Family Economics Review [1988, Volume 1, Number 4]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
FrancenaA. Phillips
family Economics Review is written and
published each quarter by the Family
Economics Research Group, Beltsville
Human Nutrition Research Center,
Agricultural Research Service, United
States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
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.
Contents may be reprinted without per­mission,
but credit to family Economics
~ 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. Subscrip­tion
price is $5 per year ($6.25 for
foreign addresses). Single issues cost $2
each ($2.50 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this issue.)
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Eamily
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782.
F'ta:lm~~.i ly .
~.LOm.lCS
Review
Vol. 1 No.4
To Our Readers:
We regret the delay in publishing this issue of Family Economics
Review. Temporary production problems within the Family Economics
Research Group have been resolved, and we expect to resume our
regular publication schedule in 1989.
Beginning with this issue, major articles will include a summary. We
will continue our goal to enhance the readability and usefulness of
Family Economics Review by modifying our format, content, and
graphic presentations.
The Agricultural Outlook Conference was held on November 29
through December 1, 1988. The Outlook for Families session featured
the following speakers:
Gordon Bivens, Iowa State University
Jacquelyn McCray, University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Jeanne Hogarth, Cornell University
Jeanette Brandt, Oregon State University
For those of you who were unable to attend the Conference, future
issues of Family Economics Review will include highlights from the
program.
Joan C. Courtless
Editor
Sherry Lowe
Managing Editor
December 1988
1 For: Building Use Only I
Contents
Depository
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
JAN 0 9 1989
University of North Carolina
at 8reensbot o
Features
2 The Employed Woman's Use of Time for Wardrobe Maintenance
Joan C. Courtless
8 Supermarket Salad Bars-Cost vs. Convenience
Eileen Patz Newman and Dianne D. Odland
11 Dietary Intakes by Employment Status
Katherine S. Tippett and Sharron Cristofar
Research Summaries
14 Women and the Labor Market
15 Aging in the Eighties, People Living Alone
16 Expenditures of Urban and Rural Households
17 1990 Census- Proposed Change in Question on Race
18 Results of the 1986 Consumer Expenditure Survey
19 Computer Use in the United States
Regular Items
7 New Publications
20 New USDA Charts
22 Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
24 Cost of Food at Home
25 Consumer Prices
26 Index of Articles in 19881ssues
Vol. I No.4 Family Economics Review 1
The Employed Woman's Use of
Time for Wardrobe
Maintenance
By Joan C. Courtless
Family Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Because 7 of 10women age 25 to 54 participate
in the labor force, and most women also per­form
household work activities, time manage­ment
has become increasingly important. An
analysis of time used for clothing care by 365
employed women determined that more
women (44%) reported doing this activity on
Saturday than any other day, and average daily
time spent also was highest on Saturday (44
minutes). For each day, time spent in clothing
care was averaged for those women who
worked, and a separate mean was calculated for
those who were at home. Average times for
both sets of women were highest on Monday, 29
and 68 minutes, respectively. Five demographic
characteristics were related to time use in cloth­ing
care. Increased understanding of how
employed women with limited time resources
accomplish clothing care tasks can enable
teachers and others in family economics­related
professions to provide more effective
time management advice.
Patterns of time use for wardrobe
maintenance have changed greatly
over the last five decades with the ad­vent
of automatic laundry equip­ment,
easy care fabrics, and the high
rate of women's employment outside
the home.1 However, there is little
evidence that employed women
delegate responsibility for clothing
care to others. Time-use research
over the years reflects changes and
modifications in work habits
adopted by women in an effort to
simplify their work loads, yet achieve
clean, well-maintained wardrobes
for themselves and family members.
This article reports time spent in the
care of clothing and examines
1 By 1986, 71% of women age 25 to 54
years were in the labor force including 68% of
married women, 82% of never married
women, and 85% of divorced women (9).
2
patterns of time use by 365
employed women in maintaining the
family wardrobe.
The primary objectives of this
study were (1) to determine patterns
in time use for wardrobe main-tenance2
among employed women,
and (2) to ascertain any personal
and demographic characteristics of
employed women affecting time use.
Patterns in time use will reflect
whether or not:
1. Activities related to wardrobe
maintenance are more likely to
occur on one day of the week than
another,3
2. Time spent on wardrobe main­tenance
is greater on one day of the
week than another,
3. Time spent on wardrobe main­tenance
is greater on days spent at
home than on days spent away from
home at work.4
Personal and demographic charac­teristics
that might affect time
allocated to clothing care were iden­tified,
table 1. These variables were
chosen to reflect the woman's total
work load and her job orientation.
2 Wardrobe maintenance included washing,
drying, ironing, and mending clothes. Find­ings
from an analysis of time spent in clothing
construction were reported separately. See
"Time spent in sewing by employed women,"
by Joan C. Courtless, family Economjcs
~85(4):1-3.
3 For the analysis of time spent on wardrobe
maintenance by day of the week, 13 diaries were
dropped from the original sample because of
incomplete or miscoded day identification.
4 For the analysis by type of day (working vs.
nonworking), an additional13 diaries were ex­cluded
because this variable was incomplete or
miscoded.
Source of Data and
Methodology
Data are from a 1978 study made
by The U Diversity of Wisconsin­Extension,
Department of
Agricultural Journalism, in coopera­tion
with the Extension Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The Family Economics
Research Group of USDA's Agricul­tural
Research Service provided par­tial
fmancial support for the study.
Time diaries and questionnaires
covering personal and demographic
characteristics were completed
during the fall of 1978 by 378
employed women in Wisconsin and
Illinois. Women were at least 18
years old and worked for pay or for
a family farm or home business. Un­married
as well as married women
were included in the sample. The
women recorded time use in 30-
minute intervals for 7 consecutive
days. Respondents were instructed
to record their activities in their own
words. Two activities were coded for
each half hour; if only one activity
was mentioned, "no response" was
coded for the second activity.
Neither activity was given
precedence over the other in data
analysis. Time use by other
household members was not
recorded. Sampling and coding pro­cedures
were described in detail in
Diary Survey of Wisconsin and
Illinois Employed Women (11).
Statistical tests performed on
clothing care time data included the
Chi Square and nonparametric cor­relations
to determine whether cloth­ing
care activities were more likely
to occur on one day of the week than
another and whether these activities
were more likely to occur on non­working
rather than working days.
Confidence intervals with a con­fidence
coefficient equal to .95 were
constructed for mean time spent on
clothing care for each day. Any day
with a mean value outside this inter­val
would have significantly different
average times from that day with
which it was being compared. Final­ly,
analysis of variance was used to
determine if times spent on clothing
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
care on days women were working
outside the home and days women
were at home were significantly dif­ferent
for each day of the week.
Analysis of variance also was used to
identify relationships between the in­dependent
variables and time spent
in clothing care for each day of the
week and for the 7-day period. The
. 05 level of probability was chosen to
determine statistical significance.
Results
Nearly all of the respondents
(91%) took care of clothes during
the week studied. Most of the
women performed this activity on
1 to 3 days (62%) or on 4 to 5 days
(23%). Average weekly time5 spent
by 365 women was 3.5 hours.
Clothing care activities occurred
most frequently on Saturday
(mentioned by 44% ofthe women),
followed closely by Monday and Sun­day
(42% and 40%) (table 2). The
likelihood of clothing care activities
occurring on days women were at
home was verified for 5 of 7 days
(p< .01); Tuesday and Wednesday
were the exceptions.
Average daily times spent on
clothing care varied from 23 to 44
minutes. Time spent on Saturday
was highest; Monday and Sunday
were next with 34 minutes (table 2).
An examination of confidence inter­vals
identified Saturday as a day on
which time spent on clothing care
was significantly greater than time
spent on any other day. Also, time
spent on Sunday and Monday was
significantly higher than time spent
on the four remaining days.
When only women who per­formed
the activity were included,
average daily times spent on clothing
care exceeded 1 hour on every day.
Average time varied from 72
minutes on Thursday to 99 minutes
on Saturday (table 2).
Time spent on clothing care was
compared for each day of the week
by whether or not it was a working
5 Average time refers to average for the
entire sample unless otherwise specified.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Table 1. Personal and demographic characteristics of 365 employed
women, 1978
Age (years):
18-24 ....... . . .... ...... .
25-34 ..... .......... .... .
35-44 ............ . ... . .. .
45-54 . . . .... . ...... ..... .
55 and over . ......... . .. .
Marital status:
Married ....... . ... . ... . . .
Single . ........... . ... .. .
Divorced or widowed ...... .
Total children (number):
0 . . . ... .. . . .... . .. .. .. . .
1 ......... . . . .. ........ .
2 ...................... .
3 or more .. . ... . . . . . ... . .
Children at home:
0 . .... . .... . ... . .. . .... .
1 .... .. ................ .
2 ... ......... . .... .. . .. .
3 or more ............ .. . .
Teenagers:
0 ... ... . .. .. .... . .... .. .
1 ... . .. . . . ........ . . . .. .
2or more .. ......... . ... .
Age of youngest child (years):
6 and younger ....... . ... .
7-18 . . .. . ... . . . ... .. ... . .
19 and older . ............ .
College education:
Attended .. . ... . .... .. . . . .
Did not attend ........... .
Occupation:
Clerical .. . ... .. ... ... .. . .
Other white collar . . .. .. . .. .
Blue collar . . .. .... . ..... .
15
33
19
18
15
71
16
13
23
15
27
35
34
26
26
14
77
15
8
24
38
38
45
55
27
37
36
Hours of employment:
Under 40 per week ....... .
40 ... . . .. ......... ... .. .
Over 40 ................ .
Work shift:
Regular day ...... . ..... . .
Morning, afternoon, evening
or night (including part time)
Irregular hours, split shifts ..
Future work plans:
Remain at present job .....
Advance to more
professional job .. . ..... . .
Full-time homemaker, retire .
Switch jobs, same skill level .
Reason for working:
Financial ...... .. .. . .. . . .
Pursue profession ........ .
Occupy time . ..... . ..... .
Personal satisfaction ..... .
Preference for not working: 1
Yes ....... ............. .
No ................. . .. .
Feel rushed:
Always . . . . ......... . ... .
Sometimes ........... .. .
Never .... .............. .
Receive help from-
Husband ..... ... ... . .. . .
Children .... .. . ......... .
Own income:
Under $8,000 ........ . ... .
$8,000 to $12,000 . ....... .
$12,000 to $15,000 ..... .. .
Over $15,000 ............ .
43
33
24
75
14
11 .
33
28
28
11
64
6
6
21
31
69
33
57
10
46
47
45
33
12
10
1 Asked of those who specified financial reasons.
Table 2. Time spent on clothing care by 365 employed women, 1978
Day
Sunday ..... . ..... .... .. .
Monday . . ........ . . . . .. .
Tuesday .... .. ..... . .... .
Wednesday ............ . .
Thursday .. .. ... . ... . ... .
Friday .... . .. .. ....... .. .
Saturday . . ... .. . ... .. .. . .
Percent of women
spending time
40
42
32
34
36
32
44
Average number of minutes
All women
34
34
23
25
26
26
44
Those doing
activity
85
83
73
75
72
82
99
3
day for the women in the survey.
Average times were consistently
higher for nonworking days than for
working days (table 3). For 6 of7
days the difference was significant
(p< .05).
Independent variables found to
significantly affect time used for
clothing care over the 7-day period
were age, marital status, children
(total number, number at home, and
number of teenagers), workshift, and
perception of being rushed in per­forming
tasks. In addition, these vari­ables
related significantly to time
spent for clothing care on one or
more individual days of the week.
Other independent variables found
to affect time spent on one or more
individual days of the week, but not
over the 7-day period, were age of
youngest child, education, occupa­tion,
future work plans, a preference
for not working, help from husband,
and help from children. Variables
having no significant relationship to
time spent on clothing care activities
were own income, hours on the job,
and reason for working. Certain at­tributes
of the husband, including in­come,
hours on the job, workshift,
and occupation, were tested and
found to be insignificant factors,
also.
Age
Greatest time for clothing care
was recorded by women age 35 to 44
years. Over the 7-day period these
women spent at least 1 hour more
than any other age group on clothing
care (table 4).
Table 4. Time spent on clothing
care, 7-day period, by woman's
age, 1978
Age (years) Hours Minutes
18-24 •• 0 • •• • •• • 2 10
25-34 • • • • • • 0 ••• 3 36
35-44 ....... .. . 4 40
45-54 • • 0 0 0 •• 0 0. 3 37
55 and over .... .. 3 10
4
Table 3. Time spent on clothing care reported by 352 employed
women, by working or nonworking day, 1978
Number reporting Minutes spent
Day Working
day
Sunday .... . .......... 48
Monday •••• 0 0 ••••• • •• 299
Tuesday ............ . . 311
Wednesday • 0 0 • • •• 0 •• • 303
Thursday ........ .. ... 317
Friday .... .. ..... . .... 312
Saturday . . .. . .. ...... . 92
Marital status
Married women spent the most
time during the week, slightly over
4 hours. Formerly married (divorced
or widowed) women averaged
2 hours and 48 minutes; and single
women, 1 hour and 43 minutes.
Differences between marital status
groups were not significant for
Saturday or Sunday.
Children
Number of children, number of
children at home, and number of
teenagers affected time spent over
the 7-day period. Women with more
children in the family spent sig­nificantly
more time in taking care of
the family's clothing (table 5).
Table 5. Time spent on clothing
care, 7-day period, by number of
children, 1978
Number of children Hours Minutes
Total
0 ...... .. .... ... 2 9
1 • ••••••• 0 •••••• 3 54
2 .. ........ ..... 3 55
3 or more . ...... . 4 17
At Home
0 ............... 2 42
1 ...... . .... . . .. 3 54
2 .... .. .. ...... . 4 2
3 .......... .. ... 5 37
At home, 13-18 years
old only
0 .... ........... 3 13
1 • • • 0 • ••••• • •• •• 4 12
2ormore .. . ... .. 5 15
Nonworking Working Nonworking
day day day
304 15 36
53 29 68
41 21 37
49 24 36
35 22 52
40 24 45
260 16 54
Women's age was related to number
of children (p < .001) and number of
children at home (p< .001). Women
between the ages of 35 and 44 years
spent the greatest time on clothing
care and had the highest number of
children at home.
Workshift
Women who worked an odd shift
(for example, 5 a.m. to 1 p.m. or
3 p.m. to 11 p.m.) or part time spent
more time ( 4 hours, 45 minutes) on
clothing care over the 7 -day period
than other working women. Almost
two-thirds of those women working
shifts in the morning, afternoon,
evening, or night worked less than
40 hours per week.
Feel rushed
Women who always felt rushed
were allocating more time to cloth­ing
care during the week than other
women. Women who reported they
never felt rushed spent the least time
(table 6).
Table 6. Time spent on clothing
care, 7-day period, by feeling
rushed, 1978
Feel rushed Hours Minutes
Always .. . .. ..... 3 55
Sometimes ..... . 3 27
Never ..... . .... . 2 43
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Literature Review
Research in time use reflects
changing patterns over the years.
Warren's study of 500 New York
farm women (17) in 1936 found they
were most likely to wash on Monday
and iron on Tuesday, and only 2% of
the women spent any time on Sunday
for clothing care. During the early
fifties "wash and wear" fabrics that
reduced the need for ironing were in­troduced.
Wives in almost 1,300
households studied by Walker and
Woods (16) in 1967-1968 used an
automatic washer an average 3 or 4
days out of 7, but ironed infrequently.
A regional study of 2,100 families in
1977-78 by Johnson, Ater, and Khan
(2) determined that 20% of the
homemakers used an automatic
washer every day and an additional
50% used it 3 to 5 days during the
week. The same study, however,
found that the amount of time spent
in care of clothing and/or household
linens was significantly greater on
Mondays, supporting "the traditional
Monday washday pattern."
Focusing on the employed woman.
When women enter the labor force,
increased demands are placed on
their nonlabor market time. For any
specific activity, time becomes an in­creasingly
scarce resource--and so,
more valuable (5). Time spent by
women on housework is curtailed by
time spent outside the home. Studies
of time use have concluded that
women's employment has the
greatest effect on the amount of time
used for household work (data show
no commensurate increase in time
spent by other family members) and
is the most important factor in
predicting the wife's time allocation
to housework (1, 6, 1). Using data col­lected
by Robinson and Converse in
the midsixties, Vanek (12) reported
employed married women spent
about one-half the time spent by un­employed
married women in
housework. Although being
employed decreases wives' time in
every area of household work (16,
19), other studies (8, 10) made in the
sixties and seventies showed time
spent on housecare and clothing is
reduced more than time for other
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
activities. Because a woman's employ­ment
is so closely related to time used
to produce goods and services in the
home, researchers such as Sanik (7)
and Walker and Woods (16) have
recommended its use as a control
variable in future research. An alter­native
approach, used by Steeves
(11), is to limit a study sample to
employed women.
Time management techniques of
employed women. Work connected
with clothing upkeep is sufficiently
diverse that employed homemakers
can vary the way they adapt to time
pressures in order to carry out tasks
related to wardrobe maintenance. A
task may be done more efficiently,
· less thoroughly, less frequently, or by
others. A theory published by Vanek
(12) in 1974 suggests that employed
homemakers may appear to be more
efficient than nonemployed home­makers
when they are obliged to "cut
corners" and simplify their house­keeping
standards. Vanek also sug­gests
that the full-time homemaker, in
contrast, may equate time spent on
homemaking tasks with the value of
those tasks; she may believe that if
her standards are high enough to
necessitate the expenditure of a large
proportion of her time, her contribu­tion
to the economic well-being of
her family is as important as that of
the homemaker with paid
employment.
Homemakers may obtain equip­ment
they believe will save them time.
Lovingood and McCullough ( 4) ex­amined
data collected in 1977-78
from 2,100 households and concluded
that ownership of a clothes dryer was
positively related to the homemaker's
hours of employment. Although some
activities are easier to do and physical
demands have been reduced, average
time spent in clothing care has not
declined with the advent of automatic
equipment (8, 16). There is also some
evidence that the relative ease of
washing clothes in an automatic
washer is conducive to more frequent
laundering (15) . Clothes may be
sorted into small loads having similar
cleaning requirements; this could in­crease
the number of loads done in
the machine. Although total work
time is not diminished, cleaner
clothes indicate a rise in the family's
standard of living (8, 12, 13).
Time-use data can be analyzed to
determine how frequently an activity
is performed. Walker and Woods
(16) compared employed and un­employed
wives with regard to the fre­quency
with which various household
tasks were carried out. Laundry ac­tivities
were done on more days by un­employed
wives than by employed
wives except for handwashing of
clothes. Over a period of 7 days,
employed women washed clothing by
hand on an average of 2.6 days com­pared
with 1.9 days for unemployed
women. Both groups of women
washed similar numbers of items- an
average of 1.2 per day.
Women may receive help from
family members or paid help may be
hired. In the care of clothing,
however, homemakers receive little
help, whether or not they are
employed; Walker and Woods (16)
found that other family members con­tributed
an average 14% of total time
required for clothing care in house­holds
with an employed homemaker,
compared with 6% of total time when
the homemaker was not employed. A
1977-78 study of over 500 adolescents
ages 12 through 17 years by
Lawrence, Tasker and Babcock (3)
found average time spent in clothing
care was 2 minutes per day; mother's
employment did not affect this time.
Because the time spent on household
work by paid help, husbands, and
other family members does not in­crease
when the wife is employed (13,
14, 18), her work load at home
remains the same as if she were not
employed. Therefore, differences in
time spent in housework by employed
and nonemployed homemakers are
not caused by differences in work
loads (13). This premise is supported
by Johnson, Ater, and Khan (2) who
found that even though time spent on
clothing care was less among
employed women, no differences in
number of washer loads were
reported by employed and non­employed
women. They suggest
other clothing care practices are
eliminated when the wife is employed.
5
Discussion and Implications
Employed women use substantial
amounts of time for clothing care ac­tivities
on days they are not working
away from home, independent of
which days these are. Because the
women in the Wisconsin/Illinois
sample generally worked Monday
through Friday, average times
recorded on Saturday and Sunday
were expected to exceed those
recorded on other days. Although
average time spent on clothing care
activities was highest on Saturday,
Sunday's average time was not sig­nificantly
different from Monday's­a
day when 85% of the women
worked away from home. Monday is
the traditional day for doing laundry,
and working women may continue to
wash and dry clothes on this day be­cause
it is customary. Also, Monday
is the logical day for cleaning up
after weekend guests, catching up on
accumulated laundry after a week­end
away from home, or taking care
of clothes worn for special activities
on Saturday and Sunday. Some
women may plan to do laundry or
mending on Saturday and Monday
to avoid doing it on Sunday; in many
households, Sunday is reserved for
recreation, activities with the family,
and as a rest day. Many of the
reasons that can be cited for doing
clothing care activities on Monday
could have applied to past genera­tions
of women, employed and non­employed,
thereby contributing to
the evolution of the Monday wash­daycustom.
For each day, time spent in cloth­ing
care was averaged for those
women who worked, and a separate
mean was calculated for those who
were at home. Average times for
both groups were highest on
Mondays and lowest on Sundays
(table 3), confirming the effect of
tradition.
Help received from husband and
children did not significantly affect
time spent on clothing care by
employed women. Therefore,
employed women with larger
families have greater workloads and
spend more time taking care of cloth-
6
ing than employed women with
smaller families (table 5). Variables
supporting this conclusion were
marital status, number of children,
number of children at home, and
number of teenagers.
An indication of workload stress
may be inferred from employed
women's perceptions as to whether
they feel rushed to complete their
daily activities. Are the women who
never feel rushed more efficient
homemakers? Or do they have less
to do? The employed women who al­ways
felt rushed spent over an hour
more on clothing care over the 7 -day
period than those who never felt
rushed. Number of children in
homes of women who always felt
rushed was not significantly greater
than that in homes of women who
never felt rushed. Therefore, factors
other than workload may contribute
to an employed woman's feeling
rushed.
Since data for this study were col­lected
only during the late fall
season, fmdings related to time use
for clothing care in other seasons
may differ. Types of clothing typical­ly
worn during the summer months
may require additional time for
laundering and ironing. Also, there
is a tendency to change clothes more
frequently during the hot weather.
Because workshift was a sig­nificant
variable (and hours of
employment was not), future time al­location
studies could focus on the
time of day when specific tasks are
done. Patterns of activities occurring
in the morning before leaving for
work, in the evening after dinner,
and any other kinds of activities
often performed simultaneously witp
various clothing care tasks could be
identified.
References
1. Abdul-Ghany, Mohamed, and
Sharon Y. Nickols. 1983. Hus­band/
wife differentials in household
work time: The case of dual-earner
families. Home Economics Research
Joumal12(2):159-167.
2. Johnson, Katherine J ., E.
Carolyn Ater, and Samina Khan.
1984. Managing the Complexity of
Time and Energy Resource Use in
Clothing Maintenance. Paper
presented at the meeting of the
Southeastern Family Economics/
Home Management Conference.
[Baton Rouge, LA].
3. Lawrence, Frances C., Grace E.
Tasker, and Deborah K. Babcock.
1983. Time spent in housework by
urban adolescents. Home Economics
Research Joumal12(2):199-205.
4. Lovingood, Rebecca P., and
JaneL. McCullough.1986. Ap­pliance
ownership and household
work time. Home Economics Re­search
Joumal14(3):326-335.
5. McHugh, Anne-Marie, Marjorie
J. Wall, and William R. Frisbee.
1985. Factors influencing time alloca­tion
to home sewing. Canadian
Home Economics Joumal35(3):151-
156.
6. Nickols, Sharon Y., and Edward
J. Metzen. 1978. Housework time of
husband and wife. Home Economics
Research Joumal7(2):85-97.
7.Sanik,MargaretM.1979.A
Twofold Comparison of Time Spent
in Household Work in Two-Parent,
Two-Child Households: Urban New
York State in 1967-68 and 1977;
Urban-Rural, New York-Oregon in
1977. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell
University.
8. . 1981. Division of
household work: A decade
comparison -1967-1977. Home
Economics Research Journal
10(2):175-180.
9. Shank, Susan E.1988. Women
and the labor market: the link grows
stronger. Monthly Labor Review
111(3):3-8.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
10. Stafford, Kathryn. 1983. The ef­fects
of wife's employment time on
her household work time. Home
Economics Research Journal
11(3):257-266.
11. Steeves, Helen L., and Lloyd R.
Bostian. 1980. Diary and Question­naire
Survey of "Wisconsin and Il­linois
Employed Women. Bulletin 41.
The Department of Agricultural
Journalism, The University of
Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI.
In cooperation with the U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture, Extension
Service.
12. Vanek, Joann.1974. Time spent
in housework. Scientific American
231(5):116-120.
13. ----. 1978.Housewives
as workers, In Ann H. Stromberg,
and Shirley Harkness, editors.
Women Working, Theories and Facts
in Perspective. Mayfield Publishing
Company, Palo Alto, CA.
14. Walker, Kathryn E. 1970. Time
used by husbands for household
work. Family Economics Review,
June issue.
15. .1973.Household
work time: Its implication for family
decisions. Journal of Home
Economics 65(7):7-11.
16. Walker, Kathryn E., and
Margaret E. Woods.1976. Time
Use: A Measure of Household
Production ofF amity, Goods and
Services. Center for the Family of
the American Home Economics
Association.
17. Warren, Jean.1940. Use of
Time in Its Relation to Home
Management. Bulletin 734. Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Ithaca, NY.
18. Wheeler, Carol L., and Richard
D. Arvey.1981. Division of
household labor in the family. Home
Economics Research Journal
10(1):10-20.
19. Wiegand, Elizabeth.1954. Use
of Time by Full-Time and Part-Time
Homemakers in Relation to Home
Management. Memoir 330. Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Ithaca, NY. iiJ
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
New Publications
The following publications are for
sale from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Print­ing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.
(202) 783-3238:
• The Agricultural Work Force of
1985: A Statistical Profile.
SN001-019-00568-8. March 1988.
$1.75. (32 pp.)
Findings from the 1985 Agricultural
Work Force Survey are presented in
this report. Included is information on
hired farmworkers, farm operators,
unpaid farm workers, and characteris­tics
of the Agricultural work force.
• Local Farm Structure and Com­munity
Ties. SN001-019-00555-6.
March 1988. $1.50. (22 pp.)
Changes within farming influence a
county's farm structure. This report
identifies which counties are
dominated by small- or large-scale
farms, and gives information on other
key factors such as nonfarm economic
activity, geography, and population
growth.
A single copy of the following is
available free from the National Tech­nical
Information Service. Write to
NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, or call
(703) 487-4650.
• NTIS Products and Services
Catalog. PR -827 /KIZ. March 1988.
(32 pp.)
This catalog describes products and
services (resulting from U.S. Govern­ment
sponsored research and
development activities) that are avail­able
from NTIS. The new 1988 catalog
describes bulletins, journals, and
directories collected by NTIS on
scientific, technical, and engineering
results; computer software; dataflles
and databases; and selected Federal
technologies and laboratory
resources.
A single copy of the following is
available from the Consumer Infor­mation
Center. Write to R. Woods,
Consumer Information Center-F,
P.O. Box 100, Pueblo, CO 81002.
• Building A Better Credit Record.
470T. 1988. $0.50. (14 pp.)
Covered in this publication from the
Federal Trade Commission are ex­planations
of how credit bureaus
work, how to understand and improve
your credit report, how to deal with
credit problems, and where to go for
more information.
Single copies of the following are
available free from the Consumer In­formation
Center. Write to S. James,
Consumer Information Center-F,
P.O. Box 100, Pueblo, CO 81002.
• Social Security .... How It Works
For You. 590T. January 1988.
(20 pp.)
This pamphlet answers some of the
questions and clears up some miscon­ceptions
about Social Security. The
booklet describes exactly how the
program's benefits and services work,
and how the system pays retirement,
disability, and survivor's benefits.
• The Student Guide- Five Federal
Financial Aid Programs. 511T.
1988. (69 pp.)
This guide gives information on five
grant and loan programs offered by
the U.S. Department of Education for
college, vocational, and technical
school students. Details are included
on how to apply for Federal student
aid, what to be aware of before
borrowing, and debt management.
7
Supermarket Salad Bars­Cost
vs. Convenience
By Eileen Patz Newman and Dianne D. Odland
Nutritionists
Nutrition Education Division
Human Nutrition Infonnation Service
Demand for and use of takeout foods has
resulted in increased popularity of supermarket
salad bars. Ingredients purchased from salad
bars can reduce home preparation time and are
convenient to use. The cost of this convenience
is assessed by comparing the cost of ingredients
purchased at the salad bar with costs of similar
ingredients purchased elsewhere in the store.
Most costly items at the salad bar include basic
salad ingredients and mixtures made with
them; best buys include salad toppings, in­gredients
of animal origin, and mixtures made
with them. Consumers should consider both
cost and nutritional factors in making salad bar
selections.
Salad bars are a relatively new but
popular addition to the super­market.
They are part of a trend
toward increased demand for and
use of takeout foods from the
supermarket by time-pressed and
health-conscious consumers (2, 4).
Introduced in 1981 (13), salad bars
are now available in 45% of the
supermarkets in this country, a 10%
increase since 1987 (14). In a 1988
nationwide survey of fresh produce
consumers (14), 51% of respondents
reported using the salad bar at least
once a month. Of the general public
who say the supermarket in which
they do most of their shopping does
not have a salad bar, 65% state that
they would use a salad bar if it were
available (3).
To reduce home preparation
time, ingredients purchased from su­permarket
salad bars are convenient
to use as side- or full-meal salads; as
portions of stir-fry dishes, sandwich
fillings, or soups; or even as desserts.
The cost of this convenience
depends upon which items are
8
selected (5). The objectives of this
study are:
1. To determine the costs of in­gredients
purchased at the salad
bar compared with costs of
similar ingredients purchased
elsewhere in the supermarket.
2. To provide guidelines in
making cost-wise selections at the
salad bar.
Nutritional implications of salad bar
selections also are addressed.
Procedures
Price per pound of items at super­market
salad bars and for 55 salad
bar items available elsewhere in the
store were obtained once during
each of3 weeks in July 1988 in three
Washington, DC, area super­markets-
one national and two local
chains. Based on sales volume data
for 1988, these chain supermarkets
represent nearly 86% of sales in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area
(1). The following guidelines were
used to price similar items elsewhere
in the store:
• Items available only at "sale"
prices were excluded.
• Medium-size containers for
packaged items were selected.
• The lowest unit price was
recorded when more than one
brand of a product was available.
• Service delicatessen prices were
used for ham, ready-prepared
salad mixtures, and puddings.
Mean costs for the 3 weeks from the
three supermarkets were calculated.
Costs for similar items purchased
elsewhere in the store were adjusted
to account for nonedible portions
and losses due to trimming of fresh
foods, and drained liquids from
canned foods. For each of 55 items,
average cost per pound at the salad
bar was then compared with average
cost of each food prepared from in­gredients
purchased elsewhere in
the store. The cost of dishes
prepared from salad bar ingredients
(a stir-fry main dish, a side salad,
and a chefs salad) also were deter­mined.
Because salad bar items were
on sale at half price throughout the
study, costs of items purchased else­where
in the store were compared
with both the regular and the sale
price per pound at the salad bar.
Results
The average cost per pound of
items from the salad bar was $1.95.
Salad bar items on sale averaged
$0.% per pound. The table on p. 9
summarizes cost comparisons be­tween
the average nonsale salad bar
items and the average cost of items
purchased elsewhere in the store.
All produce items in the table are
fresh unless otherwise noted.
At the nonsale salad bar price, 29
of the 55 items studied (53%) cost
two to four times as much at the
salad bar than if purchased else­where
in the store and prepared at
home. Included in this category are
some of the most popular salad bar
items, such as cucumbers, iceberg
lettuce, tomatoes, spinach, and
green peppers (6), which are basic
salad ingredients. Of the items
studied, 26 ( 47%) cost either less,
about the same, or just slightly more
at the salad bar. These items
included favorites such as mush­rooms,
cauliflower, broccoli, and
strawberries (6).
When on sale at half price, only
7 of the 55 items (bean sprouts,
iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, carrots,
green cabbage, yellow onions, and
watermelon) cost twice as much
when purchased at the salad bar at
$0.% per pound than when pur­chased
elsewhere in the store. The
remaining 48 items (87%) cost less,
about the same, or just slightly more
than when purchased elsewhere.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Cost comparisons of salad bar and similar items purchased elsewhere in
the store 1
Food item
Cucumbers; carrots; green cabbage;
yellow onions; watermelon
Leaf and iceberg lettuce; celery; bean
sprouts; red cabbage; zucchini; canned
kidney beans and peas; cole slaw;
macaroni and plain potato salads;
hard-cooked eggs
Tomatoes; spinach;2 radishes; green
pepper; cantaloup; canned sliced beets
and chickpeas; raisins; canned
pineapple; tofu; egg potato salad;
cottage cheese
Mushrooms; cauliflower and broccoli
florets; spring onions; strawberries;
honeydew; canned grapefruit, peaches,
and pears; carrot-raisin and 3-bean
salads; pickled beets; salsa; rice pudding
Alfalfa sprouts; pineapple; canned
mandarin oranges; tuna; American
cheese; domestic ham; sunflower seeds;
croutons; chow mein noodles; jalapena
peppers; pitted olives; bread pudding
Cost at salad bar compared
with cost of similar items
purchased elsewhere in the
store
More
about 4 times as much at the
salad bar
about 3 times as much at the
salad bar
about 2 times as much at the
salad bar
Same
about the same to slightly
more at the salad bar
Less
about half as much to slightly
less at the salad bar
1 Based on nonsale prices In 3 Washington, DC, area supermarl<ets, over 3 weeks In July 1988.
2 Trimmed, In retail peck.
Vegetables (carrots, celery,
onions, and zucchini) used to
prepare a stir-fry main dish; a side
salad prepared from iceberg lettuce,
spinach, carrots, green pepper,
radishes, broccoli florets, and
tomato wedges; and a chefs salad
prepared using the same recipe as
the side salad with kidney beans,
American cheese, and ham added
varied in cost when prepared from
ingredients from the salad bar and
from similar items purchased else­where
in the store. The stir-fry in­gredients
cost about three times as
much, the side salad cost two times
as much, and the chefs salad cost
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
slightly more at the salad bar than
when purchased elsewhere in the
store. When salad bar items were on
sale at half price, the stir-fry in­gredients
cost slightly more, the side
salad cost about the same, and the
chefs salad cost slightly less at the
salad bar than when purchased else­where
in the store and prepared at
home. These fmdings demonstrate
that basic salad ingredients tend to
cost more and ingredients of animal
origin tend to cost less from the
salad bar than when purchased else­where
in the store.
Cost Considerations
The cost data presented here can
help consumers make the most effec­tive
use of their food money. Items
that cost more at the salad bar tend
to be basic salad ingredients. Con­sumers
might want to consider
purchasing these items elsewhere in
the store and preparing them at
home. Items that are less at the salad
bar include salad toppings and foods
of animal origin such as cheese, ham,
and tuna.
Other cost-related issues to con­sider
include:
• Although some salad bar in­gredients
may cost more than
comparable items purchased else­where
in the store, they may cost
less overall if they help avoid food
waste. This may be especially im­portant
for one- or two-person
households or for those who
prepare meals at home infre­quently.
Such households should
consider, for example, whether
they can use an entire head of
cauliflower, a whole bunch of
celery, or an entire carton of
cottage cheese.
• If an item costs considerably
more per pound at the salad bar
than if purchased elsewhere in
the store, the total added expendi­ture
may be substantial if a large
amount is purchased. However, if
only a small amount is purchased,
the total added expenditure could
be minimal.
• If time and food preparation
skills are limited, ready-to-eat in­gredients
from the salad bar may
be worth the additional cost­prepared
salad mixtures and
puddings, for example.
• Costs vary according to location,
supermarket, and season of the
year. Fresh produce at the peak
of its season will cost less than at
other times of the year.
• Sale prices can affect relative
costs of ingredients purchased at
the salad bar and elsewhere in the
store.
9
Nutritional Implications
Although current nationwide
figures on the impact of salad bar
sales on total sales of fresh produce
are not available, 1 in a 1984 survey of
supermarket produce executives,
84% responded that supermarket
salad bars increased their existing
produce sales (6). According to
recent data from USDA's Economic
Research Service, total per caP.ita
consumption of fresh produce, 2
which includes selections that are
available in most salad bars, has
risen since the early eighties (7).
Moreover, in a 1988 nationwide con­sumer
survey conducted by the
produce industry, 60% of the respon­dents
said that they had increased
fresh vegetable consumption and
about one-third were eating more
fresh fruits through usage in salads
(14). Perhaps increased availability
of produce in salad bars in both su­permarkets
and in the fast food in­dustry
is contributing to this trend.
Salad bars offer a variety of fresh
fruits and vegetables, which are good
sources of fiber and several vitamins
and minerals low in American diets
(9-12). Fruits and vegetables also
are low in calories, fat, and sodium,
and contain no cholesterol- food
components that tend to be high in
American diets (9-12). Therefore,
fruits and vegetables are an impor­tant
part of a healthful diet -a diet
that follows the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans (8). Salad bars also
offer items that are higher in fat,
added sugar, and/or sodium, such as
salad dressings, ready-prepared
salad mixtures, cheese, ham,
croutons, sunflower seeds, and
bacon bits. From a nutritional
perspective, which foods are the
1 A comprehensive supermarket produce
operations survey, which includes a section on
salad bar contributions to sales, is currently
being conducted jointly by the Produce
Marketing Association and the Food Market­ing
Institute. Results of this survey will be
available in late 1988.
2 Produce selections in the survey that are
generally found at salad bars were broccoli,
carrots, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, onions,
tomatoes, honeydew, pineapple, and strawber­ries.
10
"best" choice will depend on the
amounts to be consumed and the
consumer's selection for the rest of
the day. Both cost and nutritional
concerns are important in making
salad bar selections.
References
1. Best-Met Publishing Company,
Inc. 1988. Tenth Annual Market
Sstudy of the Mid-Atlantic Market.
Food World 43(6):24.
2. Food Marketing Institute. 1987.
Shopping a Ia Cart, The changing En­vironment
of the Take-Out Food
Market, p. 7.
3. . 1988. Trends: Con-sumer
Attitudes and the Supennarket,
1988 Update, p. 54.
4. Maiko, Constance. 1988. Salad
bars, Searching for the right mix.
Supennarket News 38(23):20.
5. Odland, Dianne D; 1986. In­Store
Salad Bars- Convenient But
Sometimes Costly. HNIS (Adm.)-
360, U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Human Nutrition Information
Service.
6. Produce Marketing Association.
1985. Produce in the Supermarket,
PMA's 1984 Survey. 1985 Produce
MarketingAlmanac, p. 21.
7. Putnam, Judy. [1988]. [In press].
Food Consumption, Prices, and
Expenditures-1986-1987. U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture
and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. 1985. Nutrition and
Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. Home and Garden
Bulletin No. 232. [2nd ed.].
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Human Nutrition Information
Service. 1985. Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Continuing
Survey of Food Intakes by In­dividuals:
Women 19-50 Years and
Their Children 1-5 Years, 1 Day.
NFCS, CSFII Report No. 85-1.
10. ____ . 1986. Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey, Continu­ing
Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals: Low-Income Women 19-
50 Years and Their Children 1-5
Years, 1 Day. NFCS, CSFII Report
No. 85-2.
11. . 1986. Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey, Continu­ing
Survey of Food Intakes by In­dividuals:
Men 19-50 Years, 1 Day.
NFCS, CSFII Report No. 85-3.
12. . 1986. Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey, Continu­ing
Survey of Food Intakes by In­dividuals:
Women 19-50 Years and
Their Children 1-5 Years, 4 Days.
NFCS, CSFII Report No. 85-4.
13. Vance Publishing Corporation.
1983. Salad bars: Beyond fad status.
The Packer, Produce and Floral
Retailing Supplement. April issue.
14. . 1988. Fresh
Trends 1988, A Profile of Fresh
Produce Consumers: Fresh
Fruits/Specialty Fruits/Dried Fruits;
Fresh Vegetables/Specialty Fresh
Vegetables/Herbs; Shopping for
Fresh Produce: Preferences,
Influences, Attitudes. lS
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Dietary Intakes by
Employment Status
By Katherine S. Tippett and Sha"on Cristofar
Home Economist and Statistician
Human Nutrition Information Service
Nutrition Monitoring Division
Data from the Continuing SuiVey of Food In­takes
by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by
USDA's Human Nutrition Information Service
(HNIS) were used to compare food and
nutrient intakes of women by employment
status. In 1985 women employed full or part
time, compared with women not employed
outside the home, obtained greater proportions
of their food energy and nutrients from food
that was obtained and eaten away from home.
In contrast, all groups of women had similar
total mean intakes of most foods and nutrients.
The CSFII is the first national dietary suiVey
designed to be repeated annually, thereby
providing continuous data on the adequacy of
diets of selected population groups and
changes in food consumption practices.
Full-time (35 hours or more) or part­time
(1 through 34 hours) status was
determined by the number of hours
per week usually worked during the
past 3 months. The distribution of
women by employment status is as
follows:
Employment Unweighted Percent
status count
Full time ......... 640 44
Part time ........ 250 17
Not employed .... 544 37
Selected demographic variables
were tested using independent Chi
Squares to investigate the degree of
association. There were significant
differences (p < .01) among the
three employment categories for
education, household income, preg­nancy
status, and the presence of
children 1 to 5 years in the
household. Selected percentages of
women in these demographic
categories are shown in the table
below. Survey respondents were
scheduled for interviews in a manner
Characteristics
designed to provide representative­ness
of intake data by day of the
week. No information was obtained
on whether or not the respondents
were at work on the day for which
dietary data were provided. The
nutrient content of foods reported in
the survey was estimated using
nutrient data developed by the
HNIS Nutrient Data Research
Branch (2, 3).
The relationships between
employment and mean dietary in­takes
were tested using One-Way
Analysis of Variance. To examine
the direction of relationships and to
ascertain significant group differen­ces,
TUKEYB multiple range tests
were performed with significance
reported at the .05 level. These tech­niques
were based on an unweighted
data set. The mean food and
nutrient intakes presented in the
tables were based on weighted data.
Mean food intakes were similar
for women in the three employment
categories for the following food
groups: Meat, poultry, fish; eggs;
legumes, nuts, seeds; vegetables;
fruits; and sugars and sweets.
Women employed full time had
lower mean intakes of total milk,
whole milk, cereals and pastas, and
fruit drinks and ades, and higher in­takes
of total fats and oils, salad
dressings, total beverages, and both
total and diet soft drinks than
women who were not employed. Ad­ditional
group differences are shown
in table 1 on p. 12.
Employment status
The dietary intakes of women who
were, and were not, employed out­side
the home were compared to
determine differences in total mean
intakes of foods and nutrients and
the proportions of food energy and
nutrients from food that was ob­tained
and eaten away from home.
Results are based on data from the
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
by Individuals (CSFII) conducted by
USDA's Human Nutrition Informa­tion
Service (HNIS)1. The food and
nutrient intakes presented here are
group means for women 19 to 50
years of age, based on 1 day of
dietary information collected by per­sonal
interview in the spring of 1985
(J). The women were classified by
their response to a question about
any work done during the week prior
to the interview for which money,
goods, or services were received.
Full time Part time Not
1 Previous articles on the CSFII appeared
in the following issues of family Economics
~ 1986 No. 2, 1987 No. 1, and 1988
No.1.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
~
Some college or more ...... . 47 48
High income* . .. .......... . 49 27
Pregnant . ................ . 3 3
With children age
1to5yrs ................. . 17 38
•women living in households with income over 300% of the Federal poverty guidelines.
employed
31
19
8
43
11
The surveyed women had similar
intakes of most nutrients regardless
of employment status. No differ­ences
were found among employ­ment
groups for food energy. Of the
27 nutrients and dietary components
evaluated as part of the survey, only
fat, vitamins A and E, and carotenes
differed significantly among employ­ment
groups (table 2). Women
employed part time had the highest
reported levels of fat intake, whereas
women who were not employed had
the lowest.
In 1985, 73% of the women
employed full time, 61% of the
women employed part time, and
38% of the women who were not
employed obtained and ate some
food away from home on the sur­veyed
day. Food away from home
accounted for 36% of the energy in­take
of women employed full time,
32% of the energy intake of women
employed part time, and 18% of the
energy intake of women who were
not employed (table 3). The con­tribution
of food obtained and eaten
away from home to the day's total
intake of food energy and the 27
nutrients differed significantly
among employment groups.
Employed women obtained more of
their food energy and nutrients from
food obtained and eaten away from
home than did women who were not
employed.
The percentages of individuals
reporting snacks were similar for the
three employment categories (81%
for women employed full time, 79%
for women employed part time, and
77% for women who were not
employed). There were no
significant differences among
employment groups in the nutritive
contribution of snacks.
12
Table 1. Foods-mean intakes with significant F ratios by women
19 to 50 years, and significant group differences, by employment
status, 1 day, spring 1985
Employment status
Food group/subgroup
Full time
(1)
(p< =.01)
Total milk . . . . ......... .... 116
Whole milk ... ..... . .. ..... 51
Other baked goods2
••••• 0 •• 53
Salad dressings ........ . . .. 13
Total beverages3 •.......... 984
Regular fruit drinks and ades . 33
Total soft drinks . .... . . .... . 326
Diet soft drinks ....... ..... . 140
(.01 <p< =.05)
Yeast breads and rolls . .. .. .. 40
Cereals and pastas .... . . . .. 34
Total fats and oils •••• 0 •• • • • 17
Table fats ... . ..... ... . .... 4
Total fruit drinks and ades 43
1 TUKEYB (P < = .05) computed on F ratios with p < = .05.
2 Other than yeast breads and rolls.
3 Other than milk and fruit juice.
References
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Human Nutrition Information Ser­vice.
1985. Nationwide Food Con­sumption
Survey, Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes by Individuals:
Women 19-50 Years and Their
Children 1-5 Years, 1 Day. Rpt.
No. 85-1.
2. Hepburn, Frank N. 1982. The
USDA National Nutrient Data
Bank. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. Vol. 35, No.5
(supplement), pp. 1297-1301.
3. Posati, Linda P., and Robert L.
Rizek. Nutrient Data Base for Con­tinuing
Food Intake Survey. Family
Economics Review 1985(3):4-16. li:El
Group differences 1
Part time Not employed
(2) (3)
160 164 1&3
65 78 1&3
73 44 2&3
11 8 1&3
843 889 1&2, 1&3
60 66 1&2, 1&3
251 253 1&2, 1&3
82 84 1&2, 1&3
49 42 1&2
35 47 1&3
19 14 1&3, 2&3
6 4 1&2
65 76 1&3
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Table 2. Nutrients-mean intakes with significant F ratios by women
19 to 50 years, and significant group differences, by employment
status, 1 day, spring 1985
Employment status
Nutrient
(p< =.01)
Polyunsaturated fat (grams)
(.01 <p< =.05)
Total fat (grams)
Saturated fat (g.rams)
Vitamin A (retinol equivalents)
Carotenes (retinol equivalents)
Vitamin E (alpha tocopherol
equivalents)
Full time
(1)
14
69
25
776
389
7.9
1 TUKEYB (p < - .05) computed on F ratios with p < = .05.
Part time Not employed
(2) (3)
15 12
76 65
28 24
1,092 800
422 319
9.7 7.0
2 There was no significant difference between groups 2&3.
Group differences 1
1&3, 2&3
2&3
1&2, 2&3
1&2, 2&3
1&3 2
2&3
Table 3. Food obtained and eaten away from home: Nutrient
contributions with significant F ratios by women 19 to 50 years, by
employment status, 1 day, spring 1985
Dietary component
(p< = .01)
Food energy . . ............
Protein • 0 0 0 ••••• •• • ••• 0 0 .
Total fat •••••••• 0 ••••••••
Carbohydrate .... . ........
Vitamins, minerals, and other
dietary components2
Employment status
Full time
(1)
Part time
(2)
Not employed
(3)
Percentage of total intake
36 32 18
35 31 18
37 34 19
36 30 18
33to 37 27to 35 16 to 19
Group differences 1
1&3, 2&3
1&3, 2&3
1&3, 2&3
1 &2, 1 &3, 2&3
1&3, 2&3
1 TUKEYB (p < = .05) computed on F ratios with p < = .05.
2 Vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin 8-6, vitamin 8-12, ascorbic acid, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folacin, calcium, phos­phorus,
magnesium, Iron, carotenes, zinc, copper, sodium, potassium, cholesterol, and dietary fiber. Also, there were
significant differences between groups 1 and 2 for copper, thiamin, calcium, magnesium, and iron.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review 13
Women and the
Labor Market
Labor force participation by
women as measured by the Current
Populat' ion Survey, 1 has increased
dramatically since the end of World
War II. Until that time, however, the
changes were small and gradual.
Public attitudes regarding women
holding jobs, especially mothers,
kept them outside the labor force.
Opinion changed flrst towards older
women (who usually did not have
young children). Those age 45 to 54
were the flrst to join the labor
market in large numbers; participa­tion
rates for this older cohort
soared from 30% in 1946 to 50% in
1960.
Not until the sixties did large num­bers
of young women begin entering
the job market. A sharp decline in
the birth rate, increased levels of
education, and changing views about
the roles of women were major con­tributing
factors to the increased ac­tivity.
In the seventies and eighties,
the influx of women into the labor
force was even more noticeable.
After the mid-seventies, older
women no longer had the highest
labor force participation rate among
women. By 1987 the rate was 67%
for women age 45 to 54, compared
with 74% and 72% for those age 35
to 44 and 25 to 34.
Characteristics of Women in the
Labor Market
Employment has become the
norm for most women: 71% were in
the labor force in 1986. Labor force
participation rates 40 years ago were
about 30% for women in their prime
working ages. 2 As recently as 1975,
1 The Current Population Survey is a
monthly household survey, conducted for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, by the Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
2 Labor force participation rates given are
for women age 25 to 54, unless otherwise
noted, since most people of these ages have
completed school and have not started to
withdraw permanently from the labor force.
14
a Bureau of Labor Statistics study
found sharp differences in participa­tion
rates by marital status, presence
of children, and ages of children.
Such differences have been reduced
substantially since that time. Women
of the baby-boom generation have
displayed different working patterns
than their predecessors by not
decreasing labor market activity be­tween
their early and late twenties,
as their family responsibilities grew.
Increases in labor force attachment
have occurred for women in each
marital status and age group. Even
among mothers of infants and
toddlers, more than half were in the
labor force in 1987 (see table).
Until the mid-sixties, when labor
force rates for white women in­creased
rapidly, black women had a
much higher participation rate. By
1987 rates for both white and black
women were similar (72% and 74%,
respectively). Hispanic women,
however, were much less likely to be
in the labor force (61%) because of
high birth rates, lower educational
levels, and cultural attitudes that em­phasize
women's home and family
roles.
Work Commitment
The number of hours worked per
week is one measure of the intensity
of a person's attachment to the labor
market. Of employed women in
1986 78% worked full time (35
hour~ or more per week); an addi­tional5%
worked fewer hours but
wanted full-time employment.
The number of weeks worked per
year is also an indication of job com­mitment.
In 1986, 68% of employed
women worked the full year and
57% worked full time, year-round.
Although women tend to work fewer
hours per week than men (37 hours
compared with 44 hours), over the
past two decades there has been
some convergence in their work pat­terns
both in terms of hours worked
per week and weeks worked per year.
Projections 3
Projections of future labor
market activity presume a continued
increase in female labor force par­ticipation
between 1986 and 2000,
but at a much slower rate than in the
3 Projections were made by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Labor force participation rates of women, March 1987
Characteristic
Marital status:
Never married ................. .
Married, husband present ........ .
Married, husband absent ........ .
Widowed ..................... .
Divorced ...................... .
Presence of children under 18:
Without children ............... .
With children .................. .
Age of youngest child (years):
14 to 17 ................... .
6 to 13 .................... .
3to 5 ..................... .
Under 3 ................ · · · ·
25to 54
81.5
68.1
70.9
65.7
84.7
79.0
66.7
74.8
72.0
62.4
55.2
1 Participation rate not shown where population Is less than 75,000.
Years of age
25to 34
82.9
67.5
68.2
52.7
83.3
89.0
63.1
82.4
72.9
63.1
55.2
35to 44
81.8
71.7
76.0
68.7
87.3
82.1
71.7
78.7
73.8
61.1
55.9
45to 54
68.5
64.0
67.6
66.5
82.7
68.1
63.8
67.8
58.7
52.7
(1)
Source: Shank, Susan E., 1988, Women and the labor market: the link grows stronger, Monthly Labor Review 111 (3):3-8,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
previous two decades. The rate is
projected to increase 10 percentage
points by 2000 (from 71% to 81% ),
compared with a 20-point increase
between 1972 and 1986. This slow­down
in participation is expected be­cause
female participation rates are
already at relatively high levels, and
projections assume that rates for
women will not exceed those for
men, whose labor force participation
is expected to edge further down.
Also, during the nineties the baby­boom
generation will be entering the
45- to 54-year-old group, whose par­ticipation
rates are typically lower.
Source: Shank, Susan E., 1988, Women and
the labor market: the link grows stronger,
Monthly I .abor Reyjew 111(3):3-8, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Aging in the
Eighties-People
Living Alone
Older people who live alone are
more likely to become institutional­ized
than people who live with
others, and the risk increases with
age. Also, persons with strong social
networks are more likely to survive
and remain healthy than those
without such interaction. In 1984 the
Supplement on Aging to the Nation­al
Health Interview Survey collected
information from 16,148 people age
55 years and over. This supplement
was designed to be the basis for a
family of longitudinal studies known
collectively as the Longitudinal
Study of Aging. A sample of 5,151
persons who were age 70 years and
over in 1984 were selected to be
reinterviewed in 1986. Of these,
1,921 had been living alone in 1984.
Many of the people living alone in
1984 had living children or siblings,
had recent contact with family or
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
friends, or lived in housing without
major barriers to movement.
Persons who lack one or more of
these social and environmental
attributes may be at high risk of
institutionalization.
In 1984 there were about 17
million people age 70 years and over
living in the community in the
United States. There were 6 million
living alone, 7 million living with a
spouse only, and 4 million living with
other persons. A sizable proportion
of this last group were living with
other people because of health
problems and, therefore, were at a
high risk of death or institutionaliza­tion.
Although persons living alone in
1984 were older, on the average,
than those living with others, they
were not more likely to have died
during the interim between inter­views.
The majority of the people
living alone were women, whose life
expectancy exceeds men's. Of the
people age 70 years and over and
living alone in 1984, 78% were still
living alone 2 years later, 10% had
died, and 7% were living with others
in the community. Older people who
had been living alone were more like­ly
than those living with others to be
in a nursing home 2 years later, 5%
and 3% respectively. Only 8% of the
people age 70 years and over and
living alone were receiving help with
one or more activities of daily living
(ADL)1 These people were more
likely than those not receiving help
with ADL's to be in a nursing home
(16% and 6%) or to have died
2 years later (25% and 11% ).
The association between social
and environmental characteristics
and the elderly's survival or their
ability to remain in the community
should be evaluated for people who
were not already receiving help at
the beginning of the study. When
only people who were living without
assistance in 1984 are considered,
the data from the reinterview in 1986
1 Activities of daily living include bathing,
eating, dressing, transferring, walking, getting
outside, or using the toilet.
show that (1) people who had recent
contact with friends or neighbors are
more likely to be alive, and
(2) people with children whom they
see daily are significantly more likely
to live with others 2 years later.
People in need of appropriate hous­ing
were significantly more likely to
have died or to be institutionalized
2 years later than people who did
not have such a need.
The 2-year timespan between in­terviews
is a very short period in
which to observe change. Older
people who are not already depen­dent
on others are not very likely to
die or become institutionalized in
that period of time. It will take a
longer time period (with more op­portunity
for change to occur) to
confirm relationships suggested by
the data.
Source: Kovar, Mary Grace, 1988, Agingjn
the Eighties People l.iyjng Alone-Two
Years I .ater Advance Data From Vital and
Health Statistics, No. 149, DHHS Publication
No. (PHS)88-1250. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service.
15
Expenditures of
Urban and Rural
Households
Expenditures in 1985
Rural households accounted for
about 16% of total U.S. units in
1985, but the percentage varied
greatly by region of the country­almost
22% of the population in the
South was classified as rural, 19% in
the Midwest, 12% in the Northeast,
and only 9% in the West. In 1985,
urban households averaged higher
incomes before taxes ($26,241) than
did rural households ($19,708) and
had higher levels of total expendi­tures
(see table). Rural consumers
spent a larger portion of their
income (97%) than did urban con­sumer
units (87%). Urban
households had slightly fewer mem­bers
and were headed by persons
about 2 years younger than heads of
rural households. Rural consumers
owned more vehicles and were more
likely to own their own homes. The
number of earners, children under
age 18, and persons over age 65
were about the same for the two
populations.
Urban consumers spent an
average of $22,810 in 1985, com­pared
with $19,197 spent by rural
consumers. In 1985, expenditure
levels were higher in urban house­holds
for food, housing, apparel,
personal care, education, entertain­ment,
personal insurance and pen­sions,
and cash contributions. Rural
consumers had higher expenditures
for transportation and health care.
Expenditure shares (the percent
of total expenditures spent on each
component of the household
budget) were compared for the two
populations, and significant differen­ces
were found in many expenditure
categories. Urban households spent
31% of their total expenditures on
housing, compared with 26% spent
by rural households. However, 38%
16
of rural households had paid off
their mortgage, compared with 21%
of urban households. The expendi­ture
share for transportation was
larger for rural consumers (25%,
versus 20% for urban consumers).
Rural consumers own more vehicles
and probably drive longer distances
than urban consumers. The expendi­ture
share for health care accounted
for 6% of rural consumers' total ex­penditures,
versus 4% of urban
consumers' total. Rural consumers
were older than urban consumers
and less likely to have employer-paid
health insurance policies.
Changes from 1972-73
to 1985
There was little change in the
proportion of the total population
that was rural between 1972-73 and
1985. The number of persons in the
household and the average age of
the household head decreased
slightly for both urban and rural
households over the period, whereas
the percentage of homeowners
increased by 3% for both groups.
Increased expenditures for hous­ing
and transportation accounted for
much of the overall increase in
spending between 1972-73 and 1985
for both urban and rural consumers.
Expenditure shares for urban and rural consumer units, Interview
Survey, 1972-73 and 1985 1
Item
Food ............. . ............ .
Food at home .. .. ...... . . . . . .. .
Food away ..... .. .. . ... . .. . ... .
Housing .. .. ..... .. .. . . .... . .. . .
Shelter . . . . .... ....... .. .. .. . . .
Fuels and utilities . .. .. .. . . . .... .
Household operations .. ..... . .. .
Housefurnishings and equipment
Apparel and services . . ...... . .... .
Transportation .... . ... . .. . ...... .
Vehicles ......... . .... . . ... ... .
Gasoline and motor oil . . .. .. .. . . .
Health care .. . . ..... . .. ... . . . . .. .
Entertainment . ................. .
Personal care ................... .
Reading . . ....... . . ... . ... . ... . .
Education . .. . . . . .. .. .... . . ... .. .
Tobacco ...... ..... .... . ... . .. . .
Miscellaneous .... . . ........ .... .
Cash contributions .............. .
Personal insurance and pensions . . . .
Life and other personal insurance ..
Retirement, pensions, and
Social Security ................ .
Income before taxes ... .. ........ .
Total expenditures ........ .. ... . . .
Urban
1972-73
17.8
(2)
(2)
28.0
16.0
6.2
1.5
4.4
7.8
18.7
7.5
4.3
4.6
4.1
1.1
.5
1.3
1.4
1.1
3.9
8.7
3.9
4.8
12,349
9,420
1985
15.2
10.3
5.0
30.7
17.9
7.3
1.6
3.9
5.4
19.8
8.6
4.4
4.4
4.9
.9
.6
1.4
.9
1.6
3.8
9.1
1.2
7.9
26,241
22,810
~ Expenditure shares are the percent of total expenditures spent on each component.
Data not available.
Rural
1972-73
19.5
(2)
(2)
24.5
11 .5
7.6
1.1
4.4
6.8
22.0
9.6
5.7
5.8
3.9
1.0
.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
3.8
8.2
3.6
4.5
10,039
7,760
1985
15.6
11 :5
4.2
26.4
13.6
8.2
1.3
3.3
4.4
25.0
12.6
6.0
6.1
4.7
.7
.6
1.1
1.3
1.1
2.8
9.1
1.7
7.5
19,708
19,197
Source: Rogers, John M., Research Summaries: 1988, Expenditures of urban and rural consumers 1972-73 to 1985
Monthly Labor Bevlew 111 (3):41-45, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ' '
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Although expenditures for some
other components increased at a
faster rate, housing and transporta­tion
(which were a larger share of
consumers' total spending) rose
faster than the average. Expendi­tures
on owned dwellings rose faster
than average for both populations,
whereas expenditures on rented
dwellings rose at a slower rate than
that for total housing. Rising gas­oline
prices, which contributed to
sharp increases in expenditures in
the seventies, were offset by sub­sequent
price decreases and conser­vation
measures. Prices for motor
fuel, motor oil, coolant, and other re­lated
products rose 211% from 1973
to 1985. Average fuel consumption
per car dropped by 24% from 1973
to 1984 as average miles per gallon
for cars improved 28% over that
period.
Expenditures for other lodging
(vacation homes and out-of-town
lodging) rose faster for urban than
for rural households, as did expendi­tures
for miscellaneous goods and
services (bank, legal, and accounting
fees; funerals; cemetery lots; union
dues; occupational expenses; and
fmance charges other than for
mortgages and vehicles).
Changes in the shares of total
expenditures spent on different
components reflect how consumers'
~xpenditure patterns change over
tune. Between 1972-73 and 1985
food, apparel, and personal insu~­ance
expenditure shares diminished
for both urban and rural consumers.
In contrast, expenditure shares for
h.ousing and for retirement, pen­stons,
and Social Security increased
steadily over this time period for
both populations. Transportation ex­penditure
shares also rose over the
period. Increases in vehicle expendi­tures
were responsi- ble for larger in­creases
in the overall transportation
component for rural consumers than
for urban consumers.
Source: Rogers, John M., Research Sum­maries:
1988, Expendit11res of urban and rural
con~umers, 1972-73 to 1985, Monthly I .abor
~ 111(3):41-45, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
1990 Census­Proposed
Change in
Question on Race
The Bureau of the Census is plan­ning
a change in the question on
race for the 1990 Census. To ensure
the most complete reporting for all
racial groups, this question, included
in every Census since 1790, has
changed throughout the years to
reflect changes in American society.
Change from 1980
The race question 1 proposed for
the 1990 Census will include seven
cat.egories-White, Black or Negro,
Astan or Pacific Islander, American
Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Other. In
the 1980 Census, the race question
listed specific groups under the
Asian/Pacific category. A new fea­ture
of the proposed 1990 version is
a write-in space for entering the
specific group under the Asian/
Pacific Islander category, for
example, Chinese, Hawaiian,
1A separate questi.O n deals with Hispanic
origin or descent.
4.Race
Fill ONE circle for the race that the
person considers himself/herself to be.
If Asian or Pacific Islander,
print one group.
If Indian (Amer.), print the name of
the enrolled or principal tribe. -
If Other race, print race.
Vietnamese, and so forth (see
figure). This format is similar to that
used in 1980 for persons identifying
themselves as American Indians
which had a write-in space for '
specifying their tribe.
Data Available in 1991
The proposed race question for
1990 will allow the Census Bureau to
continue to gather the most accurate
data on race. Beginning in early
1991, data will be published on
white; black; total American Indian
Eskimo, Aleut; and total Asian and'
Pacific Islander population groups.
Based on write-in entries, the
Census Bureau plans to release
100% population counts for at least
26 Asian and Pacific Islander groups
and 200 American Indian tribes
beginning in mid-1991. This time­table
is considerably earlier than
after the 1980 Census, which
produced 100% data for only nine
Asian/Pacific Islander groups and
only sample data for American
Indian tribes.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census, 1988 Census and You.
23(6) '
OWhite
0 Black or Negro
0 Asian or Pacific Islander (Print one
group, for example: Chinese, Filipino,
Asian Indian, Japanese, Laotian,
Hawaiian, Korean, Samoan,
Vietnamese, etc. 7 I 7
0 Indian (Amer.) (Print the name of the
enrolled or principal tribe) 7
I 7
0 Eskimo
OAieut
0 Other race (Print race)
7 I 7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
17
Results of the 1986
Consumer
Expenditure Survey
According to the 1986 Consumer
Expenditure Survey, Americans
spent an average of $22,710 on
household expenditures, a 2.2%
increase from the 1985 Survey.
Housing continued to be the largest
expense but rose only a modest 3%
during this period.
Increased spending on cars and
decreased spending on food are
trends that have been evident since
1980. The 1986 Survey showed that
between 1985 and 1986 expenditures
increased 18% for new cars and
trucks and 11% for used vehicles,
although prices for new vehicles as
measured by the Consumer Price
Index increased by 4% during the
period and prices for used vehicles
decreased by 4%. Food expendi­tures
dropped slightly; however, as a
share of overall expenditures food
has declined steadily in recent
years- from 19% in 1980 to less
than 15% by 1986. This trend can be
attributed entirely to decreased
spending on food at home. Spending
on food away from home increased
almost 3% from 1985 to 1986. Be­tween
1980 and 1986, the share of
the total food dollar spent away from
home rose from 31% to 37%.
Expenditures for natural gas and
fuel oil fell considerably due to the
decline in their prices (10% and
16%, respectively), whereas spend­ing
for the survey's overall utilities,
fuels, and public services component
showed little change. Expenditures
for electricity rose 4%. Spending on
apparel declined slightly from 1985
to 1986, but health care expenditures
showed a 2% increase. Expenditures
for public transportation and cash
contributions each dropped about
7%. Personal insurance and pen­sions
expenditures, up almost 6% be­tween
1985 and 1986, have shown
large increases since 1980 in
response to the rising Social Security
contribution rate and the maximum
amount of income to which the rate
applies. Spending on video and
sound equipment continued to in­crease
(5% from 1985 to 1986) but at
a slower rate than earlier (15% from
1984 to 1985).
Overall, expenditures accounted
for 89% of total household income.
However, the Survey shows substan­tial
differences in the proportion of
income used for expenditures by
family type. Single-parent families
spend the highest percentage of
their income on living expenses, and
childless couples spend the lowest
(see table).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1988, Consumer Expendi­ture
Surv<;y Results From 1986 News USD L
Publication No. 88-175.
Average Income, number in the household, and annual expenditures as a percent of income, for selected
family types, Interview Survey, 1986
Husband/wife families Single Single con-parent
sumer unit
Item All consumer With children 1 Couples without
units children
Under6 6to 17 18 years
years years and older
lncome2
••••••••••••••••••••••••• $25,481 $30,282 $35,530 $39,868 $29,738 $13,807 $16,182
Number in consumer unit ........... 2.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 2.0 2.9 1.5
Percent
Total expenditures ................. 89.1 89.0 87.7 85.8 85.4 110.9 93.9
Food •••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 13.2 11.5 13.5 13.7 11.7 19.8 13.8
Housing ........................ 27.0 30.8 26.6 21.1 24.9 40.4 30.2
Apparel and services 0 •••• 0 0. 0 0 ••• 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.0 6.9 5.0
Transportation ................... 18.8 20.0 18.7 20.7 18.4 19.5 18.1
Health care •••••••••• 0 ••••••• •• • 4.2 3.4 3.1 3.8 4.8 3.9 4.8
Entertainment ................... 4.3 4.1 5.3 4.0 3.9 4.8 4.1
Personal insurance and pension ... . 8.4 9.0 8.9 9.3 8.8 7.2 7.0
Other 3
••••• 0 •••• 0 0 ••••••• 0 0 ••• 8.7 6.1 7.0 8.7 8.9 8.4 10.9
1 Age refers to oldest child.
2 Annual income before taxes; complete income reporters only.
3 Other includes alcoholic beverages, personal care, reading, education, cash contributions, tobacco, and miscellaneous expenses.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988, Consumer Exoendjtyre Syrvey Besy!ts From 196§ News USDL Publication No. 88·175.
18 Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Computer Use in the
United States
This report from the Bureau of
the Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, is a first attempt at
providing information on com­puter
use at a national level. Data
are from a special supplement to
the October 1984 Current Popula­tion
Survey conducted by the
Census Bureau. The inclusion in
the survey of a series of items on
computers was sponsored by the
National Center for Education
Statistics.
In October 1984, 8% of all U.S.
households reported having a home
computer. Computer ownership was
most likely in households with in­come
of $50,000 or more (23% ). Of
persons age 3 and over, 21% had
used a computer at home, school, or
work by the fall of 1984.
Use by Children at Home
Among children 3 to 17 years old,
30% used a computer at home or at
school. About 15% of these children
had access to a computer at home,
and 74% used it. Children most like­ly
to have a computer at home were
white, male, non-Hispanic, and lived
in the Northeast.
The ability to afford a home com­puter
is a determinant for who uses
them. The probability of having a
computer at home increased sig­nillcantly
as the education of the
householder and family income in­creased.
Only 4% of the children in
households where the householder
had 0 to 8 years of school had a
home computer, compared with
30% of the children living with
householders who had 4 or more
years of college. Of children in
families with income below $10,000,
3% had a home computer, com­pared
with 37% of the children in
households with income above
$50,000.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Use by Students
Ofthe 45.6 million students ages
3 to 17 enrolled in school in 1984,
28% were identilled as using a com­puter.
Students most likely to use a
computer at school were age 10 to
13 years (38%) and 14 to 17 years
(29%). Children in the Midwest
showed the highest levels of school
use (34% ), whereas those in the
South showed the lowest (21% ).
School use by children generally be­comes
more likely with increases in
either householder's educational
attainment or family income, suggest­ing
a possible indirect effect of
family socioeconomic status on com­puter
use through the quality and
equipping of schools.
Of the more than 13 million
adults who were in school or college
in the fall of 1984, a substantial
proportion (about 31% ), were using
a computer at school. Use was more
likely by persons of other 1 races
(38%) and by males (36%). Com­puter
usage also differed by enroll­ment
status. Although computer use
in school was more likely for stu­dents
who were enrolled full time,
part-time students experienced
greater overall combined rates of
use at home, school, and work.
Use by Adults
Overall use of computers by
adults was somewhat less than that
experienced by children. In 1984,
18% of the adult population age 18
and over reported that they used a
computer either at home, work,
school, or in more than one of these
places. Direct use ("hands on" use of
computers with typewriter-like
keyboards) of a computer at work
was reported by 25% of the em­ployed
adult population. Usage rates
were highest among persons who
were age 25 to 44, white, male, and
single. Computer use was positively
associated with the education of the
individual.
1 Includes Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and
any other race except white and black.
Home Access by Adults
Fifteen million adults age 18 and
over (9%) had a computer at home;
persons living in married-couple
households were more likely to have
a computer available at home
(11% ). Persons age 35 to 44 were
most likely to live in a household
with a computer (17%), whereas
persons age 65 and over were least
likely (2% ). Persons age 35 to 44
may be the most likely to own a
home computer because they are the
most likely to have children at home.
The probability of having a com­puter
at home increased with both
family income and the education of
the individual, with 22% of persons
in households with yearly incomes of
$50,000 or more and 18% of persons
with 4 or more years of college
education reporting ownership.
Across occupational categories, per­sons
who held managerial or profes­sional
positions (18%) were most
likely to have a computer at home.
Whereas, in terms of regional dif­ferences,
persons in the South were
the least likely to have a computer in
their home.
Home Use
Over one-half of all adults with a
computer in their home reported ac­tually
using it. Males have rates of
home use ( 63%) that are substantial­ly
higher than those for women
( 43% ), and use rates by persons age
25 to 34 are the highest of any age
group examined (65%). Home use
also increases with the education of
the individual, and is most likely for
persons in managerial and pro­fessional
positions (65%). Rate of
home use is similar among persons
living in low-income (less than
$10,000) households (54%) and per­sons
in households with income ex­ceeding
$50,000 (56%) given that a
home computer is available.
Use at Work
Use of a computer at work was
significantly more likely with higher
levels of education. Persons in
managerial and professional
19
positions and technical and ad­ministrative
positions had the
highest rates of use at work (39%
each). A higher rate of computer use
at work was reported by women
(29%) than hymen (21%). This
higher usage rate by women may be
due to the jobs they hold. Persons in
the occupational category of "techni­cal,
sales, and administrative sup­port"
(including such occupations as
sales clerks, secretaries, and ad­ministrative
clerical workers) ac­count
for 19% of all working men
and 45% of all working women.
Within this category, computer use
at work was reported by 33% of
males and 39% of females. Although
workers in the "finance, insurance,
and real estate" industry do not ac­count
for a large proportion of all
workers (9% of women, 5% of men),
60% of the women and 44% of the
men in these occupations used a
computer on the job. Workers in this
industry include persons such as
bank tellers and data keyers.
Source: Kominski, Robert, 1988, Computer
llse in the United States· 1984, Current
Population Reports, Special Studies, Series
P-23, No. 155, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
20
New USDA Charts
Chart 138
Ownership of Assets by the Elderly
Interest-earning
deposits
Own home
Motor vehicles
Regular checking
account
Stock and mutual
fund shares
Other interest­earning
assets
U.S. savings bonds
Rental property
IRA or Keogh
accounts
Other real estate
Equity in business
or profession
Other assets
% owning Median $ value 775--
730- 714--
485-
21.111 6.882
11.61 18.144
11.31 1.113
10 .• 1 42.527
8.51 6.369
··I 17.329
5.11 ' 5,019
··I 19.557
1984 data. Medan nel worth: age 66-69. $66.62t age 70-;11, $60.573: age 75
and o-. $55.178. Sowce: 8\nau of the c-..
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Chart 144
Distribution of Utility Expenditures
Fuel oil 27%
Water 3% Rural
Natural gas 6% --------t<'e"-.~
$1.691
Urban
$1.528
1983 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. Source: Bureau of Labor Slatlaltlca.
Chart 139
Median Income by Age and Sex
$ 1967 thousand
8
6
4
Women age
2 ........... •••••••••
0
1950 60 70
Median income in 1967 dollars. Source: Bureau of the Census.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
80 86
Chart 141
Changes In Consumer Prices for Housing,
Utilities, and Transportation
% of 1967
400
350
300
250
200
150
1977 79 81 83 85 87
Annual averages 1977-86: July data lor 1987. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chart 142
Housing and Transportation Expenditures by
Income Level
$ thousand
12
10
Other housing IL
Utilities ~ Transportation
8
6
4
2
0
Under $10.000- $20,000- $30,000- $40.000-
$10,000 $19.999 $29.999 $39.999 and over
1983 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. Source: Bureau of Labor Statlatlcs.
21
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of raising urban children: June 1988; moderate cost level 1
Region and Food Food
age of child Total at away Clothing Housing 3 Medical Educa- Transpor- All
(years) home 2 from care tion tat ion other 4
home
MIDWEST:
Under 1 ......... $4,879 $634 $0 $153 $2,090 $365 $0 $900 $737
1 •..............• 5,023 778 0 153 2,090 365 0 900 737
2-3 .••........... 4,679 778 0 249 1,836 365 0 784 667
4-5 ......•....•.. 4,958 893 164 249 1,836 365 0 784 667
6 ................ 5,207 864 164 345 1,741 365 172 784 772
7-9 .............. 5,409 1,066 164 345 1,741 365 172 784 772
10-11 .' .....••.... 5,611 1,268 164 345 1,741 365 172 784 772
12 ............... 5,983 1,296 196 499 1,805 365 172 842 808
13-15 ............ 6,128 1,441 196 499 1,805 365 172 842 808
16-17 ••.......... 6,711 1,613 196 690 1,868 365 172 929 878
Total 0 ••••••••• 99,621 20,197 2,488 6,748 32,926 6,570 2,064 14,866 13,762
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 ......... 4,839 749 0 153 2,121 365 0 784 667
1 ................ 5,012 922 0 153 2,121 365 0 784 667
2-3 .............. 4,886 893 0 269 1,931 365 0 726 702
4-5 .............. 5,165 1,008 164 269 1,931 365 0 726 702
6 ................ 5,583 1,008 196 364 1,900 365 216 726 808
7-9 .............. 5,785 1,210 196 364 1,900 365 216 726 808
10-11 ............ 6,044 1,469 196 364 1,900 365 216 726 808
12 ............... 6,402 1,469 196 537 1,963 365 216 813 843
13-15 ..••......•. 6,575 1,642 196 537 1,963 365 216 813 843
16-17 ............ 7,040 1,815 229 671 1,995 365 216 871 878
Total .......... 105,186 23,074 2,746 7,056 35,208 6,570 2,592 13,822 14,118
SOUTH:
Under 1 ......... 5,319 691 0 173 2,248 406 0 958 843
1 ................ 5,463 835 0 173 2,248 406 0 958 843
2-3 .........••.•. 5,127 807 0 269 1,995 406 0 842 808
4-5 .............. 5,377 893 164 269 1,995 406 0 842 808
6 ................ 5,738 893 196 364 1,900 406 259 842 878
7-9 .............. 5,911 1,066 196 364 1,900 406 259 842 878
10-11 ............ 6,141 1,296 196 364 1,900 406 259 842 878
12 .....•.•....... 6,538 1,296 229 '537 1,963 406 259 900 948
13-15 ...........• 6,711 1,469 229 537 1,963 406 259 900 948
16-17 ..•......... 7,193 1,613 229 690 2,026 406 259 987 983
Total
0 •••••••••
108,600 20,538 2,878 7,134 35,780 7,308 3,108 15,910 15,944
WEST:
Under 1 ......... 5,241 691 0 153 2,185 446 0 958 808
1 ................ 5,414 864 0 153 2,185 446 0 958 808
2-3 ........•..... 5,143 835 0 249 1,963 446 0 842 808
4-5 .............. 5,455 951 196 249 1,963 446 0 842 808
6 ................ 5,892 922 229 364 1,931 446 216 871 913
7-9 .............. 6,094 1,124 229 364 1,931 446 216 871 913
10-11 ........•..• 6,353 1,383 229 364 1,931 446 216 871 913
12 .....•......... 6,693 1,383 229 518 1,995 446 216 958 948
13-15 .....••..•.. 6,837 1,527 229 518 1,995 446 216 958 948
16-17 ....•••..... 7,493 1,729 262 652 2,090 446 216 1,045 1,053
Total 0 ••••••••• 110,921 21,609 3,206 6,862 35,968 8,028 2,592 16,432 16,224
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretationl,n by Carolyn S. Edwards, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4 Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
22 Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
The cost of raising rural nonfarm childrenc June 1988; moderate-cost level 1
Region and Food Food
age of child Total at away Clothing Housing 3 Medical Educa- Transpor- All
(years) home 2 from care tion tat ion other •
home
MIDWEST:
Under 1 .. ..... .. $4,608 $576 $0 $134 $1,995 $365 $0 $871 $667
1 ................ 4,752 720 0 134 1,995 365 0 871 667
2-3 .• • •. • •....... 4,228 691 0 211 1,678 325 0 726 597
4-5 .•••.••.•.•... 4,475 807 131 211 1,678 325 0 726 597
6 ••......•••.•.•. 4,862 807 164 326 1,646 325 172 755 667
7-9 ...••.....•... 5,035 980 164 326 1,646 325 172 755 667
10-11 ••...•...•.. 5,265 1,210 164 326 1,646 325 172 755 667
12 • •........•.... 5,659 1,210 164 499 1,710 325 172 842 737
13-15 •........... 5,803 1,354 164 499 1,710 325 172 842 737
16-17 ............ 6,229 1,498 196 614 1,741 365 172 871 772
Total ·········· 92,789 18,727 2,294 6,292 30,900 6,010 2,064 14,286 12,216
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 ......... 5,351 691 0 153 2,248 365 0 1,016 878
1 .••••........•.. 5,495 835 0 153 2,248 365 0 1,016 878
2-3 ..........•... 5,251 807 0 249 2,058 365 0 929 843
4-5 ...••.•.•.•... 5,562 922 196 249 2,058 365 0 929 843
6 .••...•.••.•••.• 6,007 922 229 364 2,026 365 259 929 913
7-9 •.....•..• • •.. 6,180 1,095 229 364 2,026 365 259 929 913
10-11 •.•...•..... 6,439 1,354 229 364 2,026 365 259 929 913
12 ••..••••..••• •• 6,823 1,354 229 556 2,090 365 259 987 983
13-15 ......•...•• 6,996 1,527 229 556 2,090 365 259 987 983
16-17 •..•...•.... 7,595 1,700 262 729 2,153 365 259 1,074 1,053
Total . ····· ···· 112,898 21,234 3,206 Z,168 37,550 6,57(1 3,108 17,418 16,644
SOUTH:
Under 1 ......... 5,522 691 0 173 2,248 406 0 1,161 843
1 ...•..••. •• •.•.. 5,638 807 0 173 2,248 406 0 1,161 843
2-3 •.••.•. • •• •• •• 5,114 778 0 269 1,931 406 0 958 772
4-5 ••..•...•...•• 5,425 893 196 269 1,931 406 0 958 772
6 •.. . .•• • .• • •.••. 5,686 864 196 364 1,868 406 216 929 843
7-9 • •.•.••••..... 5,859 1,037 196 364 1,868 406 216 929 843
10-11 .. . •..• •.... 6,090 1,268 196 364 1,868 406 216 929 843
12 ••....•.....•.. 6,535 1,268 229 556 1,931 406 216 1,016 913
13-15 .•.....•.•.. 6,679 1,412 229 556 1,931 406 216 1,016 913
16-17 ............ 7,240 1,585 262 786 1,963 406 216 1,074 948
Total .......... 108,733 20,025 3,008 7,402 35,078 7,308 2,592 17,940 15,380
WEST:
Under 1 ......... 5,749 691 0 153 2,280 446 0 1,161 1,018
1 • .•....•........ 5,893 835 0 153 2,280 446 0 1,161 1,018
2-3 •.••••.. • ••• •. 5,325 807 0 249 1,963 406 0 987 913
4-5 •........•.... 5,636 922 196 249 1,963 406 0 987 913
6 ................ 6,114 893 196 384 1,931 446 259 987 1,018
7-9 •.•.......•... 6,316 1,095 196 384 1,931 446 259 987 1,018
10-11 ....•....•.. 6,546 1,325 196 384 1,931 446 259 987 1,018
12 ........•..•... 6,991 1,325 229 575 1,995 446 259 1,074 1,088
13-15 • ••.....••.. 7,164 1,498 229 575 1,995 446 259 1,074 1,088
16-17 ..•...••..•. 7,837 1,700 262 671 2,121 446 259 1,219 1,159
Total ..... ..... 115,875 21,031 3,008 7,248 36,220 7,868 3,108 18,926 18,466
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wi-fe family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation," by Carolyn S. Edwards, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
"Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review 23
Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, September 1988, U.S. average 1
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
Sex-age group Thrifty
plan
20-50 years ............ . ........... 42.70
51 years and over ....... ... ... ...... 40.40
Familyof4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children-
1-2 and 3-5 years ... . . . ....... . . . .. 62.10
6-8 and 9-11 years . ...... . ...... . .. 71.20
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
1-2 years ....... . . . .. .. .. .......... 11 .20
3-5 years . ....... . ..... . . . .. . ...... 12.10
6-8 years ... . .... . . . .. ... .......... 14.80
9-11 years . ..... . ...... . ......... . . 17.60
Male:
12-14 years ........ . ..... ... .... . .. 18.40
15-19 years .......... .. . . ... .. .. .. . 19.00
20-50 years . ..... . .. . ... . . . .... .... 20.40
51 years and over .. . . . .. ....... . .... 18.50
Female:
12-19 years .. . .. .. . . . ... .. ......... 18.20
20-50 years ...... .. ........ . ...... . 18.40
51 years and over ......... . ... . .. ... 18.20
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
53.80
51 .80
77.40
90.90
13.60
14.90
19.70
22.30
25.30
26.20
26.00
24.80
21 .90
22.90
22.30
Moderate­cost
plan
66.60
63.90
94.80
113.90
15.90
18.40
24.60
28.80
31.70
32.50
32.60
30.50
26.60
27.90
27.60
Uberal
plan
82.70
76.70
116.40
137.30
19.10
22.10
28.70
33.40
37.10
37.70
39.50
36.70
32.20
35.70
33.00
Thrifty
plan
185.00
175.10
269.00
308.70
48.40
52.40
64.20
76.30
79.60
82.40
88.30
80.30
79.00
79.90
78.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
233.20
224.20
335.40
394.00
59.00
64.40
85.20
96.80
109.70
113.40
112.70
107.30
95.00
99.30
96.50
Moderate­cost
plan
288.20
277.00
410.30
493.30
68.70
79.60
106.70
124.60
137.20
140.80
141.30
132.30
115.30
120.70
119.50
Uberal
plan
358.40
331 .90
504.40
595.00
83.00
95.60
124.50
144.70
160.90
163.50
171.00
158.80
139.50
154.80
142.90
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(1). Estimates for the other plans were computed from quantities
of foods published in Family Economics Reyjew 1983(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 3.
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%; 2-person -add 10%; 3-person -add 5%; 5- or 6-person -subtract 5%; 7- or more-person -subtract 10%.
24 Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 = 1 00]
Group
All items ................................ .
Food ......................... .. ....... .
Food at home .. . ............ ....... ... .
Food away from home ................. .
Housing ........ . ..................... . .
Shelter ............................... .
Renters' costs .................... .... .
Rent, residential ................ ..... .
Homeowners' costs .............. .... . .
Maintenance and repairs ............... .
Maintenance and repair services ....... .
Maintenance and repair commodities ... .
Fuel and other utilities .................. .
Fuel oil and other household fuel
commodities ....................... .
Gas (piped) and electricity ............. .
Household furnishings and operation ...... .
Housefurnishings ..................... .
Housekeeping supplies ................ .
Housekeeping services ................ .
Apparel and upkeep ..................... .
Apparel commodities ................... .
Men's and boys' apparel ............. .. .
Women's and girl's apparel ............. .
Infants' and toddlers apparel ............ .
Footwear ............ .. ..... ....... . .
Apparel services ....................... .
Transportation .................... ..... . .
Private transportation ................... .
New vehicles ....... . ................ .
Used cars . .......... .. .............. .
Motor fuel ............................ .
Maintenance and repairs ......... . ...... .
Public transportation ................... .
Medical care ............................ .
Medical care commodities ............... .
Medical care services ... ... .. ........... .
Professional services ...... .. .......... .
Entertainment ........................ ... .
Other goods and services ................. .
Personal care ......................... .
Personal and educational expenses ....... .
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Sept.
1988
119.8
120.2
119.0
123.0
119.9
128.4
134.7
129.1
132.6
115.3
118.1
111.7
106.4
75.9
108.5
110.1
105.7
115.5
115.5
117.8
116.2
115.2
118.1
119.0
112.2
124.4
109.7
108.6
116.2
119.4
83.1
120.9
124.0
140.4
142.0
140.1
139.2
121.3
140.0
120.3
151.8
Unadjusted indexes
Aug. July
1988 1988
119.0 188.5
119.4 188.8
118.1 117.3
122.5 122.1
119.5 119.1
128.2 127.4
135.6 134.7
128.4 127.8
131.8 131.0
115.0 114.5
118.1 117.9
110.8 110.1
106.1 106.0
76.3 76.9
108.3 108.1
109.7 109.8
105.3 105.5
114.8 115.2
115.1 115.0
112.6 112.7
110.7 110.8
111.6 111 .9
109.9 109.8
118.2 116.2
107.4 108.2
124.0 123.4
109.6 108.9
108.6 107.8
115.9 116.1
119.2 117.9
84.1 82.3
120.3 120.0
123.7 123.7
139.9 139.3
141.1 140.5
139.6 139.0
138.7 138.4
120.7 120.5
137.5 136.5
119.0 119.2
147.8 146.3
Sept.
1987
115.0
114.1
112.4
118.0
115.6
122.5
129.8
124.4
126.0
112.7
116.3
107.8
105.5
77.6
108.2
107.5
103.9
111.8
111.0
113.3
111 .8
110.6
115.3
112.1
105.7
119.9
106.1
105.4
113.8
116.0
84.0
115.7
122.1
131.7
132.7
131 .5
130.7
116.1
131.1
116.0
142.1
25
Index of Articles in 1988 Issues
Employment
Child Care Arrangements of Working Women
Dietary Intakes by Employment Status
Husbands in the Labor Market
The Employed Woman's Use of Time for Wardrobe Maintenance
Women and the Labor Market
Expenditures
Expenditures of Urban and Rural Households
Expenditure Patterns of Single Women and Single Men
Household Expenditures for Education and Reading
Household Transportation Expenditures
Methodological Issues for Today and Tomorrow
Results of the 1986 Consumer Expenditure Survey
Finance/Income
Changes in the Use of Cash and Other Methods of Payment
Consumer Spending and Saving: The Outlook for 1988
Minimum Wage-Its Relation to Incomes and Poverty
Regional Per Capita Personal Income
Food
Comparing Nutrients in the Soviet and U.S. Food Supplies
Consumer Reactions to Price Savings on Food
Economic and Regulatory Policies: Implications for Nutrition
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987
Socioeconomic Factors and Food Usage Patterns
Supermarket Salad Bars--Cost vs. Convenience
Women's Food and Nutrient Intakes Away From Home, 1985
Housing/Population
After-School Care of School-Age Youth
Aging in the Eighties, People Living Alone
Caregivers of the Frail Elderly: A National Profile
Characteristics and Housing Problems of Mobile Home Owners
Hispanic Population in the United States
Housing Expenditures
Living Arrangements and Marital Status of Households and Families
Recent Reports on Housing
1990 Census- Proposed Change in Question on Race
Miscellaneous
Computer Use in the United States
NCR Research Publication
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
26
Issue No.
1
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
4
1
1
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
Page
26
11
28
2
14
16
14
6
9
2
18
7
31
21
16
17
13
24
19
8
9
28
15
19
18
30
2
30
32
16
19
33
10
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Subscription Order Or
Change Of Address Fonn
Enclosed is $. ______ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. ________ _
Order No. ______ _
Make check payable to,
Superintendent at Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiration Date Month/Year
FAMILY
ECONOMICS
REVIEW
Annual subscription Single copies
$5.00 domestic $2.00 domestic
($6.25 foreign) ($2.50 foreign)
Please prtnt or type
Company or Personal Name
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional Address I Attention Line
I I I I I I I I I I I
Street Address ·
I I
City
I I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach mailing label here and
send this torm when requesting a
change at address.
MAD. ORDER FORM TO,
Supertntendent of Documents
Government Prtnting Oftice
Washington, D.C. 20402
Vol. 1 No. 4 Family Economics Review
State ZIP Code
l_j_JIIII
I I I
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Quantity Charges
___ Publications
___ Subscriptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
International Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Refund
27