Family Economics Review [1990, Volume 3, Number 4]

              J
I
Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Editorial Assistant
Jane W. Fleming
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
Review would be appreciated. Use of
commercial or trade names does not
imply approval or constitute endorse­ment
by USDA.
Family Economics Review is for sale by
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office. Subscrip­tion
price is $5 per year ($6.25 for
foreign addresses). Single issues cost $2
each ($250 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, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782. Telephone (301) 436-8461.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Family
Economics
Review
Vol. 3 No.4
Contents
Features
2 Family Income and Expenditures of Married-Couple Families
When One Spouse Is Not Employed
12
18
20
22
24
25
27
28
29
30
Mary Ann Noecker Guadagno
Apparel Expenditures of Older Consumers
Edith G. Neal, Frankie N. Schwenk, and Joan C. Courtless
Research Summaries
Income Change at Retirement
Family-Related Employee Benefits
Urban and Rural Consumer Debt
The Short-Term Poor
U.S. DEPOSITORY
PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY
FEB 15 1991
university of North Carolin
at Greensboro
Trends in Children's Median Family Income
Regular Items
Recent Legislation Affecting Families
Current Regional Research Project
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
31 Reviewers for 1990
33 Index of Articles
December 1990
1
Family Income and Expenditures
of Married-Couple Families
When One Spouse Is Not
Employed
By Mary Ann Noecker Guadagno
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
This article examines how the non­employment
of either spouse, and their
reason for not working in paid employ­ment
outside the home, affected 1987
family income and expenditures.
Results show that approximately 1. 7 mil­lion
married-couple families were poor
or near poor when at least one spouse
was not employed. A descriptive com­parison
of different spousal employ­ment
patterns indicates that the greatest
percentage of families in or near poverty
were those with two nonemployed
spouses or one spouse who was ill,
disabled, unable to work, or who could
not find work. Yet, the greatest number
of poor and near poor married-couple
families were those in traditional
families, that is, husband employed­wife
at home caring for the family (1.2
million). Results should provide family
resource management professionals
with a better understanding of married
couples' financial status when one or
both spouses are not employed.
When a person is not employed, the
economic result is lost income for
individuals and families. In 1987
approximately 31 percent of the
27.2 million married-couple families
with spouse earners involved a non­employed
spouse.1 The threat of
Tiis differs from reports by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, which estimated that of the 51.5 mil­lion
married-couple families in 1987, 33.8 mil­lion
were families with earners (2,3). The
difference is due to study sampling con­straints
(see text, p. 3 for details).
2
lost income as a result of not working
in paid employment outside the home
has been, and will be, of concern to
families, legislators, researchers,
educators, and family service profes­sionals
(3,5). Family resource manage­ment
professionals need to be aware
of how, and to what extent, a non­employed
spouse affects family
financial status.
This article focuses on married
couples with at least one spouse who
was not employed in the previous
year, and examines how the non­employment
of either spouse, and
the reason for not working, affected
1987 family income and expenditure
patterns. Family profiles for four
different scenarios are described
and analyzed: (1) wife employed­husband
not employed due to illness,
disability, inability to work, or in­ability
to find work; (2) husband
employed-wife not employed due to
illness, disability, inability to work,
inability to find work, or because she
was doing something else; (3) hus­band
employed-wife not employed
because she was at home caring
for the family; and ( 4) both not
employed.2 A fifth group, dual­earner
families, was examined for
2 A profile of employed wives-husbands
not working because they were at home
caring for the family could not be examined
due to an insufficient number of cases for
meaningful analysis (n = 38 unweighted and
156,512 weighted).
purpose of comparison, since it
represents the employment status
of a majority of married-couple
families in the United States today.
Specifically, this article addresses
the question: Which married-couple
families are most at risk of poverty,
or financially vulnerable, when a
spouse is not employed? Families
financially at risk were defmed as
married-couple families with inade­quate
income to meet family needs
as evidenced by: (1) one or both
spouses not employed, (2) average
annual family expenditures greater
than average after-tax family income,
or (3) income within 125 percent of
the official Government poverty
threshold.
Sample and Data
Data used in this study are from
the interview component of the 1987
Consumer Expenditure Survey
(CEX). Detailed information about
household expenditures, income,
and demographic characteristics has
been collected quarterly since 1980
by the Bureau of the Census for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. A national
probability sample of approximately
5,000 households, representative of
the noninstitutional United States, is
interviewed once per quarter for five
consecutive quarters. After the fmal
interview, households are dropped
from the survey and replaced with
new consumer units. This procedure
results in a rotating sample with
about one-fifth of the households
replaced each quarter. The 1987
survey yielded a response rate of
about 86 percent, for approximately
21,000 quarterly interviews? To
obtain annual family expenditure
estimates, three months of house­hold
expenditure data were annual­ized
by multiplying by four.
3Data were the most current available
when this article was written. Because of the
rotating panel design used for sampling pur­poses,
data include expenditures made from
January 1987 (reported in April1987)
through February 1988 (reported in March
1988).
Family Economics Review
Included in analysis were house­holds
with: (1) couples who were
married and living together, with or
without children, and (2) complete
income records.4 Excluded from
analysis were married couples who
were: (1) retired (one or both), (2)
students (one or both), (3) not living
together, ( 4) not the only family
earners, and (5) with a husband at
home caring for the family while the
wife worked. Retirees and students
(one or both spouses) were deleted
from analysis to eliminate potential
distortion in family fmancial status
due to the special fmancial con­siderations
of retirement and stu­dent
living. Married couples not
living together on a regular basis
were excluded because of the un­usual
financial considerations as­sociated
with maintaining more than
one household. Families with multi­ple
earners, in addition to a husband
or wife, were excluded because they
may be temporary contributors to
family income.
The fmal sample consisted of
6,519 consumer units,5 including
four groups of nonemployed spouses,
and a dual-earner comparison
group. The sample was weighted to
represent the U.S. population of
these married-couple families in
1987, slightly over 27 million house­holds.
Generalizations, of course,
are limited to the sampling con­straints
defined in this study and
enumerated above.
'The 1987 CEX data used in this study in­clude
only households with complete income
records. The distinction between complete
and incomplete income reporters is based on
whether respondents provided values for
major sources of income such as wages and
salaries, self-employment income, and Social
Security income. Even complete income
reporters may not have provided a full
accounting of all income from all sources.
5 A consumer unit includes either all
household members related by blood, mar­riage,
adoption, or other legal arrangements;
or, two or more persons living together who
pool their income to make joint expenditure
decisions. The terms 'consumer unit,' 'house­hold,'
and 'family' are used interchangeably in
this article.
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4
Because 1987 CEX data are cross­sectional
rather than longitudinal, it
was not possible to trace changes in
family economic well-being for
families moving from dual-earner
into one-earner or nonearner status,
or from short-term to long-term non­earner
status. Thus, data are limited
to describing family income and con­sumption
patterns in 1987 for four
family types, each with a spouse who
was not emJ'loyed in the previous
12months.
Demographic Profile of
Married-Couple Families
Scenario 1: One-Earner Families.
Wife Employed-Husband Ill, Dis­abled,
Unable to Work, or Unable to
Find Work. In 1987,1.8 percent of all
married couples with one or two
spouse earners conformed to this
scenario. Most husbands were not
employed because they were ill, dis­abled,
or otherwise could not work
(88 percent) (see figure, p. 4). A
majority of husbands were middle­aged
or older, white, and had not
graduated from high school (table 1,
pp. 6 and 7). Wives of these non­employed
husbands were about the
same age as their husbands; more
educated; and working in white­collar,
blue-collar, or service
occupations.
Family size was 2.9 on average,
with 0.7 children under age 18. Sixty­seven
percent of the families were
homeowners and 43 percent had a
mortgage. Most, 71 percent, were
living in urban areas.
Average before-tax income was
$19,008 (table 2, p. 8), 52 percent
lower than dual-earner family
income. Per capita income com­parisons
supported this relationship
with nonemployed-husband families'
reporting before-tax income 49 per­cent
lower than that of dual-earner
~e 1987 Consumer Expenditure Survey
instrument, Section 22 on Work Experience
and Income, asks respondents, "What was the
main reason you did not work during the past
12 months? Was it because you were ill, dis­abled,
unable to work, taking care of home or
family, going to school, unable to find work,
retired, or doing something else?" Work
experience information is recorded for each
consumer unit member, age 14 or older.
families. Annual family expenditures
were $19,348. Compared to dual­earner
families in this sample, one­earner
families with nonemployed
husbands were older, more likely to
be minorities, much less educated,
more likely to live in rural areas, and
more likely to own their own home­free
and clear of mortgage debt.
Annual expenditures in nonemployed­husband
families were slightly higher
than after-tax income, meaning this
group did not appear to have
savings.
When families were classified on
the basis of 1987 U.S. poverty
threshold criteria ( 4), 21 percent or
approximately 1 in 5 families in this
scenario were poor or near poor.
Poor was defmed as having annual
money income at or below the offi­cial
Government poverty threshold;
near poor was defmed as having
annual money income between 100
and 125 percent of the poverty
threshold.
Scenario 2: One-Earner Families.
Husband Employed -Wife Ill, Dis­abled,
Unable to Work, Unable to
Find Work, or Doing Something Else.
Compared with Scenario 1, a similar
percentage of husband-wife families
in the study fit this profile (1.8 per­cent).
A majority of wives (78 percent)
were not employed due to illness,
disability, or because they could not
work; however, 13 percent could not
find work, and 9 percent reported
they were doing something else.
Wives were usually middle-age
or older, white, and high school
graduates. They were married to
men about their same age. Husbands
were slightly less educated in general,
although more husbands than wives
had graduated from college. A
majority of husbands were working
in blue-collar or white-collar occupa­tions.
Average family size was 2.5
persons. A majority of this group,
81 percent, owned a home and
51 percent had a mortgage. One­third
of these families lived in rural
areas.
Average before-tax income was
$25,459 with average annual expendi­tures
of $21,574. Of the four family
3
~
:
2.
-<
~
§
C>
;!:3:; ·
Cll
Reasons for nonemployment in married-couple families, 1987
Scenario 1
Reason husband not
employed
Scenario 2
Reason wife not employed 1
Could not
.....------- find work ----------.
Disabled, ill,
could not work
/
Number of families: 479,675
Percent of sample: 1.8%
Number of families: 485,666
Percent of sample: 1.8%
Scenario 4
Reason both husband and wife
not employed
Both ill, disabled,
could not
Husband ill, disabled,
could not work; wife
homemaker
Husband could
Both could not
find work, 2%
Number of families: 618,249
Percent of sample: 2.3%
"='
~- I 1 Excludes homemaker wife; scenario 3 includes families with employed husband, homemaker wife.
~
scenarios, and compared with dual­earner
families, this group had the
largest proportion of rural residents,
homeowners, and self-employed. An­nual
before-tax income was 36 per­cent
lower than that of dual-earner
families. This income differential
was less when per capita income was
compared, 20 percent lower than
dual-earner families. Since average
before-tax income exceeded annual
expenditures, nonemployed-wife
families in this group did appear to
have some savings. Classifying
families on the basis of 1987 U.S.
poverty threshold criteria, 23 percent
or more than 1 in 5 of the families in
this group were poor or near poor.
This was a slightly higher percentage
of poor than found in Scenario 1.
Scenario 3: One-Earner Families.
Husband Employed-Wife Caring for
Family. Of all married couples in
the study, 24.8 percent lived in this
"traditional" family arrangement
(husband worked in paid employ­ment;
wife worked at home caring
for family). A majority of husbands
in this group were young, white,
high school (33 percent) or college
graduates ( 44 percent); and in white­(
47 percent) or blue-collar occupa­tions
(34 percent). Wives fit a similar
profile but were slightly more likely
to be high school (44 percent), rather
than college graduates (33 percent).
Average family size was 3.4 persons
with 1.3 children under age 18. Most
of this group, 74 percent, owned
their home and 52 percent had a
mortgage. The majority lived in
urban areas.
Before-tax income was $32,268
with annual expenditures of $26,290.
Of the four family types, this group
was most likely to be white, college­educated,
and urban. They had the
largest family size and received the
highest income of the four family
types. Before-tax income for tradi­tional
families was 19 percent lower
than that of dual-earner families.
This income gap was even greater
when per capita income was examined.
On a per capita basis, before-tax
income in traditional families was
26 percent lower than in dual-earner
families. Since after-tax income was
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4
slightly greater than expenditures,
this group appeared to have some
savings. However, about 17 percent
or 1 in 6 families lived at or near the
poverty level.
Scenario 4: Both Nonearners.
Both spouses were not working in
2.3 percent of all married-couple
families. Contrary to popular belief,
most wives are not employed when
their husbands are unemployed? A
majority (69 percent) of husbands
who were ill, disabled, or unable to
work, and 14 percent of husbands
who could not fmd work, were
married to homemakers. Only
10 percent of the families in this
group involved couples who were
both ill, disabled, or unable to fmd
work. Slightly over half of the hus­bands
and almost half of the wives
in this group were over age 55. Only
34 percent of the husbands graduated
from high school and 38 percent had
an eighth grade education. Wives
were more likely than their husbands
to have graduated from high school
(47 percent). Average family size
was 2.9 persons with 0.8 children
under age 18. Over half of the families
were homeowners, and few (18 per­cent)
had a mortgage. About three­quarters
of nonearner couples lived
in urban areas.
Before-tax income was $11,445
with average armual expenditures
of $12,744. Income in this group
was 71 percent lower than average
annual before-tax income of dual­earner
families. Notably, this
scenario included the greatest
proportion of minorities, couples
over age 55, homeowners with a
paid-up mortgage, and renters. Of
the four family types, this group was
7Data in Scenario 1 showed that 479,675
married-couple families involved a non­employed
husband with an employed wife.
By adding the total number of families with
nonemployed husbands (479,675 + 618,249 =
1,097,924) and examining the percentage of
wives who were employed when their husbands
could not work ( 479,675 divided by 1,097,924
= 43.7 percent), results show that more than
half of all wives (56.3 percent) did not work
in paid employment outside the home when
their husbands were ill, disabled, or could not
find work.
the least educated. Families with
nonearning spouses had the lowest
before-tax income and spent the
least of any family type studied. This
relationship held when per capita
income was examined. Because
average expenditures were slightly
higher than after-tax income, non­earner
families did not appear to
have savings. Families living at or
near the poverty threshold comprised
57 percent of families in this group.
Family Income
When a spouse is not employed,
families may use savings or govern­ment
support income to economically
survive a temporary income loss.
Government support income may
include unemployment insurance,
workers' compensation, Veterans
benefits, Social Security or Railroad
Retirement,8 Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC),
Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
or food stamps.
Dual-Earner Compared with Non­earner
Married-Couples. The average
annual income and sources of income
for married-couple families varied
by earner composition (husband,
wife, both, neither) and employment
status (not working, employed).
Before-tax income of families in
which both spouses were employed
was more than three times that of
families with two unemployed
spouses ($39,654 compared with
$11,445), even though the average
household size for each family type
was approximately three persons
with one child under age 18. Per
capita income comparisons sup­ported
this relationship.
Almost all dual-earner family
income was from earnings (95 per­cent),
with 2 percent from asset in­come,
1 percent from Social Security
or RailroadRetirement, and 1 per­cent
from pensions or annuities.
8Social Security (OASDHI-Oid Age,
Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance)
and Railroad Retirement provide income to
unemployed workers and their dependents in
the event a worker is disabled (3).
5
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of married-couple families1 by employment status, 1987
One-earner No earners Dual-earners
Wife Husband
Personal Husband2 Wife2 Wife caring
characteristics unable to work unable to work for family
Scenario number •••••••••• • • 0 . 0 •• 2 3 4
Number of consumer units
(weighted, in thousands) • 0 •• •• • •• 480 486 6,729 618 18,841
Size of consumer unit ........ . .... . 2.9 2.5 3.4 2.9 3.1
Number of children under 18
in consumer unit ... ........ ..... .7 .4 1.3 .8 1.1
Percent regorting3
Age:
Husband:
<34 . ... .. .. ... ........ . ..... 21.5 9.7 32.4 18.4 45.2
35 - 44 .......... . ...... . ... .. 13.8 22.1 26.9 10.7 28.6
45-54 .. . ...... . ....... . ... .. 25.7 20.5 13.9 17.8 12.6
>55 ... . . . ...... .... . .. ...... 39.1 47.6 26.8 53.2 13.6
Wife:
<34 . .. ...... . ...... . . .... ... 24.6 15.0 43.5 17.6 53.5
35-44 . . ..... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 18.1 16.8 21.3 17.2 25.0
45-54 . .............. . .. .. . .. 19.8 26.5 11.0 17.7 11 .9
>55 . .. ..... . ..... . . ..... . . .. 37.5 41.7 24.3 47.4 9.6
Race:
Husband:
White ... . ....... .... . ... ..... 82.2 91 .7 93.3 76.0 91.2
Black, Asian, American Indian ... . 17.8 8.3 6.7 24.0 8.8
Wife:
White ...... . .... . ............ 84.4 93.0 93.4 75.7 90.9 Black, Asian, American Indian .... 15.6 7.0 6.6 24.3 9.1
Education:
Husband:
Elementary •••• ••• •••• 0 ••••• • • 25.2 19.5 9.8 38.0 4.7
Some high school •• ••• • • •••• 0. 27.2 16.7 12.7 28.0 9.5
High school graduate .. ..... .... 32.3 31.8 33.3 22.3 32.7
College ..... . . . ... . .... .... .. 15.3 31 .9 44.2 11.7 53.0
Wife:
Elementary ••••••• ••• ••••• 0 •• • 9.9 12.8 8.3 22.2 3.0
Some high school 0. 0 •• • • •• • • • • 16.0 9.6 15.0 31.0 7.1
High school graduate . .. .... . .. . 63.9 49.3 44.0 37.8 38.3
College ........ .. . ...... ..... 10.3 28.3 32.7 8.9 51 .6
See footnotes at end of table. continued-
6 Family Economics Review
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of married-couple families1 by employment status, 1987-
continued
One-earner No earners Dual-earners
Wife Husband
Personal Husband2 Wife2 Wife caring
characteristics unable to work unable to work for family
Percent regorting3
Occupation:
Husband:
White-collar4 * 27.7 46.7 * 49.5
Blue-coua(i .. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : * 50.5 34.5 * 33.8
Service * 8.9 5.2 * 5.2 ••• •••• •• ••••• 0 • • ••• ' .
Self-employed ..... ... . ... . . . . * 12.2 11.1 * 9.0
Farm and others . . . .... . . . .. .. . * .7 2.6 * 2.6
Wife:
White-collar4
. ... . . ..... . . . .. .. 41.7 * * * 71.1
Blue-coua(i . .. .. ........ .. ... . 29.4 * * * 10.1
Service 27.6 * * * 11.5 • • • •• •• • 0 •• ••• • 0 . 0 0. 0 .
Self-employed .. . ........ ... . . 1.4 * * * 6.2
Farm and others ......... .. .... <1.0 * * * 1.0
Housing tenure:
Homeowner with mortgage . . . . .. 43.0 51.2 51.9 18.0 60.6
Homeowner without mortgage 0 0 0 24.0 29.5 22.0 35.5 13.1
Renter and other ............... 33.0 19.3 26.1 46.5 26.3
Region:
Urban
Northeast •• • 0 •• • ••• 0 ••• •• •••• 10.3 17.6 19.4 23.3 15.4
South .. .. ..... . .. .... ..... .. 8.9 12.8 19.1 14.8 20.0
Midwest ....... . .......... . ... 22.4 23.2 24.0 25.5 28.6
West •• 0 ••• • ••••• 0 0 •••••• ' • •• 29.2 13.2 20.8 14.8 18.9
Rural ....... .. ................ 29.3 33.3 16.7 21.6 17.1
1 Data are for married-couple families, living together, with or without children, and complete income reporters. Married couples,
one or both of whom were retired or students, not living together, not the only family earners, or with a husband at home caring
for the family while the wife worked, were excluded.
2Unable to work includes ill, disabled, unable to work; unable to find work; or doing something else.
3Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
~ite collar includes managerial, professional, technical, sales, and administrative.
5Biue collar includes precision production, craft, repair, operators, fabricators, and laborers.
8Farm and other includes farming, forestry, fishing, Armed Forces and other ~ncludi ng not reported).
*Not applicable or not available due to too few sample cases.
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4 7
8
Table 2. Income, income sources, expenditures, and budget shares of married-couple families 1 by
employment status, 1987
Income and expenditures
Scenario number . . . ............ . .
Before-tax income .. ... . .. ....... .
After -tax income ... . . .... ........ .
Per capita income .. .. .. . ......... .
Total expenditures .. ..... . . . ..... .
Income sources
E . 4 armngs . .. . .. . .. .... . . . . . .... .
Public assistance . . .......... . ... .
Pensions, annuities .. ... .. . .. .... .
Asset income5
.. . .. . .. . . ... . . ... .
Other sources6
. .... . . . . ... ...... .
Expenditures
Wife
Husband2
unable to work
$19,008
18,686
6,554
19,348
54
17
3
2
0
Housing . ... .. .... ... . .. ..... . .. . 31
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Food at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Food away from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Clothing...... . . . .. . ......... . .. . 3
Personal insurance . . ..... . . . .... . .
Pensions and Social Security . . . . . . . 5
Health care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Alcoholic beverages . ... . ... . ..... .
Personal care . .. ....... . ........ .
Othe? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
One-earner
Husband
Wife2 Wife caring
unable to work for family
2 3
$25,459 $32,268
24,067 29,209
10,184 9,491
21,574 26,290
Percent3
76
2
6
6
0
32
17
13
4
4
2
10
7
5
1
1
2
87
0
4
5
1
32
18
12
4
5
2
10
5
5
1
3
No earners
4
$11,445
11,424
3,947
12,744
0
41
11
3
0
33
19
21
2
3
1
0
10
3
3
2
Dual-earners
$39,654
35,662
12,792
30,430
95
0
2
0
31
20
10
4
5
12
4
6
1
3
1 Data are for married-couple families, living together, with or without children, and complete income reporters. Married couples,
one or both of whom were retired or students, not living together, not the only family earners, or with a husband at home caring
for the family while the wife worked, were excluded.
2Unable to work includes ill, disabled, unable to work; unable to find work; or doing something else.
3Percent of total annual income or expenditures. Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
4Earnings include salary, wages, business income, and farm income or loss.
5Asset income includes interest, dividends, rent, and royalties.
60ther sources include alimony, child support, and other money income.
70ther includes cash contributions, education, reading, and miscellaneous expenses.
*Not available due to too few sample cases.
Family Economics Review
Nonearner families received the
highest share of income from Social
Security or Railroad Retirement and
public assistance ( 44 percent and
41 percent, respectively), with lower
shares from pensions and annuities,
and asset income (11 percent and
3 percent, respectively).
Nonemployed Wives. Average
annual before-tax income for mar­ried
couples differed depending on
whether the wife was not employed
because she chose to stay at home to
care for her family, or because she
was ill, disabled, unable to work,
unable to find work, or doing some­thing
else. When a wife was not
employed because of family respon­sibilities,
annual before-tax income
was about 21 percent higher than
when she did not work due to illness,
disability, inability to work, because
she could not find work, or for some
other reason ($32,268 compared
with $25,459). Per capita income
comparisons, however, showed an
inverse relationship. On a per capita
basis, before-tax income in families
with a wife at home caring for the
family was actually 7 percent lower
than in families with an ill or dis­abled
wife ($9,491 compared with
$10,184). This may be explained, in
part, by the fact that women who
stayed at home to care for a family
had larger families on average (3.4
persons compared to 2.5) and three
times as many children under age 18.
Sources of income were different
between the two nonemployed wife
groups. Wives who stayed at home
to care for a family reported receiv­ing
87 percent of income from a
spouse's earnings. Wives who were
not working due to illness, disability,
inability to work, because they could
not find work, or because they were
doing something else, received a
lower percentage of income from
spousal earnings (76 percent) and a
greater share of income from Social
Security or Railroad Retirement,
pensions or annuities, assets; and
public assistance.
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4
Nonemployed Husbands Compared
with Nonemployed Wives. On average,
annual family income was about
25 percent lower in families where
a husband, rather than a wife, was
unable to work ($19,008 compared
with $25,459). This may reflect, in
part, the fact that women who work
full time earn approximately 70 per­cent
of the median earnings for men
(6). Per capita income comparisons
showed an even greater income dis­parity
(36 percent) between families
with husbands versus those with
wives who were not able to work
($6,554 compared with $10,184).
Sources of family income differed,
depending on which spouse was not
employed. Families with nonemployed
husbands received about half as
much income from earnings as those
with nonemployed wives; almost
twice as much from Social Security
or Railroad Retirement; and almost
five times as much from public
assistance, primarily in the form
of workers' compensation and
Veterans benefits. Nonemployed
wives received a higher share of in­come
from their spouses' salary and
wages, pensions and annuities, and
asset income, but a smaller income
share from programs such as Social
Security or Railroad Retirement
and public assistance, primarily
unemployment compensation: The
difference in Social Security and
public assistance benefits received
by husbands and wives may reflect,
in part, the fact that women do not
earn the equivalent of men.
Family Expenditures
A nonemployed spouse affects
family spending patterns by reducing
the actual dollar amount a family has
to spend. When a spouse is not
employed, families may delete
purchases from their budget or
substitute less expensive goods or
services. It is important to note that
although spending is less, the propor­tion
of income spent in certain
budget categories may actually be
more. For example, average annual
transportation expenditures in
families with husbands who were
unable to work in 1987 were $4,752,
compared to $6,197 for dual-earner
families. Yet, transportation ex­penditures
comprised 25 percent of
nonemployed-husband families'
expenditures and only 20 percent of
total expenditures for spouses who
were employed.
Dual-Earner Compared with
Noneamer Married Couples. Table 2
shows the proportion of family in­come
allocated for key expenditures
by dual-earner families compared
with families in which both spouses
were not employed. In 1987 average
annual expenditures reported by
dual-earner married couples were
$30,430. Dual-earner families spent
85 percent of their after-tax income
for household goods and services,
using the remainder for savings and
the acquisition of property and other
forms of wealth. On average, housing
accounted for the largest share of
total annual expenditures (31 per­cent),
followed by transportation
(20 percent), pensions (12 percent),
and food at home (10 percent).
As would be expected, the absolute
expenditure level was considerably
lower for nonearner couples than for
employed married couples ($12,744
compared with $30,430). When both
spouses were not employed, expendi­tures
exceeded income. Nonearner
spouses spent about 112 percent of
after-tax income on household goods
and services. Families with nonearn­ing
spouses spent a larger share of
income on necessities such as hous­ing,
food at home, and health care;
and a smaller share for luxuries such
as food away from home and enter­tainment.
Discretionary expendi­tures
such as alcoholic beverages
and personal care claimed about the
same budget share for working and
nonworking spouses. Family expendi­tures
for tobacco products, however,
were almost two times higher in non­earner
families than families in which
both spouses worked. Families with
nonearner spouses had the greatest
expenditure share and highest an­nual
dollar amount for tobacco
products among the four family
types. There was a notable difference
in the amount and share of income
9
spent for pensions between working
and nonworking married couples.
Dual-earner families spent about
12 percent of their expenditure
budget for pensions, whereas non­earner
spouse families spent nothing.
Nonearners no longer contribute to
Social Security and other employ­ment-
related retirement programs.
· Nonemployed Wives. The absolute
dollar amount of family expenditure
and budget share allocation varied
depending on whether a wife was
not employed because she chose to
stay at home to care for her family,
or was ill, disabled, unable to work,
unable to fmd work, or doing some­thing
else. Total annual family ex­penditures
were higher when a wife
chose to stay at home to care for a
family than when she was not work­ing
due to health or other personal
reasons ($26,290 compared with
$21,574). Yet, both family types
managed 'to keep expenditures
within 90 percent of annual after-tax
income. Expenditure shares were
similar in both groups for a majority
of goods and services with the excep­tion
of health care. As would be ex­pected,
wives who were not employed
due to illness, disability, because
they could not work, could not find
work, or to do something else, spent
slightly more on health care.
Nonemployed Husbands Compared
with Nonemployed Wives. Families
with a husband who was unable to
work due to illness, disability, in­ability
to work or because he could
not find work, experienced greater
erosion of family economic resources
than did those with a wife who was
unable to work for similar reasons.
When a husband was not working,
total average annual family expendi­tures
exceeded annual after-tax
income by 4 percent. When a wife
was not employed, families were
able to keep total expenses under
after-tax income. Expenditure
shares for housing, food, and cloth­ing
were about the same for both
groups. Families with husbands who
were unable to work allocated a
greater share of expenditures to
transportation than nonworking-wife
10
families (25 percent and 17 percent).
Nonemployed-husband families
spent twice as much as nonemployed­wife
families for new or used vehicle
purchases. It appears that vehicle
purchases were not as likely to be
postponed in nonemployed-husband
families as theif were in nonemployed­wife
families.
Families with husbands who were
unable to work had expenditure
shares for entertainment, personal
insurance, and pensions of about
half those in families with wives who
could not work. Expenditure shares
for alcohol and personal care were
the same for both groups. Notably,
families with nonemployed husbands
had double the expenditure share
for tobacco, compared with families
with nonemployed wives.
Conclusions
Families at Risk. The effect of lost
income on married couples' economic
status varied depending upon which
spouse was not employed and the
reason for not working. Examination
of annual after-tax family income
and expenditures shows that those
most likely at risk were families with:
• Both spouses not employed.
• One spouse ill, disabled, unable
to work, or could not find work.
About 57 percent of families with
two nonemployed spouses were clas­sified
as poor or near poor based on
an official Government definition of
poverty. In families with one non­employed
spouse, 21 percent of
families with a nonemployed husband
and 23 percent with a wife unable to
work were categorized as poor or
near poor. Research on couples in
bankruptcy supports these findings.
~ransportation expenses of nonemployed­husband
and nonemployed-wife families were
disaggregated and compared by new and used
vehicle purchases, gas and oil expenses, other
vehicle expenses (including finance charges,
maintenance and repairs, insurance, rental
and licenses), and public transportation
expenses.
Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook
found that married couples in
bankruptcy are more likely to be
one-earner than dual-earner families.
They concluded ... "regardless of
why a spouse is not working, a
second earner, especially in lower
income families, may spell the dif­ference
between minimal fmancial
success and economic collapse" (J).
Families Not at Risk. Married­couple
families who did not appear
to be at risk (based on a lower per­centage
of poor within the group)
were one-earner families with an:
• Employed husband and wife at
home caring for family.
Traditional one-earner families
were able to keep total annual ex­penditures
under total after-tax
family income, on average. Although
17 percent of traditional families
were classified as poor or near poor,
they comprised 67 percent of all
one-earner and nonearner married­couple
families in poverty. The per­centage
of traditional families in
poverty suggests this group was not
as likely as other family scenarios to
be at risk of poverty. However, the
considerable number of traditional
families in or near poverty, 1.2 mil­lion,
cannot be ignored. Recent
research (1) shows that traditional
families are far more likely to be in
bankruptcy than the general popula­tion.
This has important implications
for family policy, law, research, and
education.
Family Income. Data show that
one-earner married-couple family
income is lower on average than
dual-earner family income. Knowing
"why'' a spouse is not employed may
indicate whether or not a single­earner
family is fmancially vulnerable.
For example, adequate family income
was more of a problem when a spouse
was unable to work than when a
spouse chose not to be employed.
When two spouses were not working,
the effect on family income was
pronounced. In 1987 average family
income for nonearner spouses was
within 126 percent of the poverty
Family Economics Review
• (
threshold, and 57 percent of the
families were classified as poor or
near poor.
Income sources and shares varied
among groups. Traditional families
received a majority of income from
husbands' earnings. One-earner
families with nonworking husbands
received almost five times as much
income from public assistance, and
twice as much in Social Security or
Railroad Retirement, than did
families with nonworking wives.
This disparity between nonworking
husbands and nonworking wives for
public assistance and Social Security
or Railroad Retirement benefits
reflects, in part, longstanding dif­ferences
in the employment patterns
of married men and women. Since
unemployment and disability benefits
are based on earnings amount and
employment tenure, married women
are at a disadvantage, compared to
married men (8).
Family Expenditures. Expenditures
(expressed as budget share) of
married-couple families with non­employed
spouses exhibited greatest
variance for pensions (10 percent
difference), food at home (9 percent
difference), transportation (8 per­cent
difference), and health care
(5 percent difference). Budget share
differences reflect, in part, differences
in income, personal preferences,
family composition, regional price
differences, and expenditures for
certain fixed and contractual obliga­tions
such as housing (home
mortgages), transportation (auto
loan payments), and other fixed
credit obligations.
How to handle fixed debt obliga­tions
is of concern to families. Ex­penditures
for major durables such
as a home and car are frequently
fixed and mortgaged over time. They
cannot be readily or easily reduced
when a family member is not working.
Thus, the extent to which expendi­tures
are committed to fixed pay­ments
such as housing, auto, or other
fixed credit obligations will influence
a family's ability to fmancially survive
a spell of "not working." There is not
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4
much flexibility for economizing on
health care, especially when a spouse
is not working due to illness or dis­ability.
Family expenditures for health
care were fairly similar for all family
types.
There appears to be some flexibility
in reducing family expenditures for
food, clothing, and entertainment
when a spouse is not employed. For
example, a family could cut back on
food away from home and substitute
lower priced sources of nutrition
with meals prepared at home. This
type of adjustment, however, should
be accompanied by a knowledge of
nutrition and careful planning and
may not be an easy change for many
families. Clothing expenditures may
be reduced, except in situations
where special clothing such as
uniforms are required for a spouse's
job. Data show that families most
likely to be at risk spend the least for
food away from home, clothing, and
entertainment. Expenditures for
tobacco, however, are an anomaly.
Although tobacco is typically con­sidered
a discretionary expense, this
clearly was not the case for the two
family types most likely to be at risk.
They spent the most and had the
greatest budget shares for tobacco,
compared with families who were
not likely to be at risk. Finally, the
great disparity in amounts and
proportions of personal insurance
and pension expenditures by dual­earner,
nonearner, and one-earner
families merits the continued con­cern
of policymakers. Families who
are fmancially vulnerable may be
pushed into poverty by unexpected
events such as the death or disability
of an earner, an illness requiring
extensive medical care, or loss of
personal property due to fire or theft.
Private versus social responsibility
for family economic protection
remains an important but controver­sial
issue and concern.
References
1. Sullivan, T.A., E. Warren and
J.L. Westbrook.l989.As We Forgive
Our Debtors. Oxford University
Press, Inc., New York.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1989. House­holds,
Families, Marital Status and
Living Arrangements: March 1989
(Advance Report). Current Popula­tion
Reports, Population Charac­teristics.
Series P-20, No. 441.
3. . 1989. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1989.
[109 ed.]
4. . 1988. Money Income
and Poverty Status in the United States:
1987 (Advance Report). Current
Population Reports, Consumer
Income. Series P-60, No. 161.
5. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990.
Employment and Earnings 37( 4):68.
6. . 1989. Employment in
Perspective: Women in the Labor
Force. Report 782.
7. . Consumer Expendi-ture
Survey: 1987 Interview Survey
Public Use Tape and Documentation.
8. U.S. House of Representatives,
98th Congress, 1st session, Select
Committee on Children, Youth, and
Families. 1983. Supporting a Family:
Providing the Basics. [Hearing held
on July 18, 1983.] lEI
11
Apparel Expenditures of
Older Consumers
By Edith G. Neal
Chair, Department of Home Economics
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Frankie N. Schwenk
Research Leader
Family Economics Research Group
Joan C. Courtless
Family Economist
Family Economics Research Group
This study examines the impact of
selected socioeconomic and
demographic variables on apparel
expenditures among consumers
65 years of age and older using data
from the 1987 Consumer Expenditure
SuNey. Average annual apparel expendi­tures
for older households were $649 or
4 percent of their total expenditures.
Results of tobit analysis indicate that
age, income, education, race, housing
tenure, and family type are significant
predictors of apparel expenditures for
the elderly. The number of earners was
not significant. Findings from this study
have implications for U.S. apparel con­sumption
patterns since the Nation's
population is getting older.
Between 1980 and 1988 the U.S.
population over age 65 increased at
an average annual rate of 2.1 per­cent-
more than double the rate of
overall population growth (4). The
proportion of the total population
that was 65 and over rose from 11.3
percent in 1980 to 12.3 percent in
1988 (4) and is projected to reach
13.9 percent by 2010 (9). Within the
65 and over category, rates of increase
have been greater in the oldest age
groups (75 to 84 years, 85 and over),
so the older population itself is aging.
After 2010 the first baby boomers
will reach age 65, and the proportion
of elderly will swell sharply.
12
The aging of the population will
change aggregate U.S. consumption
patterns so consumer behaviors
inherent to the elderly need to be
identified and monitored. Apparel1
is an area for concern because the
relationship between disposable in­come
and clothing expenditures has
been shown to be inelastic (2,6) and
many older consumers experience a
decline in income. An analysis of
1986 expenditures of the elderly (J)
found the amount spent on clothing
and apparel services ($591) to be
similar to that spent on food away
from home ($640) and housefurnish­ings
and equipment ($556), and
greater than that spent on entertain­ment
($486) or domestic services
($348).
Clothing is fundamental to social
interaction, physical well-being, and
personal satisfaction in all persons,
regardless of age (3). This study
focuses on apparel expenditures
associated with selected socio­economic
and demographic charac­teristics
of households headed by
consumers 65 years and older.
1 Apparel refers to any clothing worn by
men, women, and children including foot­wear,
and other apparel commodities.
Source of Expenditure
Data and Sample
Data for this study are from the
1987 Consumer Expenditure Survey
(CEX). Conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, the CEX is an ongoing
survey that collects data on house­hold
expenditures, income, and
major socioeconomic and demo­graphic
characteristics. The CEX
weighted sample of households is
designed to represent the total non­institutionalized
U.S. population.
Each household is interviewed
quarterly for five consecutive
quarters. The sample for this study
is based on quarterly responses from
the 4,036 consumer units with a ref­erence
person 65 years of age or
older. Quarterly expenditures were
multiplied by four to provide annual
estimates. Percentages of households
reporting an expenditure are for any
one of the four quarters of 1987.
Profile of Respondents
About one-third of the sample
was between 65 and 69 years of age,
with fewer reference persons in each
advancing age group. Most of the
elderly had incomes between $5,000
and $10,000 (33 percent) and $10,000
and $20,000 (32 percent). Household
income generally decreased as age
increased, with larger percentages of
households reporting income under
$10,000 and smaller percentages
reporting incomes over $20,000:
Age of Household income
reference Under $10.~ Over
person $10,000 $20,000 $20,000
~
65-69 32 35 33
70-74 44 32 24
75-79 52 31 17
80-84 59 25 16
85+ 64 24 12
Average per capita income
decreased from $10,755 for the 65
to 69 year group to $7,369 for those
85 years or older. Most of the sample
were either living in husband and
Family Economics Review
wife families (36 percent) or were
single women (35 percent). Only
10 percent were single .men: The
remaining 19 percent lived m oth~r
family arrangements. Husband-~fe
families were more likely to have m­come
in excess of $10,000 (80 per­cent)
whereas most single women
(74 p~rcent) reported income below
$10,000.
The sample was predominantly
white (89 percent). Almost half
( 47 percent) of the elderl~ reported
possessing at least some ht~ school
education or a high school dtploma.
Less than one-third (31 percent) had
only an elementary school education
and 22 percent had some college
education.
A majority (60 percent) of older
respondents were homeowners
without a mortgage. Renters com­prised
26 percent of the s~ple. The
remainder were those holdmg a
mortgage, over half of whom were
age 65 to 69 years. Although only
23 percent of all older households
had income over $20,000, 42 percent
of homeowners with a mortgage
reported income in this range.
Renters were more likely to have
income under $10,000-64 percent,
compared with 29 percent of home­owners
with a mortgage and 40 per­cent
of those without a mortgage.
Half of the renters were single
women and nearly half ( 48 percent)
of homeowners with a mortgage
were husband-wife families.
Variables
Apparel expenditure categories
included total apparel, women's,
men's, children's, footwear, and
other apparel commodities (see box).
Expenditures for sewing (see box,
p. 16) were included with "other
apparel commodities." Househ~ld
characteristics were age, education,
and race of reference person, before­tax
income, housing tenure, family
composition and number of earners.
Data were' analyzed: (1) to provide
an overall description of apparel
expenditures of older con~ume~s
and (2) to determine relattonshtps
between expenditures and house­hold
characteristics.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Descriptive Statistics on
Apparel Expenditures of
Older Households
Average Apparel Expenditures
and Expenditure Shares
In 1987 the average expenditure
for apparel in households with refer­ence
persons 65 years or older was
$649 (table 1, p. 14). Mean expendi­tures
decreased as the age of the ref­erence
person increased, from $916
for those age 65 to 69 to just $162
for those 85 years or older.
A decrease in family size as the
householder ages partly accounts for
the reduction in apparel expendi­tures.
Average household size fo~
those age 65 to 69 was 2.0, but this
dropped to 1.8, 1.6, 1.5, and 1.5 per­sons
for the remaining age groups.
However, factors other than family
size had an effect because the per
capita apparel expenditures also
decreased with age. The average per
capita apparel expenditure for those
age 65 to 69 was $528. This declined
to $439 for persons 70 to 74, $279 for
those 75 to 79, $240 for consumers
80 to 84, and $105 for those 85 years
or older.
As a proportion of total expendi­tures,
the elderly spent 4 percent on
apparel. With advancing age, a .
smaller proportion of total expendi­tures
was spent on apparel and ap­parel
commodities, from 5 percent
for households with reference per­sons
between 65 and 74 years of age
to 2 percent for those with reference
persons 85 years of age and older.
The decreasing budget share for ap­parel
may be due to several fa~tors,
including diminished interest m
apparel, reduced mobility, curtailed
social activities, accumulated ward­robe,
and budgetary constraints
(1,2). Specifically, as a person ages
additional fmancial resources may
be needed increasingly for such ser­vices
as medical care, leaving propor­tionately
less for apparel and other
items in the budget. Households that
spent only 2 or 3 percent of total ex­penditures
on apparel had a. refer­ence
person age 80 or over, mcome
under $10,000, rented instead of
owned consisted of a single male,
or had' a reference person with an
elementary education.
In contrast, households spending
slightly higher percentages (5, 6 or
7 percent) of total expenditures on
13
Table 1. Expenditures and expenditure shares for apparel by
households with reference person 65 years and older
Household characteristic
All households 65 and over ...........
Age of reference person (years):
65-69 ..........................
70-74 ..........................
75-79 ..........................
80-84 ..........................
85 and older .....................
Income brackets:
$5,000 or less ....................
$5,001 - $9,999 ...................
$10,000-$19,999 .................
$20,000- $29,999 .................
$30,000 - $39,999 .................
$40,000 or more ..................
Race of reference person:
White .. . ........................
Black ...........................
Other ...........................
Housing tenure:
Homeowner with mortgage .........
Homeowner without mortgage ......
Renter ..........................
Family composition:
Husband/wife only ................
Husband/wife/children/others .......
Single male ......................
Single female ....................
Other families ....................
Education:
Elementary (1-8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
High school, not graduate ..........
High school graduate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0
College, not graduate •• 0 0 •• 0. ' •• ' 0
College graduate .................
More than 4 years of college ........
apparel were those with a reference
person between ages 65 and 74, those
with income $20,000 or over, those
with a mortgage, those headed by a
husband and wife, or those with a
college-educated reference person.
Social and leisure activities among
persons 65 to 74 may remain at a
relatively high level, which can be
reflected in a continuing need for,
and interest in, purchasing clothing.
14
Apparel expenditures
Total Percent
exeenditures of total
Mean Mean expenditures
$14,946 $649 4
18,707 916 5
16,306 772 5
12,057 423 4
10,481 346 3
9,006 162 2
8,318 264 3
9,808 309 3
14,825 593 4
19,067 914 5
27,880 1,864 7
35,144 1,846 5
15,399 679 4
10,035 357 4
19,742 773 4
25,146 1,280 5
14,131 623 4
11,624 388 3
18,919 902 5
23,065 1,045 5
11,632 291 3
9,686 394 4
16,112 689 4
10,300 311 3
12,858 636 5
15,412 658 4
19,599 943 5
23,619 1,350 6
28,432 1,281 5
Average Apparel Expenditures of
Purchasing Households
Expenditures for apparel were
reported by 79 percent of older
households (table 2). About half
reported expenditures for women's
apparel and other apparel com­modities.
Fewer households had ex­penditures
for footwear (34 percent)
and men's clothing (29 percent).
Only 15 percent purchased
children's clothing.
Considering only those households
that purchased apparel for the
quarter, the mean annualized ex­penditure
for apparel in 1987 was
$819. The average expenditure for
women's clothing by purchasing
households was $528, and for men's
clothing, $360. Lesser amounts were
spent on other apparel commodities,
children's clothing, and footwear.
Age
Age of reference person was as­sociated
with apparel expenditures.
Most households (88 percent) with a
reference person 65 to 69 years old
purchased apparel. The percentage
of households reporting an expendi­ture
for apparel decreased as age
increased. However, over half
(53 percent) of the oldest house­holders
(85 and over) bought ap­parel
during the 1987 quarter in
which they were interviewed. Similar
patterns of decreased expenditures
were observed for women's, men's,
and children's clothing, footwear,
and other apparel commodities.
In addition to percentage trends,
dollars spent on apparel decreased
as age increased. Among purchasing
households, mean expenditures for
apparel ranged from $1,041 for
those with a reference person age
65 to 69, to $305 for households
with a reference person 85 years and
over. Except for children's clothing,
apparel purchases dropped off
sharply after ages 70 to 74.
Income
The proportion of older house­holds
purchasing apparel and the
various apparel components rose as
income level rose. Only 63 percent
of those with incomes of $5,000 or
less had expenditures for apparel,
compared with at least 95 percent of
those with incomes of $30,000 or
more.
Among purchasing households,
mean expenditures for apparel in­creased
as income increased, from
$418 for those in the lowest income
bracket to $1,940 for those in the
highest bracket. Generally this pat­tern
held for women's, men's, and
children's clothing, footwear, and
other apparel commodities.
Family Economics Review
~ 8
~ Table 2. Expenditures for apparel: Percent of older households that purchased apparel and mean expenditure for purchasing
c:-.-..-. households, 1987
~ Total Other
~ apparel apparel
Household characteristic expenditures Women's Men's Children 's Footwear commodities
Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean
All households 65 and over . ........ .. 79 $819 54 $528 29 $360 15 $264 34 $216 51 $296
Age of reference person (years):
65-69 . • .. ..... .. .. ............ 88 1,041 62 611 38 358 21 272 42 235 59 414
70-74 • .......... . ..... . ....... 80 967 56 608 31 439 17 276 34 232 56 306
75-79 •. •. ...... .. .......... . .. 78 543 51 376 24 312 12 256 32 177 44 152
80-84 .. .. ........ ...... .... ... 71 487 46 381 14 235 8 168 27 199 40 176
85 and over .... . . . . •.... . . ... .• . 53 305 25 271 15 213 2 158 14 174 34 106
Income brackets:
$5,CXXl or less .. . ......... •. ... . . 63 418 39 349 11 279 5 442 22 131 36 129
$5,001 - $9,999 .......... . .. . .•.. 71 434 43 348 16 261 11 205 26 175 40 129
$10,CXXl- $19,999 .......... . .. . .. 84 705 58 453 33 309 16 226 38 194 53 209
$20,CXXl- $29,999 . ........... .. .. 89 1,026 62 612 46 344 23 284 40 230 61 355
$30,CXXl - $39,999 ...• . ........ ... 96 1,944 77 818 46 510 26 361 50 311 77 982
$40,CXXl or more ....... . . . ....... 95 1,940 79 1,066 57 586 27 318 52 371 79 515
Race of reference person:
White . • • .. • .. . . . ............... 80 848 55 543 29 366 16 255 35 220 51 303
Black .• . . . . . .... . . .. . .. .. ...... 71 505 37 302 20 266 11 388 23 157 46 230
Other ........ .. .. .. .... .... .... 85 906 56 494 34 416 16 164 52 256 66 303
Housing tenure:
Homeowners with mortgage .... . .. 90 1,430 67 806 40 516 25 320 44 306 63 517
Homeowners without mortgage • ... 78 799 56 488 31 340 15 235 35 209 45 307
Renter .• .. .. . . . ..... . •..... . ... 77 505 42 415 17 257 10 288 27 166 58 157
Family composition:
Husband/wife only .............. . 84 1,079 62 558 44 392 19 244 39 253 57 428
Husband/wife/children/others . ... .. 89 1,168 63 695 42 410 28 326 42 235 60 389
Single male .. . ... . .... ...... ... . 70 419 5 353 43 224 3 400 20 195 49 259
Single female .... . ... . ....... . . . 74 531 57 434 5 284 10 221 29 179 43 131
Other families .. . . . . .. . ... ... . . .. 83 833 55 597 28 376 19 310 41 187 50 226
Education:
Elementary (1-8) . . .... ... . . ..... 69 451 40 298 22 249 11 251 29 160 38 158
High school, not graduate .. .. . . . . . 80 789 53 404 28 288 16 206 32 201 49 497
High school graduate . .. .... .. . . .. 82 803 58 500 32 367 17 260 35 215 55 236
College, not graduate . ....... . .... 87 1,080 65 709 31 457 18 283 40 264 63 297
College graduate . . .... .. ..... . .. 89 1,521 69 1,022 29 776 19 377 40 248 62 410
More than 4 years college . ...... . . 93 1,370 72 865 45 384 16 334 42 371 79 366
~
VI
Race
Black households (71 percent)
were less likely to purchase apparel
than whites (80 percent) and other2
races (85 percent). Among purchas­ing
households, on average, black
households spent less on apparel
($505) than whites ($848) and other
races ($906), but more on children's
apparel. Among purchasing house­holds,
mean expenditure for children's
clothing was $388 for blacks, $255
for whites, and $164 for other races.
Pitts (8) also found that black
families spent more of their apparel
budget on children's clothing. Other
races reported spending more on
men's apparel and footwear than did
blacks or whites.
Housing Tenure
Homeowners with a mortgage
were more likely to report purchas­ing
apparel (90 percent) than those
without a mortgage (78 percent) or
renters (77 percent). Of those who
purchased apparel, homeowners
with a mortgage spent more on total
apparel, women's apparel, men's ap­pare~
and other apparel commodities
than homeowners without a mortgage
and renters. Renters spent slightly
more on children's clothing than
homeowners without a mortgage.
As stated previously, older home­owners
with a mortgage were more
likely to be among the youngest in the
sample. Also, they were more likely
to have household income over
$20,000. It may be that homeowners
with a mortgage are more likely to be
physically and socially active and to
have the fmancial resources that allow
them to make clothing purchases.
Family Composition
Single consumers were less likely
to report spending on total apparel,
children's apparel, footwear, and ap­parel
commodities than households
with more than one person. Similar
percentages of single men and hus­band-
wife families purchased men's
clothing, however, and only a slightly
20ther includes Asians, American Indians,
and others.
16
lower percentage of single women
reported expenditures for women's
clothing (57 percent), compared
with husband-wife families ( 62 or
63 percent). Families headed by a
husband and wife (with or without
children) reported higher expendi­tures
for total apparel, footwear, and
other apparel commodities than did
other families.
Education
Generally, households were more
likely to report expenditures for
total apparel, women's apparel, foot­wear,
and other apparel commodities
as the education level of the refer­ence
person increased. Approximate­ly
69 percent of respondents with an
elementary education purchased
apparel, compared with 93 percent
of those with more than 4 years of
college.
Expenditures for total apparel,
women's, men's, and children's
apparel generally increased with
education level, peaking at the col­lege
graduate level. Except for foot­wear,
those with more than 4 years
of college spent less, on average, on
apparel and apparel commodities
than did college graduates.
Results of Multivariate
Analysis
Findings from a multivariate
analysis of apparel expenditures are
similar to the descriptive findings
and are given in table 3. Tobit
analysis was used because 21 per­cent
of the sample reported no
expenditures for apparel. With this
many zero expenditures, tobit
analysis yields more efficient es­timates
than ordinary least squares
analysis. The tobit results indicate
that, holding other variables con­stant,
expenditures for apparel
decrease as age increases. Further,
these expenditures increase as
household income or reference
person's education increases. Addi­tional
significant fmdings were:
households with a black reference
person spend less on apparel than
those with a white reference person;
homeowners with a mortgage spend
more than those without a mortgage;
single men have lower expenditures
for apparel than do single women.
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of the study was to
describe the extent to which older
consumers purchased clothing and
to determine which socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics
influenced apparel expenditures in
. these households. Apparel was pur­chased
in 8 of 10 older households
during a quarter of 1987 and con­stituted
4 percent of household ex­penditures
for all goods and services.
The data show a decline in apparel
expenditures as the age of the refer­ence
person increases: the dollar
value decreased, as did percent of
total expenditures spent on apparel
and percent of households purchas­ing
apparel. These findings support
previous studies (1,2, 7) that found a
negative relationship between age
Family Economics Review
f
Table 3. Tobit results: Apparel expenditures of households with
reference person 65 years and older
Household characteristic 1
Age of reference person
Before-tax income
Education
Race (white):
Black . . .. ... ....... . .
Other . . ... . ......... .
Housing tenure (own, no mortgage):
Own, mortgage . . . . .
Renter . ....... .. .
Family type (single female) :
Husband, wife, child, other
Husband, wife only
Single male . . . .
Other families . . .
Earners (no earners):
One earner
Two earners . . . .
10mitted category is given in parentheses.
*P<.001.
and clothing expenditures. Other
factors affecting the apparel purchases
of older consumers were income,
education, race, housing tenure, and
family type.
It has been suggested that persons
older than 75 and especially those
older than 85 spend less on apparel
because they need to allocate in­come
for other items, particularly
medicine and health care (5). Also,
they may not engage in activities out­side
the home as much, requiring
less wardrobe variety. Their inven­tories
of clothing may reflect years
of accumulation, because clothing
has not "worn out." New styles and
new fabrics may not be as important
to the elderly; comfort and con­venience
may be preferred. Also,
shopping may be regarded increas­ingly
as inconvenient and a chore
rather than as a leisure activity. This
study indicates that persons 75 years
and older are less likely to purchase
clothing and those who do purchase,
spend less than persons 65 to 74
years of age.
1990 Vol.3 No.4
Direction of
relationship
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
References
Significance
level
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.51
0.00*
0.76
0.11
0.15
0.00*
0.16
0.30
0.34
1. Chung, Y.S. and F.M. Magrabi.
Age-related changes in expenditure
patterns. In: M.L. Carsky, editor.
American Council on Consumer
Interests-The Proceedings, pp. 200-206.
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Con­ference
of the American Council on
Consumer Interests. [New Orleans,
LA, March 1990).
2. Dardis, R., F. Derrick, and A.
Lehfeld. 1981. Clothing demand in
the United States: A cross-sectional
analysis. Home Economics Research
Joumal10{2):212-222.
3. Hoffman, AM. and W.W. Morris.
1979. Clothingforthe Handicapped,
the Aged and Other People with
Special Needs, pp. 6-7. C.C. Thomas,
Springfield, IL.
4. Hollman, F.W.1990. United
States Population Estimates, by Age,
Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to
1988. Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections.
Series P-25, No. 1045. U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
5. Kelley, E., J. Gray, GJ. Hildreth,
M. Gravois, and R.S. Turner. 1980.
Clothing Expenditures Among the
Expenditure Priorities of Elderly
Couples Before and After Retirement.
Louisiana State University, Agricul­tural
Experiment Station Bulletin
#725. Baton Rouge, LA.
6. Narum, P.S. 1989. Economic
analysis of quarterly household
expenditures on apparel. Home
Economics Research Journal
17{3):228-240.
7. -,-----.1988. Household
expenditures on clothing and
textiles. In: V. Hampton, editor.
American Council on Consumer
Interests- The Proceedings, pp. 277-
281. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
Conference of the American Council
on Consumer Interests. [Denver,
CO, April1987).
8. Pitts, J.M. 1989 .. Expenditures
of black households:" Housing,
transportation, food, and clothing.
Family Economics Review 2{3):8-12.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1990. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1990.
[110th ed.]
10. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey,
1987. Unpublished data.
11. . Consumer
Expenditure Surveys: 1987 Interview
Survey Public Use Tape and
Documentation.lS
17
Research Summaries
Income Change at
Retirement
Retirement is a complex process
involving various stages of withdrawal
from the labor force and receipt of
one or more types of retirement
benefits. To study retirement be­havior,
preliminary data from the
1984 Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) were used. The
SIPP is an ongoing household survey
that collects information every 4
months over a 32-month period and
obtains monthly data. The sample
consisted of persons age 55 or older
who, during the 32 months, entered
some phase of retirement, i.e., in-curred
a reti· rement transi.t i.o n. 1 The
data were weighted to represent the
retirement population.
Three criteria were used to defme
a phase of retirement: (1) first receiv­ing
Social Security retired-worker
benefits, (2) first receiving an
employer pension, and (3) stopping
work after initially working while
receiving one or both of these
benefits. Persons were classified by
their observed retirement transitions
(table 1).
1 The preretirement period ended with
the advent of the first or only retirement
transition; the postretirement period coin­cided
with the last or only retirement transi­tion.
The period between the first and last
transitions, if any, was ignored. Income was
measured on the basis of 3 months of data.
Retirees were required to have 3 months of
observations before and after retirement
transitions.
18
Retirement Groups
Seven distinct retirement transi­tions
were noted. Only a minority of
retirees (22 percent) moved directly
into full retirement (the stereotypi­cal
retirement transition), that is,
from working full-time and not col­lecting
retirement benefits to not
working and collecting one or more
benefits (retirement groups one and
two). The remainder were in various
interim stages or'retirement.
Fifteen percent of individuals who
initially were working and not col­lecting
retirement benefits continued
working after receiving one or more
benefits. About 80 percent of this
third group were working full-time
before the first retirement transition,
and 90 percent collected only one
type of benefit after the last retire­ment
transition.
Two groups (numbers four and
five) had been working and collect­ing
a retirement benefit. One of
these then began collecting the other
type of benefit (6 percent). Most
individuals in this fourth group
reduced their work effort after
receipt of the second benefit, either
from full-time to part-time or from
part-time to no work. Individuals in
group five stopped working altogether
(13 percent). Not everyone worked
until benefit receipt; in the sixth
group 20 percent stopped working
before collecting benefits and moved
to collecting one or more benefits
and perhaps working. Most of these
people had not worked for a long
period of time. The seventh form of
retirement transition, made by 24 per­cent
of individuals, involved moving
from not working and collecting one
benefit to collecting both Social
Security and employer pensions.
Income Change and Poverty
Individuals who were working full­time
and not receiving any benefits
before a retirement transition (groups
one and two) had the highest pre­transition
incomes and the lowest
ratios of post-to-pre-transition income
(table 2). The income of those who
continued working after beginning
to receive benefits (group three)
increased 15 percent, giving these
people the highest median post­transition
income of any group.
However, these individuals had a
lower median pre-transition income
than the two stereotypical groups
because some of them were working
part-time, and pre-transition earnings
of full-time workers in this group
were lower.
Post-transition income of persons
who went from working and receiving
one benefit to receipt of two benefits
and perhaps working (group four)
was slightly higher than that of
stereotypical group one with both
types of retirement benefits ($1,257
compared to $1,140 per month).
Retirees in group four were older
on average than those in group one;
later retirees would not have as great
a benefit reduction for early retire­ment
and may have improved the
earnings records on which their
benefits are based. Nonmarried
women were overrepresented among
those in group five who went from
working and receiving one or more
benefits to not working (31 percent
compared to 18 percent overall).
The two groups with the lowest pre­transition
incomes were those who
had already stopped working. Those
who neither worked nor received
Family Economics Review
Table 1. Retirement groups, by status before and after retirement transitions and median ~ge
Total percent
Full retirement:
Retirement group
1 Full-time work, no benefits - two benefits, no work ............... . .. .. .
2 Full-time work, no benefits - one benefit, no work . . .. . ... . ....... . .... .
Partial retirement:
3 Work, no benefits - work and benefit(s) ......... . . .. ... .. ........... .
4 Work and one benefit - two benefits, may have work ..... .. ... . ....... .
Other:
5 Work and benefit(s) - benefit(s), no work ................ . .. ... . . . .. .
6 No work, no benefits - benefit(s), may have work . .. ............. . .... .
7 No work, one benefit - two benefits, may have work .................. : .
Percent
100
12
10
15
6
13
20
24
Age
63
63
60
62
65
69
62
68
Source: Grad, S., 1990, Income and change at retirement, Social Security Bulletin 53(1):2-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
Table 2. Retirement groups, by median income before and after retirement transitions 1 and median income
ratios2
Retirees Families
Retirement group Before After Ratio Before After Ratio
Total 0. 0 •• • • • 0 0 . 0 ••• 0. 0 • • • • 0 0 . $ 907 $930 1.05 $1,811 $1,789 1.05
1 •• • ' 0 • • •• ••• •••••••• ' •• • •• • • 1,917 1,140 .60 2,682 1,938 .74
2 • • • • • 0 • • •• • ' •• • •••• •••• ••• •• 2,111 961 .46 3,143 1,859 .62
3 •• • •••• • •• 0 ••••••• • • 0 ••••• 0. 1,402 1,561 1.15 2,331 2,396 1.11
4 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,457 1,257 .96 2,074 2,178 1.03
5 • • 0 • ••••••••• 0 0 0 • • • • •••••••• 897 616 .67 1,455 956 .78
6 ••• • • • •• • • • • • • ••••• 0 •••• •••• 117 503 3.20 1,238 1,765 1.32
7 •••••• • 0 ••• 0 • •••••••••••• ••• 598 929 1.36 1,185 1,608 1.23
1 Average monthly amounts in 3-month periods before and after retirement transitions.
2Medians of each retiree's and family's ratios of income after retirement transitions to before transitions, rather than ratios of the group
medians, to reflect income change at the individual level.
Source: Grad, S., 1990, Income and change at retirement, Social Security Bulletin 53(1):2-10, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
benefits had minimal pre-transition
income ($117), and the lowest post­transition
income ($503).
Most retirees were married or
living with extended families. The ef­fective
income of retirees living with
relatives includes the income of
other family members. Percentage
changes in income of most retire­ment
groups were not as great for
families as for individual retirees
(table 2).
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4
To give some idea of the economic
impact of being in these various stages
of retirement, unofficial estimates of
pre-transition and post-transition
poverty rates were calculated based
on the retirees' own and family in­come
(table 3, p. 20). Depending on
the type of transition, family poverty
rates varied widely before and after
a retirement transition. In cases
where an individual moved from
working and receiving one or more
benefits to not working and receiving
benefits (group five), the family
poverty rate increased from 1 to
17 percent. However, where an
individual moved from neither work­ing
nor receiving benefits to receiving
one or more benefits and perhaps
working (group six), the family
poverty rate declined from 23 to
8 percent.
Sources of income changed with
retirement. Three sources of income
were compared before and after
19
Table 3. Retirement groups, by percent poor before and after
retirement transitions
Retiree Family
Retirement group Before After Before After
Percent poor
Total •••••• • • 0 ••••• •• • 23 16 7 6
1 • •• • •••••• • 0 . 0. 0 • • 0 . 0 2 0 0
2 •. . . ' . ..•. • .•••• • • 0. 0 15 3 0
3 • • • • • • • 0 •••• 0 ••• •• 0 . 10 4 4 1
4 0 ••••••••••• •• • •• • • • 5 2 2 0
5 •••••••••• 0 0 . 0. 0. 0 0. 4 30 1 17
6 • 0 ••• 0 •••• •• • • •••• • • 77 38 23 8
7 • •• •• ••• •• • •• ••• • • 0 0 25 7 9 4
Source: Grad, S., 1990, Income change at retirement, Social Security Bulletin 53(1):2-10,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration.
Table 4. Percent of retirees receiving income by source, and share of
total income before and after retirement transitions
Percent receiving Income share 1
Income sources Before After Before After
Transfers . .... . ... . ... . 53 100 35 76
Asset income .. ... . . . . . 81 84 22 14
Earnings . . ..... ... . .. . 56 19 43 10
1Means of individual ratios of amounts from sources to total income.
Source: Grad, S., 1990, Income change at retirement, Social Security Bulletin 53(1):2-10,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration.
retirement transitions: Transfer
sources (Social Security benefits,
employer pensions, public assistance,
and Veterans benefits), asset income,
and earnings. Although many retirees
were not fully retired in the stereo­typical
sense, twice as many had
transfers and only one~ third as many
had earnings just after, compared
with just before, the retirement
transitions (table 4). The share of
income from transfers was twice as
great after the retirement transitions,
and the share from earnings was only
one-fourth as great. Asset income was
a more stable and less important
source of income than transfers or
earnings at retirement. More than
80 percent of the SIPP retirees
20
received asset income before and
after the retirement transitions,
although the share of income from
assets declined. Also, amounts of
asset income usually change (for
9 in 10 retirees) and the median
percentage change was 39 percent.
For some individuals, retirement
transitions would continue in the
future. Such transitions would again
result in changes in income for these
retirees and their families.
Source: Grad, S., 1990, Income change at
retirement, Social Security Bulletin 53(1):2-10,
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
Family-Related
Employee Benefits
Employee benefits protect workers
and their families from fmancial
hardships. Health care plans help
with medical expenses, enabling
workers and family members to seek
care they might otherwise do without.
Retirement plans allow older
employees to stop working, yet
maintain certain living standards.
Disability benefits provide income
to those unable to work. Survivor
benefits protect against loss of income
resulting from the death of a spouse
or other relative.
Employers may offer benefit plans
to meet union demands, to attract
and keep good employees, or to
remain competitive with other
employers in the labor market.
Another source of benefits is the
Government, which provides direct
benefits, such as Social Security,
and mandates employers to provide
protection, such as workers' compen­sation.
Since 1915, when workers'
compensation laws were first intro­duced
in several States, nationwide
programs for Social Security and
unemployment insurance have been
developed and implemented, and
mandatory employer-provided
benefits such as health care and
parental leave are perennial agenda
items for policymakers.
Family Economics Review
Growth in Benefits over the Past
75 Years
At the outbreak of World War I
employee compensation generally'
was limited to straight -time pay for
hours worked. The average American
family encompassed several genera­tions
and branches under one roof.
Loss of income or unusual expenses
were borne by the pooled resources
of the family. In 1915 the need for
retirement income was not as great
as it is today. Life expectancy was
52.5 years for men, and people did
not expect to enjoy "retirement
years." Also, the extended family
usually cared for its elderly and met
their fmancial needs.
Employee benefits were available
through labor unions and mutual aid
societies. Labor unions typically
provided lump-sum benefits to
survivors upon the death of an
employee and weekly payments to
disabled employees. These benefits
were funded through union dues.
Mutual aid societies were generally
worker-financed funds that collected
dues and offered group benefits.
The years 1930--44 were marked by
an expansion of retirement income
benefits, particularly the establish­ment
of Social Security. This program
guaranteed a pension to retirees,
~}though i~ was intended to provide
JUSt a portion of a worker's total
retirement income. Over time,
private firms began to offer retire­ment
plans to supplement Social
Security. The Railroad Retirement
System, a consolidation of several
railroad industry pension plans
under Government administration
was formed during this time. Life '
expectancy rose to nearly 60 years
by 1930 and to nearly 66 by 1945.
Employer-provided life insurance
became more prevalent during this
period. By 1936, 60 percent of estab­lishments
provided life insurance
for t?eir employees. A typical plan
proVIded about $1,500 in life insurance
protection and double-indemnity
benefits for accidental death.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
To stabilize prices during World
War II, the War Labor Board
restricted wage increases but was
more lenient in allowing improvements
in benefits. Employers offered a
variety of benefits in lieu of increased
wages. These "noninflationary''
benefits included time off with pay
limited medical care for employee~
and families, and pension benefits.
The end of World War II led to an
increase in marriages and children
and a male-dominated labor force.
In addition to time off with pay and
payment of medical expenses,
employers met the needs of these
traditional families by providing
protection against loss of income.
There was widespread adoption of
these benefits into the compensation
package.
Two court rulings supported this
fu~damental change in the compen­sation
structure of American
workers. The Taft-Hartley Act of
1947 states that management must
negotiate with labor organizations,
elected to represent workers, on
"wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment." In 1948
and 1949, court rulings held that
retirement and insurance benefits
were "other terms and conditions of
employment," and that management
had to include these items in collec­tive
bargaining negotiations.
To meet the growing need for
health care in the late 1940's and
1950's, employers began providing
f~rmal health care plans, through
either commercial insurers or Blue
Cross/Blue Shield plans. By 1960
about 80 percent of plant and office
workers in metro areas received a
health care plan through their
employer . .
The incidence of catastrophic
medical coverage, or "major medical,"
rose dramatically between 1960 and
1975. Typically such plans pay a
percent of charges incurred after a
deductible is paid by the employee.
The following tabulation shows the
increasing percentages of office and
plant workers with catastrophic
medical protection during this
period:
Years
1960--61
1965-66
1970-71
1975
Office
workers
Plant
workers
Percent
49 21
73 40
88 65
94 77
Between 1960 and 1974, employers
established and expanded typical
be~efit plans, such as paid leave,
retir.e ment income, health care' and surVIvor and disability insurance.
Major pension reform was debated
in Congress for nearly 15 years. The
result was the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, signed into law
on Labor Day 1974.
Two major trends have dominated
the labor scene in recent years:
Women joined the labor force in
record numbers and two-earner
families became the norm, and
employees' needs changed. The
Employee Retirement Income
Security Act was the beginning of a
series of tax and benefits legislation
that is still continuing. Rather than
mandating new benefits, these laws
have concentrated on improving
and guaranteeing the provisions of
exist~ng benefits. Pension eligibility
reqmrements, vesting, and dis­criminatory
practices were further
defined.
Because of changing demographics,
employers have provided several
new benefits such as parental leave
child care, and flexible work '
schedules. Employees are offered
more opportunities to choose
benefits suited to individual family
needs. Benefits accounted for 17 per­cent
of compensation costs in 1966
22 percent in 1974, and 27 percent in
1989.
Source: Wiatrowski, W.J., 1990, Family­related
be~efits in the workplace, Monthly
Labor Revtew 113(3):28-33, U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
21
Urban and Rural
Consumer Debt
In 1986 consumer debt1 as a
proportion of income and of assets
of the average rural resident2 had
risen well above historical levels,
above even the urban average. To
examine this trend, data from the
1970, 1977, 1983, and 1986 Surveys
of Consumer Finances were used;
families headed by an adult 25 years
of age or older were included in the
analysis.
Rural people are less likely than
urban people to borrow (table 1).
However, of those who do hold
some consumer debt, rural house­holds
had consistently higher con­sumer
debt-to-before-tax income
and debt-to-asset ratios than did
urban households in each survey
year. The ruraVurban difference was
especially marked in 1986, when the
ratio of consumer debt to total assets
was almost 8 percentage points
higher among rural, compared with
urban, debtor households.
Over 60 percent of the outstand­ing
consumer debt of rural families
was for auto loans (table 2). This is
consistent with the 1983 survey fmd­ing
that car ownership (both number
of cars per household and auto value
per dollar of income) was higher in
rural than in urban areas, perhaps
because rural people live in more
remote locations. The fastest grow­ing
category of consumer debt was
credit card debt (used primarily for
retail and gasoline purchases), which
by 1986 made up nearly one-fifth of
total rural debt and nearly one­quarter
of total urban debt.
High-debt households were
defined as those who spend more
than 15 percent of their monthly in­come
on consumer debt payments.
1Consumer debt was defined as all debt
(other than real estate) requiring regular
pay_ments.
1-he rural population was defined as all
1983 residents of outlying territory (area over
50 miles from a central city and not contained
in an urbanized area of a metropolitan area).
22
Table 1. Consumer debt trends
Debt indicator 1970 1977 1983 1986
Mean value, 1983 dollars
Consumer debt:
Urban .. . . . . .... .. ..... . . 1,990 2,359 2,457 2,705
Rural ............. . ...... 1,594 2,028 1,602 2,071
Total U.S .. . ........ ... .. . 1,910 2,316 2,332 2,599
Percent
Percent borrowing:
Urban ................... 54 60 59 61
Rural .................... 49 50 51 50
Total U.S . . .. . ... . ........ 53 59 57 59
Among borrowers:
Ratio of consumer debt
to before-tax income:
Urban ..... . .... . .. . .. .. . 13 13 15 16
Rural ... . ... . ........ . ... 14 14 17 22
Total U.S .. . ........ . ..... 13 13 16 17
Ratio of consumer debt
to total assets:
Urban .......... . .... . ... 18 16 14 13
Rural . ..... . . . . . . .. . ..... 19 17 18 20
Total U.S .... . ... .. ....... 18 16 15 14
Source: Surveys of Consumer Finances for 1970, 1977, 1983, and 1986.
Table 2. Consumer debt by form of debt
Form of debt 1983 1986
Percent of total
All households:
Auto ............ .. . . .. . . . .... .. . 47 51
Other installment ................. . 21 13
Credit card ... . ... . . . .... . . .. . . . . . 14 24
Home repair ............ . . ... .. . . . 8 9
Furniture ..... ... ... . . . .. ... : .... . 10 3
Urban households:
Auto ........................... . 45 49
Other installment ................. . 21 13
Credit card ...... . ............... . 15 25
Home repair . ..... . ......... . ... . . 9 10
Furniture . . . .. . .. ... . ......... . .. . 10 3
Rural households:
Auto . . .... . ... . ...... . ......... . 61 61
Other installment ... . ............. . 15 12
Credit card .. .. . .. . .......... .. .. . 13 19
Home repair . .. ... . ....... . .. . ... . 6 5
Furniture .... .... . . .... . .. . ... : .. . 5 3
Source: Surveys of Consumer Finances for 1983 and 1986.
Family Economics Review
The proportion of high-debt house­holds
in rural areas rose from 12 per­cent
of all rural households in 1983
to almost 15 percent in 1986. In
urban areas, the proportion of high­debt
households grew less than 1 per­centage
point from 1983 to 1986.
High-debt households were generally
less wealthy than other households.
In rural areas, the average high-debt
household had half the assets and
less than half the net worth (assets
minus debts) of other rural households.
Those deep in debt also had lower
incomes than others in both urban
and rural areas.
Many high-debt households, how­ever,
had sufficient assets to pay off
all debts. Nearly one-quarter of high­debt
rural households in 1986 had
liquid assets (cash and financial hold­ings)
sufficient to pay off the entire
balance due on their consumer
loans. If all physical assets except
house value were included in a
family's asset base for debt repay­ment,
more than 80 percent of rural
and 75 percent of urban high deb­tors
were capable of paying off all
consumer debts in 1986.
Of all rural households deep in
debt in 1983, fewer than one-quarter
remained so in 1986, and nearly one­quarter
had no consumer debt pay­ment
obligations at ·aU (table 3).
Urban high debtors displayed even
greater mobility out of high debt.
Both rural and urban high-debt
households saw substantial growth in
their income, financial assets, and
net worth, and substantial reductions
in their consumer debt balances over
the 1983-86 period.
An auto purchase appears to be a
major factor why families were in a
high-debt situation (table 4). In
1986, 77 percent of rural families
and 65 percent of urban families
who became high debtors reported
that they had bought a car within
the past 3 years. Health-related ex­penses
also led both rural and urban
people into high debt. This is not
surprising since such expenses are
often large and unexpected. Furni­ture
and a college education were
other items that generated high in­debtedness.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Table 3. Movement into and out of debt, .urban and rural households,
1983-86
1986 Debt category
1983 Debt category Zero debt Some debt High debt
Percent
Urban:
Zero debt .............. 68 25 7
Some debt ............. 20 69 11
High debt .............. 27 53 20
Rural:
Zero debt .............. 76 18 6
Some debt ............. 25 55 20
High debt .............. 24 52 24
Note: Debt categories defined by ratio of monthly consumer debt payments to monthly
income. Zero<lebt households have no debt payment obligations. Some<lebt households
have 1 to 15 percent. High-debt households have greater than 15 percent.
Source: Surveys of Consumer Finances for 1983 and 1986.
Table 4. Large purchases affect high-debt status
High-debt households All households
Type of purchase made 1986
Urban households:
Car .............•...............
Furniture .................. ...... .
Health-related expense ............ .
Child attending college ............ .
Child attending private school ...... .
Other large expense .............. .
Any large expense .......... ... ... .
Rural households:
Car ............. ............... .
Furniture .... .. .... .. . ........... .
Health-related expense ............ .
Child attending college ............ .
Child attending private school . ..... .
Other large expense .............. .
Any large expense ................ .
1983 1986
44
29
26
12
8
16
77
50
11
35
7
5
8
65
Percent
65
30
29
14
11
18
84
77
24
33
23
3
27
92
53
31
19
13
9
17
83
48
14
22
13
4
12
76
Source: Surveys of Consumer Finances for 1983 and 1986.
Families already deeply in debt
tended to avoid large purchases.
High-debt families in 1983 were less
likely than other families to incur
large expenses in the 1983-86 period
in both rural and urban areas. Health
expenses were an exception, probably
because these expenses are difficult
to predict and postpone.
A change in family or employment
status was often related to increased
debt. Households in which a member
lost or gained a job, that changed
their residence, or that grew in size
between 1983 and 1986 were more
likely to experience an increase in
their consumer debt than other
households.
Source: Lerman, D., 1990, Rural consumer
debt: Is recent growth a problem? Rural
Development Perspectives 6(2):25-29, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
23
The Short-Term
Poor
Families with income below the
poverty threshold for families of
their size and type are considered
poor; their income is inadequate to
meet basic needs over a period of
time. The official poverty statistics
defme this period as 1 year. In
reality, people suffer inadequate in­come
for periods shorter or longer
than a year. To gauge the extent of
short-term poverty (less than a year),
the poverty status of the nonmetro
and metro population was examined
for each month over a 12-month
period during 1983 and 1984. Data
were collected in the Survey of
Income and Program Participation
(SIPP) by the Bureau of the Census.
Proportionately more nonmetro
than metro residents experienced
some months of poverty (see table).
About one-third of nonmetro people
were in poverty at least 1 month
during the year, compared with one­fourth
of the metro population. The
percentages of people experiencing
1, 2, or 3 months of poverty were
similar (8 percent) in metro and
nonmetro areas. Beginning with
4 months of poverty, however, dif­ferences
between metro and non­metro
areas (except for the aged)
became greater. Over 15 percent
of the nonmetro population were
poor between 4 and 11 months,
compared with 10 percent of the
metro population.
Traditional poverty estimates can
mask short periods of poverty, if in­come
is high enough during the rest
of the year. Only about 40 percent of
the 4-11 month poor in nonmetro
areas were also poor under poverty
definitions that compare annual
income with an annual poverty
threshold.
Nonmetro Poor
Between 71 and 75 percent of non­metro
whites, aged, and people in
married-couple households com­pletely
avoided poverty. In contrast,
62 percent of blacks and 59 percent
24
Months of poverty experienced by metro and nonmetro populations,
1983-84
Segment of Months
the population 0 1-3 4-11 12
~~[Q~nt
Metro population 75.1 7.8 10.2 6.9
Nonmetro population 67.6 8.3 15.4 8.7
Whites . 70.8 8.1 14.3 6.8
Blacks . 37.7 10.9 24.1 27.3
Children 59.7 9.6 19.3 11 .5
Aged .. 74.7 3.0 8.6 13.8
Disabled 60.4 7.4 16.8 15.4
Married-couple households 73.8 7.7 14.0 4.5
Other family households 41.4 11.5 23.0 24.1
Nonfamily households . . . 55.9 7.9 15.6 20.7
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation 1983-84
Longitudinal Research File. '
of people in "other family" house­holds
(households not maintained by
a married-couple family) lived in
poverty at least 1 month. In addition,
about one-fourth of nonmetro blacks
and members of other family house­holds
were poor all12 months.
The aged formed relatively large
shares of the populations with no
poverty and with 12 months of
poverty, and smaller shares of the
two intermediate groups. A large
share of income for the nonmetro
elderly comes from Social Security
and other pension benefits, which
can remain the same from month to
month. As a result, if the elderly
have poverty-level income, it tends
to be at that level year round rather
than for just a few months.
Whites, children, and married­couple
households in poverty were
mcire likely to experience periods of
poverty between 4 and 11 months
than the entire 12 months. All non­metro
groups were more likely to
have 4-11 months of poverty than
1-3 months. The aged, black, and
nonfamily households were far more
common among the 12-month poor
than among those with 4-11 months
of poverty. In addition, a much
larger portion of the 12-month poor
belonged to other family households,
particularly those headed by women.
A major focus of the current
welfare system is families with de­pendent
children, primarily single­parent
families. Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC)
specifically targets these families,
and AFDC households are also auto­matically
eligible for food stamps
and Medicaid. This focus seems
reasonable, given the severity of
poverty among these households.
Because a small proportion of the
nonmetro population is black (9 per­cent)
or lives in other family house­holds
(14 percent), the majority of
nonmetro poor are not black and do
not live in single-parent households.
When devising strategies to reduce
nonmetro poverty, policymakers
need to remember these other poor.
Source: Hoppe, R, 1989, Short-term poor
need help, too, Rural Development Perspectives
6(1):8-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Vol. 3 No. 3 Family Economics Review
Trends in
Children's Median
Family Income1
Annual data from the March
Current Population Survey were
used to determine trends in work
patterns and composition of families
with children, and children's median
family income. Two major changes
in the family situation of childre·n
since 1974 have been the increasing
proportion who are living in dual­worker
families (families with both
parents employed) and the increasing
proportion living in single-parent
families. These developments oc­curred
as the decline in the number
of children living in "traditional"
families (two-parent families in
which only the father is employed)
was observed.
In March 1988, 24.9 million
children under the age of 18 lived in
dual-worker families. These children
accounted for 43 percent of the total
in families (table 1). Just 13 years
earlier, children in such families
numbered 18.9 million and con­stituted
barely 30 percent of the
Nation's children. Meanwhile, the
number in "traditional" families fell
from about 29 million ( 46 percent of
all children) to fewer than 17 million
(29 percent of children). The growth
in the proportion of children living
in single-parent families has not
Tie measure of income used is the
median family income of children. This
median is based on the frequency distribution
of children by family income. Because many
families contain more than one child (in
March 1988, 58.4 million children lived in
32.3 million families), the frequency distribu­tion
of children by family income differs from
that of families with children. In the distribu­tion
of families, the income of each family
unit is represented only once. However, in
a distribution of children by their families'
income, the income of family units can be
represented more than once, depending on
the number of children in each family. As a
result, the dollar. value of children's family
income (about $30,000 in 1987) differs some­what
from that of families with children
(about $30,720).
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Table 1. Family characteristics of children under 18 years
Two-parent families
Year
Traditional1 Dual-worker-2 Othe(J
Single-parent
families
1975 .......... 46.2
1976 .......... 44.3
1977 .......... 43.0
1978 .......... 40.7
1979 .......... 39.5
1980 .......... 37.1
1981 ••••• 0. 0 0. 36.3
1982 .......... 35.0
1983 .......... 34.0
1984 .......... 33.2
1985 .......... 31.5
1986 .......... 31.1
1987 .......... 28.8
1988 .......... 28.6
29.7
31.3
33.2
34.8
36.2
36.5
36.8
35.7
35.4
37.8
39.5
39.5
41.9
42.6
Percent
8.2
8.0
6.8
6.2
5.9
7.0
7.3
8.7
10.0
8.1
7.3
7.7
7.1
6.4
15.9
16.4
17.0
18.3
18.4
19.4
19.6
20.6
20.6
20.9
21.7
21.7
22.2
22.4
1Father employed, mother not employed.
2Father and mother employed.
3Neither parent employed, or only mother employed.
Source: Hayghe, H.V., 1989, Children in 2-worker families and real family income, Monthly
Labor Review 112(12):48-52, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
been as dramatic as the shift from
"traditional" to dual-worker families.
In 1975, 16 percent of children under
18lived in single-parent families; by
1988 the proportion was 22 percent.
The overwhelming majority of these
children lived with their mothers,
but a growing segment lived with
their fathers.
Because mothers with school-age
children are far more likely to be in
the labor force than mothers of pre­schoolers,
a higher proportion of
school-age children than children
under 6 are in dual-worker families.
Nonetheless, both proportions have
increased sharply since 1975-from
32 to 45 percent of the school-age
children and from 23 to 39 percent
of the preschoolers. In single-parent
families, proportions of both
preschool- and school-age children
with an employed parent rose
between 1975 and 1988-from 39 to
44 percent of children under 6 and
from 53 to 62 percent of children
6 to 17 years old. These percentages,
however, were far below those for
children of similar ages living in
married-couple families.
To the extent that real income
measures economic well-being, there
was little overall improvement in
children's welfare between 1974 and
1987 (table 2, p. 26). In fact, real
family income declined, on average,
in the early 1980's. However, as the
economy recovered from the reces­sion
of the early 1980's, family in­come
began rising so that by 1987
some children (those in two-parent
families) were in families with
median incomes that were equal to,
or slightly above, their 1974levels.
In 1974 children in dual-worker
families had a real household in­come
(in 1987 dollars) of $37,860.
From 1974 to 1979, the median
edged upward to $38,808. Under the
pressure of recession, the median
fell to $36,620 between 1979 and
1983. During the period following
1983, as the economy rebounded,
the median for these children
reached $40,890 in 1987. Children in
"traditional" families experienced
less variation in family income over
the period. In 1974 median real
25
Table 2. Median family income for children under 18 years by family
characteristics, in constant 1987 dollars
Two-parent families
Year Families maintained
Traditional1 Dual-worker2 bywomen3
1974 ..... .. .... $31,402 $37,860 $11 ,116
1975 ••• 0 •• • • • •• 30,319 36,482 10,754
1976 .... ... .... 31,308 37,020 11,243
1977 ••• • 0 • ••• 0. 31,959 37,309 11,257
1978 ••• ••• ••• 0. 32,109 38,570 10,927
1979 0 •• •• 0 • • 0 0. 32,558 38,808 11,346
1980 0 •• • ••••••• 30,746 38,258 10,567
1981 •••• 0 •••••• 29,909 38,136 10,439
1982 ....... . . 0. 29,847 37,140 9,400
1983 ••• • 0 • • •• 0. 28,865 36,620 9,065
1984 •• 0 • •• ••• 0. 30,065 37,969 9,206
1985 ••••• • •• 0 . 0 30,500 38,811 8,993
1986 0 ••• •• • 0 ••• 31,656 39,814 8,946
1987 0 •••• 0 . 0 ••• 31,652 40,890 9,007
1Father employed, mother not employed.
2Father and mother employed.
3No spouse present.
Source: Hayghe, H.V., 1989, Children in 2-worker families and real family income, Monthly
Labor Review 112{12):48-52, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
household income for children in
"traditional" families was $31,400;
13 years later, it was only $250
greater, although a high of $32,600
had been reached in 1979.
Children in single-parent families
maintained by women were not as
fortunate as those in two-parent
families. The families of these
children (with a median income that
was far less than that of two-parent
families) did not participate in the
post -1983 recovery experienced by
children in two-parent families.
Between 1974 and 1979, median
real household income for female­headed
families was fairly stable at
around $11,000 a year. Yet, from
1980 to 1983, the median fell to
about $9,000, where it has remained.
Changes in the composition of
families maintained by women ex­plain,
in part, why children in these
families did not participate in the
economic expansion of the 1980's.
Since 1975 the proportion of these
26
families in which the householder
never married grew from about
13 percent to 21 percent. These
women are typically very young and
have completed relatively few years
of schooling; thus, they are not likely
to possess the skills and experience
necessary to obtain a well-paying
job. In addition, the proportion of
such families that were Black or
Hispanic rose between 1974 and
1987. Black and Hispanic single
mothers typically experienced labor
market difficulties and, consequently,
low median income.
Source: Hayghe, H.V., 1989, Children in
2-worker families and real family income,
Monthly Labor Review 112(12):48-52, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Family Economics Review
Recent Legislation Affecting Families
Public Law 101-254- the Library
Services and Construction Act
Amendments of 1990 authorize
funds through the close of fiscal year
1994 to carry out programs under the
Library Services and Construction
Act, the largest Federal library
program. Included are funds for
programs to promote literacy and
to make library services available to
persons with special needs, such as
the physically handicapped, the
elderly, and the illiterate. Among the
provisions of the bill are funds to:
(1) assist libraries in developing
intergenerational programs that will
match older adult volunteers inter­ested
in developing literacy and read­ing
skills among unsupervised school
children during after-school hours;
(2) assist libraries in providing
mobile services and programs to
child care providers or child care
centers that are licensed or certified
by the State, or that otherwise meet
the requirements of State law;
(3) establish and support model
library literacy centers to reduce the
number of functionally illiterate in­dividuals
and to help them reach full
employment;
( 4) assist libraries in providing and
displaying educational materials and
conducting communitywide programs
aimed at preventing and eliminating
drug abuse.
Recipients of funds under this Act
are encouraged to address preserva­tion
needs in order to protect
endangered materials.
Enacted March 15, 1990.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Public Law 101-305- the 1992
National Assessment of Chapter 1
Act requires the Secretary of Educa­tion
to conduct a comprehensive
national assessment of programs
carried out with assistance under
Chapter 1 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1%5.
The assessment, to be completed in
1992, will be planned, reviewed, and
conducted in consultation with an
independent panel of researchers,
State practitioners, local practition­ers,
and other appropriate individuals.
The Act will ensure that there will
be a full and accurate report, which
will enable members of Congress to
deliberate more effectively in an­ticipation
of the 1993 reauthorization.
Chapter 1, Financial Assistance to
Meet Special Education Needs of
Children, is the largest Federal
elementary and secondary education
program. The law requires local
school districts and, if necessary,
State educational agencies to pro­vide
technical assistance to schools
showing no improvement or a con­tinued
decline in the achievement
of their Chapter 1 children. The law
includes provisions for schoolwide
projects, designed to improve the
educational climate in schools with
large numbers of disadvantaged
children.
Enacted May 30, 1990.
Public Law 101-336- the
Americans with Disabilities Act
provides sweeping protections
against discrimination to 43 million
disabled individuals. An "individual
with a disability'' is defmed as a per·
son who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities, has
a record of such an impairment, or
is regarded as having such an
impairment. The bill makes it
unlawful for an employer with 15 or
more employees to discriminate
against a qualified disabled person
in matters related to hiring, advancing,
training, compensating, discharging,
or other conditions and privileges of
employment. The Act requires new
buses and trains to be accessible to
the disabled. It also requires each
telecommunications common
carrier to establish a relay system to
facilitate communications between
hearing-impaired individuals who
use telecommunications devices for
the deaf (TDD's) and persons with
normal hearing. The Federal Com­munications
Commission would
coordinate the systems to provide
for interstate transmissions.
Enacted July 26, 1990.
27
Current Regional Research Project
S-206. Determinants
and Outcomes of
Household Time Use
Administrative advisor:
Dr. S.J. Ritchey
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Cooperating States: University of
Georgia, Louisiana State University,
Cornell University (New York),
Ohio State University, Utah State
University, University of Utah,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, and University of
Wisconsin
Project dates: October 1985 to
September 1990
Objectives: (1) To analyze variations
in time use by individual family mem­bers
shared time, and time sequency
acc~rding to sociodemographic and
technological variables. (2) To study
management activities in household
time use, including goals, respon­sibilities
' standards, and satisfa. ction with progress toward goal achieve-ment.
(3) To measure and value
input/output relationships in
household production, including
development of human capital and
total economic value of household
production.
Approach: Statistical analyses of
data from the NE-113 Interstate
Regional Research project, the
University of Michigan Survey
Research Center's Panel Study of
Income Dynamics and Time Use
Longitudinal Panel Study, and a new
sample of families in Utah and
Virginia were conducted. Areas of
focus included (1) comparisons of
time use in households with non­employed
and employed home­makers,
(2) differences in time-use
patterns between two-parent and
28
one-parent households, (3) periods
of interaction between parent and
child or spouses, and ( 4) changes in
time use over a 10-year period.
Progress: Several manuscripts from
this proje~t were published in two
special theme issues of Lifestyles:
Family and Economic Issues. Data
were used to update estimates of the
monetary value of time spent in
household production. Leisure time
of spouses was studied to determine
the effect of having a baby on non­work
activities. A research report
comparing 1977-78 and 1987-88
time-use findings was completed.
A second report comparing time
use in two-parent and one-parent
households was initiated. Articles
reporting time allocations by
children in one- and two-parent
situations, shifts in the division of
household work between spouses
over time, and trade-offs parents
make between time spent with
children and money spent on
children were accepted for publica­tion
or published. A book chapter
was prepared on "Household
Decision-Making and Planning: The
Economics of Resource Allocation
Among Family Members."
Findings: Related to family struc­ture,
i.e., one- or two-parent families:
• Women who divorced increased
hours of work prior to divorce;
women who remarried
decreased hours of work.
• Family structure affected time in
household work but not market
work or leisure activities.
• No differences in time allocation
by the older of two children for
household work, school, and
recreation.
• Female children living with a
single parent spend less time
than other children in school­related
activities.
Related to changes in time-use
patterns over a 10-year period:
• Homemakers increased time in
paid employment and decreased
time in household work and
personal care.
• Husband's time in household
work increased 1/2 hour per day.
• Spouses and children increased
their time in shopping and care
of other family members.
• Men increased their participa­tion
in child care and food
preparation, especially during
weekends.
Selected publications:
Bryant, W.K. andY. Wang. 1990.
Time together, time apart: An
analysis of wives' solitary time and
shared time with spouses. Lifestyles
11(1):89-119.
Douthitt, R.A. and J.M. Fedyk. 1990.
Family composition, parental time,
and market goods: Life cycle trade­offs.
The Journal of Consumer
Affairs 24(1):110-133.
Douthitt, R.A., C.D. Zick, and
J .L. McCullough. 1990. The role of
economic and demographic factors
in explaining time-use of single and
married mothers. Lifestyles 11(1):
23-51.
Gerner, J.L., C.P. Montalto, and
W.K. Bryant.1990. Work patterns
and marital status changes.
Lifestyles 11(1):7-21.
Key, R.J. and M.M. Sanik.1990. The
effect of homemaker's employment
status on children's time allocation
in single- and two-parent families .
Lifestyles 11(1):71-88.
Mauldin, T. and C.B. Meeks. 1990.
Time allocation of one- and two­parent
mothers. Lifestyles 11(1):
53-69.
Family Economics Review
Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, September 1990, U.S. average1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Uberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Uberal
plan plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Familyof2:2
20-50 years ...... ....... .. .... $47.70 $60.00 $73.90 $91 .60 $206.60 $260.00 $320.40 $397.00
51 years and over ..•. .... . . ..... 45.20 57.60 70.90 84.80 196.00 249.90 307.70 367.70
Familyof4:
Couple, 20 - 50 years and children -
1 - 2 and 3 - 5 years .... ........ 69.70 86.50 105.70 129.60 301.70 375.40 457.90 561 .40
6 - 8 and 9 - 11 years ...... ... .. 79.70 101.70 127.10 152.90 345.20 440.80 550.90 662.40
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
1 - 2years .. . ......... . ....... . 12.70 15.30 17.90 21.60 54.90 66.50 n.40 93.50
3-5 years ... .. . . .. ... .. ...... . 13.60 16.70 20.60 24.70 59.00 72.50 89.20 107.00
6-8years ........ ............. 16.60 22.10 27.70 32.20 71.90 95.70 119.90 139.60
9- 11 years .... .. .... .•. ... . .. . 19.70 25.10 32.20 37.40 85.50 108.70 139.70 161.90
Male:
12- 14 years .... ............ ... 20.50 28.40 35.50 41 .60 88.90 123.20 153.70 180.30
15-19years ... .. ..... . . . ... . .. 21.30 29.40 36.50 42.30 92.50 127.40 158.10 183.20
20 - 50 years .......... •.. . . .... 22.80 29.00 36.30 43.80 98.60 125.80 157.20 189.90
51 years and over ..... •• . ..• .... 20.70 27.60 33.90 40.60 89.80 119.60 147.10 176.10
Female:
12- 19 years ... . . . . .......... .. 20.70 24.60 29.80 36.00 89.60 106.70 129.20 156.10
20 - 50 years . . ...... ... . . ...... 20.60 25.50 30.90 39.50 89.20 110.60 134.10 171.00
51 years and over ............ ... 20.40 24.80 30.60 36.50 88.40 107.60 132.60 158.20
1Assumes 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 Review 1983(2). The costs of the food plans are estimated by updating prices paid by
households surveyed in 19n- 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.
2Ten percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested:
1-person -add 20 percent; 2-person -add 1 0 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person -subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person -
subtract 1 0 percent.
1990 Vol. 3 No. 4 29
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 = 100]
Group
All items ................••...•....................
Food ..................•........................
Food at home .•.......•............••...•....•.
Food away from home ...............••..•.•.....
Housing .................................••...••.
Shelter ..............................••••.•••••
Renters' costs 1
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Homeowners' costs1
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Household insurance 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
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 girls' apparel .............••••.•..
Infants' and toddlers' apparel .....•...•..•.......
Footwear ................................... .
Apparel services .....................•..••••..•
Transportation ..............................•.....
Private transportation ............•••.............
New vehicles ......................••.....•...
Used cars .........................••••••.....
Motor fuel ............................•....••.
Automobile maintenance and repair ............. .
Other private transportation ..........••.•..•....
Other private transportation commodities .•.•.•..
Other private transportation services .••..••...•.
Public transportation ............................ .
Medical care .............................•......•
Medical care commodities ....................... .
Medical care services ........................... .
Professional medical services .................... .
Entertainment ...........................••.......
Entertainment commodities ...................... .
Entertainment services .......................... .
Other goods and services ......................... .
Personal care ................................. .
Toilet goods and personal care appliances ........ .
Personal care services ......................... .
Personal and educational expenses ...........•••..
School books and supplies ................•.•..•
Personal and educational services ............... .
11ndexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
30
September
1990
132.7
133.2
132.9
134.6
130.5
142.3
148.9
147.0
135.7
124.6
129.9
117.3
114.0
104.4
112.4
113.8
106.9
126.2
121.1
126.8
124.7
121.7
127.0
127.7
118.6
138.7
123.0
121.4
119.6
118.3
112.0
131.5
143.0
102.2
152.0
144.0
165.8
166.0
165.8
158.2
134.1
124.9
145.5
162.6
131.3
128.8
133.9
175.1
173.8
175.4
Unadjusted indexes
August July
1990 1990
131.6
132.9
132.7
134.3
130.2
142.4
150.7
146.5
135.6
121.2
124.1
117.5
112.7
91.8
111.6
113.3
106.5
125.6
120.4
122.2
119.9
119.3
118.9
126.5
116.3
138.2
120.6
119.0
119.9
118.3
103.2
130.4
142.4
102.2
151.3
141.9
165.0
164.8
165.0
157.8
133.0
124.8
143.6
160.4
130.6
128.1
133.3
171.2
170.5
171.5
130.4
132.7
132.5
133.9
129.2
141.1
148.7
145.4
135.3
122.1
125.6
117.4
111.3
82.7
111.7
113.6
106.8
125.9
120.5
120.8
118.4
118.6
116.1
127.7
116.1
136.8
118.4
116.6
120.2
118.2
94.3
130.2
142.1
101.7
151.0
141.6
163.5
164.1
163.4
157.0
132.7
124.4
143.3
159.2
130.6
128.4
132.9
168.9
170.3
169.0
September
1989
125.0
126.1
125.0
128.8
124.3
134.1
139.4
138.9
133.6
118.6
120.9
115.6
109.7
79.3
111.0
111.7
105.7
122.3
117.5
120.0
118.2
117.7
119.0
118.0
114.1
129.7
113.7
112.4
117.1
119.8
88.8
126.2
135.7
102.0
142.9
130.1
151.7
153.3
151.3
148.0
127.8
120.5
137.2
151.2
125.9
124.0
127.7
162.9
163.0
163.1
Family Economics Review
The Family Economics Research Group and the Family Economics Review would like to
gratefully acknowledge the reviewers of manuscripts for 1990 issues:
David Arnaudo
Office of Child Support Enforcement
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Maureen Boyle
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Gail DeWeese
Cornell University
Robin Douthitt
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Karen Fite
University of Arkansas-Little Rock
Deborah Godwin
University of Georgia
Nancy Granovsky
Texas A&M University
Ramona Heck
Cornell University
Jeanne Hogarth
Cornell University
Karen C. Holden
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Judith Hushbeck
American Association for Retired Persons
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Martha M. Johnson
Energy End Use Division
U.S. Department of Energy
Mark S. Littman
Bureau of the Census
U.S. Department of Commerce
Richard Miller
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Alice M. Morrow
Oregon State U niveristy
Pamela Norum
University of Missouri
Velda Rankin
Extension Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Norma J. Redeker ; i
University of Arizona
Jeanne W. Smith
University of California-Davis
Sara Stiefvater
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Nayda I. Torres
University of Florida
Cathleen Zick
Utah State University
31
Subscription Order Or
Change Of Address Form
Enclosed is$ _____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
Order No
Make check payable to,
Superintendent of Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiration Date Month/Year
32
FAMILY
ECONOMICS
REVIEW
Annual subscription Single copies
$5.00 domestic $2.00 domestic
($6.25 foreign) ($2.50 foreign)
Please print 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
Street Address
I I
City
I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach mailing label here and
send this form when requesting a
change of address
MAIL ORDER FORM TO,
Supertntendentof~enu
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 - 519- 144 - 1302/21144
State ZIP Code
UJ I I II
I I I
FOR OmCE USE ONLY
Quantity Charges
___ Publications
___ Subscriptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
International Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR ---------
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Retund
Family Economics Review
Index of Articles in 1990 Issues
Employment
Barriers to Employment of Older Workers
Family-Related Employee Benefits
Occupational Change
Reasons for Not Working: Poor and Nonpoor Householders
The Working Poor
Expenditures
Changes in Family Spending Since 1901
* Expenditures on a Child by Husband-Wife Families
* Households with Expenditures for Health Insurance
* Income and Expenditures of Hispanic Households
*Vehicle Insurance Expenditures
Families
American Family Life
Married-Couple Families with Children
Singleness in America
Single Parents and Their Children
Finance/Income
* Family Income and Expenditures of Married-Couple Families When
One Spouse Is Not Employed
Money Income and Poverty Status of Households and Families
The Short-Term Poor
Trends in Children's Median Family Income
Urban and Rural Consumer Debt
Older Consumers
* A Comparison of Households Headed by Persons 55 to 65 Years of Age:
Retired and Employed
* Apparel Expenditures of Older Consumers
Income Change at Retirement
Public Attitudes Toward Social Security
Supplementing Retirement Income Until Social Security Begins
Other
Characteristics of Persons Receiving Benefits
*Food and Nutrient Intakes of Low-Income Women and Children,
in Metro-Nonmetro Areas, 1985/1986
* Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
The Black Population in the United States, 1988
*Indicates authored articles.
1990 Vo/.3 No.4
Issue No.
1
4
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
Page
23
20
19
21
16
26
2
2
2
7
16
18
19
15
2
13
24
25
22
19
12
18
29
28
21
12
7
18
33