|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
|
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
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Family Economics Review [1990, Volume 3, Number 2] |
Date | 1990 |
Contributors (group) |
Institute of Home Economics (U.S.) United States. Agricultural Research Service Consumer and Food Economics Research Division Consumer and Food Economics Institute (U.S.) United States Science and Education Administration United States. Agricultural Research Service United States Agricultural Research Service Family Economics Research Group |
Subject headings | Home economics--Accounting--Periodicals |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | 8 v. ; $c 27 cm. |
Publisher | Washington, D.C. : U.S. Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 77.245:3/2 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5482 |
Full-text | 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 |
OCLC number | 888048791 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
G |
|
H |
|
N |
|
P |
|
U |
|
W |
|
|
|