|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
|
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
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Family Economics Review [1991, Volume 4, Number 2] |
Date | 1991 |
Contributors (group) |
Institute of Home Economics (U.S.) United States. Agricultural Research Service Consumer and Food Economics Research Division Consumer and Food Economics Institute (U.S.) United States Science and Education Administration United States. Agricultural Research Service United States Agricultural Research Service Family Economics Research Group |
Subject headings | Home economics--Accounting--Periodicals |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | 8 v. ; $c 27 cm. |
Publisher | Washington, D.C. : U.S. Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 77.245:4/2 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5482 |
Full-text | 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 |
OCLC number | 888048454 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
N |
|
P |
|
U |
|
W |
|
|
|