Family Economics Review [1990, Volume 3, Number 2]

              Editor
Joan C. Court/ess
Editorial Assistant
Jane W Fleming
Family Economics Review is written
and published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research Group,
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agricul­ture,
Washington, DC.
The Secretary of Agriculture has deter­mined
that the publication of this peri­odical
is necessary in the transaction of
the public business required by law of
this Department.
Contents may be reprinted without per­mission,
but credit to Family Economics
Review would be appreciated. Use of
commercial or trade names does not
imply approval or constitute endorse­ment
by USDA.
Family Economics Review is for sale by
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office. Subscrip­tion
price is $5 per year ($6.25 for
foreign addresses). Single issues cost $2
each ($2.50 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782. Telephone (301)436-8461.
Family
Economics
Review
Vol. 3 No.2
The Family Economics Research Group
and the Family Economics Review
would like to gratefully acknowledge
the reviewers of manuscripts for this
ISSUe:
Gail DeWeese
Cornell U Diversity
Nancy Granovsky
Texas A&M University
Velda Rankin
USDA, Extension Service
Norma J. Redeker
University of Arizona
Nayda I. Torres
University of Florida
May 1990
Contents
j For
Features
2 Income and Expenditures of Hispanic Households
Joyce Matthews Pitts
7 Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Joan C. Courtless
Research Summaries
13 Money Income and Poverty Status of Households and Families
15 Single Parents and Their Children
16 American Family Life
18 The Black Population in the United States, 1988
19 Occupational Change
21 Reasons for Not Working: Poor and Nonpoor Householders
Regular Items
23 Current Regional Research Project
24 Cost of Food at Home
25 Consumer Prices
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
U.S DEPOSITORY
PROPERTY OF THE l!BRMIY
JUL 171990
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
1
Income and Expenditures of
Hispanic Households
By Joyce Matthews Pitts
Home Economist
Family Economics Research Group
The U.S. Hispanic population is increas­ing
so rapidly that it is expected to exceed
the black population as the country's largest
minority group before the year 2000. Pur­chasing
power for this group was estimated
at $140 billion in 1989, making Hispanics a
very important segment of the American
marketplace. Average annual before-tax in­come
for Hispanic households was $20,261
in 1985, lower than the income of white-and­other
households, but higher than income
for black households. Total expenditures for
Hispanics averaged $18,069 in 1985-86.
Hispanic households spent a greater portion
of their total expenditures on housing and
food than did non-Hispanic households.
Proportions spent on transportation and
clothing were similar to those of black non­Hispanic
households.
The Hispanic Population
The U.S. Hispanic population is a
diverse group whose members trace
their origins to Mexico, Puerto Rico,
Central America, South America,
Cuba, and other Spanish-speaking
countries. Because their numbers
are rising faster than those of other
groups, Hispanics are expected to
surpass the black population to be­come
the largest minority group in
the United States (6).1
In March 1985, the U.S. Hispanic
population totaled about 17 million
persons, a 17-percent increase over
1980. During the same period the
non-Hispanic population grew by
just 4 percent and the Hispanic
share of the total population in­creased
from 6 to 7 percent. By
March 1988, Hispanics numbered
19.4 million, a 34-percent increase
since 1980, and represented 8 per­cent
of the total population (11,12).
The growth in the number of
Hispanic persons can be attributed
1Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any
race.
2
. to their high fertility and low mor­tality
rates (JJ) and to substantial
immigration (see box, p. 7). Since
1980 about half of the growth in the
Hispanic population has come from
immigration (10). Further increases
in the Hispanic population will also
reflect general improvements in the
1990 Census, including better ques­tionnaire
design and effective public
relations efforts. The new Census
should produce a more accurate
count of Hispanics because many
illegal aliens received legal status
under the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (14). As of
March 1988, most (62 percent) of
the U.S. Hispanic population were
of Mexican origin, 13 percent came
from Puerto Rico, 12 percent from
Central and South America, 5 per­cent
from Cuba, and 8 percent from
various other Spanish-speaking
countries (12).
Income and Poverty
Income levels for Hispanics varied
by their country of origin. Cuban
families, a relatively small portion of
the Hispanic population, earned the
highest median income (see table 1).
They were followed by families from
Central and South America and
other Spanish-speaking countries,
and fmally those from Mexico and
Puerto Rico. Income differences
among subgroups of Hispanics are
due, in part, to differences in the
number of earners in the household,
levels of education, and family com­position
(11). The poverty rate for
Hispanic families has held steady at
25 percent or 26 percent since 1983.
Country of origin had an effect on
the poverty status of Hispanic house­holds,
paralleling that on income.
In 1987 the proportion of persons
below the poverty threshold was
37.9 percent for those from Puerto
Rico, 25.5 percent for persons from
Mexico, 18.9 percent for those from
Central and South America, 13.8
percent for those from Cuba, and
26.1 percent for those of other
Hispanic origin.
The level of educational attain­ment
by Hispanics has shown im­provement-
51 percent of those age
25 and over had completed 4 years
of high school as of March 1988,
compared with 48 percent in March
1985 (11,12). Median school years
completed by persons of Cuban,
Central and South American, and
other Hispanic origins were 12.4; by
those of Puerto Rican origin, 12.0;
and by persons of Mexican origin,
10.8. There also have been improve­ments
in level of employment; unem­ployment
fell to 8.5 percent in March
1988 from 11.3 percent in 1985.
Population size indicates that
Hispanics are an important segment
of the American consumer market.
Because of language and custom
differences, Hispanics have been
described as "a foreign consumer
market within the United States"(2).
Hispanic purchasing power has
grown from about $90 billion in
1985 to an estimated $140 billion
in 1989 (2). About $333.5 million
was spent on advertising aimed at
Hispanic groups in 1985 (5).
Researchers, family economists,
marketing specialists, and other
professionals concerned with the
economic status and well-being
of American families need to be
informed of Hispanic spending
patterns. This paper will examine
levels of income, total expenditures,
and several expenditure categories
(housing, food, transportation, and
apparel) for Hispanic households.
Comparisons will be made with non­Hispanic
households (white-and­other
and black) and will consider
differences among the various types
of Hispanic households (husband
and wife, husband and wife with
own children, single parent, single
person, and other) for each of these
items.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
l
Source of Expenditure and
Income Data
The 1985 Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CEX)2 was used to examine
income and spending patterns of
Hispanic households and to com­pare
them with other households.
Of the 20,831 total households in
the survey, 1,135 households were
Hispanic. Of the Hispanic house­holds,
94.7 percent were white,
3.4 percent were black, 1.3 percent
were Asian or Pacific Islander, and
0.6 percent were American Indian,
Aleut, or Eskimo. The quarterly
expenditure data were annualized
and the sample was weighted to
reflect expenditures of the total
U.S. population. Unpublished
printed data from the CEX for a
2-year period, 1985-86, were used
also. Table 2 compares the socio­economic
characteristics of the
Hispanic sample with those of non­Hispanic
white-and-other3 and black
samples.
Income and Sources of
Income for Hispanic
Households
Average annual before-tax income
was $20,261 for Hispanic households
in 1985-86,4 less than that of non­Hispanic
white-and-other house­holds
($26,023) but more than the
income of non-Hispanic black
households ($17,388, see table 3,
p. 4). Hispanic husband-wife and
husband-wife with children house­holds
received incomes above the
average ($19,364 and $25,934,
respectively), whereas single-parent,
single-person, and other type house­holds
(at $10,716, $12,355, and
$21,063) had incomes below the
average.
2For a description of the Consumer
Expenditure Survey, see Family Economics
Review 1(1):2-5.
~er includes American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo, Asian, Pacific Islander, and all
others not classified as black or white.
4Ail income numbers refer to average
annual before-tax income for complete
income reporters, unless stated otherwise.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Table 1. Median before-tax family income by Hispanic ethnic groups
Ethnic group
Cuban ............................... .
Central and South American ............. .
Other Spanish-speaking countries ........ . .
Mexican ... ... ...... ... ... . . ... ....... .
Puerto Rican .......................... .
1987
$27,294
22,939
21,196
19,968
15,185
1984
$22,587
19,785
23,470
19,184
12,371
1981
$18,173
16,875
19,602
16,994
11,536
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1988, The Hispanic
Population in the United States: March 1985, Current Population Reports, Series P-20,
No. 422; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, The Hispanic
Population in the United States: March 1988, Current Population Reports, Series P-20,
No. 438.
Table 2. Characteristics of the population for selected groups, 198~86
Demographic Hispanic
Household size 3.4
Income class:
Under $10,000 .... .... ..... ..... . .... .... 29
$10,000-$20,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
$20,000- $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
$30,000 - $40,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Over $40,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Incomplete reporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Housing tenure:
Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Renter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Education:
No high school diploma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
High school diploma. ... . ... ..... ......... 18
Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
College degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Post college degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Family type:
Husband and wife only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Husband and wife with own children . . . . . . . . . 35
Single parent with children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Single persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 16
Other . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 26
Occupation:
Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sales, service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Farm, craft, labor.. .... . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Not working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Region:
Urban
Northeast...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Midwest............................... 5
South ....... ..... ........... ....... ... 34
West. .... . ......... ... .......... ...... 41
Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Non-Hispanic
White- Black
and-other
2.5
Percent
23
20
16
12
18
11
65
35
23
30
23
13
11
23
32
4
29
12
24
24
19
8
8
17
20
23
23
17
17
2.9
41
20
12
6
9
12
45
55
43
27
19
6
5
10
23
15
27
25
10
29
24
3
20
14
16
17
44
9
14
3
When comparing the incomes
of urban Hispanic households by
region, those living in the West
(41 percent of U.S. Hispanics) had
the highest income ($22,980).
Hispanics in each of the other
regions had incomes that averaged
lower than the all-Hispanic mean
(Northeast, $17,776; Midwest,
$19,647; and South, $18,692).
Western Hispanic households, on
average, had a slightly higher num­ber
of earners per household.
Most income (82 percent)
received by Hispanic families came
from wages and salaries. Table 3
compares sources of income of
Hispanic households with those
of non-Hispanic white-and-other
and black households. Hispanics
received a lower proportion of their
income from Social Security and
pensions than non-Hispanics be­cause
Hispanic household heads
were younger.5 For the remaining
sources, those used by Hispanic
households were similar to those of
black households.
Shares of income derived from
various sources differed for
Hispanics by type of household.
Husband-wife with children house­holds
depended on salary for 87 per­cent
of their income. Husband-wife
households received most (69 per­cent)
of their income from salaries,
but a substantial portion (22 per­cent)
was derived from pensions and
Social Security (29 percent of these
household heads were retired).
Single-parent households depended
on Supplemental Security Income
and public assistance for 20 percent
of their income, yet derived the
major share (66 percent) from
salaries.
5 Only 9 percent of Hispanic heads
of household were retired, compared to
17 percent for white-and-other non­Hispanic
households and 14 percent for
black non-Hispanic households.
4
Table 3. Mean income and income sources for selected groups,
1985-86
Non-Hispanic
Income Hispanic White-and-other Black
Before-tax .... .... . . ....... . $20,261 $26,023 $17,388
After-tax ...... .. .. . . .. ... . . 18,928 23,633 15,983
Percent of before-tax income
Salaries . . .. .. . .. . . . ..... . . . 82 77 82
Social Security,
Railroad Retirement . . . . .. . 5 7 8
Pensions .. .. .... .. ... ... . . . 2 4 2
Supplemental Security Income,
Public Assistance ... ...... . 2 1 3
Interest and dividends .. . .... . 1 4 1
Other1
••. • •• •••.•. . .... •.• . 8 7 4
10ther includes workmen's compensation, gifts, rental income, unemployment compensa­tion,
incomes from farms and other businesses, the value of food stamps, and other miscel­laneous
incomes.
Spending Patterns of
Hispanic Households
Total Expenditures
Hispanic households spent
$18,069 on total expenditures in
1985-86. Of that amount 33 percent
was for housing, 20 percent for
transportation, 19 percent for food,
6 percent for apparel, and 22 per­cent
for all other expenditures (see
table 4) (15). They spent a greater
portion of total expenditures on
food and housing than non-Hispanic
households, but their proportional
spending on apparel and transporta­tion
was similar to spending by black
non-Hispanic households.
Among Hispanic household types,
husband and wife with children
households allocated a greater share
of total expenditures to transporta­tion
and a smaller share to housing
than did other household types.
Single-parent households spent a
higher proportion on food, housing,
and apparel, and a lower proportion
on transportation than did the
others.
Housing
Hispanic households spent $5,720
on housing in 1985 (see table 5);
63 percent was spent on shelter,
23 percent on utilities and fuels,
10 percent on furniture and equip­ment,
and 3 percent on household
operations.6 These households spent
a greater percentage of their housing
dollar on shelter than did white-and­other
or black households. Their
proportional spending on utilities
was similar to that of white-and­other
households, and their spend­ing
on furniture and equipment and
household operations was similar to
that of black households. Hispanics
were almost as likely as black non­His
panics to be homeowners
( 43 percent and 45 percent,
respectively), but less likely than
non-Hispanic white-and-other
households (65 percent).
6Expenditures for shelter include those for
owned dwellings, rented dwellings, and other
lodging. Expenditures for owned dwellings
include mortgage interests, property taxes,
homeowner's insurance, parking fees, ground
rent, property management and security, and
maintenance, repair and remodeling expenses.
Expenditures for rented dwellings include
rent, tenant's insurance, parking fees, and
maintenance, repair and remodeling expenses.
Other lodging expenses include property
taxes, homeowner's insurance, ground rent,
and maintenance, repair and remodeling
expenses for vacation homes, and housing
related expenses for school, college, hotel,
motels, cottages, and trailer camps. House­hold
operations include domestic services
and the care of children and invalids.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Table 4. Expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures,
1985-86
Expenditure
Total expenditures .... ......... .... . .
Housing ......................... . .
Transportation ..................... .
Food ............................ ..
Apparel ....... . ........ ... ........ .
Health care ........................ .
Entertainment ..................... .
Reading and education .............. .
Cash contributions .................. .
Life, personal insurance ............. .
Retirement, pensions, Social Security .. .
Other2 ...••.••••...•...•.••.••..•..
Hispanic
$18,069
33
20
19
6
4
4
1
1
1
7
4
Non-Hispanic
White-and-other Black 1
$23,581
Percent
30
21
15
5
5
5
2
4
1
8
4
$15,219
32
20
16
6
4
4
2
3
2
7
4
1Refers to those households in which the reference person identified his or her origin or
ancestry as Afro-American.
21ncludes alcohol, personal care, tobacco and smoking supplies, and miscellaneous.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985 and 1986 Consumer
Expenditure Survey, unpublished tables.
Table 5. Expenditures and expenditure shares for major expenses,
Hispanic and non-Hispanic households, 1985
Expenditure
Mean expenditure:
Housing ....... . ............. .. .. .
Transportation ............... ..... .
Food ............................ .
Apparel .......................... .
Hispanic
$5,720
3,573
3,369
1,017
Non-Hispanic
White-and-other Black 1
$6,947
4,853
3,511
1,200
$4,820
2,942
2,525
929
Expenditure components as a percent of major expense
Housing:
Shelter ...... ... .. .. ............. .
Utilities, fuels ..................... .
Furniture and equipment .. ..... .... .
Household operations .............. .
Transportation:
Vehicle purchase ... . . ............ . .
Gas, oil .. ... ...... . .............. .
Public transportation ..... .......... .
Other1
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food:
At home ... ................ ...... .
Away ........ . ....... ... ......... .
Apparel:
Women's ............... ........ . .
Men's ......... .. . ... .... . . .. .... .
Boys', girls' ... . ..... ......... . .... .
Infants' ................... .. ... .. .
Footwear ........ .. ........... ... .
Other ...................... . . .. . .
63.3
23.4
9.9
3.4
37.8
27.9
6.5
27.9
75.9
24.1
26.9
20.4
14.0
6.7
13.2
18.8
57.5
24.2
12.9
5.4
45.7
22.0
5.8
26.5
66.7
33.3
34.3
21.3
10.4
3.7
10.3
20.0
55.1
31.6
9.3
4.0
37.4
27.3
7.0
28.3
79.4
20.6
31.0
13.8
14.7
4.1
12.1
24.3
1Refers to those households in which the reference person identified his or her origin or
ancestry as Afro-American.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Home ownership among Hispanic
households varied from 54 percent
of those with husband and wife only
and 50 percent of those with hus­band,
wife, and children to just
18 percent for single-parent and
single-person households. House­holds
with children (husband and
wife with children and single-parent)
spent a higher portion of the housing
dollar on household operations than
did households without children (see
table 6, p. 6); child care costs were a
component of this expense. Propor­tional
spending on furnishings and
equipment was lowest for single­parent
households. Larger house­holds
(husband and wife with
children, and other) spent a higher
percentage of their housing dollar
on utilities and fuels than did smaller
households.
Food
On average, Hispanic households
spent $3,369 on food in 1985, allocat­ing
76 percent of their food dollar to
food-at-home and 24 percent to
food-away-from-home. They used
a greater percentage of their food
dollar on food-at-home than white
households, but a lesser percentage
than black households. Hispanic
single-parent households spent a
greater portion of their food dollar
on food-at-home (80 percent).
Single persons spent almost as much
on food-away-from-home as they
spent on food-at-home.
Transportation
Spending on transportation
averaged $3,573 for Hispanic house­holds
in 1985. The expense of pur­chasing
vehicles accounted for the
greatest portion of the transporta­tion
dollar, 38 percent. Equal shares
(28 percent each) were attributed to
gas and oil and other transportation
expenses 7 and a 6-percent share was
spent on public transportation.
Hispanics spent a lesser percentage
7Includes finance charges, maintenance
and repairs, vehicle insurance, licenses and
registration fees, rentals, towing charges, and
parking and toll fees.
5
Table 6. Expenditures and expenditure shares for major expenses in
Hispanic households by household type, 1985
Expenditure
Mean expenditure:
Housing ................. .
Transportation ............ .
Food .................... .
Apparel ....... . .. ........ .
Husband
and wife
$6,348
2,555
2,823
780
Husband
and wife
with
children
$6,395
5,198
4,267
1,254
Single
parent
$5,302
1,182
2,617
976
Single
person
$3,462
1,548
1,679
595
Other
$6,048
3,995
3,738
1,087
Expenditure components as a percent of major expense
Housing:
Shelter ................... .
Utilities, fuels ... .......... .
Furniture and equipment .... .
Household operations ...... .
69.8
20.4
8.2
1.6
Transportation:
Vehicle purchase . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2
Gas, oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6
Public transportation . . . . . . . . 9.6
Other......... . ........... 44.6
Food:
At home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.9
Away 00 00.00. 00 oo , oo 00 00 00. 21 .1
Apparel:
Women's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.1
Men's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9
Boys', girls' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
Infants' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9
Other clothing expenses . . . . . 22.2
of their transportation dollar on new
cars, 17 percent, compared with
27 percent (white-and-other) and
21 percent (black) by the other
groups.
Among household types, husband
and wife with children households
spent the greatest portion on vehicle
purchases. Single parents and single
persons spent a larger share on
public transportation than did the
other types of households.
Apparel
In 1985 Hispanic households
spent $1,017 on apparel and ser­vices.
The largest portion of the
clothing dollar (27 percent) was allo­cated
to women's clothing, followed
by men's (20 percent), and other
6
59.5
24.3
11.8
4.4
44.3
26.8
4.7
24.2
76.8
23.2
26.0
19.0
19.7
8.0
13.1
14.2
69.3
19.7
4.6
6.4
27.6
31.2
13.7
27.5
80.5
19.5
21.1
13.3
24.7
4.6
13.8
22.5
68.8
18.8
11.0
1.4
25.8
25.6
14.1
34.5
54.1
45.9
27.9
29.1
0.1
2.2
12.6
28.1
61.7
26.2
9.5
2.6
37.5
28.9
6.0
27.6
78.3
21.7
26.5
21.4
11.1
8.2
12.5
20.3
clothing8 (19 percent). Even so,
these households spent a lesser
portion of their clothing budget
on women's clothing than non­Hispanic
households.
Proportional spending on
women's clothing was highest for
husband and wife households,
whereas spending on men's clothing
was highest for single persons.
Single-parent households allocated
25 percent of their clothing budget
to boys' and girls' clothing, a greater
share than that reported by other
household types. Proportional foot­wear
expenditures were similar
among all household types.
~ncludes jewelry, materials and sewing
notions, shoe and clothing repairs, rental,
storage, and laundry and dry cleaning.
Other Expenses
In 1985 Hispanic families spent
$615 on health care, $690 on enter­tainment,
$175 on personal care, and
$151 on education. In contrast, non­Hispanic
white-and-other and black
households spent $1,124 and $584,
respectively, on health care; $1,211
and $544 on entertainment; $202 and
$183 on personal care; and $318 and
$202 on education.
Discussion and
Implications for
Professionals
A previous study by this author (8)
found that black and white house­holds
allocated a similar share
(70 percent) of their after~tax income
to the basic necessities of living
(housing, transportation, food, and
clothing). Hispanic households were
found to spend 73 percent, allo­cating
3 percent more to food. This
difference may reflect the larger
average size of Hispanic families and
their preference for name brand and
packaged goods (3,4), which typi­cally
cost more than generic brands
and bulk goods.
Hispanics and others who are new
to this country may seek product in­formation
from commercial sources
that may not always be objective (7).
Family economists and consumer
education professionals interested in
assisting these families can develop
programs that teach new American
families how to find reliable product
information and how to compare
brands for quality. These profes­sionals
should consider the diversity
of the Hispanic population in their
planning; that is, country of origin,
length of residence in the United
States, command of the English
language, and identification with
their ethnic group. A 1986 study of
Mexican-American consumers (3)
found that those who did not identify
strongly with their ethnic group
resembled non-Hispanics more than
other Mexican-Americans in their
attitudes toward businesses, brand
loyalty, and preference for prestige
brands.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Table 4 indicates that Hispanics
allocated total expenditures to the
various expenditure categories in a
manner similar to that of black
households and not unlike white
households. Therefore, budget plan­ning
programs and materials for one
group can be adapted for the others.
Information for Hispanics, however,
may need to be available in Spanish.
References
1. Congressional Digest. Immigra­tion
Legislation. March 1986, p. 69.
2. Corchado, A. 1989. Hispanic
supermarkets are blossoming. Wall
Street Journal. January 23 issue.
3. Deshpande, R., W.D. Hoyer,
and N. Donthu. 1986. The intensity
of ethnic affiliation: A study of the
sociology of Hispanic consumption.
Journal of Consumer Research
13(2):214-220.
4. Fong, D.1986. Learning to do it
their way. Forbes. December 15
ISSUe.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
5. Fortune. 1985. Buenos dias, con­sumers.
December 23 issue.
6. Lacayo, C.G.1984. Hispanics.
In: E.B. Palmore, editor. Handbook
on the Aged in the United States, pp.
253-267.
7. Lieblich, J.1988. If you want a
big, new market.... Fortune. Novem­ber
21 issue.
8. Pitts, J.M. 1989. Expenditures
of black households-housing,
transportation, food, and clothing.
Family Economics Review 2(3):8-12.
9. U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights.1989. The Immigration
Refonn and Control Act: Assessing
the Evaluation Process.
10. U.S. Department of Com­merce,
Bureau of the Census. 1989.
Hispanic population surpasses 20
million mark: Grows by 39 percent,
Census Bureau reports. News. CB89-
158.
11. . 1988. The Hispanic
Population in the United States:
March 1985. Current Population
Reports. Population Characteristics,
Series P-20, No. 422.
12. . 1989. The Hispanic
Population in the United States:
March 1988. Current Population
Reports. Population Characteristics,
Series P-20, No. 438.
13. . 1985. We ... the
Mexican Americans, the Puerto
Ricans, the Cubans, and the
Hispanos from Other Countries in the
Carribean, Central and South
America, and from Spain. [No. 4 in
a series of 6 booklets.]
14. .1982. Persons of
Spanish Origin by State: 1980. 1980
Census of Population. Supplemen­tary
Report. PC80-S1-7.
15. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Consumer Expenditure Surveys:
Interview Survey, 1985-1986.
Unpublished data.
16. . Consumer
Expenditure Surveys: 1985 Interview
Survey. Public Use Tape and
Documentation. IS
7
Recent Trends in Clothing
and Textiles
1986. In current dollars, apparel
specialty stores increased retail
sales by 9.2 percent during the first
7 months of 1989, compared with a
6.4-percent increase registered by
general merchandise stores (3). The
percentage of personal consumption
expenditures for clothing and shoes
(in constant dollars) continued at
about the same level attained first in
1983.
By Joan C. Counless
Family Economist
Family Economics Research Group
A major determinant of consumer expendi­tures
for clothing and textiles is price. Al­though
the overall inflation rate was about
5 percent in 1989, prices for apparel com­modities
rose less than 2 percent over 1988.
In 1989 annual spending for clothing and
shoes is expected to exceed that for 1988 by
$39 per person; about half of this increase
can be attributed to higher prices and half to
increased buying. Per capita spending for
clothing and shoes in constant 1982 dollars
is estimated at $20 higher than in 1988-the
first substantial increase since 1986. Volume
of textile and apparel imports rose 13 per­cent
during the first 8 months of 1989, com­pared
with the same period in 1988. In 1988
the volume of textile imports was almost four
times as great as exports. Most U.S. textile
imports came from Asia; most exports went
to countries in the Western Hemisphere. In
1989 U.S. mill consumption of total fibers is
estimated to be up 4.8 percent from 1988
levels. Almost half of the fiber used in U.S.
apparel is cotton. Other information
presented includes current research on
fibers by USDA and others. Professionals in
clothing and textiles are provided with an
overall perspective on trends in fibers,
fabrics, and apparel.
Clothing Expenditures
and Prices
In 1989 prices for apparel com­modities,
as measured by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), rose
1.8 percent over 1988 (table 1). This
increase was less than the 5.0 per­cent
increase for the overall CPI
during the same period. 1989 was
the first year since 1984 that the rate
of increase in clothing prices was
less than the overall inflation rate.
Within the CPI clothing and foot­wear
categories, prices for women's
suits and women's coats and jackets
increased more than other clothing
items, 12.8 percent and 7.6 percent,
respectively. Most clothing items
increased 3.0 percent or less.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Annual spending for clothing and
shoes in 1989 is estimated at $799
per person, according to preliminary
figures for the first three quarters of
1989 (table 2). This amount exceeds
1988 spending by $39 per person;
approximately half of this increase
can be attributed to higher prices
and half to increased buying. When
the effect of inflation is removed
(indicated by constant dollars in
table 2), per capita expenditures
for clothing and shoes increased
substantially for the first time since
Trade in Textiles and
Apparel
In 1989 the United States
recorded its 34th consecutive
annual textile and apparel trade
deficit. In 1988 this deficit reached
$18.3 billion, 3 percent lower than
in 1987. The combined textile and
apparel trade deficit for 1989 was
higher, however; for the first 9
months of 1989 it was $19.8 billion.
The trade deficit for textiles for the
Table-1. Percent change in prices of apparel commodities,
December 1988 to September 19891
Group and item Percent change
(annualized)
All items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 5.0
Apparel commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Men's and boys' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5
Men's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
Suits, sports coats, coats, and jackets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
Furnishings and special clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 0.9
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8
Boys'... . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . .. . . .. . .. .... . .... . . . .. .... -1.7
Women's and girls' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2
Women's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0
Coats and jackets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
Dresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
Separates and sportswear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2
Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
Girls' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1.5
Infants' and toddlers' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9
Other apparel commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . 5.4
Sewing materials, notions, and luggage . . . . . . • . • . • . • . . . . . . . 0.6
Watches and jewelry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . 6.4
Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 0.6
Men's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 0.8
Boys' and girls' . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . • . . . • . 0.9
Women's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 0.2
1Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
Source: Calculated from the CPI Detailed Report, December 1988 and September 1989,
U.S. Department of Labor,.Bureau of Labor Statistics.
8
.,.,
January-June 1989 period was down
23 percent from the same period in
1988; the trade deficit for apparel
was 7 percent higher for the first
6 months of 1989 than during the
same period in 1988 (see figure 1,
p. 10) (3).
The value of textile exports,
$1.9 billion for the first 6 months of
1989 (3), was 10 percent higher than
during the same period in 1988; the
value of apparel exports, at $1 billion
for the January-June period, was up
40 percent from the same period in
1988.
Volume of textiles and apparel im­ports
(in square meters equivalent)
was up 13 percent for the first 8
months of 1989 compared with the
same period in 1988. Cotton goods
were up 4 percent; wool yardage
decreased by 5 percent; manmade
or manufactured fiber volume was
up by 11 percent; and silk blends
and noncotton vegetable fiber tex­tiles
and apparel increased by
33 percent (12). In 1988, 52 percent
of textile imporls were of cotton and
42 percent were of manufactured
fibers; in contrast, 65 percent of total
U.S. textile exporls were of manufac­tured
fibers and 32 percent were of
cotton (10). ,
Textile trading partners. In 1988
imports of textile products (in raw
fiber equivalent) were almost four
times as great as exports. About
85 percent of the negative trade
balance for textiles resulted from
imbalanced trade with Asian
countries; 70 percent of U.S. textile
imporls came from Asia, but only
26 percent of all U.S. textile exporls
went to this region (see figure 2,
p.11) (10).
In 1988 the volume of cotton im­ports
declined by 9 percent from
1987 as cotton exports increased by
11 percent. Still, the negative trade
balance for cotton textile products
made up 59 percent of the total U.S.
textile trade deficit of almost 3.1 bil­lion
raw fiber equivalent pounds.
Imports of cotton textiles from Asia
comprised 37 percent of all1988
textile imports and were the biggest
source of the imbalance (10) .
In 1988 the volume of wool textile
imports declined by 12 percent
from 1987 volume. Wool exports
increased by 31 percent, reducing
the trade imbalance for wool textile
products to 7 percent of the total
textile trade deficit (10).
American fiber manufacturers
are very positive re~arding their
progress towards reducing the trade
deficit in manufactured fibers. The
negative trade balance for manmade
or manufactured fiber textiles
decreased in 1988 as imports
declined by 4 percent and exports
expanded by 16 percent. The
manufactured fiber textile imbalance
made up 34 percent of the total U.S.
textile trade deficit. Imports of
manufactured fiber textiles from
Asian countries comprised 29 per­cent
of all1988 textile imports.
Trade with Western Hemisphere
countries in manufactured fiber
textiles provided the United States
with the only posil"fve trade balance
for textiles. Exports of manufactured
fiber textiles to these countries made
up 36 percent of all textile exports,
whereas those to Asian countries
comprised 19 percent of U.S. textile
exports (10).
Trade negotiations. The United
States and Canada entered into a
Free Trade Agreement (FT A),
effective January 1, 1989. Under the
terms of this compact, import duties
on almost all products traded be­tween
the two countries will be
phased out over the next 10 years.
Among several unresolved disputes
submitted to the binational dispute
Table 2. Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes1
Year
1982 . . ..... . ... .. . .... . . . . ..... . . . .. . .
1983 . .. .. ..... ...... . ....... ...•. . . . . .
1984 . .. . • . ... .. .... . .. .... .• . ... ... • . .
1985 .... . . . . ... ........ .... ... ... . . • . .
1986 . . . .... . . .. . . .. . .... . . .... . .. .. . . .
1987 . ... .. . . .. . . . ......... ........... .
1988 . . ... ... . .. . . . .. ... ... ... . .... . .. .
19893
. . .•. • . • . . . .... ... . . . .. .. .. . . .• ..
Per capita
expenditures2
Constant Current
dollar~ dollars
(1982)
536 536
566 577
601 620
617 655
653 692
656 728
656 760
676 799
Percent of personal Aggregate
consumption expenditures expenditures
Constant Current Billions of Billions of
dollars dollars constant current
(1982) dollars(1982) dollars
6.1 6.1 124.4 124.4
6.2 6.0 132.6 135.1
6.3 6.0 142.2 146.7
6.3 5.9 147.2 156.4
6.4 6.0 157.4 166.8
6.3 5.9 159.6 177.2
6.2 5.8 161.3 186.8
6.3 5.8 167.8 198.4
11ncludes yard goods, but excludes services such as cleaning and repairing clothing and shoes.
2Calculated by dividing aggregate expenditures for each year by population figures for July of each year.
3Preliminary figures-average of estimates for first 3 quarters of 1989 (i.e., seasonally adjusted quarterly totals at annual rates).
Sources: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, Population estimates and projections, Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, and personal communication; and U.S. Department of. Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1989,
Survey of Current Business 69(§) :8 (tables 2.2 and 2.3), and personal communication .
9 Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
..
Figure 1 U.S. trade in textiles
Millions of dollars
25,000 ,----------------------------------,
20,000
15,000
10,000
Trade surplus Imports
U.S. trade in apparel
Millions of dollars
25,000 ,-------------------------------~
20,000 ~ ·······················································································································•····· ·· ······
10,000
0
1974
Trade deficit
77
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Imports
80 83 86 89
10
Figure 2
Volume in U.S. textile trade by global region, 1988
Exports
54%
3%
settlement board is one concerning
the classification of wool apparel
imported into the United ~tates. .
Provisions in the Harmoruzed Tariff
Schedules of the United States con­sider
apparel containing, by w~ight,
36 percent wool (if woven fabnc)
and 23 percent wool (if knitted
fabric) to be wool apparel. Canada,
however, maintains that apparel
must contain, by weight, over 50 per­cent
wool to be considered wool
apparel. This is the s~cond bilat~ral
FTA in which the Uruted States IS
involved_ the other is with Israel,
established in 1985 (1).
Bilateral textile trade agreements
set to expire in 1989 were with
Egypt, El Salvador, East Germany,
Haiti, Japan, South Korea, Poland,
Romania Taiwan, Trinidad & ' . Tobago, and Yugoslavia. Failure to
renegotiate an agreement may result
in the application of unilateral
restraints put in place by the U.S.
Government to control imports (3).
There has been a new 3-year pact
signed with Czechoslovakia (2).
11
0 Western Hemisphere
[J Asia
gg Western Europe
[ill Africa, Eastern Europe
• Unaccounted
supplies, Prices, and
consumption of Fibers
In the United States the 1989
mill consumption of total fibers i~
estimated at 54.7 pounds per capita.
This includes 16.4 pounds of cotton,
0.6 pound of wool, and 37.7 po~ds
of manufactured fibers. Per capita
use in 1988 was 52.2 pounds, includ­ing
14.2 pounds of cotton, 0.5 pound
of wool, and 37.5 pounds of manufac­tured
fibers (11).
Cotton. The 1989 U.S. cotton
crop is estimated at 11.8 million
bales, down from 15.4 million in
1988. U.S. cotton exports are
estimated at 7.8 million bales for
1989/90-the highest volume since
1979/80 - based on low foreign
stocks and strong foreign mill
demand. The United States is ex­pected
to have a 31-percent share of
the world cotton trade, compared
with 25 percent in 1988/89 (11).
Cotton's share of the U.S. apparel
market is shown in table 3, p. 12.
Imports
17%
2%
4%
In 1989 textile imports were ex­pected
to account for 40 percen.t of
total domestic cotton consumptiOn,
a proportion reached first. in 1987
and again in 1988. Countnes th~t
are expected to import substantial
shares of U.S. cotton in 1989/90
include Korea ( 67 percent of cotton
imports will be from the United
States), China (60 percent}, Japan
(50 percent), and Indonesia
(39 percent) (11).
Wool. U.S. farm prices for wool
averaged 7 percent below 1988
levels for the first 8 months of 1989.
Mill consumption of apparel wool
during the first 6 months of 1989 was
8 percent above the 1988 level. Mill
consumption of carpet wool for the
January-June period was down
1 percent from a year earlier; the
1988 carpet consumption was the
largest since 1975. Import~ of raw
wool during this same penod were
about 4 percent above a year
earlier (11).
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
,.
Table 3. Cotton's share of the apparel market
Item 1988
Total apparel ..... . . . . . . . . .. .
Women's .. .... ..... .. . .. .
Men's .... . .. .......... . . .
Girls' . . . . . . ... ......... . . .
Boys' . . . ..... . . .. . .•.• . . .
Knitted apparel ......... . . .
*Data are not available.
Source: Cotton Incorporated (§).
48
40
58
48
51
42
Manmade fibers. Shipments of
manmade fibers by U.S. producers
during the first 9 months of 1989
were slightly (less than 1 percent)
above shipments a year earlier ( 4).
Developments in Fibers
and Fabrics
Agricultural Research Service
scientists in Atlanta have developed
a new wool protectant that protects
garments from moths and beetles
longer than moth balls- at least 5
years with a single application- and
has no residual odor. Tests have
shown the protectant to be effective
and durable through washings, dry
cleaning, and excessive heat or light.
The protectant is made from aver­mectin,
an antiparasitic agent
produced by a soil fungus that kills
or repels moth and carpet beetle
larvae (9).
Cotlon, a new fiber introduced by
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., is
50 percent Orion and 50 percent
cotton. Garments of Cotlon achieve
a cotton-like look and hand because
more cotton is on the outer surface
of the yarn. The dyeing capabilities
of traditional Orion are retained,
however. Cotlon will be used in
sweaters, socks, and accessories (6).
Underwear is a new application
for DuPont's CoolMax (84 percent
Dacron polyester, 16 percent Lycra
spandex). Originally developed foi'
use in activewear, the fabric is
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
1987
Percent
46
39
56
44
49
44
1986
43
35
53
41
46
*
designed to regulate body temp­erature
during prolonged physical
exertion by increasing air flow
through the fiber to wick away
moisture (7).
Trends in the Marketplace
For about 100 textile and apparel
manufacturers surveyed in fiscal
1988, there was an average gain in
sales of 9.6 percent and an average
rise in dollar profits of 8.9 percent
over 1987 figures. For the 47 com­panies
studied in the apparel sector,
however, there was a small decline
in dollar profits; one of every four
companies showed a loss (8).
Fall1989 found the men's sweater
market to be stronger than the
women's. Styles change more slowly
so that what does not sell in one
season can be held over for sale the
next year. Also, women have dis­covered
that they can buy attractive
goods that are cut bigger and priced
lower in the men's sweater depart­ment
(8).
Because wool costs much more
than cotton, yet commands a com­parable
price in sweaters at retail,
manufacturers are choosing blended
yarns of 20 percent wool and 80 per­cent
rayon, acrylic, or cotton. This
percentage of wool is reported to
provide the warm hand and natural
elasticity that are characteristic of
wool textiles ( 6).
References
1. American Textile Manufac­turers
Institute, Inc., Economic
Information Division. 1989. Textile
Hi-Lights. March issue; and personal
communication with J. Cooper.
2. . 1989. Textile Hi-
Lights. June issue.
3. . 1989. Textile Hi-
Lights. September issue.
4. Fiber Economic Bureau, Inc.
1989. Manufactured Fiber Review.
Vol. 8, No.4.
5. Keyes, A.B. 1989. Cotton
Incorporated. [Personal communica­tion
on September 29.]
6. Knitting Times. 1989. Vol. 58,
No. 4, pp. 69-71, 80.
7. . 1989. Vol. 58,
No. 8, p. 53.
8. . 1989. Vol. 58,
No. 9, pp. 47, 69.
9. U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Agricultural Research Service.
1989. Odorless, lasting protection
for wool. Agricultural Research
37(5):17.
10. . Economic
Research Service. 1989. Cotton and
Wool Situation and Outlook Report.
CWS-56.
11. . 1989. Cotton
and Wool Situation and Outlook
Yearbook. CWS-57; and personal
communication with J. Lawler.
12. U.S. Department of
Commerce, International Trade
Administration. 1989. Textile and
Apparel Import Report, August
preliminary data. &;S
12
Research Summaries
Money Income and
Poverty Status of
Households and
Families
Data on the income and poverty
status of households, families, 1 and
persons in the United States for the
calendar year 1988 were compiled
from information collected in the
March 1989 Current Population
Survey (CPS) conducted by the
Bureau of the Census. The official
income and poverty estimates are
based solely on money income
before taxes and do not include the
value of noncash benefits such as
food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid,
public housing and employer­provided
fringe benefits.
This report differs from previous
advance income reports in that year­to-
year changes in both household
and family income are analyzed.
Although estimates of income and
poverty remain based on CPI-U, this
is the first Census Bureau report to
include estimates using CPI-U-X1,
an experimental price index. CPI-U­X1
deflates weights for housing costs
to provide a slightly more conserva­tive
estimate of price increases and
poverty between 1967 and 1982.
1Households are defined as any person or
persons occupying a housing unit. Families
are defined as groups of two or more persons
related by birth, marriage, or adoption who
reside together.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Money Income
In 1988 for the second consecutive
year, real median household income
remained unchanged ($27,225, ad­justed
for a 4.1 percent increase in
consumer prices), as did real median
family income ($32,191). Real per
capita income for 1988 ($13,123)
was at an all-time high, increasing
1.7 percent over its 1987level2 (see
table, p. 14).
Grouping by demographic charac­teristics
indicates few household or
family subgroups had significant
gains in real median income between
1987 and 1988. Notably, households
in the Northeast and Midwest ex­perienced
a significant increase in
real median income (3.7 percent and
2.6 percent, respectively), whereas
households in the South or West had
no significant change. Although sub­urban
areas posted considerably
higher median household income
than central cities, only central city
households experienced a significant
increase in real median income
(3.4 percent). I
There was no significant increase
in the 1988 median incomes of white
families ($33,915), black families
($19,329), or Hispanic families
($21,769). Nearly 80 percent of all
families were married couples and
their median income was $36,389.
Black married couples were the only
2Per capita income is computed by
dividing total aggregate money income by
the total population; it is less affected by
living arrangements than household or
family income. Changes in real income refer
to comparisons after adjusting for inflation;
the percentage change in prices between
1987 and 1988 was computed by dividing the
annual average Consumer Price Index for
all urban consumers (CPI-U) for 1988 by the
annual average for 1987.
family type to realize significant
gains in real median income (6.8 per­cent).
Median 1988 family income
was highest among those with a
householder between 45 and 54
years old ($42,192), although real
income for this group declined sig­nificantly
(2.2 percent). This was the
only age group (over age 15) to
experience a change in real median
income between 1987 and 1988.
Percentages of men and women
who worked year round, full time
increased between 1987 and 1988
(67.6 percent to 68.5 percent for
men; 50.4 percent to 51.5 percent for
women). However, a significant
decrease (1.3 percent) occurred in
the median earnings ($26,656) of
men. This was the first decline in
real median income for men since
1982. Median earnings for women
($17,606) showed no significant
change from 1987 to 1988. Median
per capita income increased sig­nificantly
in 1988; increases were
higher for blacks (3.9 percent) than
for whites (1.5 percent).
Poverty
In 1988, 13.1 percent of the
Nation's population (31.9 million)
were below the official Government
poverty level, not significantly dif­ferent
from 1987. Both the number
of poor and the poverty rate have
declined since 1983 (high point), but
have remained above 1978 levels
(low point). Half the Nation's poor
were either children under 18 years
(39.5 percent) or elderly (10.9 per­cent).
Since 1975 the poverty rate for
children has been higher than for
any other age group. Rates for other
age groups showed no significant
change.
13
Comparison of household and family income in 1988 and 1987
[1988 dollars]
Characteristics
All households ... . ... ...... . . ... ....... .
Region:
Northeast .. ..... . . . . ...... ... . . . . .. .
Midwest . . . ... .... . . . . . ........ . . . . .
South ........ .. .......... ...... . . . .
West ......... ... . . . . . . .... ..... . . . .
Residence:
Inside metropolitan areas ............ . .
1 million or more ...... . ...... .. .. . .
Inside central cities . ... . . . . . ... . . . .
Outside central cities ....... . ..... .
Under 1 million . . .. . ..... . . ..... . .. .
Inside central cities . . . ..... . . ... .. .
Outside central cities ... . . .. . . ... . .
Outside metropolitan area .. . . . ... .... .
All families ..... . ......... . ............ .
Type of family:
Married-couple:
All races . .. . .. .. ... . ... . ....... . . .
White ..... .... ...... . . •.. ...... ...
Black . . . . . . .. ....... .. .. ... ... ... .
Hispanic1
•• •• • . •••••• • • • • •• ••• . •••
Female householder, no husband present:
All races ... ....... .... ....... . . . . .
White . . ..... ....... . . ..... . ... •...
Black .. . ....... . . . .. . ..... .. . ... . .
Hispanic1
•• ••• •••••• •• ••••••••••••
Age (years):
15-24 ..... . ... . . . ...... ...... .. . . .
25-34 ...... .. .... .. .... .... .... .. .
35-44 ... . • . . ... ... . ...... .. . ..... .
45-54 ..•........ . .. . . .. .. . . .. .....
55-64 ........ .. ................ .. .
65 and over .. ... . . .... .. . ........ .. .
Earnings of year-round, full-time workers:
Male .. ...... . ... . .. .... .. . . ... . . .... .
Female ..... . ... .. ..... . ... . ..... ... . .
Per capita income:
All races .. .. ... . .. . . ... ......... .. . . . .
White .............. ... .............. .
Black .................... ..... ...... .
Hispanic1 ••• •. • .. • .. ••....• . . . •• .... ..
*Significant at the 90 percent confidence level.
1Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
2Less than 0.05 percent.
1988
$27,225
30,425
27,540
24,607
28,836
29,346
31,140
24,505
36,022
26,463
23,442
28,919
21,385
32,191
36,389
36,840
30,385
25,667
15,346
17,672
10,657
10,687
16,802
29,531
38,840
42,192
35,173
21,705
26,656
17,606
13,123
13,896
8,271
7,956
1987
$27,139
29,329
26,852
24,960
29,023
29,111
31,214
23,701
36,539
26,103
23,056
28,554
21,289
32,251
36,322
36,900
28,441
25,394
15,290
17,717
10,251
10,101
17,194
29,435
38,482
43,126
34,458
21 ,849
27,019
17,611
12,904
13,687
7,961
7,970
Percent
change
0.3
*3.7
*2.6
-1.4
-0.6
0.8
-0.2
*3.4
-1.4
1.4
1.7
1.3
0.5
-0.2
0.2
-0.2
*6.8
1.1
0.4
-0.3
4.0
5.8
-2.3
0.3
0.9
*-2.2
2.1
-0.7
*-1.3
(2)
*1 .7
*1 .5
*3.9
-0.2
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, Money Income and
Poverty Status in the United States: 1988. (Advance data from the March 1989 Current
Population Survey), Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 166.
14
Poverty rates for persons by race
showed no significant change be­tween
1987 and 1988; 10.1 percent
of whites, 31.6 percent of blacks,
26.8 percent of Hispanics, and
20.0 percent of other races were in
poverty. The Northeast experienced
the lowest poverty rate (10.2 per­cent);
the South noted the highest
(16.2 percent). For the second con­secutive
year, there was no signifi­cant
difference between 1987 and
1988 poverty rates for farm (12.4 per­cent),
nonfarm (13.1 percent),
central city (18.3 percent), or
suburban areas (8.3 percent).
Poverty rates in 1988 did not sig­nificantly
change by family type.
Married-couple families experi­enced
the lowest poverty rate
(5.6 percent), followed by male
householders, no wife present
(11.8 percent) and female house­holders,
no husband present
(33.5 percent). About 48.3 percent
of all poor family householders
worked in 1988-16.4 percent
worked year round, full time.
Poverty rates tended to decrease as
the number of workers in the family
increased, from 29.8 percent for
families with no workers to 2.2 per­cent
for families with three or more
workers. Poverty rates decreased
markedly as educational level in­creased,
regardless of race. The
1988 poverty rate was 20.8 percent
for householders who had not com­pleted
high school, 8.9 percent for
high school graduates, and 3.5 per­cent
for those with over 1 year of
college. There was no significant dif­ference
in the 1987 and 1988 income
needs of poor families. The average
amount of money needed in 1988 to
raise the incomes of all poor families
to their respective poverty threshold
was $1,395 per family member.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1989, Money Income
and Poverty Status in the United States: 1988,
(Advance data from the March 1989 Current
Population Survey), Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No.166.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Single Parents and
Their Children
The substantial increase in single­parent
situations is one of the most
important recent changes in family
composition. Between 1970 and
1988, the number of single-parent
family groups more than doubled
from 3.8 million to 9.4 million. Of
the approximately 63.2 million
children under 18 years of age in
1988, 15.3 million were living with
only one parent. The data are from
the Current Population Survey for
March 1988 and earlier years, and
the 1970 decennial census. Socio­economic
characteristics of single
parents and their children are ex­amined,
and comparisons between
single-parent situations and their
two-parent counterparts are made.
Types of Single-parent Family
Situations. Most single parents
maintain their own household (they
own or rent the living quarters in
which they and their children
reside). However, not all one-parent
situations involve a distinct and
separate family household. About
22 percent of single parents live
either in a relative's home or in
some unrelated person's household.
In order to encompass all of these
types of situations, the Census
Bureau uses a "family group" con­cept
that includes not only those
single parents who are householders,
but also those who are not.
Race and Hispanic Origin of
Parents. Although almost two-thirds
(65 percent) of all single parents are
Classified as white, one-parent family
situations are more prevalent among
blacks than whites. In 1988 about
59 percent of all black family groups
with children under age 18 present
were single-parent situations, com­pared
with 22 percent for whites.
Among Hispanics (who may be of
any race), single parents represented
about 34 percent of all family groups
in which children under 18 were
present.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Sex and Marital Status of
Parents. The vast majority of one­parent
family groups are maintained
by the mother. Single mothers
accounted for about 87 percent of
all single parents. Mothers who
either had never been married or
were divorced accounted for 62 per­cent
of all single parents in 1988.
The proportion of single parents
represented by divorced mothers
has increased from 29 percent in
1970 to 33 percent in 1988, and
never-married mothers increased
from 7 percent in 1980 to 29 percent
in 1988. In contrast, the proportion
of one-parent situations maintained
by widowed women dropped from
18 percent in 1970 to 6 percent in
1988. The percentage of mothers
who maintained a family group with
a spouse absent decreased from
36 percent in 1970 to 19 percent in
1988.
Age of Parents. Single parents
tend to be slightly younger than their
counterparts in two-parent situa­tions.
In 1988 the median age of per­sons
maintaining one-parent family
groups was 33.2 years, compared
with a median age of 37.4 years for
parents maintaining two-parent
family groups. Single mothers are
likely to be younger than single
fathers. In 1988, 19 percent of single
mothers, vs. 11 percent of single
fathers, were under 25 years of age.
Ages of Children Living with One
Parent. In 1988 an estimated 5.1 mil­lion
children living with one parent
were under 6 years of age, 5.2 mil­lion
were 6 to 11 years old, and 5.1
million were 12 to 17 years of age.
Among blacks, about 6 of every 10
children under 6 years of age were
living with one parent, compared
with less than 2 of every 10 white
children under 6. Large proportions
of older black children also were
living with one parent (58 percent of
children age 6 to 11 and 57 percent
of those age 12 to 17).
Educational Level of Parents.
Children in single-parent families
are much more likely to live with a
parent who has not completed high
school than are children in two­parent
situations. In 1988 the
proportion of children living with a
parent who had not completed high
school was 32 percent among those
in single-parent family groups but
only 17 percent for those in two­parent
situations.
Labor Force Status of Parents.
In 1988 about 84 percent of children
living with both parents had a parent
who was employed full time, com­pared
with only 42 percent of
children living with the mother
alone. Among black children living
with single mothers, 34 percent had
a mother who was employed full
time, whereas 58 percent lived with a
mother who was either unemployed
or not in the labor force. Of
Hispanic children (of any race) with
single mothers, only 29 percent had
a mother working full time.
Family Income. In 1988 the
average family income of single­mother
families was $11,989, com­pared
with $23,919 for single-father
situations and $40,067 for house­holds
where both parents were
present. About 47 percent of the
children living with single mothers
were in families with income levels
below $7,500, compared with 20 per­cent
of those with single fathers and
only 4 percent of those residing with
both parents.
Source: Rawlings, S.W., 1989, Single
parents and their children, Studies in Mar­riage
and the Family, Current Population
Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23,
No. 162, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
15
American
Family Life
Trends affectillg American
families over the past two decades
indicate a movement away from
"traditional" family living and reflect
a wide variety gf lifestyles and living
arrangements. Some of these trends
include the high rate of divorce, the
delay in marriage among young
adults, the increasing tendency for
people to live alone or with unre­lated
individuals, and the increased
labor force participation of women.
The major trends are presented
through charts and text in the 1989
report, Changes in American Family
Life. This report was prepared by
the Marriage and Family Statistics
Branch of the Population Division,
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Age at First Marriage. One
hundred years ago, the median age
at first marriage was 26.1 for men
and 22.0 for women. In the mid-
1950's this age reached a low point
with a median of 22.5 for men and
20.1 for women. Since then the
median age has moved upward
gradually, and in 1988 was 25.9 for
men and 23.6 (oldest ever recorded)
for women.
Percent Single. The proportions
of men and women of prime marry­ing
age (20-34 years) who had not
yet married changed little between
1960 and 1970, but increased rapidly
between 1970 and 1988. The propor­tion
of men in their late twenties and
early thirties who have not yet mar­ried
doubled since 1970, and the
proportion of women nearly tripled.
However, it is estimated that 90 per­cent
of the population will eventually
marry.
Fertility. Since 1960 there has
been a decline in the total fertility
rate, which is defined as the esti­mated
number of children that a
woman would have at the end of
her childbearing years based on the
current fertility rate. That year the
total fertility rate was 3.7 children
per woman. The rate dropped to
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
1.8 children in 1975 and has con­tinued
at about that level through
1988. The number of births, however,
has risen dramatically since the mid-
1970's because there are many more
women of childbearing age as a
result of the baby boom.
Household and Family Size.
Changes in marital and fertility pat­terns
have resulted in a decline in
the average number of persons per
housing unit. Fewer children per
family, more one-parent families,
and larger numbers of people living ·
alone have contributed to the trend
toward smaller households and
families that began during the mid-
1960's. Averages for 1988 are at an
all-time low-2.64 persons per
household and 3.17 persons per
family.
Household Composition. The
Census Bureau has two major
categories of households: family and
nonfamily. A family household con­sists
of the householder and at least
one additional person related to the
householder through marriage,
birth, or adoption. A nonfamily
household is composed of a house­holder
who either lives alone or
exclusively with persons unrelated to
the householder. In 1960, 75 percent
of all households were married­couple
households, and 44 percent
of these households consisted of
families with children. By 1988 these
figures had dropped to 57 percent
and 27 percent, respectively. Be­tween
1960 and 1988 the percentage
of nonfamily households increased
from 15 percent to 28 percent (see
figure).
Families by Type. Families are
classified into three categories:
married-couple, female householder
with no husband present, and male
householder with no wife present.
Between 1970 and 1988 the propor­tion
of families maintained by female
householders increased from 9 per­cent
to 13 percent of white families,
28 percent to 43 percent of black
families, and for Hispanic families
(who may be of any race) from 21
percent in 1976 to 23 percent in 1988.
Living Arrangements of Children.
In 1988, 24 percent of children
under age 18 were living with only
one parent, compared with 12 per­cent
in 1970 and 9 percent in 1960.
Nearly 9 in 10 children in a single­parent
situation live with the mother.
Black children had the highest
proportion living with one parent:
54 percent compared with 19 per­cent
of white children and 30 per­cent
of Hispanic children. It is
estimated that 60 percent of children
born today will spend some portion
of their childhood in a one-parent
situation. In 1988, 38 percent of the
children in a one-parent situation
lived with a divorced parent and
31 percent with a never-married
parent; in 1960 the proportions
were 23 percent and 4 percent,
respectively.
Labor Force Characteristics of
Mothers with Newborn Children. In
1988, 51 percent of women age 18 to
44 years with a child less than 1 year
old were in the labor force, up from
31 percent in 1976 (the first year the
Census Bureau recorded these statis­tics).
There were 1.9 million women
with newborns in the labor force in
June 1988, indicating the growing
need for child care services.
Employment Status of Husband
and Wife. Between 1976 and 1987,
among married couples with the wife
between 18 and 44 years of age,
there was a substantial increase in
the proportion of married-couple
families with children in which both
partners worked - from 33 percent
to 46 percent. During the same
period, the proportion with only the
husband employed dropped from
43 percent to 28 percent.
Primary Child Care Arrange­ments.
Working women with
preschool-age children use a wide
variety of child care arrangements.
In 1985, 31 percent of preschoolers
with a working mother were cared
for in the child's home- principally
by the child's father, 37 percent
were cared for in another home,
23 percent attended organized child
care, and 8 percent were cared for
by their mother while she worked
either at or away from home.
16
Household composition: 1960 to 1988
(In percent)
5.6
8.7 11.5
1.7
1960 1970
Educational Attainment of
Parents. The educational level at­tained
by parents increased'greatly
between 1960 and 1988. The propor­tion
of household heads in married­couple
families with 4 or more years
of college increased from 12 percent
to 26 percent, while the proportion
who completed less than 4 years of
high school decreased from 50 per­cent
to 16 percent. Similarly, the
proportion of mothers in mother­child
families with 4 or more years of
college increased from 4 percent to
10 percent and the proportion who
completed less than 4 years of high
school decreased from 62 percent to
28 percent.
17
8.6
9.7
14.0 14.4
1.7 3.6
1980 1988
Median Family Income by Type of
Family. Median family income of
married-couple families in 1987 was
$34,700, compared with $14,620 for
families maintained by women with
no husband present. The real
median income of married-couple
families more than doubled between
1947 and 1987, while the real median
income of families maintained
by women alone grew by only
32 percent.
Poverty Status of Families with
Children. In 1988, 16 percent of
families with children present lived
in poverty, down from 20 percent in
1960. Black families with children
were the most likely to be poor in
1988 (37 percent), followed by
Hispanic families (32 percent);
white families were least likely to be
poor (12 percent).
B Family households
D Nonfamily households
Married couples with own
children under 18
Married couples without children
Other families with own
children under 18
Other families without children
Men living alone
Women living alone
Other nonfamily household
Child Support. Of the 4.4 million
women who were supposed to
receive child support in 1985, only
about half received the full amount
due, and the remaining women
received either partial payment or
no payment at all. Women who
received voluntary payments were
much more likely (66 percent) to
receive the full amount due than
were women who received court­ordered
payments (38 percent).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1989, Changes in
American Family Life, Current Population
Reports, Special Studies, Series P·23,
No.l63 . .
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
The Black
Population in the
United States, 1988
The black population numbered
29.3 million in 1988, and constituted
12.2 percent of the total population,
according to the March 1988
Current Population Survey (CPS).1
Since the 1980 decennial census, the
black population has grown faster
than the white population (14 per­cent
and 10 percent, respectively).
Most of the growth of the black
population (84 percent) was caused
by greater numbers of births than
deaths. Immigration, which has in­creased
substantially since 1970 for
the black population, accounted for
the remaining 16 percent.
The median age for blacks in­creased
to 27.3 years in 1988 from
24.8 years in 1980. The median age
for black males (25.8) was lower
than the median age for black
females (28.6) reflecting the longer
life expectancy of females. Histori­cally,
the black population has had a
younger median age than the white
population, partly because of the
1 The CPS is conducted by the Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
The population universe for the March 1988
CPS is the civilian noninstitutional popula­tion
of the United States plus members of the
Armed Forces in the United States living off
post or with their families on post, but
excludes all other members of the Armed
Forces.
higher fertility rate of blacks. Declin­ing
fertility and the aging of the baby
boom population were major factors
responsible for the aging of both
population groups.
In 1988 the ratio of black females
to black males was 100 to 88. Among
whites, however, there were 100
females for every 96 males. The
greater number of females in the
black population may be related to
lower mortality rates for females and
possible under counting of black
males in the decennial census.
The proportion of black young
adults (25 to 34 years old) who were
high school graduates increased
from 75 percent to 80 percent
between 1980 and 1988. The corres­ponding
figure for whites was
87 percent in both years. There was
no significant difference in the
proportion of black young adults
who completed 4 years of college
or more -12 percent in 1980 and
13 percent in 1988.
The 1980's was the first decade in
this century to show an increase in
the proportion of blacks living in the
South. In 1988, 56 percent of all
blacks lived in the South, compared
with 52 percent in 1980 (see table).
Unlike the black population, the
majority (68 percent) of whites lived
in the North and West. About 32 per­cent
of the white population lived in
the South in 1988, representing a
slight increase from 1980.
Eighty-two percent of the black
population lived in metropolitan
areas in 1988, compared with 77 per­cent
of whites. Blacks continued to
Distribution of the population by region and race, 1988
Numbers
be heavily concentrated in central
cities within metropolitan areas;
over half (57 percent) of all blacks
lived in central cities, compared with
27 percent of whites. In the subur­ban
portion of metropolitan areas,
however, the percentage of whites
was twice that of blacks (50 percent
and 25 percent, respectively).
Although a smaller proportion
of black than white families was
headed by married couples, the per­centage
for both groups declined
from 1980 to 1988. For blacks, the
percentage decreased from 56 per­cent
to 51 percent; for whites, from
86 percent to 83 percent. The
proportion of black families main­tained
by women with no spouse
present was 43 percent in 1988 and
40 percent in 1980. Few black
families were maintained by men
with no spouse present, 6 percent in
1988 and 4 percent in 1980.
Median family income in 1987
for blacks was $18,100, 56 percent
of that for whites ($32,270). After
adjusting for inflation, the median
income for both black and white
families in 1987 was not significantly
different from their 1979 levels
($18,220 and $32,090, respectively).
Income levels, however, were not
stagnant during this period, but fluc­tuated
with the economic conditions
of the country. Real median money
income for black families declined
by 12 percent from 1979 to 1982 (at
the end of the most recent reces­sion),
then increased by 13 percent
between 1982 and 1987. Real
median money income for white
Percent Black
(In millions) distribution as a
All All percent
Region races Black White races Black White of total
Total . ........ . ....... 241.2 29.3 203.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 12.2
South .... . ......... 82.5 16.4 64.8 34.2 55.9 31 .8 19.9
Northeast .. ......... 49.7 4.8 43.6 20.6 16.5 21.4 9.8
Midwest . . .......... 59.1 5.6 52.4 24.5 19.1 25.7 9.4
West . .. .... ........ 49.8 2.5 43.1 20.6 8.5 21 .1 5.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, The Black Population of the United States: March 1988, Current Popula­tion
Reports, Series P-20, No. 442.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review 18
families followed a similar pattern
between 1979 and 1987.
In 1987 the median income of
black married-couple families
($27,180) was about 77 percent that
of white married-couple families.
Income levels are much lower in
families maintained by women with
no husbands present. In 1987 the
median income of black female­householder
families with no hus­bands
present was only $9,710.
. Among black year-round ' full- time workers, median earnings of
females in 1987 ($16,000) were
about 84 percent of those of their
male counterparts ($19,010), up
from 74 percent in 1979. This nar­rowing
of the gap resulted from an
increase in median earnings for
black female workers. Median earn­ings
for black males in 1987 were not
statistically different from their 1979
level. Among white year-round full­time
workers, median earnings,of
women in 1987 were only 64 percent
of those for men. Of these four
groups, white men had the highest
median earnings in 1987 ($26,680).
The 1987 poverty rate for blacks
(33 percent) was three times that of
whites (11 percent). Among blacks,
45 percent of all related children
under 18 years of age in families,
34 percent of all persons 65 years
and over, and 68 percent of families
with a female householder (no hus­band
present) were poor. Com­parable
proportions for whites
were 15 percent, 10 percent, and
46 percent, respectively.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census, 1989, The Black '
Population of the United States: March 1988,
Current Population Reports, Series P-20,
No.442.
19
Occupational
Change
Most individuals will change
occupations at some point in their
work life. Occupational change
can occur for many reasons- a
teenager changing summer jobs,
an employee's promotion or career
change, or an individual forced to
change occupations after losing a
job.
A supplement to the January 1987
Current Population Survey (CPS)
collected data about occupational
mobility, occupational tenure and . . ' trme :v'~th current employer. Nearly
10 mtllton persons changed jobs in
1986; the majority (8.7 million) did
so voluntarily, citing better pay,
advancement opportunity, or work­ing
conditions as their reason for
switching.
Occupational Mobility
The distribution of employment
by occupation reflects the choices of
individual workers and the demand
structure of the overall economy.
Workers bring their experience
abilities, and desires for certain'
types and conditions of work to the
marketplace. The occupational
demand they encounter reflects
current technological and economic
conditions. For example, the present
demand for computer technicians .
would have been unimaginable a few
decades ago. Occupational mobility
allows individual workers to improve
their job satisfaction through in­c~~
ased pay, status, and responsi­btltty,
or better working conditions.
The occupational mobility rate
expresses the occupationally mobile
population as a percentage of the
persons employed. The occupational
mobility rate for the January 1986-
January 1987 period was 9.9 percent
similar to the 9.7 percent rate for '
January 1982-January 1983 when the
data were last collected. Rates of
occupational mobility have been fair­ly
stable over the last 20 years (see
table, p. 20).
Nearly 7 in 10 workers who volun­tarily
changed occupations reported
receiving higher earnings in their
new jobs, compared with 2 in 10 who
received the same earnings and 1 in
10 who reported lower earnings. Per­s_
ons who cited lower earnings most
hkely changed jobs for better work­ing
conditions or advancement op­portunities,
which they expected
would lead to higher pay. Other
reasons for a voluntary employment
change included "moved to a dif­ferent
residence," a reason most
often given by young persons. One­quarter
of the workers who changed
occupations, including more than a
third of those age 55 and over, cited
"other reasons," which most likely
included retirement-related
decisions.
Age is a key factor in determining
occupational mobility. Because most
voluntary job changers (92 percent)
are under age 45, the data do not
support the concept of "mid life
career changes." Older workers
with many years of seniority may
jeopardize accumulated benefits and
pension rights and experience some
loss in earnings when changing
occupations. However, younger
workers typically have lower
earnings and less attachment to
geographic residence or lifestyle,
and they are more likely to shop for
an occupation to maximize lifetime
earnings and satisfaction.
In 1986 more than half of workers
age 25 and over who changed
occupations voluntarily had 3 or
~ore years experience in the occupa­twn
they left. The occupational
mobility rate for these workers was
only 2.2 percent, however. In con­trast,
over half of persons age 25
and over who voluntarily changed
occupations had been with their
present finn less than 1 year.
In recent years, gender has had a
very small impact on mobility rates.
Occupational mobility rates for
women and men in 1986 (age 18 and
over, not in school) were 10.0 per­cent
and 9.2 percent, respectively.
Two decades earlier, the occupa­tional
mobility rate for women was
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Occupational mobility rates for employed civilians by sex and age,
selected years, 1965--87
Sex and age
Men (years):
Total, 18 and older, not in school ..... .
Total, 16 and older ................ .
16- 19 ......................... .
20-24 ......................... .
25-34 ......................... .
35-44 ......................... .
45-54 ......................... .
55-64 ......................... .
65 and older .................... .
Women (years):
Total, 18 and older, not in school ..... .
Total, 16 and older ................ .
16- 19 ......................... .
20-24 ......................... .
25-34 ........................ ..
35-44 ......................... .
45-54 ......................... .
55-64 ........................ ..
65 and older .................... .
1965-66
9.8
28.5
13.8
7.4
5.2
3.8
2.7
6.8
14.9
8.5
5.3
4.7
2.4
1.8
1977-78
Percent
11.5
11.9
35.9
27.3
15.5
8.1
4.5
3.4
2.0
11.7
12.2
36.0
22.9
14.4
9.3
5.1
3.6
2.5
1986-87
9.2
9.6
29.4
22.2
11.4
7.0
4.7
2.7
1.2
10.0
10.4
28.7
21.0
11.8
8.5
4.9
3.2
1.1
Note: Occupational mobility rates are the number of persons employed in a different
occupation in the prior year as a proportion of the total employed in both years.
Dash indicates data not available.
Source: Markey, J.P. and W. Parks II, 1989, Occupational change: Pursuing a different kind
of work, Monthly Labor Review 112@:3-12, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
6.8 percent compared with 9.8 per­cent
for men. Since 1978 rates for
women have risen above those for
men, indicating that women are
taking advantage of the growing
career opportunities available to
them.
All men voluntarily changed
occupations at a uniform rate­about
5 percent- regardless of
race. White women, however,
changed occupations at a higher
rate (5.9 percent) than black
(3.8 percent) or Hispanic women
(3.6 percent). This may reflect lower
educational attainment among black
and Hispanic women or occupation­al
segregation. Persons with less
education generally had a lower rate
of job change. Single workers, com­prising
40 percent of all workers who
changed jobs voluntarily, had a
higher mobility rate than married
workers in almost every age group.
About one-third of voluntary job
shifting during 1986 occurred within
20
broad occupational groups. This sug­gests
"in-career" rather than "new­career"
movement. Other occupa­tional
changes were often between
closely related fields such as sales
and management, craft and repair
occupations, and machine operators
and inspectors.
Involuntary Occupational
Change
About one in eight persons who
changed occupations, or nearly 1.3
million workers, lbst or were laid off
from a job. About three-quarters of
those workers were displaced from
their previous job as a result of a
plant closing or moving, slack work,
or the abolishment of positions or
shifts. The displaced worker initially
faces several labor market choices.
One option is to withdraw from the
labor force. In January 1988, about
one in seven of the nearly 5 million
workers displaced between 1983 and
1988 were out of the labor force.
Half of those persons who departed
the labor force were age 55 or older.
Most displaced workers find
new jobs. The survey of workers
displaced between 1983 and 1988
found that about half of those who
reentered the work force were in
occupations different from those
they had lost. This suggests that the
declining demand for labor in the
original occupation may have been
an important factor in the displace­ment,
or that the lost jobs were con­centrated
in declining industries.
Among workers who changed
occupations upon displacement,
about two-thirds had left industries
where employment was stagnating
or declining (manufacturing, mining,
and construction) and moved to
more robust industries. Workers
were much less likely to be dis­placed
from the service-producing
industries. Displaced workers with
new occupations were more likely to
experience occupational downgrad­ing;
two-thirds cited lower earnings
in their new jobs.
More than one-quarter of those
age 25 or over who changed
occupations reported starting work
within one week of their separation.
Another quarter, however, had been
out of work 15 weeks or more. The
median number of weeks of job
displacement was 7.5 for both sexes.
A higher proportion of women than
men were out of work 15 weeks or
longer-30 percent compared with
22 percent. Time out of work did not
seem to be strongly related to age.
Source: Markey, J.P. and W. Parks II,
1989, Occupational change: Pursuing a dif­ferent
kind of work, Monthly Labor Review
112(2):3-12, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
j
Reasons for Not
Working: Poor
and Nonpoor
Householders
In 1986 about 80 percent of non­poor
(income above the poverty
level) heads of family households­householders-
worked, down from
90 percent in 1959. In comparison,
about 50 percent of the poor (in­come
below the poverty level)
worked at all in 1986, down from
68 percent in 1959. These data are
based on the official poverty figures
from the Bureau of the Census and
labor force activity as measured in
the Current Population Survey.1
Although the proportions of poor
and nonpoor householders working
year round or part year have been
fairly stable in the 1980's, between
1959 and 1979 the proportion of
working poor declined by 19 per­cent.
The increase in the proportion
of poor families headed by women
(from 23 percent in 1959 to 51 per­cent
in 1986) is the single most im­portant
factor that explains the drop
in work force participation by poor
householders. The increased labor
force participation of women that
has characterized the past quarter of
a century has not included poor
women who maintain a family with
no spouse present. For these
women, the proportion working year
round or part year decreased from
43 percent in 1959 to 40 percent in
1986.
Of the approximately 57.5 million
households with a family income
above the poverty level in 1986,
65 percent of the heads worked year
round, 15 percent worked part year,
and 19 percent did not work at all
Lrfie Current Population Survey is a
monthly household survey, conducted for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, by the Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce. For a description
of the Federal Government's official poverty
definition, see Poverty in the United States:
19R6, Current Population Reports, Series
P-60, No. 160 (U.S. Department of Com­merce,
Bureau of the Census, 1988).
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
(see table). About half of those who
worked part year said they did so be­cause
they were unable to fmd year­round
work and most of those who
did not work were retired. In con­trast,
of the approximately 7 million
households with a family income
below the poverty line in 1986,
21 percent of the heads worked
year round, 29 percent worked part
year, and 50 percent did not work
at all. As with nonpoor households,
the majority of those who worked
part year said they did so because
they were unable to find full-year
work; family reasons were also cited.
Work status of poor and nonpoor family householders in 1986,
by reason
Work status and reason Poor Non poor
Percent
All householders:
Worked year round . ...... ..... ... . . . . .. . .. ... . .. . 20.7 65.1
Worked part year .... . ... . .. .. .. .. ... .. . . . ...... . 29.1 14.6
Unable to find full-year work ..... . . ... . . ..... . ... . 16.0 6.8
Ill or disabled .... . ..... .. .. .... .... ... . . . . . ... . 2.6 1.8
Family reasons .. . . . ... . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . 5.6 1.0
Other reasons 1
••.• • ••••••. . • •..•. ..... ....... •. 4.9 5.0
Did not work . . .......... ...... .. . . ....... . . . ... . 49.7 19.0
Ill or disabled .. . ... . . ..... ..... . ...... ... ... .. . 11.9 3.3
Retired ... . .......... . . ... . . . ..... . . . ...... . . . 8.4 13.1
20.1 1.9
9.3 0.7
Family reasons ... .. ... .... .... . .... . . . . .. .. . . . .
Other reasons 1
... . . . . .••••••• .. •.•...•.•.• . ••••
In Armed Forces ..... .... .. ..... . ............... . 0.5 1.3
Male householders:2
Worked year round . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ........ . 28.9 65.9
Worked part year ................ . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . 31 .3 14.5
Unable to find full-year work .............. . . . ... . . 21 .7 6.9
Ill or disabled . ........... ... . . ....... . . . .... . . . 2.6 1.7
Other reasons 1
...••• •. .•• • . . ...... ...•....•• ••• 7.0 5.9
Did not work .. .. .. . ...... ... . . . . . . ........ . .... . 38.9 18.2
Ill or disabled ............ . ....... . . . . . ... . . . . . . 14.1 3.0
Retired . .. .. ... . . .. . ..... .. . .. ............. . . . 14.4 13.5
Other reasons 1
. . • . .... .. •. . . . ..•••... . . ..... . . . 10.4 1.7
In Armed Forces .... . . . . ....... . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . 0.9 1.4
Female householders:
Worked year round ...................... .. . . ... . . 13.0 59.1
Worked part year .. .. ..... . .. . ... . . . . . .... . ..... . 27.2 15.6
Unable to find full-year work . . . . .. ... .. .. . . . . . ... . 10.7 6.2
Ill or disabled . ........ . . ...... .. . ... .. . .. . .... . 2.6 2.3
9.6 3.2
4.3 3.9
Family reasons ... . ... . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .
Other reasons 1
••••••••••• • •••••• . •••. .. .. .. . ...
Did not work ... ... . . .. . ......... .. ....... . . . ... . 59.9 25.3
Ill or disabled . .. ...... . .... . ........... . . ..... . 9.7 5.4
Retired . . . . .... . . . . . .......... .. . . ... . .. . ... . . 2.8 10.2
35.8 8.5
11.6 1.2
Family reasons . ........ . ... . . . .. .. . ...... . .... .
Other reasons 1
. ..... . ............ . . . .. . ....... .
1For part-year work, this category includes "going to school" and other uncoded responses.
For those who did not work all year, this category includes "going to school," "unable to
find work," and other uncoded reasons. For male householders, "family reasons" also are
included in th is category.
2Data are for families in which no spouse was present and for all married-couple families.
Source: Littman, M.S., 1989, Reasons for not working: Poor and non poor householders,
Monthly Labor Review 122(§):16-21, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
21
For those not working at all, family
reasons were reported most
frequently, followed by illness or
disability, other reasons, and
retirement.
Male Householders
Of non poor households headed
by a male householder either with or
without a spouse present, 66 percent
worked year round, 15 percent
worked part year, 18 percent did not
work, and 1 percent were in the
Armed Forces. For their poor
counterparts, 29 percent worked
year round, 31 percent worked part
year, 39 percent did not work, and
1 percent were in the Armed Forces.
The proportion of part-year
workers who said they were unable
to find full-year work has increased
substantially for the poor, from
48 percent in 1978 to 70 percent in
1986. Among the nonpoor, inability
to find full-year work was declared
the reason for working part year by
45 percent in 1986.
Reasons for not working were
quite different for poor and nonpoor
male householders. About three­fourths
of non poor male house­holders
who did not work said they
were retired, compared with 37 per­cent
of poor male householders.
Almost as many (36 percent) poor
male householders did not work
because of illness or disability; other
reasons were cited by 27 percent
and included "inability to find work"
(13 percent), "keeping house"
(9 percent), and "in school"
(3 percent).
Female Householders
Work status characteristics for
poor women maintaining families
without a spouse differ considerably
from those for poor men. About
40 percent of poor female house­holders
worked at all in 1986, about
the same proportion as in 1978, but
higher than the 36 percent who
worked in 1982. In 1986 approxi­mately
13 percent worked year
round, full time, a figure below that
of poor male householders and
22
considerably below that for non poor
female householders (59 percent).
Poor and nonpoor female house­holders
are likely to be in different
stages of the life cycle. Although
40 percent of non poor female house­holders
gave retirement as the
reason for not working in 1986, only
5 percent of poor female house­holders
were retired. Also, poor
female householders were less likely
than their nonpoor counterparts to
report illness or disability as the
reason for not working (16 percent
vs. 21 percent). The majority (60 per­cent)
of poor nonworking women
gave family reasons as the cause for
not working, compared with 34 per­cent
of non poor women.
Considering only female family
householders with children under
age 6 helps control for the life cycle
differences between poor and non­poor
female householders. In 1986
the majority (61 percent) offemale
householders with children under
age 6 had incomes below the poverty
level. Only 40 percent of poor
women with children under age 6
worked, compared with 88 percent
of non poor women. The proportion
for the nonpoor has increased from
about 73 percent in the mid-1960's,
while that for the poor is the same as
in 1965, fluctuating only a little over
the years. More than half of poor
women with children under age 6
gave family reasons as the cause of
their limited work year or lack of
work outside the home in 1986; only
11 percent of non poor women in a
similar situation cited family
reasons. Families with children
under age 6 and a female house­holder
accounted for about one in
four poor families and for about half
of all poor families with a female
householder. In contrast, families
with children under age 6 and a
female householder were only about
2 percent of the non poor families.
Source: Littman, M.S., 1989, Reasons for
not working: Poor and nonpoor house­holders,
Monthly Labor Review 122(li):16-21,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
" J
CURRENT REGIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT
S-191. Farm Wife's
External Employment,
Family Economic
Productivity and
Family Functioning
Administrative advisor:
S.J. Ritchey
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Cooperating States: Auburn
University (Alabama), University of
Illinois, Louisiana State University,
University of Nebraska, University
of North Carolina, Virginia Polytech­nic
Institute and State University,
and Virginia State University
Project dates: October 1983 to
September 1989
Objectives: To assess (1) the
relationship between external
employment of wives and the
economic functioning of the farm
family and (2) the relationship be­tween
external employment of wives
and the interpersonal relationships
of the farm family.
Approach: About 1,200 farm
families were surveyed via mailed
questionnaires using an instrument
and sample selection criteria devel­oped
by the technical committee.
Both husbands and wives were asked
to respond. Scales and measures
relating to family economic well­being,
household and farm labor
management activities, consumption
of goods and services, family roles,
marital adjustment, and child care
arrangements were included in the
instrument along with demographic
information. Data were analyzed by
each cooperating State.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Progress: Several manuscripts from
this project were published in a
special theme issue of the Home
Economics Research Journal: Off­Farm
Employment Patterns and
Effects. In 1988 researchers from
five States presented a panel discus­sion
on farm life committment at the
50th annual conference of the
National Council on Family Rela­tions
(NCFR). A chapter entitled,
"The history of recent farm legisla­tion:
Implications for farm families,"
was written for an NCFR text,
Families in Rural America: Stress,
Adaptation and Revitalization,
published in 1988.
Findings: Although most husbands
and wives expressed dissatisfaction
with farm income, most were satis­fied
with their off-the-farm income
and their standard of living. Off­farm
employment contributed to
increased stress in the marital
relationship. Working wives with a
college education were most likely to
express dissatisfaction. (Alabama)
Husbands were depressed about
their way of life and financial situa­tion
more often than wives, but wives
were significantly less satisfied with
the time available and the work they
did. Husbands felt too tired or ill to
do work in and around the house
more than wives. Husbands made
the financial decision on money
expenditures more frequently than
wives. (Illinois)
Lifestyle satisfaction was affected
adversely by the number of roles
performed by farm women: spousal,
parent, housekeeper, farm work,
and off-farm work. Also, financial
security decreased with each addi­tional
role. Parenthood satisfaction
and marital happiness were unre­lated
to the number of roles.
(Louisiana)
Wives' off-farm employment
status was significantly related to
wives' feelings about time use in
selected household and farm tasks.
Generally, higher proportions of
employed than unemployed wives
wanted to increase their time for
these tasks. Off-farm employment
status was not related to the
debt/asset ratio. (North Carolina)
Women's off-farm employment
appears to impact more negatively
on women's overall lifestyle satisfac­tion
than on men's. (Virginia)
Selected publications:
Draughn, P.S., et al. 1988. Multiple
roles, lifestyles satisfaction, and
marital happiness among farm wives.
Home Economics Research Journal
17(1):63-76.
Godwin, D.D.1988. Farm wives'
preferences, time allocation, and
off-farm employment status. Home
Economics Research Joumal
17(1):110-124.
Hafstrom, J.L. and M. Paynter. 1987.
Research and development- costs
and benefits of nonfarm employment
for farm families. In: V.L. Hampton,
editor. American Council on Con­sumer
Interests- D1e Proceedings,
p. 291. Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual Conference of the American
Council on Consumer Interests.
[Denver, CO, April1988].
Knaub, P.K., et al. 1988. Wives
employed off the farm: Impact on
lifestyle satisfaction. Home
Economics Research Joumal
17(1):36-46.
Little, L.F., et al. 1988. Impact of
women's off-farm employment on
marital adjustment. Home
Economics Research Joumal
17(1):47-62.
Little, L.F., et al. 1987. History of
farm legislation: Implications for
farm families. Family Relations: A
Joumal of Applied Family and Child
Studies 36( 4):402-406.
Wozniak, P.J., P.S. Draughn, and
K.L. Perch. 1988. A multi-State
study of off-farm employment.
Home Economics Research Joumal
17(1):10-19.
23
Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, February 1990, U.S. average1
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
20-50 years . ..... ... ......... . $47.70 $60.60 $74.70 $93.20 $206.60 $262.30 $323.50 $403.50
51 years and over .... .. . ... . . ... 45.20 58.30 71 .90 85.90 196.00 252.70 311.60 372.30
Familyof4:
Couple, 20- 50 years and children-
1 - 2 and 3 - 5 years . . ... ....... 69.40 87.00 106.30 130.70 300.40 376.60 460.60 566.30
6 - 8 and 9 - 11 years • 0 ••••••• 0. 79.50 102.10 127.60 153.90 344.20 442.10 552.80 666.80
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
1 -2 years ..... ... ....... . ..... 12.50 15.30 17.80 21.50 54.20 66.20 77.30 93.20
3-5 years ••••••••• 0 ••••••••• •• 13.50 16.60 20.60 24.50 58.40 71 .90 89.20 106.30
6-8 years ..... ... .......... ... 16.50 22.00 27.50 32.10 71.40 95.30 119.10 139.10
9- 11 years 0 •••••• • • • 0 •• ••• ••• • 19.60 25.00 32.20 37.10 85.00 108.30 139.60 160.90
Male:
12-14years ..... .... ........ .. 20.50 28.40 35.30 41.40 88.90 122.90 153.10 179.50
15- 19 years 0 •••• 0 ••• 0 ••• •••• • • 21.20 29.30 36.40 42.10 91 .80 127.10 157.70 182.60
20-50 years 0 •••• • •• 0 0. 0 • •• • • •• 22.70 29.30 36.50 44.20 98.20 126.80 158.00 191.40
51 years and over •••••• 0 •••••••• 20.60 27.80 34.20 41.00 89.30 120.60 148.20 177.80
Female:
12-19years 0. 0 •••••• • ••••• 0 ••• 20.50 24.70 29.90 36.20 88.90 106.80 129.70 156.80
20-50 years ••••••• 0 ••••••••••• 20.70 25.80 31.40 40.50 89.60 111 .70 136.10 175.40
51 years and over ••••• •• • 0 •••• • 0 20.50 25.20 31.20 37.10 88.90 109.10 135.10 160.70
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 (g). The costs of the food plans are estimated by updating prices paid by
households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA updates these survey prices using information
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report, table 3, to estimate the costs for the food plans.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested:
1-person -add 20 percent; 2-person -add 10 percent; 3-person -add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person -subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person­subtract
10 percent.
24 Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 =
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 .............. .
Housefurnishings .. . . . .................. . . . . . . .
Housekeeping supplies .................. .. .... .
Housekeeping services ........................ .
Apparel and upkeep .... . ......................... .
Apparel commodities . . .. .. . . .. . . . . ....... ... . . . .
Men's and boys' apparel ... . . . ............... . . .
Women's and girls' apparel ..... ......... . ..... .
Infants' and toddlers' apparel .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
Footwear .. .... . ......... ... . . . . . . ... . ....... .
Apparel services . . .. . ...... . . ....... . . . . ... . .. . .
Transportation ... . ...... .. .. . . .. . ... ..... . . .... .. .
Private transportation ... . .•............. . ........
New veh icles .. . ..... . . . . . ................... .
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.
Vol. 3 No. 2 Family Economics Review
February
1990
128.0
131.3
132.1
131 .0
126.1
136.6
143.5
141.0
134.5
120.8
124.6
115.9
110.2
95.4
108.3
112.8
106.9
123.5
118.4
120.4
118.3
117.0
117.7
124.3
114.5
132.9
117.1
115.6
122.2
117.4
90.6
127.6
140.8
102.1
149.3
136.7
157.5
158.6
157.2
152.3
130.4
122.5
140.5
154.7
128.4
126.0
130.9
165.6
169.7
165.6
100)
Unadjusted indexes
January December February
1990 1989 1989
127.4 126.1 121 .6
130.4 127.4 122.9
131 .0 126.5 122.0
130.3 129.8 125.2
125.9 124.9 121 .1'
136.3 135.6 130.3
142.0 140.1 136.3
141.1 140.9 134.7
134.1 134.0 131 .2
120.4 119.5 117.1
123.7 122.2 119.9
116.0 115.8 113.4
110.8 108.4 105.9
113.1 88.7 81.4
107.5 107.0 104.9
112.1 111 .7 110.9
106.1 105.5 105.9
123.2 123.6 117.7
117.9 117.6 116.8
116.7 119.2 115.3
114.3 117.1 113.3
116.3 118.8 114.2
112.0 116.4 111.4
112.7 115.3 118.8
113.1 114.7 112.7
132.4 131.3 127.8
117.2 115.2 111 .6
115.9 113.9 110.3
122.4 121 .9 119.5
118.9 119.7 120.5
91.4 85.8 80.3
127.3 126.9 123.3
140.3 139.0 134.3
101.9 102.3 101 .2
148.7 146.9 141.4
134.2 131 .7 128.1
155.9 154.4 145.2
156.9 156.0 145.8
155.7 154.1 145.1
151 .1 149.9 143.5
129.9 129.1 124.3
122.3 121 .6 118.4
139.8 138.8 132.3
154.0 152.9 144.1
127.6 127.1 123.2
125.1 124.7 121 .9
130.3 129.7 124.4
165.1 164.0 154.4
167.9 164.0 155.0
165.1 164.2 154.6
25