditure averages are based on only those
families reporting child care expenditures. Figures are updated to 1983 annual average prices.
2Includes spending for food, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, housing, clothing,
drycleaning and laundry, transportation, health care, personal care, recreation, reading,
education, and miscellaneous; excludes personal insurance, retirement, pensions, gifts,
and contributions.
Source: Updated from Epstein, Marsha Freeman, and Cynthia L. Jennings, 1979, Child care:
Arrangements and costs, Family Economics Review, fall issue, pp. 3-6.
18 Fam i l y Ec o n om ics Re v i ew 1984 No . J
Table 5. Estimated undergraduate tuition and fees, and board and room rates in institutions
of higher education, 1983-84.
Type and control Tuition and Board Dormitory Total tuition,
of institutions required fees (7-day roans board and roan
basis)
All public institutions .............. $870 $1,210 $1,080 $3,160
Universities ....................... 1,270 1,250 1,150 3,670
Other 4-year •••••••••••••••••••••• 1,020 1,180 1,060 3,260
2-year ............................ 510 1,240 810 2,560
All nonpublic institutions ........... 4,880 1,390 1,270 7,540
Universities ....•.................. 6,140 1,610 1,560 9,310
Other 4-year ...................... 4, 750 1,320 1,160 7,230
2-year ............................ 3,300 1,260 1,260 5,820
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
[forthcoming.] Digest of Education Statistics 1983-84, table 129.
Cost of Having a Baby
This publication from the Health Insurance
Association of America reports the results
of a 1982 survey of costs associated with
having a baby. Average costs of a maternity
hospital stay and professional services are
itemized for a usual and for a cesarean
delivery in urban and rural areas for four
regions and the United States as a whole.
The average length of a stay in a hospital
or birth center for childbirth under the
care of a midwife and the cost of midwife
professional services are also provided for
urban and rural areas by region and the
total United States.
The average cost of a hospital stay in the
United States was about $1,420 for a usual
delivery in a birthing room and $1,450 for a
usual delivery with labor and delivery rooms.
Professional services for a usual delivery
averaged about $642. The average cost was
about $2,512 for the hospital stay and $828
for professional services for a cesarean
delivery.
The average cost of a basic layette, in­cluding
baby's wardrobe and nursery items,
nursery funishings, feeding equipment, bath
items, and other miscellaneous costs, was
priced at $851. A maternity wardrobe was
estimated at $235 but could be more costly
for employed mothers-to-be.
Copies of this report may be obtained free
of charge from Information, Reference, and
Statistical Services, Public Relations
Division, Health Insurance Association of
America, 1850 K Street, N. W., Washington,
D.C. 20006.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 19
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.
1983 YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE:
USING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
January 1984. Stock No. 001-000-
04387-1. $7.
COMPOSITION OF FOODS. Revised
August 1983. Stock No. 001-000-
04368-4. $7.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION,
SEASONS AND YEAR 1977-78. August
1983. Stock No. 001-000-04374-9.
$7.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE NORTHEAST, SEASONS AND YEAR
1977-78. November 1983. Stock No.
001-000-04373-1. $7.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE SOUTH, SEASONS AND YEAR
1977-78. August 1983. Stock No.
001-000-04375-7. $7.50.
SCOPE AND METHODS OF THE
STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE.
Revised September 1983. Stock No.
001-000-04369-2. $5.00.
An Aging Society 1
As of 1982, 11 percent of all Americans
were age 65 and over. By the year 2025 this
figure is projected to be 19 percent, and by
the year 2050, one-third of the total popu­lation
will be age 55 and older. Dramatic
increases will occur particularily in the
number of aged and very old persons, with
the 85-and-over ca.tegory being the fastest
1 This report refers to the "older" popula­tion
as age 55 and over, the "elderly" age
65 and over, the "aged" 75 years and over,
and the "very old" 85 years and over.
20 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
growing segment of the older population. The
steady increase in the number of births that
occurred prior to 1920 and following World
War II is the primary cause of this trend.
A secondary cause is increasing longevity.
Overall life expectancy was 49 years in
1900, 70 years in 1954, and 74 years in
1981. Elderly women live longer than elderly
men and currently outnumber them 3 to 2.
This makes the health, social, and economic
problems of the elderly mostly problems for
women.
Although their relative economic position
has improved since 1970, incomes for the
elderly still fall far below their younger
counterparts. For example, in 1981 the
median income for men age 65 and over was
$8,200, compared with $15,000 for men age
60 to 64 and $21,000 for men age 45 to 54.
Three-fourths of all elderly persons had
incomes under $10,000 in 1981, whereas only
7 percent had incomes over $20,000. Although
income is not a precise measure of economic
well-being, statistics show the economic
position of the elderly to be lower and less
secure than that of the younger population.
Social security is the single largest
source of income for the elderly (over
91 percent receive benefits), but earnings
make the greatest difference in their
economic position. Those working year round,
full time have incomes close to those of
younger persons. However, labor force
participation by elderly men has dropped
rapidly in the last 30 years, from almost
50 percent in 1950 to less than 20 percent
in 1981. Labor force participation by
elderly women, however, has changed very
little; it was 10 percent in 1950 compared
with 8 percent in 1981. For older women
t~ose age 55 to 64, labor force participa~
bon has steadily increased, from 27 percent
in 1950 to 42 percent in 1982.
Unemployment for the elderly is low
(4. 7 percent for 1982). However, once the
elderly lose their jobs they are more likely
to stay unemployed longer, earn less in
subsequent jobs, and give up looking sooner
than younger persons.
One out of seven elderly persons lived in
poverty in 1981. Poverty rates were highest
for the more aged, for women and minorities,
and also for those who lived alone, lived in
small towns or rural areas, were not
married, did not work, and depended on
social security as their sole source of
income. The Government's definition of
poverty is based only on money income and
does not include the value of in-kind
transfers. Estimating the market value of
means-tested (income determined) benefits
such as food stamps, subsidized housing,
and medicaid is difficult and controversial.
If these benefits were included, the
poverty rate would change.
In spite of large sums of money in the
Federal budget designated for services to
the elderly, poverty persists. Reasons for
this include the large number of elderly
below the poverty line who do not partici­pate
in the means-tested programs, and the
fact that most of the money spent on the
elderly goes toward social insuran·ce
programs, like social security and medicare,
which are not targeted at the poverty
population. Also, the principle means-tested
program, Supplemental Security Income, pays
maximum benefits that fall below the poverty
level.
The elderly are healthier than sometimes
assumed. Not until age 85 do half of the
elderly population report being limited in
carrying out a major activity. However,
elderly health expenditures have climbed
faster than both income and inflation.
Living arrangements of the elderly differ
greatly between men and women. Three­fourths
of all elderly men are married and
living with their wives, whereas half of
elderly women are widowed and a sub­stantial
proportion live alone.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1983, America in
transition: An aging society, Current
Population Reports, Special Studies,
Series P-23, No. 128.
Health Care Expenditures for
the Elderly-Medicare
Coverage
In 1980 medicare spent almost $31 billion
on health care for persons 65 years of age
or over (the elderly). This accounted for
45 percent of the elderly population's total
health care cost, up from 35 percent in
1970. Although medicare's share of the
elderly's health care expenses has increased,
total health care costs have increased
also. Thus, on a per capita basis, health
care expenditures not paid by medicare
claimed a larger share of the elderly's
total income in 1980 than in 1970 (up to
19 percent from 17 percent of total income).
In 1965, prior to medicare, the elderly paid
about 20 percent of their income for health
care.
Despite significant increases in the cost
of hospital care, medicare has increased its
original share of hospital expenditures,
covering 74 percent of hospital bills in
1970 and 82 percent in 1980. When hospital
costs are considered as a percentage of the
elderly's income, the amount not covered by
medicare has declined from 2. 8 percent to
2.6 percent. Medicare's share of charges for
physicians' services has remained the same
(59 percent) between 1970 and 1980. As a
result, the share of the elderly's income
going to pay physicians has increased from
1.9 percent to 2.65 percent.
Of the expenditures not covered by
medicare, the major share is paid directly
by the beneficiary. In 1980 an elderly
person's total out-of-pocket payments for
health expenditures not covered by medicare
amounted to $768. These direct out-of-pocket
payments include copayments and charges in
excess of payments from medicare as well as
services not covered by medicare. They do
not include, however, premiums paid by
beneficiaries for medicare or for private
supplemental insurance.
Source: U.S. Senate, Special Committee on
Aging, 1982, 97th Congress, 2d Session,
Health Care Expenditures for the Elderly:
How Much Protection Does Medicare Provide?
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 21
American Women­Three
Decades of Change
This new report published by the Bureau
of the Census focuses on demographic,
economic, and social changes experienced by
American women. Data from 1950 through 1980,
extracted from a variety of census sources,
are analyzed to study changes in marital
status, fertility, living arrangements,
education, occupation, and income.
Recent trends toward marrying later and
more frequent divorces are resulting in a
higher probability that women will head
their own households at some time during
their lives. Of all adult women, more than
25 percent headed a household in 1980,
compared with 15 percent in 1950.
Labor force participation by women has
increased substantially and has been accom­panied
by changes in fertility patterns. In
1980 approximately one-half of all adult
women worked outside the home; one-third
worked outside the home in 1950. On the
average, women are now having two children
each, whereas in 1950 they were more likely
to have three each.
Women continue to occupy traditionally
female occupations such as secretarial and
clerical jobs. In addition, women still earn
less than men when education and occupation
are similar. In 1980 women's earnings were
two-thirds those of men, reflecting no sub­stantial
change since 1950. Households
headed by women account for an increasing
proportion of housholds in poverty.
Educational attainment of women has risen,
and their college enrollment is now similar
to that of men. Since 1950 the proportion of
female college graduates has doubled. How­ever,
women still receive fewer professional
and graduate degrees than men.
American Women: Three Decades of Change,
CDS 80-8, Stock No. 003-024-05743-3, is
available for $3.50 from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C. 20402.
22 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
Farm Population of the
United States, 1982
About 1 out of every 41 persons, or 2.4
percent of the Nation's total population,
had a farm residence in 1982. 1 Using Current
Population Survey (CPS) data for a 12-month
period centered on April 1982, the Bureau of
the Census of the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Economic Research Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimated that 5,620,000 persons lived on
farms. During that period, there were
179,000 black farm residents, which
represented 3.2 percent of the total farm
population.
In 1982 the median age of farm residents
was about 35 years, as compared with 30
years for the nonfarm population. The labor
force participation rate for farm residents
(65 percent) was somewhat higher than the
rate for nonfarm residents (62 percent).
Data from the March 1982 CPS indicate that
farm families were more likely than nonfarm
families to include a married couple
(93 percent compared with 81 percent) and
less likely to have a female householder (no
husband present).
In 1981 the median income of farm families
continued to be substantially lower than
that for nonfarm families ($17,082 and
$22,554, respectively). Farm families are
also more likely to be in poverty than are
nonfarm families; about 20 percent of farm
families but only 11 percent of nonfarm
families were below the poverty level in
1981.
1The farm population consists of all
persons living in rural territory on places
which had, or normally would have had, sales
of agricultural products of $1,000 or more
during the reporting year.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the C~nsus, Economic Research
Service, 1983, jointly with U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Farm population of the
United States: 1982, Current Population
Reports, Farm Population, Series P-27,
No. 56.
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food
Supply, 1982
Changes in nutrient levels, with emphasis
on fatty acids and cholesterol, are reported
by Ruth M. Marston and Susan 0. Welsh in
an article, "Nutrient Content of the U.S.
Food Supply, 1982," which appears in the
winter 1984 issue of the National Food
Review (NFR-25).
Nutrient levels changed 5 percent or less
between 1981 and 1982. Dec~ines were re­ported
for food energy, protein, fat, carbo­hydrate,
iron, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
and vitamin B 12, whereas gains were indi­cated
for calcium and ascorbic acid. Levels
for phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin A, and
vitamin B6 were the same in 1981 and 1982.
Changes in nutrient levels were considera­bly
larger between 1967-69 and 1982, ranging
from 1 to 14 percent higher for food energy,
carbohydrate, fat, riboflavin, thiamin,
niacin, vitamin B6• and ascorbic acid.
Levels were 1 to 8 percent lower for
vitamin A, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus,
and vitamin B12· Levels for protein and
iron were the same in 1967-69 and 1982, des­pite
some fluctuation during the intervening
period.
A review of trends in the levels of fatty
acids showed the effect of the shift from
animal to vegetable sources of fat, as well
as the increase in total fat level. Since
the beginning of the century, the proportion
of total fat from saturated fatty acids
declined appreciably; the proportion from
linoleic acid more than doubled, and the
proportion from oleic acid remained the
same. The cholesterol level of the food
supply has fluctuated downward since the
mid forties. During this period, it has been
provided by the same four food groups (in
descending order )--eggs; meat, poultry, and
fish; dairy products; and fats and oils.
Major Programs of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics
This publication provides a concise
summary of the nature and scope of the major
statistical programs and services of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Descriptions of
what data are available, the form of pub­lication,
some of the uses of the data, and
how to obtain the data are organized into
six areas as follows: Employment and unem­ployment,
prices and living conditions,
wages and industrial relations, productivity
and technology, occupational safety and
health, and economic growth and employment
projections. A 12-page table summarizes
State and area data that are available.
Major Programs: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Report No. 693, is available
from the Inquiries and Correspondance
Section, Room 2421, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
1980 Census of Population and
Housing Users' Guide-Part C
The Bureau of the Census has released
another supplement to the Users' Guide that
compliments previous releases •1 The newest
volume, Part C, an Index to Summary Tape
Files 1 to 4, features a subject cross­reference
and a key to geographic areas.
These features help users locate data files
quickly. The index also features a complete
set of outlines of these files, which include
a detailed listing of the contents of each
table.
Part C, Index to Summary Tape Files 1 to 4,
Supplement 2, Stock No. 003-024-05771-9 is
available for $4.25 from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Additional
supplements will be made available in the
future.
1 For a review of Parts A and B of the
Users' Guide, see Family Economics Review
1984(2)20.
1984 No.3 fam i ly Econom i cs Rev i ew 23
New Ruling for Mortgage
Insurance Premiums
Home buyers financing their purchases with
mortgages insured by the Federal Housing
Administration of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (FHA/HUD)
now have the opportunity to choose the
method of paying for their mortgage
insurance premiums (MIP's). 1 Effective
September 1, 1983, new regulations call for
a one-time charge of the entire MIP rather
than monthly installments paid to the
lender. Home buyers may choose to pay this
one-time charge in cash at settlement or to
pay a portion at settlement and finance the
remainder by adding to the loan amount.
Those paying more than the minimum down­payment
may also choose to finance the
entire MIP.
The new collection system does not change
the total amount paid for. the mortgage
insurance, although borrowers who choose to
finance all or part of the MIP are charged a
higher MIP and incur a higher financing
cost. There may be several advantages to
this, however. First, a borrower who
finances the MIP will need less cash at
settlement; second, adding the MIP to the
loan increases the portion of the monthly
payment that qualifies as a tax deduction.
Under the old regulations, the monthly MIP
was a nondeductible expense at tax time.
Under the new regulation, any of the MIP
that is financed is amortized over the life
of the loan. For example, a borrower financ­ing
the purchase of a $70,000 house with a
13 percent, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of
$50,000 would have paid an initial MIP of
about $21 a month in addition to monthly
principal and interest payments of about
$553--or a total of about $574 per month-­prior
to the change in regulations. Under
1 Mortgage insurance is intended to
encourage lenders to make loans when the
downpayment is low relative to the price of
the house. Home buyers in this situation are
considered high risk borrowers. Mortgage
insurance offers protection to the lender
against losses due to foreclosure. As the
insurer, FHA/HUD promises to pay the
lender most of these costs.
24 Family Economics Review 1984 No.3
the new regulation, this borrower may choose
to pay a one-time premium of $1,830.50 at
settlement. Monthly principal and interest
payments would remain at about $553. Alter­natively,
the borrower could finance some or
all of the MIP. Financing the total MIP,
which would be $1,900, would yield monthly
principal and interest payments of about
$574. Deductible financing costs over the
30 years would be about $149,116 for the
borrower who paid the MIP in cash at
settlement and about $154,771 for the
borrower who financed the entire MIP.
The programs affected by the new MIP
collection and calculation procedures
include FHA/HUD's mortgage insurance for
fixed-payment mortgages under section 203(b)
of the National Housing Act, for single-family
homes in outlying areas under section
203(n), and for graduated payment mortgages
under section 245. Single-family mortgages
subject to coinsurance are not affected by
the one-time premium payment rule at this
time.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1983, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing
Commissioner, One-time mortgage insurance
premium, Federal Register 48 (122): 28794-
288-11.
Synopsis of the Annual Energy
Review and Outlook, 1982
This booklet provides historical energy
statistics and projections of the Nation's
energy future. It is a synopsis of two major
reports produced by the Energy Information
Administration of the U.S. Department of
Energy--the 1982 Annual Energy Review and
the 1982 Annual Energy Outlook.
Historical statistics for the period
1960-82 are provided for energy supply and
consumption, resources available, domestic
production rates and capacities by energy
type, and price of U.S. -produced energy by
type. Projections of domestic and interna­tional
supply, production, and consumption
for the period 1983-90 are included in
detailed tables. Reference features include
the following: GNP implicit price deflators,
thermal conversion factors, and a glossary
of terms.
This publication, DOE/E/ A-0385(82), is
available free of charge by writing to the
Energy Information Administration, National
Energy Information Center, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D. C. 20585.
Bureau of the Census Catalog,
1982-83
This recently issued publication provides
content and ordering information for pro­ducts
released by the Bureau of the Census.
The catalog includes an overview of all
products issued since 1980, followed by 11
topic sections including business, construc­tion
and housing, and population. A special
section on the 1980 Census of Population and
Housing describes all products released
through spring 1983 in all formats--printed
reports, microfiche, computer tapes, paper
prints, and maps. Additional sections
describe all products from the 1977 economic
and 1978 agricultural censuses. For each
product listed, subject content, geographic
areas covered, dates, and ordering informa­tion
are provided.
Reference features include a directory
which lists names and addresses of many
sources of assistance, as well as informa­tion
about the census and survey programs
of the Bureau.
The Bureau of the Census Catalog: 1982-83,
Stock No. 003-024-05768-9, is available for
$6.50 from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
Agrtcultural Outlook '85-New Date Announced
The Agricultural Outlook Conference will be held from December 3 to December 6, 1984.
"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. Please preregister by writing: Outlook '85, 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, December 3,
at Hogates Seafood Restaurant, 9th and Maine Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. To make
a reservation please send a check for $13.25, payable to HE-170, to Velda Rankin,
ES-USDA, Room 3443, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250. The cost will be $14.50
at the door for reservations not made or received by Wednesday, November 21. The time
of the luncheon and the speaker will be announced at a later date.
A special telephone line service (900-line) will provide line access to speeches given
at the Outlook '85 Conference. There is a per minute charge to the caller. Please note
that the pre-Conference home economics brunch will not have 900-line service.
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.
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 25
N
"..',
Ill
.3.. ..
......
"<
,.,.,
n
0
::J
0
.3.. ..
n
"'
::0
(1)
.<.. .
(1)
:1:
"Q')
-'>-
z
0
"'
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost Zeyezs, April 1984, U.S. average 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group
Thrifty Low-cost M:xterate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost M:xterate- Liberal
plan plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2 :2
20-50 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• $37.10 $46.40 $57.10 $70.60 $160.70 $201.20 $247.50 $305.70
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 35.20 44.50 54.50 64.90 152.50 192.60 236.30 281.60
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years •••••••••••••••• 53.70 66.60 81.10 99.00 233.10 288.60 351.70 429.10
6-8 and 9-11 years ••••••••••••••• 61.70 78.10 97.50 117.30 267.10 338.60 422.80 507.60
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
1-2 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9.60 11.60 13.50 16.10 41.80 50.40 58.60 70.00
3-5 years .......................... 10.40 12.80 15.70 18.70 45.20 55.30 68.10 81.20
6-8 )iears •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12.80 16.80 21.00 24.60 55.30 72.80 91.10 106.40
9-11 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15.20 19.10 24.60 28.50 65.70 82.90 106.70 123.30
Male:
12-14 years ........................ 16.00 21.70 27.10 31.80 69.20 94.20 117.40 137.60
15-19 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 16.60 22.60 27.90 32.30 72.00 98.00 120.90 140.10
20-50 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 17.70 22.40 28.00 33.70 76.70 97.20 121.30 145.80
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 16.10 21.30 26.00 31.10 69.90 92.10 112.80 134.90
Female:
12-19 years ........................ 15.80 18.90 22.80 27.50 68.60 82.00 99.00 119.40
20-50 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 16.00 19.80 23.90 30.50 69.40 85.70 103.70 132.10
51 years and over ••......•••••.••• 15.90 19.20 23.50 27.90 68.70 83.00 102.00 121.10
1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1984 No. 1. Estimates for the other plans
were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983 No. 2. The costs of the food plans are
estimated by updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA
updates these survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Detailed Report, table 3) to estimate
the costs for the food plans.
2 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
3 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.
()
0
5!l.
9.
t-rj
0
0
0. a
:X:
0
~
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [ 1967 = 100]
Group
All i terns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food ...•.•...........•..................•.
Food at home ...•.•..................•...
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••••
Housing ................. • ................ .
Shelter . ................................ .
Rent, residential ••••••••••••••••••••••
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.
1984
308.8
302.3
292.8
330.9
333.2
357.8
246.4
380.9
650.7
432.3
242.3
199.2
190.6
163.2
208.9
309.6
304.8
377.1
375.7
253.8
302.8
268.9
Mar.
1984
307.3
302.2
293.1
329.8
331.5
355.5
244.8
380.1
660.0
429.5
241.2
198.8
189.9
163.3
207.7
306.9
301.9
377.4
374.5
251.7
302.1
267.8
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Feb.
1984
306.6
302.1
293.6
328.5
331.0
354.0
243.6
383.0
688.6
429.0
240.4
196.2
187.9
159.0
206.4
305.8
300.8
377.4
373.2
251.5
301.5
267.9
Apr.
1983
295.5
291.9
283.4
318.0
320.3
~ 341.7
234.5
363.6
610.6
420.5
239.0
...lJ!.5. 5
187.8
160.6
207.5
292.3 m.5
361.1
-la.3. 5
244.6
283.2
259.1
1984 No.3 Family Economics Review 27
-tr UB. OOVEI\NlONT PJUNTINQ OJI'li'ICB~ 1984 - 421-227 - 814/10038
ORDER FOAM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit Card Orders Only
Enclosed isS 0 check, • T t I h S Fill l·n the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my 0 a c arges
Deposit Account No. g~~~i~o. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1-0 [ffi~•cnl Expiration Date I I
Order No. Month/Year '--· -'-· --'---'---J
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW.
Annual subscription rate $8.50 domestic ($10.65 foreign),
single copies $4.50 ($5.65 foreign).
Company or personal name
I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional address/ attention line
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I I treet address
I I I I I I I I I
b 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
lty State ZIP Code
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIII
(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
Family
Economics
Review
CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM
MAIL THIS FORM TO:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington. D.C. 20402
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
For Office UN Only
Quantity Charges
..... .. ......... Enclosed
.......... To be mailed ..... .. .... .... .
.. . . . . . . Subscriptions ............... .
Postage .... .. ..................... .
Foreign handling ........................... .
MMOB ......................... .......... .... ... .
OPNR .................................... ..... .
................... UPNS
................ Discount
............ Refund
NAME -FIRST. LAST ______________ _
Attach last subscription
label here.
28 family Economics Review 1984 No.3
COMPANYNAME _______________ __
ADDRESS _________________ ___
CIIT ___________________ __
STATE ______________ ZIP CODE __ _
(OR COUNTRY) ________________ _