Family Economics Review [1992, Volume 5, Number 1]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Editorial Assistant
Jane W. Fleming
Family Economics Review is written
and published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research Group,
Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. 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 the 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 indexed
in the following databases: AGRJCa.A,
Ageline, ERIC, Family Resources,
and PAIS.
Family Economics Review is for sale
by the Superintendent of Documents.
Subscription price is $5 per year
($6.25 for foreign addresses). Send
subscription orders and change of
address to Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. (See
subscription form on p. 39.)
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed
to: Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family
Economics Re,;ew, Family Economics
Research Group, USDAIARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782. Phone (301) 436-8461.
N 0 M I C
II II D
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Feature Articles •
s
U.S. DEPOSITORY
PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY
JUN 0 81992
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
2 Income and Expenditures of Older Widowed, Divorced,
and Never-Married Women Who Live Alone
F. N. Schwenk
9 Young Husband-Wife Households With Children
Mark Uno
17 Trends in Entertainment
Nancy E. Schwenk
Research Summaries • 23 Pension Benefits
~u_ilding Use Only
26 U.S. Real Income and Wage Trends
27 Nonmetro and Metro Children
Regular Items • 28 Recent Legislation Affecting Families
29 Current Regional Research Project
30 Charts From Federal Data Sources
32 Data Sources
33 Expenditures on a Child by Husband-Wife Families, 1991
36 Expenditures on a Child by Single-Parent Families, 1991
37 Cost of Food at Home
38 Consumer Prices
2
Feature Articles •
Income and Expenditures of Older
Widowed, Divorced, and Never­Married
Women Who Live Alone
By F.N. Schwenk
Research Leader
Family Economics Research Group
The economic status of older women differs by marital status. Using the
1988-89 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, the income and expenditures of
widowed, divorced, and never-married women 65 years or older and living
alone were analyzed. Of these groups, widows had less income and expendi­tures
than. divorced or never-married women. The groups differed in the
importance of various sources of income, although all three relied on Social
Security for about half or more of their income. There also were differences
in their spending patterns, but all three groups allocated the largest share
(about 40 percent) to housing.
o assess the economic
status of older women, it
may be important to con­sider
marital status (5.,6).
Sixty percent of women 65 years or
older are widowed, divorced, separated,
or were never married. Of these, wid­ows
account for 82 percent; divorced
and separated women1 for 10 percent;
and never-married women, 8 percent (3).
There are many factors in work histories,
asset accumulation, and family situa­tions
that may cause income and ex­penditure
differences among widowed,
divorced, and never-married older
women.
Differences were expected in income
and sources of income (2). Widows'
Social Security may be based on
husbands' earnings, and men usually
have higher earnings. Also, widows
may have more income from interest
and dividends if their assets were
1 Less than 2 percent are separated so divorced and
separated women were grouped together for this
paper.
accumulated by both their husbands
and themselves. Divorced women may
receive alimony. They may have been
active in the labor force and have
pensions or other retirement income.
Assets, such as a house, may have
been retained as part of the divorce
settlement Never-married women
probably have been employed for
many years so their Social Security
and pension income will reflect that
labo~ force participation.
Literature on older women contains
little information on expt:nditures;
however, expenditure patterns may dif­fer
among the groups (J). For example,
widowed and divorced women may
have higher housing costs because they
may be living in the house where they
raised their children, perhaps a larger
house than a never-married woman
would choose.
Since little is known of the income and
expenditure patterns of older unmarried
women, this study will provide insight
into those aspects of their well-being.
Family Economics Review
Source of Data
Data for this study are from the
interview component of the 1988-89
Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE)
conducted by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
CE is an ongoing survey that collects
data on household expenditures,
income, and major socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics. A
national sample of consumer units2 is
interviewed once each quarter for five
consecutive quarters; the first interview
is used only for bounding purposes.
Using a rotating sample design, about
one-ftfth of the sample is replaced each
quarter. Each year of CE data contains
information from about 20,000 quar­terly
interviews. Income data are
annual, and expenditure data are multi­plied
by four to provide estimates of
annual expenditures. The data may be
weighted to represent the U.S. noninsti­tutionalized
population.
For this study, 2 years of data were used
to provide a large enough sample (at
least 100) of never-married women.
Consumer units were interviewed in the
survey so women in nursing homes or
similar institutions were not included.
Consumer units that did not give a
complete reporting of income3 were
excluded. Data were weighted to reflect
the U.S. population of interest.
2 A coosurner unit coosists of either: (1) all rnern·
bers of a particular housing unit who are related
by blood, marriage, adoptioo, or other legal
arrangements; (2) two or more people living
together who pool their incomes to make joint
expenditure decisioos; or (3) a persoo living alone
or sharing a household with others or living as a
roomer in a private horne or lodging house or in
permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but
who is fmancially independent. To be considered
financially independent, at least two of the three
major expense categories (housing, food, and
other living expenses) have to be provided
by the respondent.
3Cornplete income reporters are respoodents who
provided values for major sources of income such
as wages and salaries, self-employment income,
or Social Security income. However, even com­plete
income reporters may not have provided a
full accounting of all income from all sources.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
There were 3,394 women 65 years or
older and widowed, divorced, or never
married. Of these, 68 percent lived
alone; 18 percent had others living with
them; and 14 percent lived in the home
of their children or others. The study
was limited to those who lived alone
because the income and expenditures of
older women who live with others or
have others living with them cannot be
identified separately. Among those who
lived alone, 82 percent were widowed,
11 percent were divorced or separated,
and 7 percent had never been married.
Characteristics of Older
Unmarried Women Who
Live Alone
Age
The divorced women were younger.
Their average age was 72 years, com­pared
with the average age of 77 and
76 for the widowed and never-married
groups. Almost half of the divorced
women were 65 to 69 years old; less
than one-fifth of the widowed and
never-married women-were less than
70 years old (table 1). Only 12 percent
of the divorced women were 80 or
Table 1. Characteristics of widowed, divorced, and never-married
women 65 years or older who live alone, 1988-89
Characteristic
Age
65-69
70-74
75-79
80 or older
Education
Elementary or none
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
More th:m 4 years of college
Race
White
Geographic location
Urban
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Rural
Housing tenure
Homeowner with mortgage
Homeowner without mortgage
Renter
Currently employed
Widowed
17
22
25
36
34
19
26
11
6
4
89
20
21
25
15
19
8
61
31
9
Divorced
48
29
11
12
16
20
29
20
8
8
80
18
18
34
24
6
16
37
47
19
Never
married
18
28
27
28
17
12
28
8
10
25
96
18
12
27
26
17
7
41
52
14
3
•
4
••• average income
and expenditures
of widowed older
women were lower
than those of
divorced or never­married
women.
older, compared with 36 percent of the
widowed and 28 percent of the never­married
women. These age differences
among the groups are important be­cause
younger persons are likely to
report more income from earnings and
may have higher expenditures than
older persons for transportation, cloth­ing,
or other items reflective of more
active lives.
Education
The never-married women were more
highly educated than the other two
groups. Thirty-five percent were college
graduates; 25 percent had more than
4 years of college. Widows were least
educated; one of three widows had only
an elementary education or less, a rate
twice that of the other groups. Divorced
and never-married persons may have
been more educated because (1) the
education they had may have allowed
them the independence to choose to be
divorced or never married, or (2) after
participating in the labor force, they
may have been motivated to pursue
education more vigorously.
Race
Of the three groups of women in this
age group, never-married women were
most likely to be White-96 percent,
compared with 89 percent of widowed
and 80 percent of divorced women.
Geographic Location
Divorced women were less likely to live
in rural areas;4 only 6 percent lived in
rural areas, compared with 19 percent
of widowed and 17 percent of never­married
women. Perhaps the divorced
women moved to urban areas for job
opportunities or perhaps rural women
were less likely to divorce.
4Population less than 2,500, outside a
Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Figure 1. Income and expenditures of widowed, divorced, and
never-married women 65 years or older who live alone, 198~9
Income
Widowed
Divorced
Never married $12,415
Expenditures
Widowed
Divorced $11,432
Never married
Family Economics Review
Table 2. Sources of income of widowed, divorced, and never-married women 65 years or older who live alone,
1988-89
Average income1 Percent receiving income
Never Never
Income source Widowed Divorced married Widowed Divorced married
Before-tax income $9,777 $11,077 $12,415 100 100 100
Social Security and
Railroad Retirement 5,855 5,354 5,658 96 93 85
~:~:~~~-::Bil®.t.~!:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~!~~®.~:~:~=::~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~=~:~:~:~:~:~:~~m1~:~:~:~:~:::~:::::~:~:~:~:~:::::::::~::j.~am:~:~:::~::::;~:::~r:~:~:~:~:~:::::~:~:~:::~:~:~:~=~:~::::::::::::::::::::a:::::::::~:~:~:~:~:~:~r:~:~:~=~:~:I:::ij.:=::~:::::::;::~:~:~:~::=:::::::::::~:::::~4.i:~:~:::~:~:~:::::~:::::::~r:::~:
Interest and dividends 1,648 629 2,340 37 35 51
:::::-~;::~:~:~:~:~:::~:~::::::=::::::~::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::=:::::::~::::::::::::: :::::::·=·:::::::::::::::a9::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::za.s.t:::::::::::::::~:~:::::::::::::~:~:::::::~:~::,l$:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::I:::::::::::::::::lg:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::i::=:::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::t.~r:::::::::::::::::::r::::::::::
Other 248 810 53
1 Calculated for all women 65 years or older living alone, with and without the income source.
Housing Tenure
Over half of these women lived in
single-family detached homes: 57
percent of widowed, 49 percent of
divorced, and 48 percent of never­married
women. A few women lived
in mobile homes: 8 percent of widowed,
6 percent of divorced, and 3 percent of
never-married women. The others lived
in apartments, town houses, and other
multiunit buildings.
Sixty-nine percent of widowed women
owned their home; 61 percent had
no mortgage. Fifty-three percent of
divorced women and 48 percent of
never-married women were home­owners.
Earners
Since these women were 65 years or
older, only 1 of 10 was in the labor
force. Divorced women were more
likely to be working, probably because
they were younger, or they may have
felt they needed to supplement other
sources of income. Nineteen percent
of the divorced women were working at
least part time, compared with 9 percent
of widowed and 14 percent of never­married
women.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Sources of Income
Widowed women had the lowest aver­age
income (figure 1 and table 2). Their
average before-tax income was $9,777,
compared with $11,077 for divorced
and $12,415 for never-married women.
Also, there were differences in the
sources of income.
Widowed women received an average
of $5,855, or 60 percent of their in­come,
from Social Security (figure 2,
p. 6). Seventeen percent of their income
was from interest on savings accounts
or bonds and income from dividends,
royalties, estates, and trusts; 13 percent
came from pensions and annuities; and
8 percent, from earnings. (Earnings
were from a farm or business or
employment.)
Compared with widows, divorced
women received a smaller percentage
of their income from Social Security
and a larger percentage from earnings.
They had less interest and dividends
than the other groups, which probably
indicates fewer assets.
19 32 6
Never-married women received a
smaller percentage of their income from
Social Security than the other women,
but the average dollar amount was
similar. Compared with widows, a
much larger percentage of income
came from pensions and annuities
(28 percent for never-married and 13
percent for widowed women) reflecting
their work history. Earnings for never­married
women were less than those
for divorced women but similar to
widowed women, probably because
of their ages.
Nearly all women (95 percent) received
Social Security. However, a much
smaller percentage of women reported
other sources of income: interest or
dividends reported by 38 percent,
pensions or annuities by 28 percent,
and earnings by 13 percent.
Never-married women appeared more
likely to have income from investments
than widowed or divorced women
(table 2). Nearly half of never-married
women received income from pensions
and annuities (45 percent) and from
interest and dividends (51 percent).
About one-quarter of divorced women
received earnings from employment, a
business, or a farm.
5
Figure 2. Sources of Income of widowed, divorced, and never­married
women 65 years or older who live alone, 1988-89
Percent of income
80r----------------------------------------------.
40
20
Interest and
dividends
Pensions
and annuities
~ Widowed • Divorced I[J Never married
Earnings
Figure 3. Expenditures of widowed, divorced, and never-married
women 65 years or older who live alone, 1988-89
Percent of total expenditures
50r-----------------------------------------------~
40
30
20
10
0
Housing Food Health Transportation1 Apparel
ICl Widowed • Divorced 00 Never married
1Transportation does not include purchase of new vehicles.
6
Allocation of Expenditures
Widows had the lowest expenditures of
the three groups (table 3). On average,
widowed and divorced women spent 2
or 3 percent more than their before-tax
income. At this stage of life, it is likely
that these women are drawing on sav­ings,
but they could be borrowing or
using a home equity program. Never­married
women spent 89 percent of
their income (figure 1, p. 4).
The widowed women allocated 42 per­cent
of their expenditures to housing
(figure 3). Even though most did not
have a mortgage to pay, they paid
almost as much as the other groups for
shelter, which included property taxes,
maintenance, repairs, insurance, and
related expenses. They also paid more
than the other groups for utilities and
household operations.
Widows spent 19 percent for food,
compared with 17 percent by the other
two groups. Widows spent more for
food at home and less for food away
from home than the other groups; per­haps
they spent it on entertaining family
members or others. Widowed women
spent more for health care than the
other groups, both in average dollars
and in the share of expenditures. They
are older than the divorced group but
just slightly older than the never­married
group.
Divorced women spent 41 percent on
housing; the shelter component was
larger than for widowed or never­married
women because they were
more likely to be paying off mortgages
or renting. Transportation costs of
divorced women, which included
maintenance and public transportation
but not the purchase of new cars or
trucks, were higher than expenditures
by widowed women and similar to
those by never-married women.
Divorced women spent more on gas
and oil than the other two groups, which
indicates that they drove more. The
Family Economics Review
Table 3. Expenditures of widowed, divorced, and never-married women 65 years or older who live alone,
1988-89
Average expenditure1 Percent of total expenditures
Never Never
Expenditure Widowed Divorced married Widowed Divorced married
Total expenditures $9,929 $11,432 $11,084 100 100 100
r~m~Mii.:::r:~~:~~::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::~::::::::~::::::::::: :::::::~:::::::::::::g,u:it:::~:::~:~:~:~:~~~:~:~:::~::::::::::::~:~~i~~::::~:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:;*~::::::::::::::n:::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~!?i::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:!r:::::::::::::~~:~=:::::::=~::::~::::::::::l~:~:::::::::::::~~::::r:~:~:~:::::~
Food 1,884 1,952 1,863 19 17 17
~:::n~m.m::::::::::=:::::::::::::::~:,:::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::=::;:::==::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::t:lijj::::::::~:~~::::::::::r:::::::::=::J.lMi::::=:=:=:::::=:::::::=::::=:~::::::::::!:ll4:::::::::::::t=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::=:::::=::::::::::a~::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::=:::::=:=:=::::::t.~t:::::::::::::::::::::::ri::::::=::::::ti:::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::I::
Transportation2 712 1,019 989 7 9 9
:::::i&it:::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::J::::::::::::::J.i.!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::m:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ll!t::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::r:::::m:;:::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::
Cash contributions 187 99 483 2 1 4
:::::mr.¢,:!1.111.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::~:~:::::~:::::::::7§:::::::~:::::::~:::::~:::::::::=:::~:::::~:::::~~~:::::::~:::~~~~::::~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::\f.~§:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:=:::::::::~:::~::::::::::::::::
Retirement 108 312 80 1 3 1
::~:-.t::::::::::::::::;::::::;;:::;:::::;:::;:;:;::::::::::::::;::::::::;:::::::;:::::::::::::::;:;::;:;;::::::::::::::::::::;::;:;:;;~$4'::::;;:::=:;:::::::;::::::::::::::::::i.P:1:i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:&.~I:::::::::;:::::::::::;::I:P::::;::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::J.$\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!.§i::::;:::::::::;::::~::::::::::;:::::
~Calculated for all women 65 years or older living alone, with and without the expenditure.
Does not include purchase of new vehicle.
amount divorced women spent on
public transportation, which included
air travel, was more than that spent by
widows or never-marrieds. Divorced
women spent more on apparel. This
may reflect a more active lifestyle.
The percentage of expenditures spent
on retirement (pensions and Social
Security) was higher for divorced
women than the other two groups
because more divorced women worked.
Never-married women spent less for
housing than the other groups. They
lived in smaller houses than widows (an
average of 1.9 bedrooms compared to
2.1 bedrooms) and had lower expenses
for utilities, household operations, and
furnishings. Health costs were the same
as for the divorced group even though
never-marrieds were 4 years older, on
average.
Other categories that were different
for never-married women were cash
contributions and life insurance. They
allocated 4 percent of their expenditures
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1
to each of these, considerably more than
the other women. Cash contributions
may have been to relatives, educational
institutions, religious organizations, or
others. The insurance expenditures in­cluded
annuity plans or life insurance
to cover funeral and related expenses.
Conclusions and Implications
The primary finding of this study was
that average income and expenditures
of widowed older women were lower
than those of divorced or never-married
women. Because widows had a
husband's earnings, one might expect
them to be better off than divorced or
never-married women. There may be
several reasons that widowed women
had lower incomes.
• Income from interest and dividends
was lower than that reported by
never-married older women. Many
widowed women raised their chil­dren
in a family where there was
one earner, the husband. During
most of their early adult years
(between 1920 and 1940), most
married women did not work out­side
the home. Throughout the
Depression of the 1930's, jobs
were very scarce and there was a
belief that a woman's place was in
the home. In the 1940's, married
women worked during the war
years, but after the war, they
returned to the home. By 1960,
these women were 35 to 60 years
old, rather old to be joining the
movement of married women into
the labor market. Since most met
the expenses of a family with one
income, their savings and invest­ments
may have been less than
those of never-married women.
Also, some widowed women may
have less income from interest
and dividends because savings
may have been depleted by the
husbands' illness and/or death.
7
• Widows were less likely than
divorced women to have current
earnings. Divorced women were
more likely to have been part of the
movement of women into the labor
force because they had a greater
need to work and because they
were younger, on average, than
widowed women. In later years,
when they were 65 or older,
divorced women were still more
likely to be working (19 percent
of divorced older women worked,
compared to 9-percent of widowed
women).
• Retirement benefits for widowed
women were based on benefits
earned by husbands. Although
Social Security benefits were
highest for widows because their
husbands probably earned more
than divorced or never-married
women, income from pensions and
annuities was lowest for widows.
Divorced and never-married
women had their own pensions.
Widowed women received pension
income from their husband'~
pension if he had one and if he
chose the option to receive benefits
until both husband and wife died.
Many of the husbands of these
women would have retired before
the Retirement Equity Act of 1984
became law; this act required that
the employee's spouse approve
the choice of retirement payment
option (5).
The expenditures of widowed women
were less than expenditures of divorced
or never-married women, and their
allocation of expenditures was different.
Widowed women allocated a higher
share of total expenditures to housing,
food, and health than the others.
Divorced women spent more on apparel
and retirement, both work-related
expenses. Never-married women allo­cated
more to cash contributions and
life insurance.
8
Given these differences in income and
expenditures, as well as socioeconomic
characteristics, it appears that marital
status is one characteristic that may be
related to economic status. Thus, finan­cial
planners and educators need to
consider marital status when advising
on choices concerning employment, use
of home equity, investments, or other
matters such as living arrangements.
Policymakers may need to recognize
that changes in Social Security,
eligibility for public programs, and
rules regarding employment of older
persons affect widowed, divorced, and
never-married women differently.
Also, price changes affect these groups
differently. For example, price increases
in health services, food, or utilities may
prove more constrictive for widowed
women than for divorced or never­married
women since a larger propor­tion
of a widow's budget goes for these
commodities.
References
With the increase in divorced and
never-married women in our younger
population, it is somewhat reassuring to
see that the economic status of older
divorced and never-married women
appears to be as good or better than that
of widowed women. It is important to
note, however, that it is not possible to
predict the economic status of future
older women on the basis oftoday's
older women. The women in this study
were born in the first quarter of this
century. Their attitudes about earning,
saving, and spending are probably dif­ferent
from those of later generations.
Certainly their work experiences, access
to pensions and Social Security, divorce
settlements, and similar factors have
been different from those experienced
by today's unmarried women.
1. Cafferata, G.L. 1987. Marital status, living arrangements and the use of health
services by elderly persons. Journal of Gerontology 42(6):613-618.
2. Holden, K.C., Burkhauser, R.V., and Myers, D.A. 1986. Income transitions at
older stages of life: The dynamics of poverty. The Gerontologist 26(3):292-297.
3. Saluter, A.F. 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. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure
Surveys: 1988-89 Interview Survey Public Use Tapes and Documentation.
5. Van Buren, J.B., Daines, J.R., and Burtner, J.B. 1990. Gender equity: An issue
throughout the life span. Journal of Home Economics 82(1):3-10.
6. Wellen, P.D. and Peck, CJ. 1990. Effects of human capital factors on income
and net asset amounts of older women. Home Economics Research Journal
19(2):107-119.
Family Economics Review
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
•
Young Husband-Wife Households
With Children
By Mark Lino
Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Geraldine Ray 1
Lecturer
North Carolina A& T University
The economic status of young married couples {age of both spouses
between 18 and 25 years) with children is often tenuous. Using data from
the 1988--89 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, this study examines the
characteristics and economic status of these families and compares them
with their childless counterparts. Young husbands and wives with children
had less formal education than couples without children and, as a conse­quence,
lower incomes. Both groups, however, had total expenditures that
exceeded their after-tax income. The majority of young families with and
without children were renters. The economic status of young families with
children also varied by wife's employment status and number of children.
his study examines the
characteristics and eco­nomic
status, as measured
by income and expendi­tures,
of young married couples with
children (those where both spouses are
between the ages of 18 and 25). Young
husband-wife households with children
often face ~conomic pressures and time
constraints. As a basis of reference,
these households are compared with
married couples in the same age range
without children. They are also exam­ined
by wife's employment status and
number of children, two important
factors distinguishing these families.
1Visiting Professor, Family Economics Research
Group.
Data
Data for this study are from the
interview component of the 1988-89
Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE)
conducted by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). The CE is an ongoing survey
that collects data on household expendi­tures,
income, and major socioeco­nomic
and demographic characteristics.
A national sample of consumer units2 is
interviewed once each quarter for five
2 A consumer unit consists of either: (1) all
members of a particular housing unit who are
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other
legal arrangements; (2) two or more people
living together who pool their incomes to make
joint expenditure decisions; or (3) 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 or
motel, but who is financially independent. To be
considered f10ancially independent, at least two of
the three major expense categories (housing, food,
and other living expenses) have to be provided by
the respondent.
9
•
10
54°/o of young
families with children
had before-tax
income below
$20,000, compared
with 31% of young
families without
children.
consecutive quarters; the first interview
is used only for bounding. Using a rotat­ing
sample design, about one-ftfth of
the sample is replaced each quarter. The
1988-89 CE contain information from
about 20,000 quarterly interviews each
year representing an average of 82.2
million consumer units. Income data are
annual, and expenditure data are for the
quarter. Expenditures can be annualized
by multiplying by four according to
BLS methodology. When estimating
descriptive statistics, each quarter may
be considered an independent sample.
Data may be weighted to represent the
U.S. noninstitutionalized population.
Husband-wife consumer units where
both spouses are between the ages of
18 and 25 and are complete income
reporters3 were selected for analysis
from all consumer units in the 1988--89
Surveys. By the nature of this selection,
these consumer units are equivalent to
households or families. Couples where
either spouse was not working because
he or she was a student were excluded
as their situation was not considered
typical; such households composed an
extremely small percentage of the
sample. If a spouse was working and
attending school, the household was
included. Also excluded were husband­wife
households that resided with ex­tended
family members such as parents
or siblings, or unrelated individuals.
The sample consisted of 338 young
husband-wife households with one or
more children~d 295 young husband­wife
households with no children. This
sample was weighted to reflect the
population of interest using BLS
weights. The weighted sample repre­sented
a yearly average of 840,000
young husband-wife households with
children and 702,000 households without
children.
3Complete income reporters are respondents who
provide values for major sources of income such as
wages and salaries, self-employment income, or
Social Security income. Complete income reporters
may not have provided a full accounting of
income from minor sources.
Young Husband-Wife
Households With and
Without Children
Household Characteristics
The average age of husbands in young
husband-wife households both with and
without children was 23 and the average
age of wives was 22. Sixty-two percent
of couples with children had one child,
32 percent had two children, and 6 per­cent
had three or more children (table
1). Households in the two groups were
predominantly White.4 Non-Whites
had a slightly larger proportion of
households with children than without
children.
There was a pronounced difference in
the educational level of couples with
and without children. Five percent
of husbands with children reported
obtaining a college degree, compared
with 22 percent without children; 25
percent of men with children and 7 per­cent
without children reported less than
a high school education.
Similarly, wives with children reported
less formal education than did those
without Five percent of women with
children reported obtaining a college
degree, compared with 19 percent
without children; 28 percent of women
with children and 8 percent without
children reported less than a high school
education. Given their young age, both
husbands and wives may further their
education in future years, especially
those without children who have more
time and money to devote to nonfamily
activities such as college or night school.
"Race of the household was detennined by race of
the reference person.
Family Economics Review
Table 1. Characteristics of young husband-wife households with and without children, 1988-89
Characteristics
Age
Husband
Wife
Household size
No children
One child
Two children
Three or more children
Race
White
Non-White
Education
Husband
Less than high school diploma
High school diploma
Some college
College degree
Wife
Less than high school diploma
High school diploma
Some college
College degree
NA =Not applicable.
Income
Household income was lower for young
husband-wife households with children
than for their counterparts without
children. Average before-tax income for
families with children was $20,756 and
for families without children, $27,293
(table 2, p. 12). Fifty-four percent of
young families with children had a
before-tax income below $20,000,
compared with 31 percent of young
families without children. Only 4 per­cent
of families with children had a
before-tax income of $40,000 or more.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
With children
Wife Number of children
Employed Nonemployed One Two or more
~
23 23 23 23
22 22 22 23
Percent
NA
66
27
7
88
12
25
52
18
5
21
58
15
6
The lower income of households with
children likely reflects the lower educa­tional
levels of the spouses. Another
contributing factor (also associated
with educational level) was the lower
employment rate among wives with
children. A large percentage of these
wives with children (33 percent)
reported being nonemployed5 because
they were taking care of home and
family; only 4 percent of wives without
children were nonemployed.
~ployed included all persons who worked
for money at some time during the year; nonem­ployed
included all persons who did not work for
money during the year.
NA NA NA
54 100 NA
41 NA 83
5 NA 17
95 89 92
5 11 8
24 24 25
48 48 57
24 21 17
4 7 1
42 22 39
43 56 49
13 17 9
2 5 3
Among wives who were employed,
most of those with children worked part
time, whereas those without children
were more likely to work full time.6
It is well documented that women's
employment often is curtailed by child­rearing
duties (2).
6pull-time was defmed as working 35 hours or
more per week for 50 or more weeks per year,
including any time off with pay. Part-time was
defined as working less than 35 hours per week or
working less than 50 weeks per year.
11
Table 2. Income and employment status of young husband-wife households with and without children,
1988-89
Income and
employment status
Before-tax income
Household income
Less than $10,000
$10,000-$19,999
$20,000- $29,999
$30,000-$39,999
$40,000 or more
Employment status
Husband
Full time
Part time
Not working
Wife
NA =Not applicable.
With children
Wife
Employed Nonemployed
$22,516 $17,129
Percent
8 22
40 44
26 24
20 10
6 0
73 64
24 34
3 2
25 NA
75 NA
NA 100
Number of children
One Two or more
$20,008 $21,971
13 11
40 45
28 22
15 18
4 4
75 63
23 34
2 3
21 11
51 49
28 40
Table 3. Expenditures of young husband-wife households with and without children, 1988-89
With children
Wife Number of children
Expenditures Employed Nonemployed One Two or more
After-tax income $21,270 $16,720 $18,990 $21,073
Total expenditures $22,189 $19,778 $20,675 $22,582
Percent
Housing 28 30 26 30
Transportation 25 27 30 20
Food at home 12 15 12 15
Food away from home 3 3 3 3
Clothing 5 5 5 5
Health care 4 4 4 4
Entertainment 7 4 5 8
Retirement1 8 6 8 8
Child care 3 1 2 2
Alcohol and tobacco 2 2 2 2
Othe~ 3 3 3 3
~Includes Social Security taxes.
Includes personal care items, education, reading, life insurance, and cash contributions.
12 Family Economics Review
Expenditures
Average total expenses amounted to
$21,401 for families with children and
$25,275 for those without children
(table 3). Young husband-wife house­holds
both with and without children
reported average total expenditures
greater than average after-tax income,
indicating they increased debt. For
many of these families this excess may
be a burden. A study by the Federal
Reserve found that 13 percent of in-
. debted households headed by a person
under age 25 experienced debt-payment
. difficulties (1).
Housing accounted for 28 percent of
total expenditures for both groups. The
majority of households with and with­out
children were renters (63 and 74 per­cent).
Thirty-four percent of families
with children and 24 percent of those
without children owned homes. Remain­ing
families were in other arrangements
such as student housing; or they were
occupying a unit at no cost.
Transportation consumed 25 percent of
total expenditures for households with
children and 31 percent for households
without children. Families without chil­dren
owned more vehicles, on average,
than those with children; 75 percent of
families without children owned two or
more vehicles, compared with 62 per­cent
of families with children. Because
the wife in households without children
was more likely to be employed, these
households may have had a greater
need for an additional car.
Young families with children spent a
larger proportion of total expenditures
on food at home than their counterparts
without children (13 percent vs. 8 per­cent);
the dollar amount spent on food
at home was also higher for families
with children. This was expected given
their larger household size. In contrast,
families without children spent a larger
proportion of total expenditures on
food away from home than those with
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Figure 1. Highest educational level of young wives with
children, by wife's employment status, 1988-89
6%
College
degree
High school
diploma
2%
Wife employed
children (5 percent vs. 3 percent). Eat­ing
out is more practical and affordable
for couples without children.
For families with children, 2 percent of
total expenditures went to child care.
This may seem low. In 1987, however,
37 perc~nt of children under age 5 were
cared for by relatives (such as a father
or grandparent) when a mother was at
work, reducing the need for more costly
forms of child care (3).
Young Husband-Wife
Households With Children,
By Wife's Employment
Household Characteristics
The average age of husbands and wives
did not vary by wife's working or not
working (23 years for husbands and 22
years for wives) (table 1, p. 11). How­ever,
households with a wife not in the
labor force generally had more children
than those in which the wife did work.
Forty-six percent of nonemployed
women, compared with 34 percent of
employed women, had two or more
children. With more children, child-care
costs are higher, thereby reducing the
gains from employment. The percent­age
of employed wives who were non­White
was higher than the percentage
of nonemployed wives who were non­White
(12 percent vs. 5 percent).
Wife nonemployed
Husbands in both household groups had
similar educational levels, but wives
did not. Among nonemployed wives,
42 percent had no high school diploma,
compared with 21 percent of their
counterparts in the labor force (figure
1). In addition to having more children,
these women may not be working be­cause
their lack of education allows
them to obtain only lower paying jobs.
Income
As expected, young husband-wife
households with an employed wife
had higher incomes than those with the
wife not working. Average before-tax
income for families with an employed
wife was $22,516, whereas that for fam­ilies
where the wife was nonemployed
was $17,129 (table 2). Twenty-two
percent of families where the wife did
not work had a before-tax income of
less than $10,000, compared with only
8 percent of families where the wife
worked (figure 2, p. 14). The income
difference between households with a
wife in the labor force and those with­out
an employed wife would have been
larger if more wives had been working
full time instead of part time.
13
A higher percentage of husbands
worked part time when wives were not
in the labor force (34 percent) than
when wives were employed (24 per­cent).
These men may be students
working part time or, given their lower
educational level, working part time
involuntarily. It is estimated that almost
one-quarter of part-time workers would
prefer a full-time job ( 4 ).
Expenditures
Average total expenditures were
$22,189 for families where the wife
was employed and $19,778 for families
where the wife was nonemployed
(table 3, p. 12). Although both groups
had average total expenditures that ex­ceeded
average after-tax income, debt
was greater in families where the wife
was not employed, probably because
income was lower; expenditure differ­ences
between the two groups were not
as great as income differences.
Expenditures for housing, transporta­tion,
and food at home accounted for
72 percent of expenditures for families
with a nonworking wife, compared with
65 percent in families with a wife in the
labor force. A larger percentage of
households with a wife at home than
households with a wife in the labor
force were renters (68 percent vs. 60
percent). The higher income of families
with wives working outside the home
makes it less difficult for them to save
for a downpayment and qualify for a
mortgage.
Expenses for food at home made up a
larger proportion of total expenditures
(and higher dollar amount) for families
where the wife did not work outside the
home (15 percent) than for families
where the wife was employed (12 per­cent).
The larger size of families where
the wife did not work probably explains
this.
14
Figure 2. Before-tax Income of young households with children,
by wife's employment status, 1988-89
Wife employed
• Less than $1 o,ooo
m $2o.ooo-$29,999
Wife nonemployed
r:a $10,000-$19,999
liZ! $30,000 or more
Figure 3. Before-tax Income of young households with children,
by number of children, 1988~9
One child
• Less than $10,000
!illl $20,000-$29,999
Two or more ch~dren
IZl $10,000-$19,999
~ $30,000 or more
Family Economics Review
Figure 4. Employment status of young wives with children, by
number of children, 1988-89
One child
Child care accounted for 3 percent of
the budget for households where the
wife worked outside the home. House­holds
with a nonemployed wife had
child-care expenditures amounting to
1 percent of total expenses. For families
with child care, such expenses can
diminish the gains in income from
wives' employment.
Young Husband-Wife
Households With Children,
by Number of Children
Household Characteristics
Among young couples with more than
one child, 83 percent had two children
and 17 percent had three or more (table
1, p. 11). There was no difference in
average age of spouses for the two
groups-23 years for husbands and
22 years for wives. Eleven percent of
young families with one child were
non-White, compared with 8 percent
of those with two or more children.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Two or more children
Employed
full time
11%
Husbands in households with one child
generally had a higher educational level
than their counterparts with two or
more children; 28 percent of husbands
with one child reported some college
education or more versus 18 percent of
men with two or more children. The
same pattern held for wives: 22 percent
of wives with one child had some col­lege
education or more, compared with
12 percent of women with two or more
children.
Income
Household income was lower for young
husband-wife families with one child
than for those with two or more children.
Average before-tax income for one­child
households was $20,008, com­pared
with $21,971 for those with two
or more children (table 2, p. 12). By in­come
range, 19 percent of households
with one child and 22 percent of house­holds
with two or more children had a
before-tax income of $30,000 or more
(figure 3),
• ... h ousa. ng,
transportation,
and food at home
accounted for 72°/o
of expenditures for
families with a
nonworking wife
... 65°/o in families with
a wife in the labor
force.
15
Although the income of families with
two or more children was generally
higher than that of families with one
child, a larger percentage of husbands
with two or more children worked part
time-34 percent, compared with 23
percent of husbands with one child. The
way part-time work was defined (see
footnote 5, p. 11) allows for a wide
variation in hours worked per week
and weeks worked per year. A larger
percentage of wives with two or more
children were nonemployed (40 per­cent)
than wives with one child (28
percent) (figure 4, p. 15).
Expenditures
Average total expenditures were
$20,675 for families with one child
and $22,582 for those with two or
more children (table 3, p. 12). Housing
accounted for the largest and transporta­tion
the second largest share of total
expenditures for households with two
or more children (30 and 20 percent).
More than half of both groups rented
their homes: 62 percent of one-child
households and 66 percent of house­holds
with two or more children.
For households with one child, transpor­tation
consumed the largest and housing
the second largest share of total expendi­tures
(30 and 26 percent). Both groups
of households owned two vehicles,
on average. New vehicle expenses,
however," were higher for families with
one child-indicating that more of them
purchased new cars.
Food expenditures consumed 15 percent
of the budget for families with one child
and 18 percent for those with two or
more children. Households with two or
more children allocated 8 percent of
total expenditures to entertainment,
compared with 5 percent for those with
one child.
16
Conclusion
Young husband-wife households with
children face serious economic pressures.
Many of these families have total expendi­tures
that exceed their after-tax income.
In addition, few are homeowners; they
cannot build equity in a house, which is
the major asset of a majority of families.
The economic status of these house­holds
may improve over the life cycle.
As children grow older, wives may shift
from part-time to full-time employment,
and husbands may acquire better paying
jobs. Higher incomes may be used to
repay past debts and to purchase a
home. The relatively low educational
level of husbands and wives in these
households, however, could impede
promotions and movement into the
labor force. Future research needs to
monitor the economic situation of
families who have children at a young
age to determine which factors contrib­ute
to their economic stability or
instability.
References
Future research could also focus on (1)
young couples with children by race
and (2) young couples with children
who live with others. This study did not
examine young couples with children
by race because the sample size could
not support a detailed analysis. Prelimi­nary
analysis, however, showed that
the after-tax income of young Black
couples with children in this study was
lower than that of their White counter­parts.
Given the lower income of young
Black families with children, research
on these families should focus on ways
to improve their economic status.
In addition, this study did not examine
young parents who reside with other
family members or unrelated individuals.
Married couples with children who
reside with others probably do so for
financial reasons. Research on the
economic status of young husband-wife
households with children who reside
with others would provide information
on a segment of the population likely to
be in difficult economic circumstances.
1. Canner, G. and Luckett, C. 1991. Payment of household debts. Federal Reserve
Bulletin 77(4):218-229.
2. Ewer, P.A., Crimmins, E., and Oliver, R. 1979. An analysis of the relationship
between husband's income, family size and wife's employment in the early stages
of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 41(4):727-738.
3. O'Connell, M. and Bachu, A. 1990. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care
Arrangements: Winter 1986-87. Current Population Reports, Household Economic
Studies. Series P-70, No. 20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
4. Tilly, C. 1991. Reasons for the continuing growth of part-time employment.
Monthly Labor Review 114(3):10-18.
Family Economics Review
•
• In 1989 ...
average
household
expenditure for
entertainment ...
was $1,581 ...
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Trends in Entertainment
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Americans spend their entertainment dollars on a great variety of commodi­ties
and services, from sporting goods, toys, and pets to club memberships
and lessons. In 1989, U.S. households allocated 5.7 percent of their total
expenditures to entertainment. Spending on entertainment peaked among
families headed by a person between the ages of 35 and 44 and was
highest among husband-wife families with a child age 18 or older. Aging
baby boomers, with increasing leisure time and discretionary income, will
be a positive influence on the entertainment marketplace in years to come.
n 1990, prices for entertain­ment
commodities (reading
materials, sporting goods
and equipment, toys, hob­bies,
photographic supplies and equip­ment,
and pet supplies and expenses), as
measured by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for all urban consumers, rose 3.5
percent over 1989 (table 1, p. 18). This
compares with a 5.4-percent increase
for all items. Prices for entertainment
services (club memberships, fees for
participation sports, lessons or instruc­tions,
and admissions) increased more
during the same period, up 5.8 percent
(14).
In 1989,1 the proportion of total expendi­tures
that U.S. households allocated to
entertainment was 5.7 percent Findings
from the 1989 Consumer Expenditure
Survey indicate the average household
expenditure for entertainment (fees and
admissions; television, radios, and
sound equipment; and other entertain­ment
supplies, equipment, and services;
I Participation rate and expenditure dollars are
given for the latest year available-usually 1989
or 1990.
and reading) was $1,581, an increase of
$102 over 1988. Entertainment expendi­tures
ranged from $577 for households
in the lowest income quintile to $3,434
for households in the highest income
quintile. Households with a reference
person age 35-44 spent more than any
other age group ($2,270), and house­holds
with a reference person age 65 or
older spent the least ($857). In terms of
household composition, married-couple
households with a child age 18 or older
had the highest entertainment expendi­tures
($2,691), and single-person house­holds
had the lowest ($868) (1 3).
Television and Home
Entertainment Equipment
Television viewing has been America's
favorite pastime for many decades.
Although Americans are watching
about the same amount of television
they did 20 years ago (about 48 hours
per household per week (3)), the propor­tion
who say it is their favorite way to
spend an evening de.creased from nearly
50 percent in the early 1970's to less
than 25 percent in 1990.
17
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
[1982-84 = 100]
Annual Annual Percent
average average change
Expenditure category 1989 1990 1989 to 1990
All items 124.0 130.7 5.4
Food and beverages 124.9 132.1 5.8
Housing 123.0 128.5 4.5
Apparel and upkeep 118.6 124.1 4.6
Transportation 114.1 120.5 5.6
Medical care 149.3 162.8 9.0
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Detailed Report, January issue (14 ).
In a Gallup poll, 42 percent of respondents
said they watched too much television
in 1990, but 72 percent had no plans to
change their viewing habits (1 5).
The demand for cable TV and video­cassette
recorders (VCR's) rose dra­matically
over the past two decades.
Although 95 percent of households
owned a television in 1970, only 7
percent of these households had cable
TV. By 1980,98 percent owned
televisions and 20 percent of these had
cable TV and 1 percent owned VCR's.
Nine years later more than half of those
households with television had cable
TV, and nearly two-thirds owned a
VCR (table 2) (9).
Admissions
Consumers paid $13.4 billion in
admissions to various entertainment
events in 1989. This amounted to
$53.98 for every man, woman, and
child in the United States (table 3) (4).
18
Performing Arts. Consumer expendi­tures
for admissions to performing arts
events, such as plays, musicals, and
concerts, were $4.9 billion in 1989, a
$0.4 billion increase from 1988. Per
capita expenditures were $19.74 in
1989, up 59 percent since 1985 (4). In
constant dollars, per capita expenditures
were up 26 percent during the period.
Spectator Sports. Admissions to
spectator sports events were $3.5 billion
in 1989, an increase of $0.3 billion over
1988. Per capita expenditures were
$14.10, up 16 percent since 1985. In
constant dollar terms, however, per
capita expenditures for spectator sports
admissions decreased between 1985
and 1989 (4).
Motion Pictures. Admissions to
motion picture theaters totaled $5.0 bil­lion
in 1989, up $0.6 billion over 1988.
Per capita expenditures were $20.14 in
1989, up 35 percent since 1985 (4). In
constant dollars, per capita expenditures
increased by only 7 percent between
1985 and 1989.
Going to the movies was an activity
enjoyed by two-thirds of the population
age 12 and over in 1990. The Motion
Picture Association of America reports
f
. 2 that the number o moviegoers
remained essentially stable, compared
with 1989, at 136.3 million-up from
115.0 million in 1984. The total number
of admissions decreased from 1.07
billion in 1984 to 0.97 billion in 1990
because of fewer admissions per movie­goer-
9.3 in 1984, compared with
7.1 in 1990 (2).
The population of moviegoers is aging.
People age 40 and over, who accounted
for one-quarter of all moviegoers in
1984, accounted for one-third in 1990.
In contrast, people under age 30, who
accounted for two-thirds of all movie­goers
in 1984, showed a drop in their
admissions' share to 56 percent in
1990 (2).
Part of the trend in the changing
demographics of moviegoers may be
explained by the increasing price of
admission to movie theaters. The price
per admission averaged $3.36 in 1984
and $4.75 in 1990. Another contributing
factor may be the sharp drop in the
number of drive-in movie screens:
from 2,832 screens in 1984 to just 915
screens in 1990. During the same time
period, indoor movie screens increased
in number from 17,368 to 22,774 (3).
People who do not attend movies in
theaters may prefer the comfort of their
own home for movie viewing. There
were 220 million prerecorded video­cassettes
sold to U.S. dealers in 1990,
compared with only 3 million in 1980.
Similarly, the sale of blank videocas­settes
to U.S. consumers increased to
325 million in 1990 from 15 million in
1980 (3).
2A moviegoer is defmed as a person age 12 or
over who has seen at least one ftlm at a theater
within the last 12 months.
Family Economics Review
Table 2. Ownership of home entertainment equipment, selected years
Households with
Television
CableTV1
VCR's1
1970
95.3
6.7
NA
1Percent of households with television.
NA =Not available.
1975
97.1
12.6
NA
1980
Percent
97.9
19.9
1.1
1985
98.1
42.8
20.8
1989
98.2
52.8
64.6
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, J990, Statistical Abstract of the United
States, J990, [llOth ed.]
Table 3. Per capita expenditures for specified entertainments, 1985-89
Admission
expenditures 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Total $39.55 $42.02 $46.15 $49.38 $53.98
Movie theater 14.94 16.15 17.31 18.00 20.14
Performing arts 12.44 13.81 16.36 18.24 19.74
Spectator sports 12.17 12.06 12.48 13.15 14.10
Source: National Endowment for the Arts, J990, Research Division Note #34.
Travel
In the United States, summer is the peak
travel season. Americans took 222.6
million trips3 in June, July, and August
of 1990, a 5-percent increase over the
previous summer. The vast majority of
these trips were also identified as vaca­tion
trips. Recent trends in summer
travel include shorter trips, smaller
travel parties, and more diversity in
travelers' needs and wants (7).
3 A trip is counted each time one adult or more
travels 100 miles or more away from home and
returns. Pleasure trips are travel for entertainment,
to visit friends or relatives, or for some sort of out­door
recreation such as boating, camping, fishing,
or hunting. Vacations are defined by the traveler.
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1
In 1990, most summer travelers (82
percent) drove their own care, truck, or
recreational vehicle; 14 percent traveled
by airplane; and 4 percent, by some
other means. Americans spent an
average of $1 ,146 on a vacation trip
and traveled a total of 830 miles. The
South was the leading destination for
summer trips, followed by the Midwest,
the West, and the Northeast. Six percent
of trips were taken outside the United
States (see figure) (7).
Most travelers stayed with friends
or relatives rather than in a hotel. In
1989, the average daily rent per occu­pied
room in the United States was
$87.80 for hotels, $47.00 for motor
hotels, and $38.60 for economy hotels
(10).
An increasing number of summer trips
do not involve all household members. In
1990, the typical summer vacation party
consisted of just two people. Summer
travelers were likely to be young and
middle-age adults. People between 18
and 34 years old (37 percent of the
adult population) took 41 percent of
all summer trips; people age 35 to 54
(34 percent of the adult population)
took 38 percent of all summer trips (7).
The average overnight summer vacation
trip in 1990 lasted 5.1 nights. This
figure is expected to decline slightly in
1991. Trips of one to three nights are
increasing in popularity (7).
A survey done by the Roper Organiza­tion
in 1987 and in 1990 asked adults
what they prefer to do on their vacation.
Those who want to "go away, do many
things" decreased from 51 to 44 per­cent;
those who want to "go away, sit
and relax" increased from 23 to 25
percent; and those who want to "stay
home and relax" increased from 17 to
22 percent. Two or more short vacations
or a number of weekend trips are pre­ferred
by 63 percent of Americans,
whereas one long vacation was pre­ferred
by 25 percent (7).
Summer destinations of U.S.
travelers, 1990
Source: Schwartz, J., 1991, What you do
on your summer vacation, American
Demographics 13(8):32-37.
19
•
20
In 1990, exercise
walking replaced
swimming as the
sport with the
highest number
of participants ...
Sports
According to the National Sporting
Goods Association, sales of sporting
goods totaled $44.1 billion in 1990, up
from $16.7 billion in 1980. During this
time period, the amount spent on sports
equipment nearly doubled, sales of
recreational transport (bicycles,
pleasure boats, RV's, and snowmobiles)
nearly tripled, and sales of sports­related
clothing and footwear nearly
quadrupled (6).
In 1990, exercise walking replaced
swimming as the sport with the highest
number of participants (defined as
having engaged in the sport more than
once) (table 4). Among persons 7 years
and older, 71.4 million reported walk­ing
for exercise more than once in
1990. Next in popularity were swim­ming,
bicycling, fishing, and camping.
Working out at a club, an activity not
even surveyed until1989, was reported
by 20.3 million people in 1990, up from
16.6 million in 1989. The new concept
of inline rollerskating or rollerblading,
reported for the first time in 1990, was
enjoyed by 3.6 million people. Other
activities that showed increased partici­pation
over the past few years were
bowling, basketball, golf, hiking, and
back-packing (6).
Boating
According to the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, an esti­mated
73 million Americans partici­pated
in recreational boating at least
once in 1990. That year $13.7 billion
was spent on new and used boats,
motors and engines, accessories, safety
equipment, fuel, insurance, docking,
maintenance, launching, storage,
repairs, and club memberships (5 ).
Table 4. Top 20 participation1
sports in 1990
Millions
I~~li.limil::w~::~::~~:::::=:::::::::::::::::=:::~::::::::::::::mt~~::~:=:::::=::::;:~:~:~
2. Swimming 67.5
~miU4.rP.m:nm9&::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t::t,~~i1::::::::~:~:::::::
4. Fishing 46.9
~tP:Iinmi:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::#§.~%::::::::::::::::::::::
6. Bowling 40.1
1~:li.l~m~liHIIfi.iijl.@~#.t::::::::~'=~'=:::::::::::::::::::::::
8. Boating (motor) 28.6
2s:ff.m!mvooE::::::::::::::::::::;::::::I:::r:::::=::::::::::::::::g~u::::::::::::::::::::::::
10. Basketball 26.3
j,j:!*::RY.P.~if@.jgwgjjjjjj):j::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ii~~::::::::::::::::::::::~
12. Aerobic exercising 23.3
I'=HV.qn~m;u.!::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::I:::::::::::;,~j:::::::::::=:::::::::::
14. Golf 23.0
~~~::mmn.!::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'I:::::r:::::::::::::::::::::gi.l.i:;:::::::::::::::::::
16. Softball 20.1
l-1*::nl!mi::Mm:r.am•~:::::::::::::=::::::::::!:~t.i:::::::::=:::::::::=:::
18. Tennis 18.4
191.:1mi#'Bmi:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::;:::::::t~~9J::::::::::::::=::::
20. Dart throwing 16.4
1
Engaged in more than once by persons age 7 years
and older.
Source: National Sporting Goods Association,
J990,NSGA News Release.
There were 11.8 million recreational
boats owned in 1980. By 1990, the num­ber
had increased to 16.0 million, half
of which were outboard boats. Between
1980 and 1990, there was an increase in
sales of inboard boats, inboard/outdrive
boats, inflatable boats, and sailboards,
while sales of outboard boats, sailboats,
and canoes declined. The State of
Michigan ranks first in the United States
in the number of registered boats,
followed by California, Florida,
Minnesota, and Texas (5).
Family Economics Review
Fishing and Wildlife
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, wildlife-associated recreation
is enjoyed by most Americans. In 1985
(the most recent survey available), 77
percent of the U.S. population age 16
and over enjoyed some form of wildlife­related
recreation (1 1).
There were 46.4 million people who
fished in 1985, spending $28.1 billion
pursuing their sport, for an average
expenditure of $607. An additional
12.2 million youths ages 6-15 fished.
Fishing, enjoyed by 37 percent of men
and 16 percent of women, was most
popular among people ages 16-17 and
25-44 (31 percent participation). People
age 65 or older were less likely to enjoy
fishing (13 percent participation) (11).
There were 16.7 million people who
hunted in 1985, spending $10.1 billion
for an average expenditure of $603 per
hunter. Also, 1.8 million youths ages
6-15 hunted. About 18 percent of men
hunted, compared with 2 percent of
women. The participation rate was high­est
for those ages 16-17 (14 percent)
and lowest for those age 65 and older
(3 percent) (11).
Nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation (observing, photographing,
and feeding fish and wildlife) was en­joyed
by 134.7 million Americans age 16
and over. These participants spent over
$14.3 billion on these activities, averag­ing
$221 per person. An additional26.3
million youths ages 6-15 also partici­pated.
Of those who participated in non­consumptive
wildlife-related recreation,
the majority were women (11).
National Parks and Forests
There are 76.9 million acres of land in
the U.S. National Park System. The
System includes parks, monuments, his­torical
and military areas, battlefields,
parkways, recreation areas, preserves,
rivers, seashores, and lakeshores. There
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
were 258.7 million recreation visits4 to
the National Park System in 1990, up
from about 190 million in 1980. Most
recreation visits took place during the
summer months. Among the most
popular attractions in the National Park
System are the Blue Ridge Parkway
(16.9 million visitors in 1990), Golden
Gate National Recreation Area (14.6
million), Lake Mead National Recreation
Area (8.6 million), Great Smoky Moun­tains
National Park (8.1 million), and
National Capital Parks (7 .5 million) (12).
The National Forest System consists of
191 million acres of land in 44 States.
The number of people visiting national
forests has increased over the past de­cade.
There were 234 million recreation
visitor-days5 in 1980 and 263 million
in 1990. The national forests provide
40 percent of the outdoor recreation
activities that take place on federally
4A recreation visit is the entry of a person, except
National Park System (NPS) personnel, onto lands
or waters administered by the NPS for recreational
pwposes.
~One recreation visitor-day is the entertainment
use of national forest land or water that aggregates
12 visitor-hours. This may entail 1 person for 12
hours, 12 persons for 1 hour, or any equivalent
combination of individual or group use.
managed land-more than any other
agency. Recreational activities that take
place in national forests include mecha­nized
travel and viewing scenery, camp­ing,
picnicking, swimming, hiking,
horseback riding, water travel, hunting,
winter sports, fishing, and nature studies
(8).
Pets
Pet ownership has been increasing in
recent years. In 1990, according to the
American Pet Products Manufacturers
Association, 52.6 million households,
or 57 percent of all U.S. households,
owned a pet (table 5). The most popular
pets were dogs, owned by 38 percent of
all households, followed by cats, fish,
birds, and small animals, including
hamsters, rabbits, gerbils, guinea pigs,
and turtles. Cat ownership increased
faster than ownership of other types of
pets between 1988 and 1990. Sales of
pet supplies, excluding food products,
are now approaching $2 billion in
annual sales, and are increasing at
about 5 percent per year (1).
Table 5. Pet ownership, 1988 and 1990
Households owning Number of pets
Animal 1988 1990 1988 19901
Any pet
Dogs
Cats
Birds
Small animals
Freshwater fish2
Marine fish
11990 numbers are projected.
21988 numbers include Marine fish .
NA =Not available.
56
37
30
6
4
8
NA
Percent
57
38
33
6
4
8
0.5
Millions
51.2 54.2
51.6 60.3
13.9 11.8
8.8 7.2
94.5 73.1
NA 4.7
Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, Executive Summary: National Pet Owners
Study, May 1990.
21
Implications
Americans are fmding new ways to
spend their leisure time and their enter­tainment
dollars. Most of the trends
reported in this article can be attributed
to demographic patterns related to an
aging population, the movement toward
healthier lifestyles, or new technology.
In 1989, people age 35-44 (baby boom­ers)
spent more than those in other age
groups on recreation and entertainment.
As these baby boomers grow older, they
will likely have increasing amounts of
leisure time and discretionary income to
spend in entertainment and recreational
activities. Those government agencies
that provide social and environmental
services (Forest Service, National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Services),
as well as people in the entertainment
industry and the recreational market,
will need to consider these demographic,
lifestyle, and technology trends when
planning for the 21st century.
22
References
1. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. Executive Summary:
National Pet Owners Study, May 1990; and News Release, June 8, 1990.
2. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 1991. Incidence of Motion
Picture Attendance Among the Adult and Teenage Public, July 1990.
3. _______ ,. 1991. 1990 U.S. Economic Review.
4. National Endowment for the Arts. 1990. Research Division Note #34.
5. National Marine Manufacturers Association, Marketing Services Department.
1990. Boating.
6. National Sporting Goods Association. 1990. NSGA News Release.
7. Schwartz, J. 1991. What you do on your summer vacation. American
Demographics 13(8):32-37.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. The National Forests­Ending
Their First Century. FS-496.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Statistical
Abstract of the United States,1990. [llOth ed.]
10. , Economics and Statistics Administration. 1991. Survey
of Current Business 71(4):S-18.
11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation.
12. ________ ,National Park Service. 1990. Statistical Abstract 1990.
13. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990. Consumer
expenditures in 1989. News. USDL No. 90-616.
14. --------· 1991. CPI Detailed Report. January issue.
15. Waldrop, J. 1991. Who's hooked on TV? American Demographics 13(8):21.
Family Economics Review
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Research Summaries •
Pension Benefits
The percentage of an employee's pre­retirement
salary that is replaced by
benefits from a pension plan can vary
widely, based on the employee's age
and work history. The 1989 Employee
Benefits Survey, conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, covered
32 million full-time employees in about
109,000 medium and large private
establishments. Data from the Survey
were used to examine workers' replace­ment
rates-the percentage of the final
year's salary provided by a pension
payment.
Retirement income generally comes
from three sources: employer-sponsored
benefit plans; government benefit
plans, particularly Social Security; and
personal savings. Social Security can
replace up to 40 percent of an employee's
preretirement income. Employer plans
other than pensions, such as savings
and thrift plans and profit-sharing
plans, can also provide retirement
income. In addition, retirees usually
require less than full replacement of
their final salary, due to changes in
their tax status, expenses, and lifestyle.
Defined Benefit Pension Plans
Through a fixed formula, typically
based on salary and length of time as
a plan participant, defmed benefit
pension plans specify the amount of
pension payment a retiree will receive.
For example, a plan might specify
annual benefits equal to 1 percent of
fmal salary multiplied by the number
of years of participation in the plan.
According to the 1989 Survey, 63 per­cent
of full-time employees in medium
and large private establishments partici­pated
in defined benefit pension plans.
Another type of defined benefit pension
plan specifies a fixed dollar amount per
year of participation in the plan, regard­less
of salary. This type is more preva­lent
among blue-collar than white-collar
workers.
In addition to providing information
on benefit formulas, the Employee
Benefits Survey supplies data on numer­ous
other plan provisions (such as age
and length-of-service requirements that
employees must meet in order to retire)
needed to determine the amount and
timing of benefits. Because there is a
wide range of plan provisions, it is
difficult to compare individual pension
plans strictly on their characteristics.
To overcome these difficulties, a dollar
payment and, from that, a percentage of
fmal salary or the replacement rate
can be computed for each plan. Given
certain assumptions regarding age,
salary, and length of participation, a
comparison of individual plans can be
made based on the percentage of final
salary each will replace.
All of the pension plans studied in the
Survey include the length of participa­tion
in the computation of benefits;
therefore, replacement rates rise with
the number of years of participation in
the plan. Salary also affects replace­ment
rates, as does the retiree's age.
Benefits vary by age because plans
usually impose reductions if benefits
are received before a given age (see
table, p. 24).
Defined benefit pension plans specify
age and length-of-service requirements
for retirement with normal retirement
benefits. Nearly all plans also offer
early retirement benefits to those
retiring before the normal retirement
age. Payments are computed from the
plan's normal retirement formula, but
are reduced to account for receipt over
a longer period of time.
23
For all pension plan participants eligible
to retire at age 55 with 20 years of
participation, whether with reduced or
unreduced benefits, the replacement
rate for the retiree with a final salary
of $35,000 averaged 13.4 percent in
1989. The same employees could
expect an average replacement rate of
17.4 percent if they retired at age 60,
18.8 percent at age 62, and 20.1 percent
at age 65.
Social Security benefits for older
Americans are available beginning at
age 62. Normal retirement benefits are
currently available beginning at age 65,
although the age for eligibility will
gradually rise to 67 over the next
several decades. Reduced benefits will
continue to be available at age 62, but
greater reductions for early receipt of
benefits will be imposed to account for
the increased time between normal and
early retirement.
The Social Security replacement rate
data show variations by final salary
level for employees of similar ages
and with similar numbers of years of
employment covered by Social Security.
The following tabulation is for employ­ees
age 65 with 30 years of covered
service:
Final salary
$25,000
$35,000
$45,000
Social Security
replacement rate
Percent
37.8
29.4
23.8
There is a 20 percent difference be­tween
Social Security benefits at age 62
and at age 65, whereas the difference in
average pension benefits at these ages is
only about 5 percent.
Benefits for Married
Employees
A periodic payment that ceases when
the retiree dies is known as a straight·
life annuity. Since the mid-1970's,
defined benefit pension plans have been
required by law to offer an alternative
form of payment, designed to protect a
surviving spouse after a retiree dies.
This benefit, a qualified joint-and­survivor
annuity, provides a reduced
pension to the retiree, followed by
payment of a portion of that reduced
Average proportion of final salary replaced by defined benefit pension plan and Social Security payments,
19891
Years of participation in plan and retirement age
Final annual salary
and source of benefits
10
Age62 Age65 Age62
20 30 40
Age65 Age62 Age65 Age62 Age65
Percent
I!i!i~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::t::::::::::::::::::::::i!m:::::::':t::::::::::::::::::i?W::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I::::::?m;~:'::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::~g;g;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::§.f!~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i~®.:::::::::::::=::::I::::::::::::::::::::a~~::'i!i!i!i:::::::::::::;;:::::M.l~::::::::::;,
Pension 11.6 12.7 22.6 24.1 33.1 34.4 41.8 43.7
Social Security 19.9 25.3 27.4 35.0 34.7 44.8 37.0 44.8
Il.l§®.J.J1H9ili!i!i!i!!::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~4:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1!l.4::::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t.:!~§:::::::::::::::::::::::::::rt.~l.l!i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i?~t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::§?~ti::::::::::I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::§§if.i!i!i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::1~;;:::::::::::
Pension 10.4 11.2 19.3 20.6 28.1 29.4 35.1 36.9
Social Security 14.9 19.2 22.2 28.9 29.0 37.8 31.3 38.3
I:l~§.1.tm±mmt:::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~z::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::gzg::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':~z~?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!f.;~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ml.i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~§~~E:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~;~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m!:i.§::::::::::
Pension 9.9 10.6 18.8 20.1 27.4 28.9 34.0 35.9
Social Security 12.8 16.7 18.8 24.6 23.5 29.4 24.3 29.6
::::elm.l!iiJ:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:J.:~i::r::::::::::::::::::::::::::~§:::::::::::::::::t:':::::::::::::::::::::~l.?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:!a:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!l~!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ig§:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::liiiiit::::::t:::::::::::::::l2\?::::::::::::
Pension 9.8 10.5 18.7 20.0 27.4 29.0 33.8 35.7
Social Security 11.3 14.9 16.0 21.1 18.9 23.8 19.5 23.9
1For full-time employees in medium and large private establishments.
Note: Average replacement rates are for only those worlcers in plans permitting retirement at the given combination of age and number of years of participation
in plan. Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
24 Family Economics Review
pension to a surviving spouse after the
retiree dies. In the mid-1980's, the joint­and-
survivor benefit became the
standard pension form for married
employees.
Calculations for a joint-and-survivor
annuity are designed to provide the
same total benefit that. on average,
would be paid to the individual retiree,
except that it is spread out over the life­time
of both the employee and the
spouse. Only with the written consent
of both spouses can a married employee
choose something other than the joint­and-
survivor benefit By law, a plan.
must offer a 50-percent joint-and­survivor
benefit; that is, a reduced
annuity to the retiree and 50 percent of
that reduced amount to the surviving
spouse.
Surviving Spouse Benefits
If an employee dies before retirement,
the surviving spouse can receive bene­fits
from a qualified preretirement
survivor annuity. Benefits to the sur­viving
spouse begin at the earliest time
that the employee would have been
eligible to retire. Typically, payments
are equal to the benefit that would have
been received at that date had the em­ployee
retired with a joint-and-survivor
annuity and then died.
The following replacement rates
assume that the spouse was the same
age and had no benefits based on
personal work experience.1 At age 62
with a final salary of $35,000, an
1The recent rise in two-worker couples suggests
that these replacement rates may not account for
all benefits actually available. Independent bene­fits
received by the spouse, other benefit plans,
and personal savings could all add to the total
replacement rate.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
employee completing 30 years of partic­ipation
in a plan would, on average,
have a total replacement rate of 59.1
percent at age 62 and 70.1 at age 65.
Source of benefits Age62 Age65
Percent
Joint -and-survivor
pension 24.6 25.9
Social Security
Individual's 23.5 29.4
Spou~'s 11.0 14.7
Total replacement
rate 59.1 70.1
Social Security benefits are available to
surviving spouses at age 60, or earlier
if the spouse has dependent children.
If benefits are paid before the normal
retirement age (currently age 65), the
amount is reduced.
Other Retirement Income
Also available to some employees are
defmed contribution plans, which
specify the employer's contribution to
employee accounts but do not guarantee
future benefits. Included in defined con­tribution
plans are savings and thrift,
profit sharing, and money purchase
pension plans? In 1989,48 percent
of full-time employees in medium and
large private establishments participated
in one or more defmed contribution
plans. Most of these employees were
in plans designed to provide benefits at
retirement.
2 A savings and thrift plan requires an employee to
contribute a percent of salary, which is typically
matched, in whole or in part, by the employer. A
profit-sharing plan determines benefits on the
basis of a stated formula or at the discretion of a
board of directors. Benefits are then allocated to
individual employees, typically based on salary.
A money purchase pension plan provides a fixed
employer contribution to an employee account
each year.
Benefits from defined contribution
plans are generally paid in a lump sum,
from which a retiree may purchase an
annuity providing periodic lifetime
payments. Some employees have the
opportunity to participate in both a de­fmed
contribution plan and a defined
benefit plan. In 1989,45 percent of de­fmed
benefit pension plan participants
were also enrolled in one or more
defined contribution plans, usually a
savings and thrift plan.
Source: Wiatrowski, W., 1991, New survey data
on pension benefits, Monthly Labor Review
114(8):8-22, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
25
•
U.S. Real Income
and Wage Trends
From 1982 through 1989, real Gross
National Product (GNP) grew at an
annual rate of 3.5 percent. Given this
impressive growth in real GNP, it
would seem that living standards in the
United States have improved over the
last decade. However, analysts have
suggested that aggregate income growth
rates are misleading indicators of how
well the typical worker or household
fared. During the 1980's, real wages
stagnated in the United States.
Confusion about U.S. real income
trends arises from an imprecise use
of income measures and inappropriate
comparisons of time periods. Alterna­tive
income measures may indicate
different growth rates because they
include different kinds of income.
The National Income and Product
Accounts (NIP A) reports three
measures of income. The narrowest
income measure is annual wages and
salaries per worker for the entire work
force. A slightly broader measure of
income is total compensation per
worker, which includes the cost of
fringe benefits. Since 1979, fringe
benefits have grown at least 20 percent
faster than wages and salaries each
year. The broadest measure of income
is personal income, which adds pro­prietors'
income, dividends, rents, and
transfers to compensation, but subtracts
employer contributions for social
insurance.
Although real per capita personal
income and per capita money income
have grown, wages and salaries per
worker were below 1973 levels until
1987. What little growth occurred in
compensation was in the form of non­wage
supplements such as fringe
benefits.
26
Mean family income (1989 dollars)
Quintile 1979 1989
Percent
change
:~=:=oow~¥: ::::~:::::~::::::::::::::::===~=~:~;~:::::::::~::=~:::::~~~!~:~::~::~::::::::=:::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::~:::::::~:~im§:=::::::::=:~:::~:~=~=:::::==:::~~:=::~=::~:~:~:I':::::::::::::::±%:~:::::::::::::::~::::::::::1:::::;::::::::::::::
Second 15,306 15,107 -1.3
::::~I!WJ.i:::::::::~:::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:~~::::::::::::~:::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::is~~i:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::P-1.~::=::::::::::::::::::::::~::::==~::~::=:=:=~~:::::
Fourth 38,680 40,374 4.4
:::::uri.J.~t::::::::::::~:::::::::=:::::::::::;:::::::::::::::~~:::~:~~£ig,::~~:::::::~:::::::t::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::11~7!~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::=::::~:ij:;w,::::=::::::::::::::::::::~=:::::::~:::~:=:~:::::::
Average 30,764
The divergence between the growth
of real per capita personal income and
the growth in worker income can be
attributed tQ the growth in the labor
force participation rate and the change
in compensation's share of personal
income. Most of the growth in per
capita personal income over the last
25 years has been due to the rapid
expansion of jobs relative to the popula­tion.
From 1973 to 1979, annual em­ployment
growth exceeded population
growth by 1.5 percentage points.
Almost two-thirds of this employment
growth was accounted for by women.
Mter 1979, the compensation share
of income declined, reflecting lower
hourly wage rates and the strong growth
in income from nonlabor sources.
An important contributing factor was
the decline in real hourly wage rates of
nonsupervisory and production workers
in the private sector. This decline was
less for year-round, full-time workers
than for temporary part-time workers.
The fall in hourly wage rates was
exacerbated by a downward trend in
hours per week or per year. If the
increase in leisure time has value, then
the decline in weekly earnings may
overstate any decline in workers' true
living standards. Therefore, when
assessing living standards on the basis
of weekly wage trends, there must be
some judgment about how voluntary
the decline in hours has been.
32,978 7.2
Household Income Trends
Income trends are best understood from
the standpoint of the basic economic
unit, the family or household, rather
than from that of the worker or the
population at large. Income per house­hold
has not grown as fast as per capita
personal income because of decreasing
household size and the increase in the
proportion of the population living out­side
the family unit. However, because
the number of workers per household
has increased and the share of house­hold
income from sources other than
labor has grown, income per household
has grown faster than wages and
salaries per worker.
Income inequality among households
increased markedly during the period
from 1979 to 1989. The average 7-
percent rise in real family incomes was
exceeded only by the top quintile.
Mean family income for the top quin­tile
grew 14 percent while the bottom
quintile income contracted 2 percent
(see table). These household income
trends are consistent with the decline in
the labor earnings share of income and
with the greater decline in the wage
rates of nonsupervisory and production
workers.
Source: Kroch, E., 1991, Recent real income and
wage trends in the United States, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York Quarterly Review 16(2):36-39.
Family Economics Review
• Nonmetro and
Metro Children
In the past, differences between rural
and urban living were observed.
Research had identified several attri­butes
associated with rural living: more
traditional attitudes about families,
higher fertility rates, larger households,
earlier age at marriage, and out­migration
of couples of childbearing
age. Consequently, for many years,
metro and nonmetro areas differed in
their patterns of household and family
size, growth, and structure, with rural
and nonmetro areas having higher pro­portions
of married-couple households
with minor children, a smaller percent­age
of single-parent families, and a
much lower proportion of persons
living alone.
Since the 1970's, changes in rural
families have paralleled changes in
urban families with higher divorce
rates, lower fertility rates, smaller
families, more women working outside
the home, and a growing diversity in
employment. Today, nonmetro and
metro families are very similar with
regard to family size, age and number
of children, family living arrangements,
and types of child-care arrangements.
However, there is a greater proportion
of nonmetro than metro children who
live in families that are below the
poverty level.
Between 1980 and 1988, the average
U.S. family size declined from 3.27 per­sons
to 3.17 persons. By 1988, metro
and nonmetro areas were nearly identi­cal
in family size. In both metro and
nonmetro areas, 39 percent of children
lived in two-child families. The age
distributions of metro and nonmetro
children were also very similar, with
about one-third under 6 years old, one­third,
6 to 12 years old, and one-third,
12 to 17 years old.
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1
Children In poverty, 1987
Non metro Metro
Above poverty · ..
Near poverty: Family income up to 1 1/2 times the poverty level.
Above poverty: Family income greater than 1 1/2 times the poverty level.
The number of children in both metro
and nonmetro areas who live with a
single parent is at an all-time high.
Between 1980 and 1988, the proportion
of children who lived in single-parent
families increased from 20 to 25 percent
in nonmetro areas and from 25 to 29 per­cent
in metro areas.
Increased numbers of single-parent
families and working mothers with
young children have resulted in an
increased demand for child care. In
1988, 56 percent of mothers with
children under age 6 were in the labor
force. The most frequently reported
type of child-care arrangement for
children under age 6 was similar for
metro and nonmetro areas. About 29
percent of these children were cared
for in their own home by either a rela­tive
or a nonrelative. Arrangements
outside the child's home varied.
Twenty-four percent of nonmetro
children were cared for by a nonrelative
in another home, compared with 20 per­cent
of metro children, and 25 percent
of nonmetro children were cared for in
a group situation (nursery school, pre­school,
or day-care center), compared
with 33 percent of metro children. More
group child-care facilities are located in
metro areas, as lower population density
in nonmetro areas makes group care
services less economically feasible
there.
Differences exist in the economic
well-being of children in metro and
nonmetro areas. Poverty status is deter­mined
by comparing total family in­come
to a poverty threshold, adjusted
according to family size, number of
children, and age of the household
head. In 1987, 24 percent ofnonmetro
children were in families below the
poverty line, compared with 20 percent
of metro children (see figure). When
the poor are combined with the "near
poor" (family income up to 1 1/2 times
the poverty level), 36 percent of non­metro
children lived in poverty or near
poverty, compared with 29 percent of
metro children.
Family type and race also have an
influence on economic well-being.
About 56 percent of Black children
lived in mother-only families, compared
with 16 percent of White children. Of
these children in mother-only families,
Black nonmetro children had the great­est
probability of being poor (7 5 per­cent),
followed by Black metro children
(65 percent), White nonmetro children
(53 percent), and White metro children
(44 percent).
Source: Rogers, C. C., 1991, Nonmetro/metro
children: Similar families, different economic
conditions, Rural Development Perspectives
7(1):40-41, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
27
28
Regular Items •
Recent Legislation Affecting Families
Public Law 102-119 (enacted
October 7, 1991)--the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments
of 1991 extends and expands the Fed­eral
program for disabled infants and
toddlers. Early intervention programs
for infants and toddlers with disabilities
are authorized for $220 million in 1992,
and such sums as necessary (to keep up
with inflation) in 1993 and 1994. In
addition, the new law recognizes the
central role played by families in
designing and implementing effective
early intervention services for their
infants and toddlers with disabilities.
The bill authorizes $15.1 million in
1992,$16.3 million in 1993, and $17.6
million in 1994 for grants to private
nonprofit organizations to be used to
train the parents of disabled infants and
children. The bill aims to improve co­ordination
between early intervention
programs for children from birth to
age 2 and preschool programs for those
ages 3-5 and guarantees each State will
receive at least $500,000 annually in
Federal early intervention funds.
Public Law 102-164 (enacted
November 15, 1991)--the Federal
Supplemental Compensation Act of
1991 extends unemployment benefits
for nearly 3 million Americans. To
cover the cost ($5.3 billion) of the
extended benefits, the bill tightens a
loophole on those paying quarterly
taxes; extends a law allowing the
Internal Revenue Service to collect
money owed the Federal Government;
extends the Federal unemployment tax
at 0.08 percent; and garnishees the
wages of those who default on student
loans. The bill expires on June 13, 1992.
This is the frrst time that Congress has
voted to extend unemployment benefits
for the jobless since 1983.
Public Law 102-166 (enacted
November 21, 1991)--the Civil Rights
Act of 1991 clarifies and reaffrrms the
right of workers to bring job discrimina­tion
lawsuits. For the frrst time, limited
money damages can be awarded to vic­tims
of harassment and other intentional
discrimination based on sex, religion,
or disability. The bill sets a cap on these
damages for intentional bias, ranging
from $50,000for companies with 100
or fewer workers to $300,000 for em­ployers
with more than 500 workers.
Also prohibited are racial harassment
and other forms of bias that occur after
a person is hired, and an employer may
not make an employment decision based
on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The legislation establishes a
commission, appointed jointly by the
President and Congress, to examine
the "glass ceiling" that prevents women
and minorities from rising to the top
in corporate America. The bill also
prohibits "race norming" of tests used
for employment or promotion; that is,
adjusting or setting different cutoff
scores on the basis of race or other
classifications.
Family Economics Review
•
Current Regional Research Project
W-176. Housing and
Locational Decisions of
the Maturing Population:
Opportunities for the
Western Region
Administrative adviser:
Dr.K.Green
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Cooperating States (Universities):
University of Arizona, Colorado State
University, University of Idaho,
Michigan State University, University
of Nevada, Oregon State University,
Utah State University, Washington
State University, University of
Wyoming.
Project dates: October 1986 to
September 1991
Objectives: Develop a profile of
selected aging populations, including
those who relocate, make seasonal
moves, or age-in-place; identify consid­erations
relevant to residential character­istics,
support services, and finances
important to informed housing deci­sions;
compare the mid- and later-life
housing and locational decisions of
rural and urban residents, especially
rural-directed relocation; develop
decisionmaking criteria and strategies
for family mid- and later-life housing
and locational choices; and compare
the aging population's housing and
locational needs and choices with the
rural communities' views and policies.
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1
Approach: Using ZIP code demogra­phy,
counties with high portions of
the selected populations, 40 years
and over, were identified. Sampling
frames were developed to represent
rural and urban populations for random
sampling in counties so identified.
A mail questionnaire and common
procedures were used to collect data.
To explore the potential for rural
revitalization, considerations identified
by householders were compared with
attitudes of community and county
governments concerning the desirability
and feasibility of housing an aging
population. Each State contributed to
a regional data base and State and
regional analysis. The investigators
worked with the Cooperative Extension
System to develop and refine decision
strategies for dissemination to target
audiences.
Progress: Data were collected from
independent, age-stratified random
samples of nine land-grant universities.
The survey population consisted en­tirely
of university employees. A total
of 5,662 usable questionnaires was ob­tained
from the 9 states. The regional
data collection instrument, ''Thinking
ahead to retirement: Community and
housing choices," had two sections: The
frrst contained questions that were used
in all States, and the second included
questions that were State-specific.
Respondents indicated the degree to
which each of 12 community character­istics
would be important for selecting
a community in which to live during
the first 10 years of retirement.
In 1990, questionnaires were distributed
to an age-stratified (40 to 65 years) ran­dom
sample of the general population
in Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Michigan.
Coded responses were sent to the Social
and Economic Sciences Research
Center at Washington State University
where a data tape was developed. A
data base book and technical report,
"Housing and locational retirement
decisions: A study of pre-retirees in
four States," were prepared.
Findings: The characteristics deemed
more important by university respon­dents
included: medical facilities, low
utility rates, low cost of living, library
facilities, and recreational facilities.
Medical facilities were measured sepa­rately
and were important to 96 percent
of the respondents. Respondents with
higher incomes, who were older, or
who were in poorer health wanted
higher levels of medical service avail­able
in their retirement community.
Publications: A special issue of
Housing and Society (Volume 17,
Number 2, 1990) was devoted to
research from this regional project.
Articles included:
lams, D.R., et al. Environmental
quality: A factor in the selection of
a retirement community.
Junk, V.W. and Dillman, JJ. The
importance of retirement community
characteristics: Viewpoint of a
maturing population.
McFadden, J.R. and Makela, C.
Housing and community retirement
preferences: Are they related to antici­pated
sources of retirement income.
Tripple, P.A., et al. Elder cottage
housing: A housing alternative for
the older population.
29
30
• Charts From Federal Data Sources
Number of persons receiving cash and noncash benefits,
1989
Supplemental
Security Income
Aid to Families
With Dependent
Children
Food Stamps
Medicaid
Number (thousands)
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990, Social Security
Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 1990.
Average monthly benefit among recipients, 1989
Supplemental
Security Income
Aid to Families
With Dependent
Children
Food Stamps
Medicaid
Dollars
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990, Social Security
Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 1990.
Family Economics Review
Poverty rate for individuals
Percent
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1
40 r---------------------------------------------------~
People in female householder families
-- ~---~ -------/ /~~-~- 30 f-
Unrelated individuals
--- - ~. - -··- · --· - ·· - ·· - ·· - ·· -
20 f-
- - ··...=. .. - .. - .. - .. - .. - .. - .. -
Childre;underage 18 - - ·-==- ---- ----
All people -
10 f-
0 I I I I I
1979 82 85 88 90
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Reports of Income and Poverty,
Current Population Reports, Series P-60.
Median income: Households, 1990
$thousands
White 31 .2
Black 18.7
Asian 38.4
Hispanic origin 22.3
Median income: Families, 1990
Married-couple
families 39.9
Female householder
no husband present 16.9
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1991, Money Income of
Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1990, Series P-60, No. 174.
31
•
Data Sources
Residential Energy
Consumption Survey
(RECS)
Sponsoring agency: U.S. Department
of Energy
Population covered: U.S. households
Sample size: About 6,000 households
(The same households are in two
successive surveys.)
Geographic distribution: Nationwide
Years data collected: Limited data in
1978 and 1979; complete data in 1980,
1981, 1982, 1984, 1987, and 1990. The
1990 data should be available for public
use in 1993.
Method of data collection: Personal
and mail interviews.
Residential Transportation
Energy Consumption
Survey (RTECS) - a sub­sample
of the Residential
Energy Consumption
Survey (RECS)
Sponsoring agency: U.S. Department
of Energy
Population covered: U.S. households
Sample size: 3,000 to 4,000 households,
with an oversampling of high-mileage
households.
Geographic distribution: Nationwide
Years data collected: Limited data in
1978 and 1979; complete data in 1980,
1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, and 1991. The
1991 data should be available for public
use in 1993.
32
Future surveys planned: About every
3 years
Major variables: Characteristics of
household members, including urban/
rural, income, race, and housing tenure;
characteristics of the house, including
age, type of housing, household energy
consumption, degree-day category,
average amount of fuel consumed; and
household cost of natural gas, electricity,
fuel oil/kerosene, and liquefied petro­leum
gas.
Publications: The main reports are
Housing Characteristics; Household
Energy Consumption and Expenditures,
Part]: National Data; and Household
Energy Consumption and Expenditures,
Part 2: Regional Data. Reports based
on the 1990 survey should be available
in late 1992.
Method of data collection: There are
four phases of data collection over a
12-month period. Phase one is a per­sonal
interview in conjunction with the
RECS. Phases two through four are
telephone and mail surveys.
Future surveys planned: About every
3 years
Major variables: Characteristics of
household members, including age,
ethnic background, income, urban/rural,
and number of drivers; characteristics
and use of vehicles including vehicle
make, model, age, vehicle identification
number, estimated miles driven during
the past year, miles per gallon, monthly
and annual estimates of fuel consump­tion
and expenditures, fuel grade and
type of pump service, number and type
of vehicles per household, and odometer
readings at the beginning and end of the
year.
Source for further information
and data: Data files and tapes are
available from:
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4807
For information and a description of
the data files, contact
National Energy Information Center
(NEIC), EI-231
Energy Information Administration
Forrestal Building, Room 1F-048
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-8800
Publications: The main publication
from the R1ECS is Household Vehicle
Energy Consumption, which is available
from NEIC at the address and phone
.number below. Reports based on the 1991
survey should be available in late 1992.
Sources for further information
and data: Data files and tapes are
available from:
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4807
For information and a description of
the data files, contact:
National Energy Information
Center (NEIC), EI-231
Energy Information Administration
Forrestal Building, Room 1F-048
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-8800
Family Economics Review
• Expenditures on a Child by Husband-Wife Families,
Lower Income Level, 19911
Education,
Health Child Care,
Age of Child Total Housing Food Transportation Clothing Care and Other
U.S. Overall (Income: <$31,200)
0-2 .. . ... .. ... 4,520 1,830 690 610 330 250 810
3-5 ...... .... . 4,820 1.no 770 660 360 230 1,030
6-8 ... .. .. . ... 4,810 1,no 990 710 390 250 700
9- 11 ..... . .... 4,660 1,640 1,120 640 400 260 600
12- 14 .......... 5,350 1,580 1,200 970 650 260 690
15- 17 .......... 5,700 1,550 1,360 1,220 610 280 680
Total .. ...... ... 89,580 30,420 18,390 14,430 8,220 4,590 13,530
Urban West (Income: c$31,200)
0-2 ....... . .. . 4,790 2,150 750 550 310 220 810
3-5 ....... . ... 5,110 2,120 840 590 340 200 1,020
6-8 .. . ........ 5,150 2,120 1,070 630 380 210 740
9- 11 . . ....... . 5,020 1,990 1,210 560 390 220 650
12 - 14 ......... . 5,710 1,920 1,300 880 630 230 750
15 - 17 .... .. . .. . 6,040 1,890 1,450 1,150 590 240 720
Total ........ ... 95,460 36,570 19,860 13,080 7,920 3,960 14,070
Urban Northeast (Income: c$31,900)
0 - 2 .. . ........ 4,720 2,120 810 510 320 230 730
3-5 . ... . ... . .. 5,040 2,090 900 550 350 210 940
6 - 8 .. . . .... ... 5,060 2,090 1,130 590 380 220 650
9 - 11 .......... 4,930 1,950 1,290 510 390 230 560
12- 14 .......... 5,620 1,880 1,370 850 640 230 650
15- 17 .. . . .. .... 5,970 1,850 1,530 1,110 600 250 630
Total 0 0 0 0 ••••••• 94,020 35,940 21,090 12,360 8,040 4,110 12,480
Urban South (Income: c$30,700)
0 - 2 ... . ....... 4,620 1,830 690 650 350 280 820
3 - 5 ....... . . .. 4,960 1,800 780 690 390 260 1,040
6 - 8 ... . . . ... . . 4,940 1,800 990 750 420 270 710
9 - 11 .......... 4,780 1,670 1,130 670 430 280 600
12 - 14 .. .... . . .. 5,480 1,610 1,210 1,000 690 290 680
15 - 17 .......... 5,860 1,580 1,360 1,270 650 310 690
Total •• 0 ••• •• 0. 0 91,920 30,870 18,480 15,090 8,790 5,070 13,620
Urban Midwest (Income: c$30,800)
0-2 ..... .. .... 4,400 1,750 640 570 340 230 870
3-5 .. ......... 4,750 1,720 730 610 380 210 1,100
6-8 ... ... . .. .. 4,710 1,720 930 660 410 230 760
9 - 11 .......... 4,560 1,600 1,070 580 420 240 650
12- 14 ... . .. .. . . 5,260 1,530 1,150 910 690 240 740
15- 17 .. ........ 5,630 1,500 1,300 1,180 650 260 740
Total ... .. .... .. 87,930 29,460 17,460 13,530 8,670 4,230 14,580
Rural (Income: c$30,900)
0 - 2 ..... .. .... 4,000 1,320 580 740 320 270 770
3 - 5 . .... . ..... 4,330 1,290 670 780 350 250 990
6 - 8 ..... .. .... 4,280 1,290 850 840 380 260 660
9 - 11 .......... 4,130 1,170 980 770 390 270 550
12- 14 .......... 4,820 1,100 1,060 1,100 640 280 640
15 - 17 ..... . .... 5,170 1,070 1,200 1,360 600 300 640
Total • 0 0 •• 0 •• • 0. 80,190 21,720 16,020 16,770 8,040 4,890 12,750
1
Estimates are for the younger child in a two-child family.
Source: USDA, ARS, Family Economics Research Group. 1992. Expenditures on a Child by Families, 1991.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1 33
Expenditures on a Child by Husband-Wife Families,
Middle Income Level, 19911
Education,
Health Child Care,
Age of Child Total Housing Food Transportation Clothing Care and Other
U.S. Overall (Income: $31,200 to $50,400)
0 . 2 ...... ..... 6,400 2,420 850 1,020 420 320 1,370
3. 5 .... ..... . . 6,800 2,360 990 1,080 450 300 1,620
6 . 8 . ... .. ..... 6,760 2,370 1,250 1,160 490 320 1,170
9 . 11 . .. ... .. . . 6,570 2,230 1,410 1,080 500 330 1,020
12. 14 . ........ . 7,320 2,170 1,490 1,410 820 330 1,100
15 . 17 ... ... . ..• 7,780 2,150 1,660 1,670 780 350 1,170
Total ..... . . .... 124,890 41,100 22,950 22,260 10,380 5,850 22,350
Urban West (lncoine: $31,200 to $50,500)
0 . 2 . . .. . ...... 6,620 2,710 910 960 400 290 1,350
3. 5 .. . .... ... . 7,040 2,690 1,050 1,010 430 270 1,590
6. 8 . ... ..... . . 7,060 2,690 1,330 1,090 470 290 1,190
9. 11 .......... 6,900 2,560 1,500 1,010 480 300 1,050
12 . 14 .. . . ...... 7,640 2,490 1,580 1,340 790 300 1,140
15-17 .. ... . ... . 8,050 2,460 1,750 1,600 740 320 1,180
Total •• •• 0 ••• • • 0 129,930 46,800 24,360 21,030 9,930 5,310 22,500
Urban Northeast (Income: $31,900 to $51 ,600)
0 . 2 ........... 6,580 2,710 960 930 400 300 1,280
3. 5 .. ...... ... 7,000 2,680 1,110 970 440 280 1,520
6. 8 . .... .. . .. . 6,990 2,680 1,390 1,050 470 290 1,110
9. 11 . .. ....... 6,830 2,550 1,570 970 480 300 960
12. 14 ..... . .. .. 7,590 2,480 1,650 1,300 800 310 1,050
15 . 17 . . ........ 8,010 2,440 1,820 1,570 750 330 1,100
Total •••••••• 0 •• 129,000 46,620 25,500 20,370 10,020 5,430 21,060
Urban South (Income: $30,700 to $49,700)
0. 2 ..... . . .. .. 6,490 2,370 850 1,070 450 350 1,400
3-5 ........... 6,920 2,350 990 1,120 490 330 1,640
6 - 8 ...... . .. . . 6,860 2,340 1,250 1,210 520 350 1,190
9 . 11 .......... 6,680 2,220 1,410 1,130 540 360 1,020
12. 14 . .. . . . ... . 7,450 2,160 1,490 1,460 870 370 1,100
15. 17 ... . ...... 7,900 2,120 1,650 1,730 820 390 1,190
Total •• • • •• 0 0 •• 0 126,900 40,680 22,920 23,160 11,070 6,450 22,620
Urban Midwest (Income: $30,800 to $49,700)
0 . 2 ......... .. 6,280 2,300 810 990 430 300 1,450
3. 5 ......... . . 6,700 2,280 940 1,030 470 280 1,700
6. 8 . .. . ....... 6,640 2,270 1,190 1,120 510 300 1,250
9. 11 ....... . .. 6,440 2,150 1,350 1,040 520 310 1,070
12. 14 ..... ... .. 7,200 2,080 1,430 1,370 860 310 1,150
15 . 17 .... . . .... 7,660 2,050 1,590 1,630 810 330 1,250
Total ... ... ..... 122,760 39,390 21,930 21 ,540 10,800 5,490 23,610
Rural (Income: $30,900 to $49,900)
0 . 2 ...... . .... 5,860 1,870 740 1,160 400 340 1,350
3 . 5 ......... . . 6,280 1,840 880 1,200 440 320 1,600
6-8 .... . ...... 6,210 1,840 1,110 1,300 480 340 1,140
9 . 11 .. .. .. . ... 6,010 1,720 1,260 1,220 490 350 970
12 . 14 ... . ...... 6,770 1,650 1,340 1,560 810 360 1,050
15. 17 . ... .... . . 7,220 1,620 1,490 1,820 760 380 1,150
Total ••••••• 0 ••• 115,050 31 ,620 20,460 24,780 10,140 6,270 21,780
1
Estimates are for the younger child in a two-child family.
Source: USDA, ARS, Family Economics Research Group. 1992. Expenditures on a Child by Families, 1991.
34 Family Economics Review
Expenditures on a Child by Husband-Wife Families,
Higher Income Level, 19911
Education,
Health Child Care,
Age of Child Total Housing Food Transportation Clothing Care and Other
U.S. Overall (Income: >$50,400)
0-2 .... ... ... . 9,160 3,630 1,040 1,400 520 400 2,170
3-5 ........... 9,640 3,570 1,250 1,450 560 370 2,440
6-8 ... .. .. .... 9,500 3,570 1,500 1,570 590 400 1,870
9- 11 .......... 9,310 3,440 1,690 1,500 610 410 1,660
12- 14 . ....... . . 10,160 3,380 1,850 1,820 970 410 1,730
15- 17 ..... . .... 10,690 3,350 1,950 2,080 930 430 1,950
Total .. ....... .. 175,380 62,820 27,840 29,460 12,540 7,260 35,460
Urban West (Income: >$50,500)
0-2 ....... .... 9,290 3,880 1,080 1,350 490 370 2,120
3-5 .. . ... .... . 9,810 3,850 1,310 1,390 530 340 2,390
6-8 ..... . .... . 9,700 3,850 1,560 1,510 560 360 1,860
9- 11 .......... 9,520 3,720 1,760 1,430 580 370 1,660
12- 14 . .. ... .. .. 10,380 3,650 1,920 1,760 930 380 1,740
15- 17 .......... 10,840 3,620 2,020 2,020 880 400 1,900
Total ... ........ 178,620 67,710 28,950 28,380 11,910 6,660 35,010
Urban Northeast (Income: >$51,600)
0-2 ..... .. . . .. 9,300 3,930 1,130 1,320 490 370 2,060
3-5 .......... . 9,840 3,900 1,370 1,360 530 350 2,330
6-8 ......... .. 9,740 3,900 1,630 1,480 570 370 1,790
9- 11 . . . .... . .. 9,540 3,760 1,830 1,400 580 380 1,590
12- 14 .. .. ...... 10,410 3,700 1,990 1,730 940 390 1,660
15 - 17 ..... ..... 10,890 3,660 2,090 2,000 890 410 1,840
Total •••••• 0 0 0 0. 179,160 68,550 30,120 27,870 12,000 6,810 33,810
Urban South (Income: >$49,700)
0-2 ........... 9,160 3,490 1,020 1,470 550 440 2,190
3-5 ........... 9,680 3,470 1,240 1,510 600 410 2,450
6-8 ... ... ... .. 9,520 3,460 1,480 1,630 630 430 1,890
9- 11 ..... .. ... 9,320 3,340 1,670 1,550 650 450 1,660
12 - 14 .......... 10,190 3,280 1,830 1,890 1,020 450 1,720
15 - 17 .......... 10,750 3,240 1,920 2,150 980 480 1,980
Total ........... 175,860 60,840 27,480 30,600 13,290 7,980 35,670
Urban Midwest (Income: >$49,700)
0-2 ...... . .... 8,950 3,430 980 1,380 530 380 2,250
3-5 ...... . .... 9,470 3,410 1,200 1,420 570 350 2,520
6-8 ..... .. .. . . 9,320 3,410 1,430 1,540 610 380 1,950
9- 11 .... . ..... 9,090 3,280 1,620 1,460 620 390 1,720
12- 14 .......... 9,970 3,220 1,770 1,790 1,010 390 1,790
15- 17 . .. ....... 10,510 3,180 1,860 2,050 960 420 2,040
Total • • • 0 •• •• • 0 0 171,930 59,790 26,580 28,920 12,900 6,930 36,810
Rural (Income: >$49,900)
0 - 2 ........... 8,530 3,000 920 1,550 500 420 2,140
3-5 ... ... ... .. 9,060 2,970 1,130 1,600 540 400 2,420
6 - 8 ... ... ..... 8,900 2,970 1,350 1,730 580 420 1,850
9- 11 .... ..... . 8,660 2,840 1,530 1,650 590 430 1,620
12 - 14 .......... 9,500 2,780 1,670 1,980 950 440 1,680
15 - 17 .......... 10,060 2,750 1,770 2,250 900 460 1,930
Total .... .... . .. 164,130 51,930 25,110 32,280 12,180 7,710 34,920
1
Estimates are for the younger child in a two-child family.
Source: USDA, ARS, Family Economics Research Group. 1992. Expenditures on a Child by Families, 1991.
1992 Vol. 5 No.1 35
• Estimated Annual Expenditures on a Child by Single-Parent Families,
Overall United States, 19911
Education,
Health Child Care,
Age of Child Total Housing Food Transportation Clothing Care and Other
Income: Less than $31,200
0 - 2 . .......... 3,930 1,410 730 1,010 190 90 500
3 - 5 .. .. ....... 4,960 1,640 760 1,270 260 150 880
6-8 ........... 5,390 1,880 1,000 1,220 300 160 830
9- 11 ... . ...... 5,690 1,880 1,070 1,340 330 190 880
12- 14 .......... 5,550 1,730 1,210 1,310 630 220 450
15- 17 .......... 5,860 1,830 1,270 1,480 620 200 460
Total .. . ..... . .. 94,140 31,110 18,120 22,890 6,990 3,030 12,000
Income: $31,200 or more
0 -2 ...... . .... 8,150 3,110 1,090 1.no 280 240 1,660
3 - 5 ........... 9,500 3,340 1,190 2,120 370 340 2,140
6 - 8 ........... 9,840 3,580 1,470 2,000 410 360 2,020
9 - 11 .......... 10,240 3,580 1,670 2,150 450 410 1,980
12- 14 .......... 10,020 3,430 1,780 2,110 820 460 1,420
15 - 17 .......... 10,410 3,530 1,840 2,330 810 430 1,470
Total ........... 174,480 61,710 27,120 37,440 9,420 6,720 32,070
1
Estimates are for the younger child in a two-child family.
Source: USDA, ARS, Family Economics Research Group. 1992. Expenditures on a Child by Families, 1991.
36 Family Economics Review
• Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for fOod plans at four cost levels, December 1991, u.s. average 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:2
20-50years ................... $48.70 $61.60 $75.70 $94.10 $211 .20 $266.40 $327.90 $407.30
51 years and over .............. . 46.20 59.10 72.80 87.10 200.20 256.00 315.50 3n.1o
Family of4:
Couple, 20 - 50 years and children-
1-2and3-5years ............ 71.10 88.80 108.20 133.00 308.10 384.60 469.00 576.10
6 - 8 and 9 - 11 years . .. ... . ... . 81 .30 104.30 130.10 156.70 352.60 451.60 563.70 678.80
INDIVIDUALsl
Child:
1-2years .. .. . . ..........•.. .. 12.90 15.70 18.30 22.20 56.00 68.20 79.50 96.30
3-5 years ...........•......... 13.90 17.10 21 .10 25.30 60.10 74.20 91.40 109.50
6-8 years ..................... 16.90 22.60 28.30 33.00 73.30 98.00 122.70 142.90
9- 11 years .................... 20.10 25.70 33.00 38.20 87.30 111.40 142.90 165.60
Male:
12- 14 years . ..... . ......... . . . 20.90 29.10 36.30 42.60 90.60 126.10 157.10 184.50
15- 19 years . . ... ... .. .. . . . .... 21.70 30.00 37.30 43.20 93.90 130.10 161.70 187.30
20 - 50 years ................... 23.20 29.80 37.10 44.90 100.70 128.90 160.70 194.50
51 years and over ............... 21.10 28.30 34.80 41 .70 91 .50 122.50 150.80 180.50
Female:
12- 19 years ................... 21.10 25.20 30.50 36.90 91.50 109.10 132.20 159.80
20 - 50 years .. ... . ...• .. ....... 21 .10 26.20 31.70 40.60 91.30 113.30 137.40 175.80
51 years and over .. ...• ..•...... 20.90 25.40 31.40 37.50 90.50 110.20 136.00 162.30
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food plan were
computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review 1984( 1). Estimates for the other plans were computed from
quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review 1983(2). The costs of the food plans are estimated by updating prices paid by
households surveyed in 19n-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA updates these survey prices using information
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report, table 4, to estimate the costs for the food plans.
2Ten percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3--rhe costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested:
1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person-subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person-subtract
1 0 percent.
1992 Vol. 5 No. 1 37
•
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 = 100]
Group
All items . ........ . .............. ....... ......... .
Food .......................................... .
Food at home ............ . ................... .
Food away from home ......................... .
Housing ................ ........ . ............. .
Shelter ......... . .......... .................. .
Renters' costs 1
........... .. . .. .. ....... .. ... .
Homeowners' costs 1
...•............•.........
Household insurance 1
. . . .... ..... • ......• . . .
Maintenance and repairs .... . .. . .. ... .. ....... .
Maintenance and repair services .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .
Maintenance and repair commodities ....... .. . .
Fuel and other utilities ... ... .. . ................. .
Fuel oil and other household fuel commodities ... . . .
Gas (piped) and electricity ............. ........ .
Household furnishings and operation ............. . .
Housefumishings ...... . ..... .. . . ........ . .. . .
Housekeeping supplies ............. .. ........ .
Housekeeping services ............... . ....... .
Apparel and upkeep ............................. .
Apparel commodities ... ..... . . .... . ....... .. .. .
Men's and boys' apparel ............. . ... ..... .
Women's and girls' apparel .................... .
Infants' and toddlers' apparel .. . ... . ..... . .. . . .. .
Footwear .. ..... . ...... .. . .... . ... .... .. ... .
Apparel services .... . ..... . .. .... . . . .. .. ...... .
Transportation .. .................... . .......... .
Private transportation ... ....... . ...... .... ..... .
New vehides .... . ........... . ............. . .
Used cars . ............. . ............. . .. . . . .
Motor fuel .. . . .. . .. .... ..... . .. .. .. . . ....... .
Automobile maintenance and repair ............. .
Other private transportation ........ . .. . ........ .
Other private transportation commodities ....... .
Other private transportation services ..... . .. ... .
Public transportation ............. . .. ...... . .. .. .
Medical care ...... . ..... .. . . .. . .. . ............. .
Medical care commodities ....... . .............. .
Medical care services . .. ............ .. ..... .. .. .
Professional medical services . . . . ...... . ....... .
Entertainment ......... ...... ....... ..... .... .. . .
Entertainment commodities ........... ... ... .... .
Entertainment services . .............. ... ....... .
Other goods and services .. . .... .. . .. . . ......... . . .
Personal care ....... . ................... . . . .. .
Toilet goods and personal care appliances ........ .
Personal care services ... . ... . ........ . .. . . . . . .
Personal and educational expenses . ....... ..... .. .
School books and supplies .. . ...... . .......... .
Personal and educational services . ...... . ...... .
11ndexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
38
December
1991
137.9
136.7
135.5
139.6
135.0
148.2
155.8
153.0
140.0
128.1
131.4
123.7
116.0
94.7
112.4
116.3
107.1
129.8
129.4
129.6
127.2
125.9
128.4
129.2
121.8
144.9
125.3
123.4
128.3
120.1
98.4
138.4
152.0
105.3
162.5
149.8
182.6
181.7
182.8
169.8
139.9
129.6
152.7
1n.6
135.7
133.4
138.0
191 .1
184.7
191 .8
Unadjusted indexes
November
1991
137.8
136.2
135.0
139.3
134.7
147.9
155.4
152.6
139.9
127.6
130.7
123.6
115.3
94.8
111.2
116.5
107.6
129.6
129.1
132.9
130.9
127.7
132.9
130.2
123.4
144.4
125.0
123.4
127.3
120.6
99.4
138.5
151.8
104.9
162.3
147.0
181 .8
181.1
181 .9
169.1
140.4
129.8
153.5
176.9
135.7
133.8
137.7
190.8
184.5
191.5
October
1991
137.4
135.8
134.4
139.1
134.7
147.7
156.1
152.1
138.9
126.6
130.6
121.3
115.7
90.9
112.9
116.4
107.7
129.0
128.9
132.7
130.7
127.2
132.8
129.1
123.4
144.3
124.0
122.4
125.8
120.2
98.3
138.4
150.9
104.3
161.4
144.9
180.7
180.3
180.8
168.5
140.5
130.0
153.4
176.2
135.7
133.3
138.2
190.7
184.9
191.4
December
1990
133.8
134.2
133.8
135.7
130.5
142.7
149.5
147.5
136.5
123.8
128.9
116.8
112.7
114.1
108.6
113.7
106.1
127.5
122.3
125.3
123.0
122.3
123.5
125.6
118.4
140.2
127.2
125.1
124.3
117.1
117.1
132.5
146.7
103.8
156.3
154.4
169.2
169.1
169.3
160.0
134.6
125.2
146.3
164.5
132.4
129.9
135.0
176.3
174.7
176.6
Family Economics Review
Order Proceseing Code: * 5141
Superintendent of Documents Order Form Charge your order. f.4i1iii1i1 ~
It's Easy/ ~-=­To
fax your orders (202) 512-2233
0 YES, please send me_ subscriptions to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW (FAMER) at $5.00 ($6.25 foreign).
The total cost of my order is $ ____ . Price includes regular domestic postage and handling and is subject to change.
(Company or Personal Name) (Please type or print)
(Additional address/attention line)
(Street address)
(City, State, ZIP Code)
(Daytime phone including area code)
(Purchase Order No.)
YES NO
May we make your name/address available to other mw1ers? D D
1992 Vol. 5 No.1
Please Choose Method of Payment:
0 Check Payable to the Superintendent of Documents
0 GPO Deposit Account I I I I I I I 1-0
0 VISA or MasterCard Account
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
.__..__..__.L.....JI (Credit card expiration date)
(Authorizing Signature)
Thank you for
your order!
10191
Mail To: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
39