Family Economics Review [1991, Volume 4, Number 2]

              i ~- ~k :-.
;. .. ~---"-~~~ ..
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.
This publication is not copyrighted.
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 ($2.50 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402. (See
subscription form on p. 33)
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.
Family
Economics
Review
U.S. DEPOSITORY
PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY
JUL 2 21991
University of North Carolina
at Greeo~QQre
Vol. 4 No.2
2
9
18
27
32
34
36
37
38
39
Contents
Features
Minority Households: A Comparison of Selected Characteristics
and Expenditures Contributing to Future Economic Well-Being
Patricia M Myers
A Comparison of Lower Middle Income Two-Parent
and Single-Mother Families
Jane Schuchardt and Mary Ann Noecker Guadagno
Housing Expenditures for Never-Married Men: A Focus on
One-Person Consumer Units
Julia M Dinkins
Developments in Apparel, Textiles, and Fibers Affecting
the Consumer
Joan C. Courtless
Research Summaries
Remarriage Among Women in the United States: 1985
Household and Family Characteristics
Regular Items
Recent Legislation Affecting Families
Current Regional Research Project
Data Sources
Cost of Food at Home
40 Consumer Prices
June 1991
~ .... For Building Use Only ,,
Minority1 Households:
A Comparison of Selected
Characteristics and Expenditures
Contributing to Future
Economic Well-Being
By Patricia M. Myers2
Associate Professor, Department of Family Life Science
University of the District of Columbia
Data from the 1987 Consumer Expencli­ture
Survey are used to examine
selected characteristics and expendi­tures
of minority households, ascertain
information about their economic
status, and suggest possible implica­tions
for the future well-being of these
households. Findings indicate that
education is a major factor in the level
of income regardless of race. For each
minority group, income level rose as
educational level increased. Asians
were twice as likely as Blacks and
Hispanics to have some college educa­tion.
The mean income for Asians was
$35,115, compared with $19,218 for
Blacks and $24,286 for Hispanics. The
data also reveal a relationship between
income and marital status. Asians have
the highest income and the highest per­centage
of married householders,
whereas Blacks have the lowest income
and the lowest percentage of married
householders. As a share of total expendi­tures,
Asians spent a higher proportion
on transportation (24 percent), com­pared
with Blacks and Hispanics (19
percent). By stressing the importance of
education and family structure,
educators and school counselors can
play a vital role in helping to prepare and
direct minorities towards future
economic well-being.
1Minority refers to Black; Native American,
Aleut, and Eskimos; hian and Pacific Islanders;
and Hispanic (may be of any race). For this
study, Black and hian consumer units
excluded persons of Hispanic origin.
2Visiting Professor, Family Economics
Research Group.
2
Introduction
The population of minority groups
has grown substantially since 1980.
The Black population has increased
by 14 percent; the Hispanic popula­tion,
by 39 percent; and the Asian
population, by 80 percent (2)
(figure 1).
A review of the literature indicates
that, in general, Blacks and Hispanics
experience higher unemployment,
receive lower pay, attain lower levels
of education, and experience higher
rates of single parenthood than
other racial groups (1, 7,8,15). High
poverty rates coincide with the high
incidence of single-parent households
in these minority groups. Poverty is
more prevalent among households
composed of mother -child families
and widows and is highest among
Blacks and Hispanics (3,4,9,10,11).
Consequently, minority families
are burdened with consumer debt,
have a low savings rate, and own
few interest-earning assets (7,12).
Because of high housing prices, .
home ownership is difficult to
achieve. Blacks and Hispanics are
less likely than other racial groups
to own their homes (1,8). Many low­income
minority families go without
nea:ssary health care and health
insurance coverage (6).
Family economic well-being is
dependent, to a large degree, on
educational attainment. Because
many of the non-graduating youth
of today are members of a minority
group and from households living
below the poverty level (13,14), the
future economic well-being of their
families may be in jeopardy.
The purpose of this article is to
examine selected characteristics and
expenditures of minority group
households (non-Hispanic Black,
Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Asian)
that may have implications for their
future economic well-being. Family
characteristics include: age of head,
number of members, number of
children, marital status, educational
level, income level, occupations,
employment status, housing tenure,
sources of income, and amount of
interest from savings and investments.
The expenditures include: food,
housing, transportation, education,
reading materials, health care (out­of-
pocket expenditures including
health insurance), personal insurance,
and retirement.
Assumptions
The expenditure variables of
education, reading materials, health
care, personal insurance, and retire­ment
were selected because it was
assumed they provide evidence
that the family was planning for its
future economic well-being. Home
ownership also would indicate
investment for the future. Expendi­tures
for food, housing, and transpor­tation
were included because they
are major-categories of expenditures.
The sample was limited to house­holds
headed by a person between
25 and 44 years old. Financial
decisions made in these households
can impact on future generations
because members may include
young children.
Family Economics Review
Data
Data are from the 1987 Consumer
Expenditure Survey (17), conducted
by the Bureau of the Census for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data
are collected quarterly from a
sample of consumer units;3 quarterly
expenditures were multiplied by
four to provide annual estimates.
Consumer units for this analysis
included 8,501 households with
reference persons4 25 to 44 years
old. There were 905 Black, 581
Hispanic, and 264 Asian households.
White households (6,759) were
.included for purposes of comparison.
Native Americans were not included
in the analysis because of their small
number in the sample.
Methodology
The percentages and means
presented in tables 1 through 4 are
based on weighted data that repre­sent
the U.S. population (16). Mean
expenditures for all households are
reported, including those with zero
expenditures. The TUKEYB proce­dure
was used on the unweighted
sample to compare the differences
in mean expenditures among the
three minority groups. Chi-square
analysis was used on unweighted
data to determine whether there
were differences among the three
groups in demographic characteristics.
Differences were significant unless
reported otherwise.
~e consumer unit is comprised of all
household members related by blood, mar­riage,
adoption, or other legal arrangement;
a single person living alone; or two or more
persons living together who share respon­sibility
for at least two out of three major
types of expenses-food, housing, and other
expenses. The terms household and family
are used to indicate consumer unit.
"Reference person (or householder) is
the first member mentioned by the survey
respondent when asked to "start with the
name of the person or one of the persons
who owns or rents the home." It is with
respect to.this person that the relationship
of other consumer unit members is determined.
1991 VoL 4 No. 2
Figure 1. U.S. population growth rates by race and
Hispanic origin1 from 1980 to 1989
80% Asian
39%
14%
7% ~ Whtte
1 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
S?urce; Holl_m_an, F.W., 1990, U.S. Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and
Htspamc Ongm: 1989, Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projec­tions,
Series P-25, No. 1057, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Characteristics of
Households Headed by
Persons 25 to 44 Years Old
Family Type
Husband and wife households
(with and without children) comprised
36 percent of Black households,
61 percent of Hispanic households,
and 61 percent of Asian households
(table 1, p. 4). Families headed by
single mothers included 31 percent
of Black households and 14 percent
of Hispanic households. Only 4 per­cent
of Asian families were headed
by a female parent. COnsumer units
composed of a single consumer oc­curred
more frequently among Asians
(27 percent) than among Blacks (18
percent) or Hispanics (14 percent).
Also, Asians had a higher percentage
of "all other husband/wife families"
(13 percent) than did Hispanics
(7 percent) and Blacks (3 percent).
This family type includes a husband
and wife with other persons, relatives,
or other families. In contrast,
Blacks had a higher percentage of
"other families" (14 percent) than
did Hispanics (11 percent) or Asians
(8 percent). These families include
extended family units, other relatives
or nonrelatives, but not husband
and wife combinations.
Household Size and Number of
Children
Household size varied slightly
from 3.2 for Blacks and Asians to
3. 7 for Hispanics. Hispanics also
had more children, 1.8 per family,
compared with 1.6 for Blacks and
1.2 for Asians.
Marital Status
Among the three minorities,
Blacks were least likely to be married
(38 percent) and most likely to be
divorced (18 percent) or never
married (31 percent). In contrast, a
majority of Asians (66 percent) and
Hispanics (64 percent) were married.
Asians experienced low rates of
separation and divorce, and 23 per­cent
had never been married.
Educational Attainment
Hispanics lagged behind other
minority groups in educational
attainment. Forty-four percent of
the Hispanic reference persons
between 25 and 44 years old had not
completed high school, compared
with 21 percent of Blacks and 7 per­cent
of Asians. In contrast, 57 per­cent
of Asians were college graduates,
compared with 15 percent of Blacks
and 10 percent of Hispanics.
3
Table 1. Characteristics of households with reference persons ages 25 to 44, by race and Hispanic origin,
1987
Characteristic
Total weighted sample (in thousands) ..... .. . . ... .
Percent of population . .. .. . . .. . .... ... . . ....... .
Number in sample ...................... . . . ... .
Number of members in consumer unit ...... . ..... .
Number of children <18 years ........ . .. . . .. . . . .
Family type:
Husband and wife only .. . . ......... . ....... . .
Husband and wife, own child <6 years ......... .
Husband and wife, own child 6 - 17 ..... . ... ... .
Husband and wife, own child > 17 .. .. . .... . .. . .
All other husband and wife families .. ..... . ... . .
One male parent , child < 18 . .. ............. . . .
One female parent, child < 18 .. . ........... . .. .
Single consumer . ... . ...... . .... . ........ . . .
Other families .... . ..... .. . . ................ .
Marital status of reference person:
Married ...... . .. .. . ...... .. .. ... ... -....... .
Divorced . ... ... . .......... .. . ....... . . .... .
Separated . . ..... ... ........ . .. . . . . ........ .
Never married ... ..... . . ........... ........ .
Widowed .... . ...... . .. . .. . . . . ....... .. .. . .
Education of reference person:
Less than high school ......... ...... . . .. . ... .
High school diploma . . . ... ....... . . . . ....... .
College, no graduate . . . . . . ... . ... . ...... .... .
College graduate . ... .. . ...... ... , ....... ... .
More than 4 years college ....... . . ..... . .. ... .
Housing tenure:
Homeowner with mortgage .... .. ... .. ........ .
Homeowner without mortgage .. ... . .. ....... . .
Renter . . .. ............... . .. .... ......... . .
Othe(l .. ........ . ...... . .... ..... ..... .... .
Housing assistance:
Public housing .... . ... . ........ . . ... ....... .
Government pays part of costs . ... ... .... ... . . .
Region:
Urban
Northeast .. .. ... . . . ... ..... .............. .
North Central .. . ..... . .. . ......... . . . . . . .. .
South .... .......... ...... ............... .
West ............ .. . ... ..... . ..... . . . ..... .
Rural (all areas) ... . . .. . . .. . ... . .... . ....... .
Non-Hispanic
White
27,680
79.3
6,759
2.95
1.16
12.9
13.8
29.2
4.1
2.8
.9
7.8
21 .8
6.7
64.1
13.6
2.7
18.9
.6
10.5
31 .2
27.5
16.4
14.5
52.6
8.1
38.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
16.1
22.1
26.4
19.5
15.9
Non-Hispanic
Black
3,669
10.5
905
3.20
1.56
3.9
4.9
20.9
3.9
2.8
.6
30.7
18.3
14.1
37.8
18.0
9.9
31.4
2.9
20.9
41.4
22.9
7.7
7.2
28.2
2.7
67.6
1.4
8.0
4.0
15.9
21.6
45.8
8.8
7.9
Percent
Hispanic1
2,479
7.1
581
3.74
1.85
7.3
8.7
36.8
1.4
6.9
.3
13.7
13.5
11.2
64.4
15.7
7.5
11.8 .
.6
43.6
23.3
22.7
7.5
2.9
35.8
3.7
58.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
20.0
7.8
27.6
43.5
1.0
Non-His~anic
Asian
881
2.4
264
3.23
1.18
11 .2
16.0
17.7
3.0
13.3
.2
4.2
26.6
7.9
66.3
5.1
4.6
22.7
1.3
6.8
17.1
19.0
28.7
28.5
43.3
3.0
52.8
.9
.9
.1
11 .7
10.8
22.5
53.4
1.5
1 Hispanic persons may be of any race.
2Asian includes Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indians, Koreans, Vietnamese, other Asians, and Pacific Islanders (Hawaiian, Guamanian,
Samoan, and others).
31ncludes housing occupied without payment of cash rent and student housing.
4 Family Economics Review
Home Ownership
In general, minorities were more
likely to be renters than homeowners.
Sixty-eight percent of Black families,
59 percent of Hispanic families, and
53 percent of Asian families were
renters. A larger share of Asian
households ( 46 percent) than
Hispanic ( 40 percent) or Black (31
percent) were homeowners. Blacks
were more likely to live in public
housing than other minorities.
Region
The Black population was con­centrated
in the South ( 46 percent),
whereas Hispanics (44 percent) and
Asians (53 percent) were more likely
to reside in the West. Blacks were
more likely than Asians or Hispanics
to reside in rural areas.
Income Levels
The median income level for
Black households was $15,000-
$19,999; for Hispanics, $20,000-
$29,999; and for Asians, $30,000-
$39,999. Only 11 percent of Black
households had incomes of $40,000
or more, compared with 16 percent
of Hispanic and 32 percent of Asian
households (table 2). Education was
a major factor in the level of income,
regardless of race (figure 2, p. 6). As
education increased, so did income.
However, at each level of education,
the mean income for Blacks was
lower than for other minorities.
In addition to the higher educa­tionallevels
of Asian householders,
their higher average household in­come
may reflect the low percent­age
(2 percent) of households with
no earners. Married-couple house­holds
often have two or more
earners, which boosts income.
Households with married-couple
earners constituted 28 percent of
Black households, 36 percent of
Hispanic households, and 40 per­cent
of Asian households.
Table 2. Income and work status of reference persons ages 25 to 44, by race and Hispanic origin, 1987
Characteristic
Income for the consumer unit (before taxes):
Under$5,000 ... . .... .... . . .. .... . . . ...... . .
$5,000- $9,999 . . ... ... .... . ... . . ....... .... .
$10,000-$14,999 .... . .. . .. .. . ... . . ... .... .. .
$15,000-$19,999 . . ... ... . . . ... . .. .......... .
$20,000 - $29,999 ... ..... . .. ............. ... .
$30,000-$39,999 .. .... . .... . . ........... . .. .
$40,000 and over ......... .. . . ............. . .
Composition of earners:
Reference person only ....... .... ........ . . . .
Reference person, spouse . .. . .. . .. . ......... .
Reference person, spouse, others . . . . ......... .
Referenc~ person, others ..... . . .. . . ......... .
Other ... .. ............. . . .. . . .. . . . ........ .
No earners ........ . .. .. ............ . . . .... .
Occupation of reference person:
Manager, professional ..... . .. .... . . ......... .
Technical, sales, administrative . ......... . .. . . .
Service .. ... ... .. . . .... . . .. ..... . ... . . .. . . .
Production, craft, repair ..... ... . ..... ........ .
Laborer ... .. . . . ........ . ... .. . . .......... . .
Self-employed . . ... ..... . . . ... .... . ..... .. . .
Othe~ .. .... . .. . ... .... .... . .......... .. . . .
Retired . .. ...... ... ........... . . . . . ...... . .
Not working ...... .... ......... ........ . . .. .
Reasons for not working:
Ill, disabled .. .. .... .. . .. .. ............. . . .. .
Homemaker .. ... ... .. ... . .. .......... . . ... .
Student . . .. . .... .... .. ... . . ........ . . . ... . .
Could not find work .. . . . .. . . . ............... .
Doing something else .. . . ... ................ .
1H. .
Non-Hispanic
White
4.1
5.9
9.3
9.4
21 .6
18.8
30.9
38.1
39.4
7.8
9.4
2.5
2.8
32.4
21.5
5.7
11.6
15.5
6.2
1.8
.1
5.2
1.5
2.8
.4
.5
0
Non-Hispanic
Black
13.3
18.5
16.2
11.5
18.7
10.9
10.9
40.5
23.2
4.6
10.8
5.4
15.5
16.7
22.7
12.5
6.7
16.9
3.3
.4
.4
20.4
2.7
12.6
.6
4.5
0
Percent
Hispanic1
6.7
11 .6
15.8
12.7
25.0
12.2
16.0
35.0
31 .0
5.1
13.5
5.0
10.4
15.9
15.5
10.2
10.3
26.0
2.2
4.4
0
15.5
1.5
11 .3
.7
2.0
0
2 1~pa~1c persons may be of any race.
3As1an Includes Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indians, Koreans, Vietnamese, other Asians, and Pacific Islanders.
Includes forestry, fishing, farming, and Armed Forces.
1991 VoL 4 No. 2
Non-His~anic
Asian
6.2
8.1
9.2
7.7
17.9
18.9
32.0
48.2
28.6
11 .3
8.1
1.4
2.4
37.0
23.0
9.5
7.0
12.2
4.0
3.5
0
3.8
.2
2.1
.2
1.2
.1
5
Figure 2. Total family income before taxes by education
of reference persons ages 25-44, 1987
$thousand
50
40
30
20
10
0
less than high school High school College nongraduate College graduate
Education
•
Non-Hispanic I7A Non-Hispanic r;;>l(l Non-H1"span1"c ri'??il
White rLLI Black QQil Asian ~ Hispanic
Occupations
An additional reason for high in­come
in Asian households is their
concentration in managerial and
professional occupations, which
typically have higher salaries. Thirty­seven
percent of Asians were in
managerial and professional occupa­tions,
compared with 17 percent of
Blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics.
Blacks were as likely as Asians to
be employed in technical, sales, and
administrative occupations (23 per­cent),
whereas Hispanics were more
often employed as laborers (26
percent). In general, Blacks and
Hispanics were more likely to be
employed in occupations such as
laborers and services that usually
have higher unemployment rates
and lower earnings.
Nonworking status5 reported on
the 1987 Consumer Expenditure
Survey was 20 percent for Blacks,
16 percent for Hispanics, and 4 per­cent
for Asians.
5These figures do not reflect the unemploy­ment
rate because they include homemakers
not actively seeking employment, students,
retired persons, persons who may be out of
work due to illness or disability, as well as
persons who could not find work.
6
Poverty Status and Sources of
Income
In 1987 the mean before-tax
income of Black households was
$19,218, compared with $24,286 for
Hispanics and $35,115 for Asians.
An analysis of CEX income data
showed that 32 percent of Black
households fell below the poverty
threshold, compared with 26 percent ·
of Hispanics and 12 percent of
Asians (table 3). Consequently,
Black families were more likely than
other racial groups to receive
governmental assistance. Seventeen
percent of Blacks received public
assistance, compared with 11 per­cent
of Hispanics and 6 percent of
Asians. Twenty-four percent of
Blacks received food stamps, com­pared
with 15 percent of Hispanics
and 7 percent of Asians. There.was
no difference among the groups in
income from Supplemental Security
Income (SSI).
The amount of interest from
savings accounts or bonds received
by Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians
was $24, $60, and $260, respectively.
The proportion of Asians who
received interest income (32 per­cent)
was greater than that of
Hispanics (17 percent) and Blacks
(11 percent).
Expenditures in
Households Headed by
Persons 25 to 44 Years Old
Total expenditures were sig­nificantly
different among the three
groups (table 4). These differences
were due, in part, to differences in
after-tax income. On average,
Blacks expended 96 percent of their
total after-tax income; Hispanics,
98 percent; and Asians, 91 percent.
Asians spent significantly more
than Hispanics or Blacks for food,
housing, personal insurance, and
retirement, reflecting a higher total
expenditure level. Hispanics spent
significantly more than Blacks on
food, housing, and retirement, but
Blacks spent significantly more than
Hispanics for personal insurance.
Asians spent significantly more
than the other minorities for trans­portation
and reading materials and
more than Blacks for education.
Blacks spent significantly less than
Hispanics and Asians for health
care.
Shares of total expenditures
spent on the various categories of
expenditures were very similar.
Asians, however, spent a slightly
smaller percentage on food (14
percent), compared with Blacks
(17 percent) and Hispanics (18 per­cent).
Asians spent a slightly larger
percentage on housing (36 percent)
than did Blacks (34 percent) or
Hispanics (33 percent). Expenditure
shares on transportation varied the
most. Whereas, Blacks and Hispanics
spent 19 percent of total expenditures
for transportation, Asians spent 24
percent. Employment-related
transportation expenses may be
higher among Asians because most
(%percent) Asian reference per­sons
were employed, compared with
84 percent of Hispanic and 80 per­cent
of Black reference persons.
Family Economics Review
Table 3. Sources of Income for households with reference persons ages 25 to 44, by race and Hispanic
origin, 1987
Income sources
Non-Hispanic
White
Non-Hispanic
Black Hispanic1
Non-Hispanic
Asian
Income before tax ... ... . . ........ . ... . .. .
Income after tax . .. ... ... .... . . . .. .. ..... .
Percent below poverty threshold ... . . . ... . .. .
Wages and salary ... .... . .... . ..... . .... .
Non-farm business income . ..... . .. ... .. .. .
Social Security and government retirement ... .
Pensions and annuities .. . ........ . ....... .
Interest, dividends, property income:
Dividends, trusts, royalties .. .. .. .. ...... .
Interest on savings or bonds . . ..... ...... .
Roomer and boarder income . . .... . ..... .
Other rental income ........ . ........... .
Unemployment and workers' compensation:
Unemployment compensation ... ... ..... .
Workers' compensation . ...... .. .. .. ... .
Public Assistance, SSI, Food Stamps:
Public Assistance . . ............... . ... . .
Supplemental Security Income ...... . . . .. .
Food Stamps ..... .... .. .. .. . ... . .. . .. :
Regular contributions received ... . . ........ .
Total other2 ... . ..... . . ... ... . . .. .. . .. ... .
1 Hispanic persons may be of any race.
21ncludes income or loss from farm and other money income.
$33,355
30,087
9.4
$29,321
2,259
151
117
312
281
17
63
130
105
108
24
82
301
84
$19,218
17,864
31.7
$16,776
391
380
59
5
24
-1
26
125
131
592
98
425
169
18
$24,286
22,547
25.7
$21,827
850
143
20
8
60
47
14
145
47
572
100
248
197
8
$35,115
32,833
12.1
$31,091
1,535
401
24
24
260
0
-60
28
15
139
98
70
1,324
166
Table 4. Expenditures of households with reference persons ages 25 to 44, by race and Hispanic origin,
1987
Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic
Hispanic1
Non-Hispanic Group
Expenditure category White Black Asian differences2
Total expendltures3
I I I I I I I I I I I $27,221 $17,211 $22,191 $29,777 BH,BA,HA
Food ..... .. ... .. : .. .... . ..... 3,990 2,905 4,090 4,241 BH,BA,HA
Housing ... ... ................ 8,727 5,802 7,395 10,707 BH, BA, HA
Transportation ... ........ . ..... 5,580 3,211 4,275 7,041 BA,HA
Health care . ..... .. .. .. ... .. ... 912 477 624 629 BH,BA
Personal insurance 0 •• •• • • • ••• • • 322 223 146 314 BH,BA,HA
Retirement • • ' . 0 •• •• ••• 0. 0 • • 0 • • 2,920 1,431 1,851 2,444 BH, BA, HA
Education . . .. . ..... .. .. ....... 286 161 366 417 BA
Reading materials 0 0 • • •••• ••• •• • 169 89 98 140 BA,HA
,H. . 1spamc persons may be of any race.
:significant group differences, TUKEYB (p~.OS), in mean expenditures are listed, where B = Black, H = Hispanic, and A = Asian.
In addition to categories listed, includes utilities, household operations and home furnishings, apparel and services, entertainment, cash
contributions, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and miscellaneous expenditures.
1991 VoL 4 No. 2 7
Implications
Indicators of current economic
well-being include marital status
and level of education. Marital
status affects the number of earners
in the family. The data show that
couples with children are better
off financially than single parents
because economic well-being is
enhanced when there is more than
one wage earner in the household.
Since income level rises as the educa­tionallevel
of reference-persons
increases, education is fundamental
to economic well-being.
Family structure and the educa­tional
foundation of its members
also appear to be determinants of
the future economic well-being of
minority households. It is impera­tive
that Blacks and other minorities
recognize the role family structure
plays in the economic status of
families. Findings from this research
provide further documentation that
the economic well-being of female­parent
households, particularly
Black female-parent households,
does not seem promising. More
support systems may be needed for
female-parent households with low
income. Provisions for child care
would enable single parents to have
the opportunity to receive training
or continue their education, thereby
qualifying for better paying jobs.
Since education raises income
regardless of race, there should be a
concerted effort to stress the impor­tance
of education to economic well­being.
Educators and others in a
position to implement programs
targeted to minorities should en­courage
them to take advantage of
educational opportunities offered
by public and private institutions.
Although it is projected that the
occupational structure in future
years will provide jobs for workers
at all educational levels, persons
with the most education and training
will enjoy the best opportunities
(5). Employment of technicians and
persons in related support occupa­tions
is expected to expand most
rapidly over the next 10 years. If
minorities, especially Blacks and
8
Hispanics, are to be competitive in
the job market, they must increase
their levels of education and training
in order to meet job requirements,
compete successfully for the job,
and perform well on the job. Al­though
jobs alone do not ensure
economic well-being, being employed
will lessen economic burdens.
References
1. del Pinal, J.H. and DeNavas, C.
1990. The Hispanic Population in the
United States: 1989. Current Popula­tion
Reports, Population Charac­teristics.
Series P-20, No. 444. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.
2. Hollman, F.W. 1990. U.S.
Population Estimates, by Age, Sex,
Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1989.
Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections.
Series P-25, No. 1057. U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
3. Saluter, AF. 1990. Marital
Status and Living Arrangements:
March 1989. Current Population
Reports, Population Characteristics.
Series P-20, No. 445. U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
4. . 1989.~hangesin
American Family Life. Current
Population Reports, Special
Studies. Series J:>-23, No. 163. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.
5. Silvestri, G. and Lukasiewicz, J.
1989. Projections of occupational
employment, 1988-2000. Monthly
Labor Review 112(11):42-65.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1990. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1990.
[110th ed.].
7. . 1989. Households,
Families, Marital Status and Living
Arrangements: March 1989 (Advance
Report). Current Population Reports,
Population Characteristics. Series
P-20, No. 441.
8. . 1989. The Black
Population in the United States:
March 1988. Current Population
Reports, Population Characteristics.
Series P-20, No. 442.
9. . 1989. ~haracteristics
of Persons Receiving Benefits from
Major Assistance Programs. Current
Population Reports, Household
Economic Studies. Series P -70,
No.14.
lO. . 1989. Transitions in
Income and Poverty Status: 1984-85.
Current Population Reports,
Household Economic Studies.
Series P-70, No. 15-RD-1.
11. . 1988. Money Income
and Poverty Status in the United
States: 1987 (Advance Data from
the March 1988 ~urrent Population
Survey). Current Population Reports,
Consumer Income. Series P-60,
No. 161.
12. . 1986. Household
Wealth and Asset Ownership: 1984.
Current Population Reports,
Household Economic Studies.
Series P-70, No.7.
13. U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for
Education Statistics. 1989. Dropout
Rates in the United States: 1988.
NCES 89-609.
14. . 1987. Dealing with
Dropouts: The Urban Superintendents'
~all to Action. pp. 4-5.
15. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990.
Employment and Earnings
37(8):11-19.
16. . 1988. BLS Handbook
of Methods. Bulletin 2285. Chapter 18.
17. . Consumer Expendi-ture
Survey: 1987, Interview Survey ~
Public Use Tape and Documentation . ..,
Family Economics Review
A Comparison of Lower
Middle Income Two-Parent
and Single-Mother Families
By Jane Schuchard?
National Program Leader
Family Resource Management
Mary Ann Noecker Guadagno
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Using data from the 1987 Consumer
Expenditure Survey, this study
describes and compares demographic
characteristics, income, and expendi­tures
of lower middle income two­parent
and single-mother families.
Though much attention on childhood
impoverishment is associated with
single parenting, this article under­scores
the reality of financial instability
faced by many two-parent families at
lower income levels. Parents studied
tended to be young, not fully attached to
the labor force, and renters. Two-parent
families received proportionately more
income from wage and salary earnings;
single mothers were more dependent
on public assistance and alimony or
child support income. For both family
types, nearly three-fourths of family ex­penditures
were for housing, food, and
transportation, leaving little for other
needs. For professionals concerned
with the economic stability of American
families with children, this article
provides a clearer understanding of
lower middle income families and why
they are economically vulnerable.
The economic status of children in
the United States, and the families
in which they live, is on the national
agenda for the 1990's (1,2,3,6,9,11,
13,16). America's families have a
crucial role in raising this country's
future parents, leaders, and employees.
This study provides background data
1This study was completed under a
cooperative agreement between the Agricul­tural
Research Service and the Extension
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
that have implications for policy
planning, education, child advocacy,
community leadership, and research
concerned with the economic
stability of families with children.
Research shows that 1 in 5 children
under age 18, or about 13 million
children, are growing up in poverty
(1 ). Children under age 6 appear to
be the most vulnerable. Twenty-two
percent of all children under age 6
lived in a household with income
below the poverty level in 1986 (16).
Between 1979 and 1987, the percent­age
of American families with
children living below 125 percent
of the poverty threshold grew from
21.3 percent to 25.1 percent (12).
In 1980 there were proportionately
more children living in poverty in
America than in any other major
industrial country (11).
There are important racial dif­ferences
concerning childhood
poverty. For Black children under
age 18, the poverty rate in 1987 was
45.1 percent; for Hispanic children
it was 39.3 percent. In contrast, the
poverty rate for White children
under age 18 was 15.0 percent
(10,13).
Much of the attention surrounding
childhood poverty is associated with
single parenthood (5,8,9). In 1987
nearly half of all single-mother
families were poor. Of all White
single-mother families, two-fifths
were poor, compared with three­fifths
of all Black and Hispanic
single-mother families. In the same
year, nearly 8 percent of all two­parent
families were living in poverty
(1 0). Since more children live in
two-parent families than single­mother
families ( 46.0 million com­pared
with 13.4 million children), it
is important to note that half of the
poor children in America live in
two-parent homes (5,12).
This article addresses two major
questions: (1) To what extent are
lower middle income two-parent
and single-mother families poor, or
near poor? and (2) What are family
income and expenditure patterns
among lower middle income two­parent
one-earner, two-parent two­earner,
and single-mother families
with children under age 18? Answers
to these questions will serve to
support or refute the concern that
financial instability is a threat among
two-parent lower middle income
families as well as among lower
middle income single-mother families.
Data and Sample
Data for this study are from the
interview component of the 1987
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX)
(15), an ongoing annual survey con­ducted
by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Demographic characteristics, income,
and expenditure data are collected in
five consecutive quarterly interviews
as part of a national probability
sample of about 5,000 consumer
units.2 Using a rotating sample design,
about one-fifth of the sample is
replaced each quarter. In 1987 a
response rate of approximately 86
percent yielded about 21,000 quarterly
consumer unit interviews. To obtain
annual family expenditure estimates,
2 A consumer unit includes either all
household members related by blood, mar­riage,
adoption, or other legal arrangement,
such as foster children; a person living alone
or sharing a household with others, or living
as a roomer in a private home or lodging
house, or in permanent living quarters in a
hotel, but who is financially independent;
or two or more persons living together who
pool their income to make joint expenditure
decisions. The terms "household" and "family"
are used in this article to refer to consumer
units.
9
3 months of household expenditure
data were annualized.
The sample oflower middle income
families used in this study consisted
of one- and two-earner two-parent,
and single-mother families, with
children under age 18, at least one
of whom was under age 6. The
sample was restricted on the basis
of family <:om position, labor force
characteristics, marital status, and
completeness of income reported.
Excluded were single-father families
and families headed by two parents,
when one or both were retired,
students, or not living together.
Single-father families were excluded
due to insufficient sample size.
Retired or student parents were
deleted from analysis to eliminate
potential distortion in family
economic status inherent in the
special financial considerations
of retirement' and student living.
Parents who were married but not
living together were eliminated be­cause
of atypical financial considera­tions
associated with maintaining
more than one household. Also ex­cluded
were incomplete income
reporters, that is, families who did
not provide a value for major sources
of income such as wages and salaries,
self-employment, or Social Security
income.
Lower middle income was defined
as the range of income received by
families in the second income quartile
of the before-tax 1987 income dis­tribution
for all U.S. families. Before­tax
income of families in the second
income quartile of the 1987 U.S.
family income distribution ranged
from $10,000 to $20,911. Thus, 25
percent of all U.S. families had 1987
income in this range. Data were
weighted to represent the U.S.
population of lower middle income
two-parent and single-mother
families with children under age 18,
at least one of whom was under age
6 in 1987- approximately 1.8
million two-parent families and
389,000 single-mother families.
The figure below shows the
income distributions for the family
types under study, relative to the
income distribution for all U.S.
families, with and without children.
Most one- and two-earner two­parent
families had income above
the U.S. median, 69 percent and
76 percent, respectively. In contrast,
only 8 percent of the single-mother
families had income above the
median of U.S. families. Thus, the
families included in the sample, i.e,
those in the second quartile, were
among the poorest of the two­parent
families and the richest of
the single-parent families.
Income distribution1 of families with children, 1987
10
•
3rd and 4th Quartile,
>$20,911
2nd Quartile,
$10,000-$20,911
1st Quartile,
<$10,000
1
1ncome quartiles
derived from income
distribution of total U.S.
consumer units.
Percent
100-
75-
50-
25-
o-
Two parent
One earner Two earners
Single mother
Family Economics Review
Table 1, pp. 12 and 13, compares
the demographic characteristics of
the lower middle income group with
the population of two-parent and
single-mother families with children
under age 18, at least one of whom
was under age 6, at all income levels.
The selection constraints enumerated
above were applied to the population,
ensuring comparability except for
income.
In contrast with their comparable
population, the lower middle income
two-parent one-earner families
were younger, less educated, more
likely to be employed in blue-collar
occupations, and renters. Dual­earner
families in this group were
also considerably younger, less edu­cated,
less likely to be employed full
time, more likely to work in blue­collar
occupations, rent, and live in
rural areas than the U.S. population
of dual-earner families. Lower middle
income single-mother families in
this study were more educated, more
likely to work full time, and more
likely to own a home than single­mother
families in the population.
Thus, consistent with the figure,
comparisons of the lower middle
income group to the population
show the subgroup includes more
economically disadvantaged two­parent
families and more economi­cally
advantaged single-mother
families than the general population.
A two-part analysis was conducted.
First, families in the lower middle
income group were classified on the
basis of 1987 U.S. poverty threshold
criteria to estimate the percentage of
those living at or n~r the poverty
line. Second, a descriptive analysis
of family demographic, income, and
expenditure information was com­pleted
for the three family types -
two-parent one-earner, two-parent
two-earner, and single-mother
families.
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
Results
Poverty Status
A classification, using 1987 U.S.
poverty threshold criteria, was con­ducted
on the population of two­parent
and single-mother families
with children under age 18, at least
one of whom was under age 6.
Results suggest that a substantial
number and percentage of these
families were poor or near poor.3
Population 4 estimates showed that
22 percent of two-parent one-earner,
9 percent of two-parent two-earner,
and 75 percent of families headed
by single mothers had money in­come
below 125 percent of the 1987
poverty threshold.
When a similar classification was
conducted on the lower middle in­come
sample, the greatest percentage
of families in or near poverty were
two-parent one-earner and single­mother
families ( 42 percent and 37
percent, compared with 28 percent
of two-parent two-earner families).
These families might be termed
"economically vulnerable." Due to
their low levels of income, a single
hardship (e.g., job loss, major medi­cal
expense, death of a spouse,
divorce) could move these families
into poverty ( 4).
Demographic Characteristics
Table 1 presents characteristics
of lower middle income two-parent
families, compared with those
headed by single mothers. There
were twice as many one-earner and
two-earner two-parent families as
single-mother families.
3Poor was defined as having annual money
income at or below the official Government
poverty threshold; near poor was defined as
having annual money income between 100
and 125 percent of the poverty threshold. In
1987 the poverty threshold was $11,611 for a
family of four, $9,656 for a family of three,
and $7,397 for a family of two.(13).
4AI1 two-parent and single-mother families
with children under age 18 and at least one
child under age 6 were included. Single-father
families and families headed by parents, one
or both of whom were retired or students, or
who were not living together, and incomplete
income reporters, were excluded.
Family Composition. Families
included, on average, two children
under age 18. Average family size in
one-earner two-parent families was
4.2, compared with 3.9 in two-earner
families and 3.3 in families headed
by single mothers. Children living
in two-parent dual-earner families
tended to be younger than those in
two-parent one-earner families or
those headed by single mothers.
The oldest child was under age 6
in 64 percent of the two-earner
families, compared with 50 percent
of both two-parent one-earner and
single-mother families.
Age. Since prime childbearing
years are in the 20's, it was not
surprising that a majority of parents
in all three family groups were
under age 34. Fathers in two-earner
households were slightly younger
than those in one-earner two-parent
families. Single mothers were older
on average than mothers in two­parent
families.
Race. For two-parent families,
more minorities were found in the
two-earner than one-earner group.
This is consistent with other studies
of the working poor (7). Among
single-mother families, nearly one­third
of those with lower middle
income were Black
Education. Thirty-eight percent
of fathers in one-earner families did
not have a high school diploma,
compared with 34 percent in two­earner
families. Yet, nearly 30
percent of all fathers in one- and
two-parent families had a college
education- 27.2 percent and 29.3
percent, respectively.
Mothers in all three family groups
were more highly educated than
the fathers. As expected, women
earners in the two-parent groups
were more highly educated than
their non-earner female counter­parts.
Interestingly, single mothers
were even more likely to have a
college education than mothers in
two-parent families. Data suggest
that college-educated single-mother
families may not be able to break
out of the lower middle income
11
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of lower middle Income 1 two-parent and single-mother families, 2 1987
Lower middle income All incomes
Personal Two-parent families Single-mother Two-parent families Single-mother
characteristics One earner Two earners families One earner Two earner families
Number of families
(weighted, In thousands) . ... . .... 812 987 389 2,959 5,969 1,543
Percent of families • 0 0 0 ••••• 0 •••• 0. 37.1 45.1 17.8 28.3 57.0 14.7
Family size ••••• 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 •• 0 ••••• 4.2 3.9 3.3 4.2 3.9 3.3
Number In families:
Children under 18 • 0. 0 0 ••• 0 0 • • 0. 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.3
Automobiles .................. . 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.5
Percent re(;1orting Percent re(;1orting
Age:
Father:
<25 ........................ 10.9 20.1 N.A. 7.8 6.5 N.A.
25-34 •• 0. 0 0 •••• 0 0 0. 0 0 •• 0 0. 69.6 64.8 N.A. 56.3 62.9 N.A.
35-44 •••• 0 •••• 0 0. 0 ••• ••••• 17.2 12.7 N.A. 32.8 28.5 N.A.
>44 ........................ 2.3 2.4 N.A. 3.1 2.1 N.A.
Mother:
<25 ........................ 22.8 34.0 21.1 16.6 13.5 31.2
25-34 • 0 0. 0 •••• 0. 0 ••• 0 •• ''. 69.2 56.2 59.4 65.1 67.3 51.4
35-44 0. 0 •••• ••••••••••••• 0 8.0 9.5 18.4 17.8 19.0 16.4
>44 ........................ 0 .3 1.1 .5 .2 1.0
Oldest Child:
<6 ......................... 49.5 64.4 49.8 55.2 56.5 48.6
6-12 ••••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 0 ••• 43.0 30.8 32.7 36.7 37.6 37.3
>12 ........................ 7.5 4.8 17.5 8.1 5.9 14.1
Race:
Father:
White 0. 0 0 ••••• 0 0 •• 0 •••••••• 93.8 89.2 N.A. 92.4 89.9 N.A.
Black •• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 •• •••• 0 ••• 3.3 9.0 N.A. 3.8 7.5 N.A.
American Indian and Asian ..... 2.9 1.8 N.A. 3.8 2.6 N.A.
Mother:
White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 93.6 88.3 69.6 92.8 90.4 55.5
Black ••••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 3.3 9.3 30.2 3.8 7.3 41.5
American Indian and Asian ..... 3.1 2.4 .2 3.4 2.3 3.0
Education:
Father:
Elementary .................. 14.5 9.5 N.A. 5.2 2.7 N.A.
Some high school ............ 23.1 24.4 N.A. 12.5 9.0 N.A.
High school graduate •••••• 0 •• 35.2 36.8 N.A. 33.9 32.8 N.A.
College ........ ... .......... 27.2 29.3 N.A. 48.4 55.5 N.A.
Mother:
Elementary .................. 15.1 7.6 5.6 7.3 2.6 7.5
Some high school ....... . .... 20.8 15.3 21.0 11.8 5.5 29.7
High school graduate •• 0 •••••• 42.2 46.2 32.8 41.7 37.1 34.6
College ..................... 21 .9 30.9 40.6 39.2 54.8 28.2
See footnotes at end of table. continued
12 Family Economics Review
Table 1- continued
Personal
characteristics
Employment status:
Father:
Full time -full year . . . . . .... .. .
Part time - full year . . . .. .. .... .
Full time - part year ...... .... .
Part time - part year . . ... ..... .
Not employed ..... .. ....... .
Mother:
Full time -full year .... ...... . .
Part time - full year ... ..... . .. .
Full time - part year .......... .
Part time - part year ... ... . . . . .
Not employed . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .
Occupation:
Father:
White-colla~ .......... . ..... .
Blue-collar4
................ .
Service ...... ... .......... . .
Self-employed .......... . .. . .
Farm and othe~ . . · . . . ... . .... .
Not employed . .. ... ... .... . .
Mother:
White-colla~ . . . ............. .
Blue-collar4
. ...... . ... . . . . . .
Service .. ... .... . . .. . . .... . .
Self-employed ...... ... ..... .
Farm and othe~: ... . ... . .. . . .
Not employed . .. .......... . .
Housing tenure:
Homeowner with mortgage ... .. . .
Homeowner without mortgage .. . .
Renter and other . . .. .... ...... .
Region:
Urban:
Northeast .. . . . . .. . ..... .. .. .
South . ... ... . . ...... . ..... .
Midwest . ... . . . ............ .
West . . ..... . . .... . . . ...... .
Rural . . ... . . . ... ' .. . ... ....... .
Lower middle income
Two-parent fafT!ilies Single-mother
One earner Two earners
76.3
2.8
15.4
.6
4.9
2.4
.8
1.8
0
95.0
33.1
50.5
4.3
1.9
5.3
4.9
2.2
2.7
0
0
0
95.1
27.5
12.2
60.3
12.2
29.7
19.7
20.3
18.1
Percent reporting
67.8
6.7
18.6
6.9
0
20.8
12.6
34.4
32.2
0
16.7
59.5
9.3
6.6
7.9
0
46.5
16.1
27.3
8.6
1.5
0
28.9
11.5
59.6
13.2
27.3
19.5
17.0
23.0
families
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
46.9
5.9
19.5
4.8
22.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
51 .0
11.3
13.1
1.4
.3
22.9
15.6
3.3
81.1
14.0
34.4
22.7
26.8
2.1
All incomes
One earner Two earners
80.8
2.7
10.8
.5
5.2
2.8
.. 3
1:5
.5
94.9
47.8
35.2
4.2
4.7
2.9
5.2
3.4
1.0
.8
0
.6
94.2
52.1
6.8
41 .1
17.9
27.3
19.7
22.2
12.9
Percent reporting
81.4
2.2
13.8
2.6
0
40.3
15.1
23.2
21.4
0
46.3
39.7
4.2
7.0
2.8
0
69.7
11.6
12.1
5.7
.9
0
62.6
7.2
30.2
12.3
21 .6
28.1
18.8
19.2
families
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
21.7
6.0
16.4
11.6
44.3
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
44.3
35.0
7.7
11 .2
1.5
.3
9.4
2.3
88.3
17.6
36.1
24.0
18.6
3.7
1The measure of lower middle income used was the range of family before-tax income bounding the second income quartile of the income
distribution for all U.S. families in 1987 ($1 0,000 to $20,911).
2Data are for families with children under age 18, at least one of whom is under age 6, and who are complete income reporters. Families with
parents, one or both of whom were retired or students, or who were not living together, were excluded.
3White collar included managerial, professional, technical, sales, and administrative.
4Biue collar includes precision production, craft, repair, operators, fabricators, and laborers.
5Farm and other includes farming, forestry, fishing, Armed Forces, and other.
N.A. = Not applicable.
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2 13
bracket. This may be due, in part, to
the fact that women employed full
time earn only about 70 percent of
the median earnings for men (14).
Employment Status. One explana­tion
for the lower middle income
status of these families is that all
earners did not work full time. Of
the one-earner two-parent families,
three-fourths of the fathers were
employed full time, year round, and
about 5 percent were not employed
during the previous year.
For two-earner families, only 68
percent of the fathers and 21 percent
of the mothers worked full time, year
round. The part-time status reported
by 79 percent of the mothers in two­earner
families may restrict future
opportunities for professional and
higher paid positions. Forty-seven
percent of the single mothers
worked in full-time employment
outside the home and almost one­fourth
were not employed in the
previous year.
The inability to obtain quality,
affordable child care may be a prime
factor contributing to the large per­centage
of mothers employed part
time. This is of special concern to
single-mother families with primary
responsibility for both child rearing
and family income generation.
Occupation. At least half of the
fathers held blue-collar jobs. Mothers
in both two-parent dual-earner and
single-mother family groups tended
to work in white-collar and service
jobs. Given the lower middle income
status of these families, it is likely
that these mothers held lower paid,
white-collar office jobs. Service
sector employment also tends to
be low paying.
Housing Tenure. As is typical
with many young families, especially
in the lower middle income range,
home ownership was generally out
of reach. Although two-parent
families were more likely to own
their own home than single-mother
families, a majority of families
rented (60 percent of one- and dual­earner
two-parent families, and 81
percent of single-mother families).
14
Region. Most families were living
in urban areas; only 18 percent of
one-earner, 23 percent of dual­earner,
and 2 percent of single-mother
families lived in rural areas. Consis­tent
with studies of families in poverty
(13 ), the families under study were
most likely to live in the southern
and least likely to live in the north­eastern
regions of the United States.
Income and Income
Sources
In 1987 average before-tax income
(table 2) was $15,920 for two-parent
one-earner families, just $4,309
above the 1987 poverty threshold
for a family of four. Two-parent
two-earner families' average before­tax
income was not much higher
($16,327). Single-mother families'
average before-tax income was
lowest at $13,380. Examination of
per capita income, however, showed
that single-mother families' per
capita income was almost equal to
that of two-parent one-earner families.
The amounts of income received
from different income sources
varied considerably among two­parent
and single-mother families.
Nearly all income in two-parent
families was from wage and salary
earnings, with only about 3 percent
of income from public assistance.
Generally, for two-earner families,
public assistance was in the form of
unemployment compensation, food
stamps, and workers' compensation
and Veterans benefits. Two-parent
families with one earner were less
likely than dual-earner families to
receive public assistance income
from employment-related sources.
In contrast, 63 percent of single­mother
families' income was
derived from earnings, 23 percent
from public assistance, and 14 per­cent
from Social Security or Rail­road
Retirement and other sources,
including alimony and child sup­port.
Public assistance income was
primarily in the form of welfare and
food stamps. No single mother in
the sample received unemployment
compensation or workers' compen­sation
and Veterans benefits. Inter­mittent
labor force attachment gen­erally
associated with child-rearing
responsibilities has traditionally
prevented women from qualifying
for this form of financial assistance.
Most parents of young children
were not old enough to be eligible
for Social Security (including sur­vivor
and disability benefits) or pen­sion
income. Also, asset income was
negligible for both two-parent and
single-mother families. Since asset
income includes both interest and
dividends, this implies that families
had neither savings nor investments
to cushion them against financial
instability.
Expenditures
Table 2 also shows total expendi­tures
and expenditure shares for
two-parent and single-mother
families. A comparison of mean
total annual expenditures for each
group with its corresponding after­tax
income showed all three groups
in a deficit-spending situation. The
single-mother family deficit, how­ever,
was not as serious as that of
two-parent families. The after-tax
income of two-parent one-earner
families was $15,225, compared with
expenditures of $17,139. Two-earner
families had an average after-tax in­come
of $15,580with expenditures
of $18,234. The after-tax income of
families headed by single mothers
was $13,175, compared with expendi­tures
of $13,387.
Deficit spending may be a result
of external factors such as unemploy­ment
or unexpected medical expenses,
whereas other factors may be within
a family's control and relate to poor
management practices. For example,
families may rely on credit to main­tain
a desired level of living or make
inappropriate marketplace
decisions.
Family Economics Review
Table 2. lncome2income sources, and expenditures of lower middle lncome1 two-parent and single­mother
families, 1987
Income and expenditures
Number of families
(weighted, in thousands)
Percent of families
Before-tax income
After-tax income
Per capita income
Total expenditures
Per capita expenditures
Income sources
Earnings4
. ... . ........ . .......... . .. .
Public assistance ...... . .. . ... ; ....... .
Social Security or Railroad Retirement .. . . .
Pensions, annuities .... ..... . . . . ..... . .
Asset income6
...... .. .... ....... . . . . . .
Other sources7
. . . . •. ... ....... .. . . . ...
Expenditures
Housing8
.. . ... ..... ... . . ... . ... ... . .
Transportation . .. . . ... . . .. ..... . ... .. .
Food at home ... . .............. . . ... . .
Food away from home ..... . .. .. .... ... .
Clothing . ..... ......... .. .. ... ...... .
Personal insurance . ....... . .......... .
Pension and Social Security ... ... ...... .
Health care .. .. . . ............. .. . . . .. .
Entertainment .. ... .... . ...... . .. . .... .
Tqbacco ........ .. . . . .. . ... ......... .
Alcoholic beverages ... . . ... . ........ . .
Personal care . . ... ... . .. . ...... . . . . . . .
Othe~ . ... ..... . . . .... . .. . ..... . ... . .
Two-parent families
One earner Two earners
812
37.1
$15,920
15,225
3,790
17,139
4,081
94.6
3.6
.6
.2
.3
.7
31.5
19.8
16.2
2.9
4.8
1.2
6.8
6.4
4.0
1.8
1.0
.8
2.8
987
45.1
$16,327
15,580
4,186
18,234
4,675
Percent3
96.4
3.2
0
0
0
.4
32.9
20.1
14.6
2.9
5.2
1.0
6.9
4.2
6.3
1.5
.8
.6
3.0
Single-mother
families
389
17.8
$13,380
13,175
4,055
13,387
4,057
63.0
22.6
2.8
0
0
11 .6
44.8
11 .9
16.7
2.6
6.2
.7
4.9
3.0
4.3
1.3
.8
.9
1.9
1The measure of lower middle income used was the range of family before-tax income bounding the second income quartile of the income
distribution for all U.S. families in 1987 ($10,000 to $20,911).
2Data are for families with children under age 18, at least one of whom is under age 6, and complete income reporters. Families with parents,
one or both of whom were retired or students, or who were not living together, were excluded.
3Percent of total annual before-tax income and expenditures.
4Earnings include salary, wages, business income, and farm income or loss.
5Percent of total public assistance income.
6Asset income includes interest, dividends, rent, and royalties.
70ther sources includes alimony, child support, and other money income.
8Housing includes child care expenses.
90ther includes cash contributions, education, reading, and miscellaneous expenses.
1991 VoL 4 No. 2 15
Compared with one-earner two­parent
families, per capita expendi­tures
were slightly higher for the
two-parent two-earner group. This
may be attributable to child care
and other direct costs related to the
employment of two parents.
Regardless of the number of
earners, expenditures for one- and
two-earner two-parent families
were similar. Major expenditures­housing,
transportation, and food­required
slightly over 70 percent of
spending allocations for both two­parent
groups. In contrast, single­mother
families allocated 76 percent
of annual expenditures for housing,
transportation, and food.
Compared with two-parent families,
single-mother families spent a con­siderably
higher share of income on
housing- 45 percent, on average.
When nearly half of family income
is spent for housing, a "shelter-poor"
situation may exist. Households
may have too little left after paying
housing costs to afford other basic
necessities of life.
Single mothers also spent a smaller
share of income on transportation,
compared with two-parent families.
This finding was consistent with
single-mothers' lower vehicle owner­ship
record and sporadic attachment
to the labor force. The number of
automobiles owned by each family
type (table 1) was of interest because
access to transportation is often
associated with employment oppor­tunities.
This is especially true in
rural areas where access to public
transportation is limited or nonex­istent.
On average, two-parent
families, regardless of the number
of earners, owned one car; most did
not have two cars. Single-mother
families were less likely than two­parent
families to own a car. Expendi­ture
data showed that single-mother
families relied somewhat on public
transportation, but not to the extent
of two-parent families. For example,
single-mother families spent $84 on
16
public transportation in 1987, com­pared
with $126 by one-earner two­parent
families and $123 by
two-earner two-parent families.
Regarding personal insurance
(includes life, endowment, an­nuities,
and retirement protection;
excludes auto, homeowners, and
health insurance), single-mother
families had about half the expendi­tures
of two-parent families ($741
compared with $1,374 for one­earner
and $1,449 for two-earner
two-parent families). The expendi­ture
share for personal insurance,
however, was about 1 percent of
total expenditures among all
groups. Though some life insurance
and retirement benefits may be
available through employment,
results suggest that the amount
spent on premiums by lower middle
income single-mother families may
not buy adequate protection.
Two important expenditure
categories for young families with
children are child care and health
insurance. Not surprisingly, average
annual expenditures for child care
-baby-sitting and day care, including
tuition- were five times greater
for two-parent two-earner families
($460) than for two-parent one­earner
families ($91 ). On average,
single mothers paid the most for
child care ($911 ), over twice the
amount paid by two-parent two­earner
families.
Access to.health insurance is a
critical need for all families, especial­ly
those raising children. For these
lower middle income families,
single-mother families spent the
least on health insurance ($184),
compared with two-parent families
($409 for one-earner and $300 for
two-earner families). Medical
coverage may be a part of the single
mother's public assistance package.
Those not receiving public benefits
may be unable to afford health in­surance.
Employed parents may be
covered through their employer.
Implications
Results tend to support the con­cern
that financial instability is a
threat among both two-parent and
single-mother lower middle income
families. Policymakers, educators,
researchers, and community leaders
planning poverty prevention
programs must keep in mind that
economically vulnerable children
live in married-couple families as
well as in families headed by single
mothers.
At the macro-economic level, the
financial vulnerability faced by many
families can be alleviated by general
economic growth, higher wages, tax
provisions benefiting families with
children, affordable child care, and
accessible health care. Policymakers
must recognize that early childhood
intervention through education is
less expensive than teen pregnancy
and long-term public assistance.
Educators, especially those con­cerned
with family resource manage­ment,
can help families improve
current job skills or develop new
skills aimed at securing better-paying
jobs. Aside from resource expansion,
an educational focus for families on
resource conservation is also impor­tant.
Young families can learn to
use current income wisely, control
credit, cover financial risks through
insurance, and manage resources in
a complex and dynamic environment.
Researchers can contribute con­siderably
to a better understanding
of economically vulnerable families.
U.S. statistics are useful for provid­ing
estimates of families with special
financial characteristics. Descriptive
data, such as those presented in this
article, can help identify economic
problems of lower middle income
families and lead legislators and
educators to policy approaches that
address key concerns. More systematic
and rigorous research is needed to
identify objective and subjective
measures of economic vulnerability
among families at different life cycle
stages, at different income levels,
and at critical life events such as
birth, divorce, separation, or death.
Family Economics Review
References
1. The Center for the Study of
Social Policy. 1990. Kids Count Data
Book: State Profiles of Child Well­Being.
Washington, DC.
2. Children's Defense Fund. 1990.
Children 1990: A Report Card, Brief­ing
Book, and Action Primer.
Washington, DC.
3. Danziger, S. and Gottschalk, P.
1986. Families with children have
fared worst. Challenge. March­April
issue, pp. 40-47.
4. Duncan, G.J., et al. 1984. Years
of Poverty, Years of Plenty: The
Changing Economic Fortunes of
American Workers and Families.
Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI.
5. Ellwood, D.T. 1988. Poor Sup­port:
Poverty in the American Family.
Basic Books, Inc., New York.
6. Johnson, C.M., Sum, AM., and
Weill, J.D. 1988. Vanishing Dreams:
The Growing Economic Plight of
America's Young Families. Children's
Defense Fund and Center for Labor
Market Studies, Northeastern
University.
7. Klein, B.W. and Rones, P.L.
1989. A profile of the working poor.
Monthly Labor Review 112(10):3-13.
8. Lino, M. 1989. Financial status
of single-parent households. Family
Economics Review 2(1):2-7.
9. Rogers C. 1990. Children in
nonmetro America: Economic well­being
in a family context. Proceed­ings
- Outlook '90, pp. 370-384.
Proceedings from the Annual
Agricultural Outlook Conference.
[U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, November 1989.]
10. Saluter, AF. 1989. Changes
in American Family Life. Current
Population Reports, Consumer
Income. Series P-23, No. 163. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.
1991 VoL 4 No. 2
11. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1m. Children's
Well-Being: An International Com­parison,
Series P-95, No. 80.
12 . 1989. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1989.
[109th ed.)
13. . 1988. Money
Income and Poverty Status in the
United States: 1987 (Advance
Report). Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income. Series
P-60, No. 161.
14. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1989.
Employment in Perspective: Women
in the Labor Force. Report 782.
15. . Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview
Survey, 1987. Unpublished data.
16. U.S. House of Representatives,
100th Congress, 2nd session, Select
Committee on Children, Youth,
and Families. 1988. Children and
Families in Poverty: The Struggle to
Survive. [Hearing held on February
25, 1988.}~
17
Housing Expenditures for
Never-Married Men: A Focus
on One-Person Consumer Units
By Julia M. Dinkins
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
attributed, in part, to the increasing
percentage of young adults who
never marry (9).
The percentage of men who have
never married continues to rise
(table 1). Between 1970 and 1989
percentages of never-married men
increased the most among the
younger cohorts. For older cohorts
(age 45 and older), percentages of
never-married men rose from 1980
levels but did not reach 1970 levels
by 1989.
Factors that influence housing
expenditure decisions for individuals
in other marital status categories
and types of consumer units may
not be predictors for never-married
men. In similar studies by other
authors, relationships between
socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics and housing expendi­tures
or housing tenure have been
analyzed. These characteristics
included race, income, family size,
age of the head of the household,
marital status, region, social class,
and gender (1,2,3,6,8). Do some of
these characteristics impact housing
expenditures for never-married
men? How significant are housing
tenure and housing type? Are race,
income, education, employment
status, and urban-rural residence
determinants of housing expenditures
for never-married men who are one­person
consumer units? What is the
effect of living arrangements on
housing expenditures?
This article focuses on a specific
subgroup of never-married men­one-
person consumer units -and
determines housing expenditure pat­terns
by delineating socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics
and living arrangement variables
that impact housing expenditures
for this subgroup. Because never­married
men represent an increasing
segment of the population and
because their consumer life cycle1
experiences are different from those
1The consumer life-cycle stage, a concept
proposed by Ronald W. Stampfl, includes
childhood, adolescence, singlehood, and family
status stages. For each stage consumers are
characterized, typical products and services
purchased are identified, and marketplace
concepts and knowledge needed are listed.
Marketplace skills needed and typical market­place
problems encountered are identified.
Finally, levels of resources are characterized
(7).
The percentages of never-married
men and new household formations by
young adults have increased since
1970. Using data from the 1987 Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey, this study
examines the socioeconomic,
demographic, and living arrangements
profile of never-married men who are
one-person consumer units and deter­mines
which factors account for hous­ing
expenditure differences among
them. Six of ten never-married men who
were one-person consumer units lived
alone. Sixty-three percent lived in multi­unit
structures, 30 percent lived in
detached homes, and 7 percent lived in
mobile homes or trailers. The average
annual housing expenditure was
$5,153, with $3,589 for shelter; $867 for
utilities, fuels, and public services; $597
for home furnishings and equipment;
and $100 for household operations.
Multivariate analysis indicated that
housing expenditures were greater
when men had higher incomes, owned
their units, lived alone, were younger,
and resided in the urban West. This
study provides useful data to housing
and consumer educators by examining
factors that help explain consumer ex­penditure
behaviors of a specific group
of never-married males in the housing
marketplace, the one-person consumer
unit.
Table 1. Percent of never-married men within age categories,
Introduction
Since 1970 the percentage of
unmarried persons has increased as
a result of several factors: Postpone­ment
of marriage by baby boomers,
increases in divorce and widowhood,
and increases in the percentage of
individuals who choose not to marry
( 4,5). In addition, increases in new
household formations can be
18
selected years
Age 1989 1980 1970 1960
20-24 • 0 •• 0 ••• 0. 0. 0 77.4 . 68.8 54.7 53.1
25-29 •••••••••••• 0 45.9 33.1 19.1 20.8
30-34 ............. 25.8 15.9 9.4 11.9
35-39 •• 0 •••••••••• 15.2 7.8 7.2 8.8
40-44 •••••• 0 0. 0 0. 0 8.3 7.1 6.3 7.3
45-54 .••.•.... 0. 0. 6.7 6.1 7.5 7.4
55-64 • 0 0 0 ••• 0 ••••• 5.6 5.3 7.8 8.0
65+ ••••••• 0 ••••••• 4.7 4.9 7.5 7.7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Marital Status and Living
Arrangements: March 1989, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 445.
Family Economics Review
who are or have been married, a
focus on this group is needed to
explain factors that influence their
consumption behavior.
Methodology
Source of Data
Dat~ for this study are from the
interview component of the 1987
Consumer Expenditure Survey
(CEX) (10). TheCEX,administered
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
is an ongoing survey that collects
detailed information on income,
expenditures, and demographic
characteristics. A national sample of
consumer units2 is interviewed once
each quarter for five consecutive
quarters. After the final interview,
the consumer unit is dropped from
the Survey and replaced by another.
Since about one-fifth of the consumer
units are replaced each quarter, a
rotating sample is achieved. Data
from the first interview are used for
classification purposes only. Expendi­ture
data collected each quarter are
considered independently; therefore,
participation by consumer units in
all five quarters is not required. In
1987 expenditure data from about
20,000 quarterly interviews were
annualized.
Procedures and Variables
CEX respondents indicate the
composition of their consumer unit:
husband/wife, single parent, "other
family," or one-person; and marital
status. Consequently, one-person
consumer units are classified as mar­ried,
widowed, divorced, separated,
or never-married. Also, one-person
consumer units specify if they live
alone or share a dwelling with other
consumer units. To meet the defini­tion
of a one-person consumer unit,
2Consumer units are composed of (1) all
members of a particular household who are
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or
other legal arrangements; (2) a person living
alone or sharing a household with others, or
living as a roomer in a private home or lodging
house, or in permanent living quarters in a
hotel, but who is financially independent; or
(3) two persons or more living together who
pool their income to make joint expenditure
decisions.
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
respondents who share a dwelling
with other consumer units must
remain independent of others by
using their own money to pay for at
least two of the following: housing,
food, and other living expenses.
By consumer unit composition
(table 2, p. 20), 57 percent of males
in one-person consumer units were
never married, compared to 21
percent who were divorced and
14 percent who were widowed. Few
of the males in one-person con­sumer
units were separated (5 per­cent)
or married (3 percent). Of all
consumer units with a never-married
respondent, males living alone were
the predominate group ( 42 percent)
(see figure).
This study focuses on 1,218 never­married
men who lived alone or shared
a dwelling with other consumer units
- that is, were one-person consumer
units. Because individuals who were
not White or Black represented only
3 percent of the population of all
consumer units, they were excluded
from the study. Also excluded were
persons living in dormitories because
their housing expenditures were
atypical. Descriptive data, including
expenditure means, were weighted
to reflect the U.S. population of
never-married men.
Descriptive Profile
Compared with all consumer
units, larger percentages of never­married
men who were one-person
consumer units had incomes less
than $25,000, were younger than 35
years old, or had some college
education (table 3, p. 21). More
lived in urban areas of the Midwest
and West. Larger percentages of
these men were renters, shared a
dwelling with other consumer units,
or lived in multiunit3 structures.
3Multiunit dwellings included row or town
houses, 2-, 3-, and 4-plex units, garden units,
high rises, and apartments or flats located in
the basement or attic, on the second floor, or
over the garage of one of the previously men­tioned
units.
Never~married consumer units
Percent
One-person
male 42.1
One-person
female
32.7
Other family 16.9
Female parent 7.8
Male parent 0.5
Weighted number of never-married consumer units= 13.7 million.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1987
Consumer Expenditure Survey.
19
Table 2. Consumer unit composition· by marHal status, 1987
Marital status
Consumer units 1 Married Widowed Divorced Separated Never married
Number of consumer units
(weighted, in thousands) .............. 45,303 10,093 9,258 2,757 13,659
Percent
Total •••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••• 0 0 ••• 0 55.9 12.4 11.4 3.4 16.9
Husband/wife ......................... 100.0 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Male parent with child < 18 0 0 •••••• 0 0 •••• 10.1 11.5 55.0 10.6 12.8
Female parent with child <18 0 ••••••••••• 3.6 6.5 45.9 21.3 22.7
One-person:
Males ••• 0 •••••••• 0 •• 0 ••••••••••• 0. 3.2 13.6 21.3 5.1 56.8
Females ••••••• 0 ••••••••••• 0 0 ••••• ' 2.1 44.6 16.5 3.9 32.9
Other families ......................... 6.4 28.0 29.5 8.1 28.0
1To determine consumer unit composition and reference person, names of all persons in a dwelling are listed, the owner(s) or renter(s) are
identified, and the relationship of each person to the reference person is determined.
N.A. = Not applicable.
One-half of never-married men
who were one-person consumer
units reported incomes4 of less than
$15,000, compared with 19 percent
with incomes of $30,000 and more.
A majority of these men were young
(72 percent were less than 35 years
old), had college degrees or college
experience (70 percent), and were
White (92 percent). One-half were
either professionals or managers
or were employed in technical fields,
sales, administrative support, or the
Armed Forces. They were almost
evenly distributed in urban areas
of the Midwest, South, and West.
Fewer lived in the urban Northeast
and in rural areas. A majority of
these never-married men were
renters, lived alone, and lived in
multiunit dwellings.
4Income refers to the total money earnings
before taxes and selected money receipts
during the 12 months prior to the inteiView
date. It includes wages and salaries; self­employment
income; Social Security; private
and government retirement; interest,
dividends, rental income, and other property
income; unemployment and workers' compen­sation
and Veterans benefits; public contribu­tions
for support, other income; Federal
income taxes; State and local income taxes;
and other taxes.
20
Results
Never-married men's mean annual
housing expenditure was $5,153, or
31 percent of total mean expendi­tures
(table 4, pp. 22 and 23). As
expected, shelter accounted for the
majority (69 percent) of men's housing
expenditures. Utilities, fuels, and
public services accounted for 17 per­cent
of housing expenditures; home
furnishings and equipment, for 12
percent; and household operations,
for 2 percent.
Living Arrangements
Tenure. As well as having a higher
overall mean housing expenditure
($8,419); owners in this sample also
had higher expenses in all housing
categories. Renters, however, spent
a higher percentage of their housing
dollars on shelter than did owners
(74 percent for renters vs. 63 percent
for owners). Also, owners and retiters
spent the same percentage of the
housing budget on utilities, fuels,
and public services (17 percent).
These shares for shelter and utilities
likely reflect two factors: (1) for CEX
respondents, mortgage principal is
not included in shelter expenditures,
and (2) for some renters, shelter
includes utilities, fuels, and public
service expenditures.
Structure. On average, never­married
men who lived in detached
units5 had higher housing costs than
those who lived in multiunits or
mobile homes. Detached-unit
dwellers also spent a greater percent­age
of total expenditures on housing
(35 percent) than those living in
other housing structures. Living
alone or sharing their living
quarters did not appear to affect
men's choice of housing structure
type.
Living Alone Versus Sharing
Space. Six of ten never-married
men lived alone, had higher average
housing costs, and spent a greater
percentage of their total expendi­tures
on housing (34 percent) than
those who shared space with some­one
(26 percent). For all never­married
men, sharing a dwelling
cost about $2,100 less in 1987 than
living alone (table 5, p. 24). Excep­tions
to this trend were men with
some high school education, who
worked in service occupations
5Detached dwellings included structures
with only one primary residence. The
residence could include rental units in the
basement or attic.
Family Economics Review
::0 Table 3. Selected characteristics and living arrangements of never-married men, 1987
.\..0..
~ r-
~
~
N
.N... .
Variable
Income:
<$5,000 ... . . .... . ..... ..... . ... ..... .
$5,000 - $9,999 .. ..... ... . ... .. .. . .... . .
$10,000-$14,999 ... . ............... . .. .
$15,000-$19,999 .... ......... . .. . .. ... .
$20,000 - $24,999 ...................... .
$25,000 - $29,999 .... . ........ . ... . .... .
$30,000-$34,999 . ... . .............. . .. .
$35,000+ ... . . ..... . . . ...... . ..... .. . .
Housing tenure:
Own ...... .. . . . ... . . ........ . ... ..... .
Rent ........... . ........ . .. . ........ . .
Housing structure type:
Detached ............................ .
Multiunit .......... . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . ... .
Mobile home/trailer ... . ... ... ... . .. . .... .
Dormitories .................... .... . .. .
Number of consumer units in dwelling:
One . . . ..... . . . .... .. .. .. . ..... . ..... .
Two or more .... . ............ . ........ .
Education:
No schooling .. . .... . .. .... ... . .... . . . .
Some high school .......... . ... . .. . ... .
High school ............. . .... . ....... .
Some college ... . . ... ... ...... .... . . .. .
College .. . .. .. ...... . . ... . ... . . .. . . .. .
Graduate school ....... . ............... .
Age:
<25 ..... . .. . ..... . . . . . . .. .. . .... . ... .
25-34 . ........................ . ..... .
35-44 . . . . . ....... . ....... . .. . ....... .
45-54 ... . ... . . . . . . ...... . . . ...... . .. .
55-64 .... . .............. . ........ . . . .
65+ . .... .. ..... . .... ... . ...... ..... . .
All
consumer
units1
9.2
15.4
12.8
10.3
9.6
8.0
7.2
27.5
61.7
38.3
62.3
30.4
6.2
1.1
93.3
6.7
1~4
1a1
~9
~2
1Q8
1QO
8.5
23.3
19.8
13.4
13.4
21 .6
Men2
16.5
17.5
16.5
12.1
10.5
7.5
6.8
12.6
22.3
77.7
30.3
63.3
6.4
N.A.
60.9
39.1
4.0
4.8
21 .5
35.1
20.6
14.0
29.1
42.5
15.0
6.3
3.9
3.2
Variable
Occupation:
Manager, professional . .. ... . .......... .
Technical, sales, administrative support,
Armed Forces .... . .. .. ............. .
Service ..... .. .... .. .. ... ....... . ... .
Farm, forestry, fishing .. .............. . . .
Production, craft, repair . . ... . . ... . . . . .. .
Operators, fabricators, laborers . .... ..... .
Self-employed . ... . . . .. ... .. . ..... . . .. .
Not working ... .. .......... . . ... ... . .. .
Retired . . ... .. ... .. ....... . .. .. .. . ... .
Urban-rural residence:
Urban:
Northeast ....................... .. .
Midwest .. . .. ..... .. ............ ... .
South . . . . . . . .... . . .. .............. .
West ... . ........ .... . .. .. .. . . .... .
Rural .... . .............. .. . ..... . . . . .
Race:
White ... . .. .. ... . .. .... . .. .. .. . . . ... .
Black ....................... ... .. ... .
Native American, Aleut, Eskimo .. . . . . . . .. .
Asian, Pacific Islander . .. . . ........ .. . . .
1Number of consumer units was 19,596 (unweighted) and 81 .1 million (weighted) .
2Number of consumer units for never-married men who were one-person consumer units was 1 ,218 (unweighted) and 5.0 million (weighted) .
N.A. = Not applicable.
All
consumer
units1
21.3
17.7
6.8
1.2
7.2
12.4
5.9
10.0
17.5
18.0
20.6
27.3
19.6
14.5
87.0
10.3
1.8
.9
Men2
29.6
19.6
9.8
1.8
7.8
15.0
6.0
6.3
4.1
17.1
25.2
25.3
22.1
10.3
92.1
7.9
N.A.
N.A.
Table 4. Mean annual housing expenditures for never-married men 1 by living arrangements and selected
characteristics, 1987
Variable Total
housing
All never -married men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5, 153
Living arrangements:
Housing tenure:
Own ..... . ... .. . . . .. . . .... . ........ 8,419
Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,215
Housing structure:
Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,345
Multiunit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,788
Mobile home/trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,140
Number of consumer units in dwelling:
One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,991
Two or more: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,850
Selected characteristics:
Income:
<$5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,018
$5,000 - $9,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,118
$10,000 - $14,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,116
$15,000-$19,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,497
$20,000 - $24,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,050
$25,000- $29,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,087
$30,000-$34,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,105
$35,000+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,239
Education:
No schooling and elementary . . . . . . . . . . . 2,823
Some high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,898
High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,821
Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,811
College .. ............. . .. . . ..... .... 6,043
Graduate school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,846
Age:
<25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,535
25 - 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,994
35 - 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,867
45 - 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,623
55 - 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,255
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,813
Occupation:
Manager, professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,019
Technical, sales, administrative support,
Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,399
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,062
Farm, forestry, fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,082
Production, craft, repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,240
Operators, fabricators, laborers . . . . . . . . . 3,947
Self-employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,336
Not working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,088
Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,020
See footnotes at end of table.
22
Percent of
total mean
expenditures
31.1
38.5
28.0
34.7
30.0
22.2
34.1
25.6
32.7
28.3
30.1
30.1
27.6
27.1
29.1
37.4
35.8
34.5
28.0
28.8
29.9
39.7
25.4
32.0
32.4
38.6
36.0
36.6
33.2
29.7
27.0
31.9
30.1
28.7
27.7
37.7
39.7
Housing expenditure category
Shelter2 Utilities, fuels, Household Home
and operations4 furnishings
$3,589
$5,288
3,101
4,154
3,506
1,748
4,169
2,686
2,245
2,075
2,818
3,184
3,390
4,264
5,053
7,821
2,123
2,643
2,518
3,426
4,354
5,260
2,467
4,184
4,154
5,567
1,797
1,513
4,868
3,835
2,982
2,173
3,048
2,795
2,792
2,820
1,524
public services3 and equipment5
$ 867
$1,403
713
1,106
748
918
966
713
574
658
788
789
965
1,269
1,073
1,289
637
843
n2
840
887
1,127
702
917
978
926
1,023
884
996
873
720
645
769
742
1,093
627
1,050
$ 100
$329
35
207
57
27
116
76
30
62
34
71
72
60
54
432
23
38
54
111
83
212
36
88
73
427
239
172
145
80
148
19
27
25
164
74
163
$ 597
$1,399
366
878
477
447
740
375
169
323
476
453
623
494
925
1,697
40
374
4n
434
719
1,247
330
805
662
703
196
244
1,010
611
212
245
396
385
287
567
283
continue~
Family Economics Review
Table 4 - continued
Housing expenditure category
Variable Total
housing
Percent of
total mean
expenditures
Shelte,2 Utilities, fuels, Household Home
and operations4 furnishings
public services3 · and equipment5
Urban-rural residence:
Urban:
Northeast • •••• 0 0 ••••• • • 0 0 ••• •• 0. 0 . $5,444 31.6 $4,199 $ 785 $ 56 $404
Midwest •• • 0 ••• •••• 0 •• • • • 0 . . .... . . 0 4,130 29.5 2,827 813 63 427
South ••• • • ••• •• 0 ••• •• 0 • ••• • • • • 0 0 . 5,357 29.9 3,497 1,027 122 711
West ... . ...... ... ... . . ... . .... . .. 6,840 34.2 4,963 833 189 855
Rural . ....... . . . .. . .... . .......... . . 3,065 27.7 1,722 818 24 501
Race:
White • • •• • • •• • • • •••• 0 • •• • • • • ••• 0 ••• 5,278 30.9 3,674 876 104 624
Black • • •••••• • •• 0 • •••• • •• 0 0 •••••• •• 3,703 34.7 2,596 759 63 285
1Never-married men were one-person consumer units.
2Shelter includes interest on mortgages, property taxes and insurance, rent, management fees, and maintenance fees for owned, rented, and other
units. For some renters, shelter includes utilities.
3Utilities, fuel, and public service expenditures are for natural gas, electricity, other fuels, telephone, trash and garbage collection, water and
sewerage, septic tank cleaning, and other public services.
4Household operation expenditures are allocated to domestic services, baby-sitting and day care, home care of the infirmed or elderly, gardening,
laundry (nonclothing inside and outside the home), moving, repairs, and rentals.
5Home furnishings and equipment expenses are related to household textiles, furniture, floor coverings, major and small appliances, housewares,
and miscellaneous equipment.
or were not working, or who were
Black. Never-married men who
shared a dwelling and reported the
greatest economic benefits from that
arrangement had incomes of $35,(XX)
or greater, had attended graduate
school, were between 45 and 54 years
old, were managers or professionals,
lived in the urban West, or were
White.
Men who were 55 years old or
older did not share living space with
other consumer units. Otherwise,
sharing living space reduced housing
expenditures for each age group.
In urban areas of all regions and
rural areas, never-married men who
shared space in the housing unit
reported lower housing expenditures,
compared with men who lived alone.
Sharing a dwelling with other
consumer units was economically
advantageous for White men, whose
housing expenditures were 61 percent
of that spent by White men who
lived alone. For Blacks who shared
living space, a similar economic
advantage was not evident; housing
1991 VoL 4 No. 2
expenditures were 18 percent higher
for Black men who shared a dwelling
with other consumer units than for
Black men who lived alone. This
perhaps is a reflection of the fact
that a very low percentage of Black
never-married men shared dwellings
with other consumer units (16
percent).
Socioeconomic and Demographic
Characteristics
Housing expenditures for never­married
men increased as before-tax
income increased. In 1987 never­married
men with income under
$35,000 allocated between 27 percent
and 33 percent of total expenditures
for housing. Those with income of
$35,000 or more spent 37 percent
of total expenditures on housing.
Although 78 percent of never-married
men rented their housing, over half
(54 percent) of those with income over
$35,000 were homeowners. Of all
never-married men who were home­owners,
30 percent had income
exceeding $35,000. In contrast,
approximately 68 percent of never­married
men who were renters had
income less than $20,(XX).
Typically, education has been
viewed as a means of increasing
money income and the ability to
purchase goods and services. For
this group, as educational levels
increased, average housing expendi­tures
increased. Men on both ends
of the educational continuum spent
a larger percentage of total expendi­tures
on housing (36 percent - low
and 40 percent- high) than men in
other educational categories.
Average housing expenditures
varied from $2,813 for never-married
men age 65 or older to $7,623 for
men in the 45 to 54 age group.
Average household operation expendi­tures
were less than $90 for men
under 45 years old, but as high as
$427 for men at least 45 years old.
Even though retired never-married
men spent a low amount ($3,020)
on housing, this amount represented
40 percent of their total expenditures.
23
Table 5. Mean annual housing expenditures for never-married
men 1 who Jived alone or shared a dwelling by selected
characteristics: 1987
Variable
Number of consumer units
(weighted, in thousands) . ... . . . ...... .
All never-married men ...... . ...... .. .. .
Income:
<$5,000 .... .. .. . . ... .. ... .. ... . . . .
$5,000 - $9,999 .. .... .. ... . . .... .. .. .
$10,000-$14,999 .... ... . ......... . . .
$15,000-$19,999 ... ... ...... ....... .
$20,000 - $24,999 . ..... ..... . . ... ... .
$25,000 - $29,999 ... ... ...... . . . .. . . .
$30,000-$34,999 ..... .... .. ... . .... .
$35,000 + .. .... .. .. . .. ............ .
Education:
No schooling and elementary ......... .
Some high school .. . . ... .. . .. . .. ... .
High school . .. .... . ............. . . .
Some college ... . .. ... .. ........... .
College ....... ... ...... ... . . . ..... .
Graduate school .. ....... ... . . . . . .. .
Age:
<25 ........ . . . ..... ... . . .. . ... . .. .
25-34 ... ... . .. . . . ... .. ...... . .. . . .
35 - 44 ... . .. .. .... .. . .. .......... . .
45-54 ....... . .. ...... .. .. . ... . .. . .
55 - 64 . .... . .. .... .. .... . ......... .
65+ . .. .. . . . ... . . . ...... . . .. . . . ... .
Occupation:
Manager, professional ..... .. ........ .
Technical, sale, administrative support,
Armed Forces ......... . ......... .
Service .. .. .. ..... . ..... .. . . . ..... .
Farm, forestry, fishing . . . .. .......... .
Production, craft, repair .... .. ........ .
Operators, fabricators, laborers ....... .
Self-employed ............ . .. . ..... .
Not working . . ... . ...... ..... ... .. . .
Retired . , .. . ..... . .. . . ... . ..... ... .
Urban-rural residence:
Urban:
Northeast ... . .. ..... . . .... .. .. . . .
Midwest ....... . ... . .. ..... ... . . .
South ............ .. ............ .
West . .... . .. . . . . . .............. .
Rural ....... . ......... ... .. ... . . . . .
Race:
White .. . . . . ... ........ ... . .. .. .... .
Black .. .... . . . . .... ...... . .. . .. .. . .
1 Never-married men were one-person consumer units.
- Insufficient number of cases.
24
Never-married men
Living alone Sharing
3,060
$5,991
3,640
3,511
4,603
4,901
5,458
6,574
7,259
12,145
2,866
3,722
4,116
6,178
6,748
8,855
5,020
6,510
6,187
7,932
3,255
2,813
8,303
7,173
3,820
4,6®
4,663
4,323
3,818
3,019
6,424
4,467
5,788
8,615
3,622
6,293
3,624
1,961
$3,850
2,437
2,576
3,430
3,925
4,066
5,370
6,845
7,918
4,384
3,376
3,614
4,523
4,944
3,011
5,028
3,944
4,589
4,605
3,316
4,219
2,821
3,670
2,961
4,3n
4,n5
3,629
3,722
4,632
4,078
2,010
3,840
4,267
Men who were not working also
spent a large share of their income
on housing (38 percent). On the
other hand, managers and profes­sionals
reported the highest average
housing expenditure, $7,019, using
33 percent of total expenditures for
housing.
Men in the urban West had the
highest average housing expenditure
and spent the highest percentage of
total expenditures for housing (34
percent). Men in rural areas had the
lowest average housing expenditure
and spent the lowest percentage of
total expenditures for housing (28
percent).
Even though White never-married
men used less of their total expendi­tures
(31 percent) for housing than
did their Black counterparts (35 per­cent),
Whites and Blacks spent similar
percentages of average housing
dollars for shelter (70 percent) and
household operations (2 percent).
On average, Blacks spent a slightly
higher share of their housing dol­lars
for utilities, fuels, and public
services than Whites (20 percent
and 16 percent, respectively).
Whites, however, used a larger per­centage
of their housing dollars on
home furnishings and equipment
than Blacks (12 percent and 8 per­cent,
respectively).
Multivariate Analysis
To determine what characteristics
were important in predicting housing
expenditures, ordinary least square
regressions were used. A regression
for all consumer units was used to
determine if housing expenditures
for never-married men were dif­ferent
from those of other consumer
units (table 6). Results indicated
that when other variables were held
constant, all selected variables, in­cluding
marital status and gender,
were predictors of housing expendi­tures.
Male reference persons spent
more than females and never­marrieds
spent less than married
consumer units.
Family Economics Review
......
.~.....
~ :-
-1:...
~
~
~
Table 6. Regression coefficients of housing expenditures for all consumer units and men
Variable
Income before taxes ... .. .. .. . . ........ .
Housing tenure (0 = own)
Housing structure type
(detached omitted):
Mobile home/trailer .. . ............... .
Multiunit ......... . . . . ..... .. . ..... . .
Number of consumer units
in dwelling (0 = one) ........... . .... .
Education of reference person
(college graduate omitted):2
No schooling ............... . ...... .
Elementary .. .. ................. . .. .
Some high school .................. .
High school . ...................... .
Some college ... .. .... . ... . ..... . .. .
Graduate school ............ . ...... . .
Age3 of reference person ..... . . . .. .. .. . .
Occupation of reference person
(manager/professional omitted):
Technical, sales, administrative support,
Armed Forces . ....... .. ... .. .. . .. .
Service . ... . . . . ............ .. . . ... .
Farm, forestry, fishing ...... . . . .. . . . . .
Production, craft, repair . .... .... . .... .
Operators, fabricators, laborers ....... .
Self-employed ..................... .
Not working ....... ..... . ... . . .. .. . .
Retired .... . . . ..... . .. . . ..... . .... . .
* p.s,.05.
All
consumer
units
Never -married:
One-person
consumer units 1
Standardized betas
.44*
-.03*
-.05*
- .01*
-.06*
..,;..01*
-.09*
-.09*
-.11*
-.06*
.02*
- .11*
-.00
-.01
-.00
- .01*
-.02*
.03*
.00
.00
.44*
-.19*
-.10*
- .00
-.14*
.02
- .00
.01
-.03
- .01
.12*
-.13*
.00
-.03
-.01
- .04
-.04*
-.05*
.02
.04
~ = 19,596 for all consumer units and 1 ,218 for never married men, one-person consumer units.
Those living in dormitories were excluded.
Variable
Urban and rural residence
(urban West omitted):
Urban:
Northeast . . .. . ... . .. .. . ....... . . .
Midwest .... . ...... .. ...... . .. .. .
South .... . ..... . ..... . .... ..... .
Rural ... . . . . ... ...... ....... . . .. . . .
Race (White omitted):
Black ... . . . .... .. .. . .... . ...... . .. .
Asian, Pacific Islander ...... . . . ... . .. .
Native American, Aleut, Eskimo . ...... .
Marital status of reference person
(married omitted):
Widowed . . . .......... . . .... . .. . .. .
Divorced ... . .. . ........ .. . . .. . . .. . .
Separated .. . ..... . ... . ... .. ..... .. .
Never married ... . ........ . .... . . ... .
Gender (0 = male) ... . .. .............. .
Adjusted R2 . .. ... . . ............. . ... .
All
consumer
units
Never -married:
One-person
consumer units 1
Standardized betas
-.02*
-.06*
-.05*
-.08*
- .02*
. 00
. 00
-.00
- .02*
- .00
- .08*
.01*
.35
-.07*
-.11*
-.08*
-.09*
- .01
N.A .
N.A .
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
.39
2The omitted group is a reference group; therefore, the coefficients represent deviations from the omitted group.
3Because the relationship between respondent's age and housing expenditures might have been curvilinear, age square was computed. For all consumer units, the standardized beta was -.11
(p.s,.01). The adjusted R square for this equation was .35. For the men, the standardized beta for age square was - .12 (p.s,.01) and the adjusted R square was .38.
N.A. = Not applicable.
The second regression deter­mined
significant predictors of
never-married men's housing ex­penditures.
Regression analysis
revealed that housing expenditures
for never-married men increased as
before-tax income increased. Ex­penditures
were lower for renters,
men who lived in mobile homes/
trailers, and men who shared
dwellings with other consumer
units. Men who attended graduate
school spent more on housing than
college graduates. Housing expendi­tures
decreased as age increased.
Operators, fabricators, laborers,
and self-employed men spent less
than managers or professionals.
Also, expenditures were lower for
men living in urban areas of the
Northeast, Midwest, South, and rural
areas than for men living in the
urban West. Race was not a sig­nificant
predictor for this group.
References
1. Carliner, G. 1974. Determinants
of home ownership. Land Economics
50(2):109-119.
2. Douthitt, R.A and Fedyk, J.M.
1988. The influence of children on
family life cycle spending behavior:
Theory and applications. The Journal
of Consumer Affairs 22(2):220-248.
3. Huang, C.L. and Raunikar, R. ..
1990. Analysis of tenure choice and
housing expenditure patterns.
Journal of Consumer Studies and
Home Economics 14:41-55.
4. Saluter, AF. 1990. Marital
Status and Living Arrangements:
March 1989. Current Population
Reports, Population Characteristics.
Series P-20, No. 445. U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
5. . 1989. Singleness in
America. Studies in Marriage and the
Family. Current Population Reports,
Special Studies. Series P-23, No. 162.
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
6. Shipp, S. 1988. How singles
spend. American Demographics
10(4):22-27.
26
· 7. Stampfl, R.W. 1978. The
consumer life cycle. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs 12(2):209-219.
8. Wagner, J. and Lucero-Cam pins,
L. 1988. Social class: A multivariate
analysis of its effects on expenditures
for household services. Journal of
Consumer Studies and Home
Economics 12:373-387.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1986. Projec­tions
of the Number of Households
and Families: 1986-2000. Current
Population Reports, Population
Estimates and Projections. Series
P-25, No. 986.
10. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer
Expenditure Surveys: 1987 Interview
Survey Public Use Tape and
Documentation.l6
Family Economics Review
Developments in Apparel,
Textiles, and Fibers Affecting
the Consumer
to higher prices. When the effect of
inflation is removed (indicated by
constant dollars in table 2), per
capita expenditures for clothing
and shoes declined for the first time
since 1974. In current dollars, retail
sales of apparel in general merchan­dise
and apparel specialty stores
were up 5.8 percent for the first 7
By Joan C. Courtless months of 1990. When the effect
Family Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Consumer expenditures for textiles
and apparel are affected by prices and
competing demands from other items in
the family budget. In 1990 apparel
prices increased by 5.0 percent. Annual
spending for clothing and shoes was
$26 higher, per person, than in 1989. All
of this increase can be attributed to
higher prices. The textile and apparel
share of the total U.S. merchandise
trade deficit is increasing, from almost
25 percent in 1989 to an estimated 28
percent in 1990. U.S. per capita fiber
consumption, including net U.S. trade
figures, has increased from 57.7
pounds in 1979 to 67.9 pounds in 1989.
Apparel was the end-use for 63 percent
of cotton, 66 percent of wool, and 27
percent of manufactured fiber in 1989.
Other information, including ARS re­search
related to bleaching wool and
new developments and applications by
fiber manufacturers, provides profes­sionals
in clothing and textiles with an
overall perspective on trends in fibers,
fabrics, and apparel.
Clothing Expenditures
and Prices
In 1990 prices for apparel com­modities,
as measured by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), rose
5.0 percent over 1989 (table 1).
This annual increase was less than
the 6.1-percent increase for the
overall CPI during the same period.
Generally, prices for infants' and
toddlers' (8.9 percent) and women's
and girls' clothing (6.1 percent)
increased more than for men's and
boys' clothing (2.9 percent) and
footwear (3.2 percent). Within the
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
of inflation is removed, the increase
in apparel sales was much smaller,
2.6 percent (2).
Supplies, Prices, and
CPI clothing and footwear categories, Consumption of Fibers
women's suits increased the most­by
almost 12 percent.
Annual spending for clothing and
shoes in 1990 is estimated at $850
per person (table 2, p. 28). This
amount exceeds 1989 spending by
$26 per person, entirely attributable
Since 1979 fiber consumption in
the United States has increased, on
a per capita basis, from 57.7 pounds
to 67.9 pounds in 1989. These figures
include the raw fiber equivalent of
net U.S. trade in textile products (7).
Table 1. Percent change In prices of apparel commodities,
December 1989 to December 19901
Group and item Percent change
All items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1
Apparel commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0
Men's and boys' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
Men's.................................. ... ..... . 3.2
Suits, sports coats, coats, and jackets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
Furnishings and special clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0
Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5
Boys' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
Women's and girls' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1
Women's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
Coats and jackets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
Dresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0
Separates and sportswear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories . . . . . . . 4.3
Suits ....................................... ·. . .. 11.8
Girls'. .. ........................................ . 3.5
Infants' and toddlers' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9
Other apparel commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
Sewing materials, notions, and luggage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Watches and jewelry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
Men's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0
Boys' and girls' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 7
Women's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
1Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Source: CP/ Detailed Report, December 1990, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics. '
27
The 1990 mill consumption of
total fibers is estimated at 52.6
pounds per.capita. This includes
16.6 pounds of cotton, 0.5 pound of
wool, and 35.5 pounds of manufac­tured
fibers. Per capita inill con­sumption
in 1989 was 53.8 pounds,
including 16.3 pounds of cotton, 0.5
pound of wool, and 37.0 pounds of
manufactured fibers (12).
Cotton. Worldwide, cotton is the
most widely used textile fiber, ac­counting
for about 67 percent of
all fibers ( 4). The 1990 U.S. cotton
crop is estimated at 15.6 million
bales, up from 12.2 million in 1989.
U.S. cotton exports are estimated
at 8 million bales for 1990/91, an
increase from 7 million bales in
1989/90, reflecting tight foreign
stocks and competitive U.S. cotton
prices. The United States is expected
to have a 33-percent share of the
world's cotton trade, compared with
32 percent in 1989/90. Countries that
are expected to import substantial
shares. of U.S. cotton in 1990/91
include China (75 percent),
Korea (63 percent), and Japan
(50 percent) (12).
· In 1989, 63 percent of cotton con­sumption
was used for apparel. An
additional 26 percent was used for
home textiles (see figure) (8).
Wool. In 1990 U.S. farm prices
for wool averaged 38 percent below
1989levels, reflecting the sluggish
demand for wool worldwide. Mill
consumption of apparel wool for
1990 was 1 percent above the 1989
level. Imports of raw wool during
1990 were 33 percent below a year
earlier (12). In the United States,
most wool (66 percent in 1989) is
used for apparel (8).
Manufactured Fibers. Shipments
of manufactured fibers by U.S.
producers during the first 8 months
of 1990 were 5 percent below ship­ments
a year earlier (8). Since 1983
shipments have trended upward,
increasing 11 percent over the
1983-1989 period (6).
Only 27 percent of manufactured
fiber was made into apparel in 1989.
Of the fibers used in floor cover­ings,
however, 99 percent were
manufactured (8).
Trade in Textiles and
Apparel
The textile and apparel trade
deficit for 1989 comprised nearly
one-fourth of the total U.S. trade
deficit, the highest annual-level in
history (1). However, for the first 6
months of 1990, textiles and apparel
represented 28 percent of the total
U.S. merchandise trade deficit (2).
In 1990 the 35th consecutive annual
trade deficit in textiles and apparel
was recorded. In 1989 this deficit
reached $23.4 billion, 14 percent
higher than in 1988 (14). The com­bined
textile and apparel trade
deficit for 1990 is expected to ex­ceed
this amount; for the first 6
months of 1990 it was 3 percent
higher than during the same period
in 1989. Although the trade deficit
for textiles for the January-June
1990 period was down 34 percent
from the same period in 1989,
the trade deficit for apparel was
8 percent higher (2).
The value of textile exports, $2.5
billion for the first 6 months of
1990, was 30 percent higher than
during the same period in 1989;
Table 2. Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes, 1 1982-90
..
Per capita Percent of personal Aggregate
expenditures2 consumption expenditures expenditures
Year Constant Current Constant Current
dollars dollars dollars dollars
(1982) (1982)
1982 ••••• 0 •••• 0 •••••• 0 0 ••••••• 0 • •• 536 536 6.1 6.1
1983 •• •• 0 •••••• 0 0 • ••••• 0 •• 0 •• ••••• 566 577 6.2 6.0
1984 •• • 0 0 0 • •••• 0 0 •••••• • • • • • • ••• • 0 601 620 6.3 6.0
1985 ••• 0 • •••••••• 0 ••••••• 0 •••••••• 617 655 6.3 5.9
1986 •• 0 0 ••• • • 0 •••••• •• •• • • 0 ••••••• 653 692 6.4 6.0
1987 0 ••••••• 0 ••••••• • •••• •• •••••• 0 660 733 6.4 5.9
1988 • • ••• 0. 0. 0 •••••• • •••• • ••••••• 0 671 778 6.3 5.9
1989 • •• • •• 0 •• •••••• 0 • •• 0 0 • • •• • 0 •• 0 696 824 6.5 5.9
1990 •• • ••• 0 . 0 • •• • • •• • •• 0 •••• • 0 0 0 0 0 688 850 6.4 5.8
11ncludes yard goods, but excludes services such as cleaning and repairing clothing and shoes.
2Calculated by dividing aggregate expenditures for each year by population figures for July of each year.
Billions of Billions of
constant current
dollars (1982) dollars
124.4 124.4
132.6 135.1
142.2 146.7
147.2 156.4
157.4 166.8
160.7 178.4
165.0 191.1
172.7 204.6
172.7 213.3
Sources: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990, Population estimates and projections, Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, and personal communication; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1990,
Survey of Current Business 70(12) :7 (tables 2.2 and 2.3), and personal communication.
28 Family Economics Review
the value of apparel exports, at $1.2
billion for the January-June period,
was up 17 percent from the same
period in 1989 (2).
Volume of textiles and apparel
imports, measured in square meters
equivalent (SME), was up 2 percent
for the first 8 months of 1990, com­pared
with the same period in 1989.
Cotton goods were up 5 percent;
wool yardage decreased by 8 per­cent;
manufactured fiber volume
was up by 1 percent; and vegetable
fibers, except cotton and silk blend
textiles and apparel, decreased by
23 percent (14).
Textile Trading Partners.
Volume oftextile and apparel im­ports
from Japan and Taiwan was
down 17 percent and 11 percent,
respectively, for the first 8 months
of 1990, compared with the same
period in 1989. China was the most
important source of textile and
apparel imports with 14 percent (2)
or 1.2 billion SME through August
1990 (14).
During the first 6 months of
1990, dollar value of U.S. textiles
and apparel exports to Canada rose
over 90 percent, compared with the
same period in 1989. This increase
accounts for almost 45 percent of
the increase in the value of exports
to all destinations (2).
The U.S. International Trade
Commission determined that the U.S.
sweater industry has been materially
injured by dumped imports of
manufactured fiber sweaters from
Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong.
Imports are said to be dumped if
sales have been made below the cost
of production. Therefore, all imports
of manufactured fiber sweaters
from these countries are subject to
dumping duties, payable in cash.
Taiwan, with an annual quota that
approximates annual U.S. produc­tion,
was found to have a dumping
margin of 22 percent, and a major
impact on the U.S. sweater market
can be expected. Under the dump­ing
orders established by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, importers
must identify not only the shipper
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
U.S. End Use by Fiber, 1989
Percent
~ Apparel ~ Home Textiles • Floor Covering r::z1 Other
of the goods, but also the manufac­turer.
This should help prevent the
transfer of quotas among producers
with high dumping margins to those
with low rates (3).
In October 1990, President Bush
vetoed a bill that would have imposed
quotas on imports of textiles, cloth­ing,
and shoes from all Nations except
Canada and Israel, the two countries
that have free-trade agreements
with the United States. Proponents
of the legislation in Congress argued
that without import restrictions, the
future of the U.S. textile and apparel
industry is threatened. Opponents
predicted the bill would increase
consumer costs and violate U.S.
international trading obligations.
U.S. negotiators are participating
in the Uruguay Round of talks that
seek to expand and strengthen the
General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT). Third World
countries that participate in GATT
have insisted on an end to textile
quotas in return for (1) ending
piracy of patented pharmaceuticals,
software, and other products; (2)
fewer barriers to foreign investment;
and (3) free trade for banking,
insurance, and engineering service
industries. Nations that participate
in GATT are being asked to reduce
subsidies to farmers, to lower
barriers to agricultural imports,
and to reduce export subsidies.
These reductions would be made
over a 10-year period.
Developments in Fibers
and Fabrics
Federal Government. Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) scientists
in Philadelphia have developed a
new treatment that, in a single bath,
combines the bleaching of urine­stained
wool and the whitening of
black pigmented hair (11). The pro­cedure
currently used by the textile
industry requires that wool contain­ing
black fibers be placed in an iron­salt
bath where the iron chemically
attaches to pigmented fibers. Then
29
the wool is rinsed of unattached
iron and bleached to eliminate
pigments. A second bleaching
with another chemical increases
whiteness.
The new ARS treatment should
make American wool more attractive
to textile manufacturers than it has
been in the past. The new treatment
uses less costly chemicals and saves
energy and time by dual bleaching
in a single bath. Adding thiourea
causes a chemical reaction that
decomposes the hydrogen peroxide
and removes leftover iron. The
need for rinsing is eliminated, and
thiourea is converted into a second
bleach in the same bath.
Tests indicate that fiber strength
is not affected. The whiteness
achieved exceeds that obtained
through current methods by 29
percent, as measured under the
"Whiteness Index" used by the
textile industry in judging wool.
In some countries, sheep are bred
and raised specifically for their
wool; black-pigmented hair is less
likely to occur than in American
sheep, which are raised primarily
for meat.
Private lndustry.1Microdenier
polyester, called Fortrel MicroSpun
by Fiber Industries and Mattique by
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
is lightweight but exceptionally
strong. Touted as renewing the
polyester business, fabrics of
MicroSpun or Mattique are used
in casual sportswear, outerwear,
and activewear (9).
Pil-Trol is the certification mark
given by Monsanto to garments
made from its S-63 low-pill acrylic.
Commercial and school uniforms,
plus career apparel, are being
targeted (9).
The apparel market for polypro­pylene
is expected to increase
markedly. Because it is solution­dyed
and not affected by sunlight,
polypropylene will be seen in active­wear
and swimwear (9).
1Use of commercial or trade names in this
article does not imply approval or constitute
endorsement by USDA
30
Du Pont's CoolMax has been
used for a new line of women's
activewear and underwear called
BreathableS. Because moisture
trapped in the crotch area of exercise
wear can be wicked away by the
properties of CoolMax, BreathableS
is promoted as a health aid for
women with the approval of several
gynecologists (10).
Other fibers used in intimate ap­parel
include TherMax for ski bras;
CoolMax for jogging bras; Suppelle,
a nylon/Lycra blend, for foundations;
Supplex for tights and lace trim in
underwear, sleepwear, and active­wear;
Jenteel-satin-like, anti-static
nylon for knitted products that look
like wovens; Hydrofil, blended with
spandex for sport bras and panties,
and blended with polypropylene
for stretchable thermal underwear.
Lycra now comprises about 60 per­cent
of the total fiber content in
hosiery and 15 percent of that in
panties (9).
Federal Rules and
Regulations Related to
Textiles and Apparel
The U.S. Customs Service,
Department of the Treasury, has
changed its position and practices
relating to determining the country
of origin of imported textiles and
textile products. Customs first
published a notice of this intent
in 1985. The lengthy intervening
period reflects the significance of
these changes and allowed time for
the importing public and domestic
industry, Congress, and Federal
agencies interested in matters re­lated
to textiles to comment. Since
June 29, 1990, origin determina­tions
for duty and marking purposes
have been identical to those made
for quota, visa, and export license
purposes: If an article consists of
materials produced or derived from,
or processed in more than one
country, territory, or insular posses­sion,
the article shall be a product
of that one where it last underwent
a substantial transformation. Such a
transformation will have occurred
if the textile or textile product has
been transformed by means of a sub­stantial
manufacturing or process­ing
operation into a new and
different article of commerce (15).
Procedures for participation in
the Special Access Program (for
Caribbean Basin countries) and
the Special Regime Program (for
Mexico) were amended by the
Office of Textiles and Apparel,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
These special programs guarantee
access to the U.S. market for textile
products assembled in the Caribbean
or Mexico from fabric formed and
cut in the United States. Effective
January 1, 1990, a new entry pro­cedure
designed to ease the admin­istrative
burden on importers was
established. Each importer will
have the quantity of U.S. formed
and cut fabric credited to his or
her account; quantities of textile
products imported into the United
States will be debited against his or
her account. If there is a credit
balance, the shipment may be
released. The U.S. Customs Service
will maintain the balance for each
account and conduct a series of
Post Entry Compliance Reviews
on a quarterly basis. For these
Compliance Reviews, importers
must provide Customs officials
with specific documented proof
that all goods entered under the
Programs were made from U.S.
cut and formed fabric (13).
The Federal Trade Commission
(FfC) rescinded the trade regula­tions
rule concerning the misuse of
"automatic" or similar terms when
describing household electric
sewing machines (5). Because of
changes in technology and market­ing,
the rule no longer was in the
public interest. When the Sewing
Machine Rule was promulgated in
1965, many electric sewing machines
designed for household use required
that the sewer physically replace
cams in the machine to enable the
machine to make different types of
stitches. Many machines required
Family Economics Review
that the sewer perform other manual
tasks, such as making tension adjust­ments,
as the machine was used.
Therefore, at that time, the Com­mission
concluded consumers had
to possess a considerable ~mount of
manual dexterity and sewing skill in
order to use the machine; therefore,
the use of the term "automatic," by
giving consumers the wrong impres­sion,
was deceptive.
Recently, FrC staff examineq
sewing machines in the retail set­ting,
spoke with sales persons, and
discussed sewing with an assistant
professor of home economics who
has taught all levels of sewing and
clothing construction. The Commis­sion
concluded that over the last 20
to 25 years sewing machine operation
has become simplified to the extent
that merely pushing a button or
turning a knob will allow most
machines to sew a variety of stitches.
Thus, sewing machines have become
more automatic, and the reasons
supporting the trade regulation rule
no longer exist.
References
1. American Textile Manufac­turers
Institute, Inc. Economic
Information Division. 1990. Textile
Hi-Lights. March issue.
2. . 1990. Textile Hi-Lights.
September issue.
3. Bodner, S.M. 1990. Positive
gains seen in favorable ruling in
NKSA anti-dumping case. Knitting
Times 59(10):21-23.
4. Evans, M. 1990. U.S. cotton
belt has moved westward; Farmline
11(3):12-13.
5. Federal Trade Commission.
1990. Trade regulation rule: Misuse
of "automatic" or terms of similar
import as descriptive of household
electric sewing machines. Federal
Register 55(114):23900-23902.
6. Fiber Economics Bureau, Inc.
1990. Fiber Organon 61(1):18.
7. . 1990. Fiber Organon
61(5):89.
1991 Vol. 4 No. 2
8. . 1990. Fiber Organon
61(9):204, 220.
9. Gross, D. 1990. Chemical fibers
down from peak, but sales still
strong. Knitting Tim~s 59( 4):40-60.
10. Longo, L. 1990. Gilda's latest
garners high Marx from .consumers.
Knitting Times 59(8):34-37.
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service. 1990.
Fleece as white as snow-faster.
Agricultural Research 38(4):12.
12 . Economic Research
Service. 1991. Cotton and Wool
Situation and Outlook Report. CWS-
63; and personal communication
with J. Lawler.
13. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Textiles and Apparel.
1989. Amendment to the require­ment
for participating in the special
access and special regime programs.
Federal Register 54(233):50425-
50427.
14. . International
Trade Administration. 1990. Textile
and Apparel Import Report, August
preliminary data; and personal
communication with R. Arnold.
15. U.S. Department of Treasury,
U.S. Customs Service. 1990. Country
of origin rules regarding imported
textiles and textile products. Federal
Register 55(41):7303-7306.l51
31
Research Summaries
Remarriage Among
Women in the
United States: 1985
Almost half of the 2.4 million
marriages in the United States in
1987 were remarriages for at least
one of the partners. As remarriages
become more frequent, it is impor­tant
to study their effect on families
and society as a whole. This study
focuses on remarriage after the first
marriage has ended in divorce or
widowhood. Data are from the June
1985 marriage and fertility history
supplement to the Current Popula­tion
Survey. This Survey, conducted
by the Bureau of the Census and
sponsored by the National Institute
of Child Health and Human
Development, provides the most
recent comprehensive national
information on marriage, divorce,
widowhood, and remarriage in the
United States. Detailed marriage
history questions were asked only
of women.
In 1985, 39 percent of ever -married
women had had a first marriage end
in divorce or widowhood. Of the 17
million women divorced after their
first marriage, 65 percent had remar­ried
by June of 1985. Of the 1.1 mil­lion
women widowed after therr first
marriage, 23 percent had remarried
by June of 1985.
The proportion of women remar­rying
after a first marriage that ended
in divorce increased with age. Among
women under age 25 at the survey
date, 43 percent had remarried, com­pared
with 80 percent of women age
32
75 years and older. The proportion
of women remarrying after a first
marriage that ended in widowhood,
however, decreased with age. Among
women who were under age 35
when surveyed, 42 percent had
remarried, compared with only 15
percent of women 75 years and
older.
The younger a woman was at the
time her first marriage ended in
divorce, the more likely she was to
eventually remarry. Among women
who were under age 25 at the time
oftheirdivorce, 81 percent had .
remarried by 1985, compared w1th
29 percent of women whose divorce
occurred at age 45 or older.
A similar relationship exists
between age at widowhood and
likelihood of remarriage. Among
women whose first marriage ended
in widowhood, 54 percent of those
who were widowed when younger
than 45 had remarried by the survey
date, comparea with 21 percent of
women widowed at ages 45 to 54,
8 percent at ages 55 to 64, and 2 per­cent
of those widowed at age 65 or
older.
The inverse relationship between
age at end of first marriage and
likelihood of remarriage is due,
in part, to the direct relationship
between age and the availability' of
potential spouses. In March 1985,
there were 119 unmarried males for
every 100 unmarried females be­tween
25 and 34 years old. For those
45 to 64 years old, the ratio was 54
unmarried males per 100 unmarried
females, and for the population age
65 and over, there were only 26
unmarried males for every 100
unmarried females.
Divorce and Remarriage
Other variables, in addition to
age, appear to influence the likeli­hood
of remarriage after a first mar­riage
has ended in divorce. For all
women who divorced after a first
marriage, remarriage was more
frequent among women who were
White, those who had at least one
child less than 18 years old at the
time of the divorce, and those with
lower educational attainment. The
remarriage rate for White women
was 66 percent, compared with 54
percent for Black and Hispanic
women. The remarriage rate for
women with no children under age
18 at the time of the divorce was 51
percent, compared with 68 pe~cent
for women with one or more children.
Among women with varying levels of
education, the remarriage rate
ranged from 73 percent for women
with less than 12 years of sch