Family Economics Review [Sept. 1959]

              .}T / F r Building U::;e Only )
MICS
E\V
Institute of Home Economits, !gricultural Research Service.,
UN ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRitULTURE lilli'!lli.illi!!IDlih!iffP!iiE!
Prepared for home demonstration agents and home economics specialists of the
Agricultural Extension Service, this publication r eports current developments
in f amily and food economics, and economic aspects of home management.
CONTENTS
STUDIES CONTRIBUTE 'ID RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.. . ........... 1
AGE OF THE HOMEMAKER AND FOOD CONSUMPTION OF THE HOUSEHOLD. • • 6
rl ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD--U.S.A. AVERAGE
AND FOUR RIDIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 10
AN ADAPTATION OF THE LOW-COST FOOD PLAN FOR THE SOUTH........ 15
TEXTILE FIBER IDENTIFICATION................................. 18
CHANGES JN INCOME AND SPENDJNG OF CITY WORKER FAMILIES ••••• ; • 19
MONEY INCOME OF AGED PERSONS................................. 23
1960 CEriTSUS • . • . . . • • . • . • . . . • • . . . • . • • • • • • • . • • . . • • . • • . • . . • . • • • • • 26
m coMES SHIF'T tJPW.AR.D. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28
CO NS'LJ1v1E!R. PR.I C:ES • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29
ARs 62-5
Sept ember 1959 Washington, D. C.
I
STUDIES CONTRIBUTE TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The primary purpose of the Rural Development Program, initiated in l955,
is to improve levels of living of the more than one-half of .American farm fam­ilies
who produce little for the market. MOst of these families gain little,
if any, benefit from the Government's price support and stabilization programs
and cannot be served effectively by programs designed for commercial agricul­ture.
Major goals of the Rural Development Program are to help families who
have the desire and ability to stay in agriculture to gain the necessary land,
tools, and skillsj to develop more off-farm job opportunitiesj to improve
educational and training facilities available to ruml youthsj and to extend
a.TJ.d improve the health, welfare, and other community services of the under­developed
areas.
At first the Rural Development Program was limited to selected pilot
counties located in seriously low-income rural areas. MOre than lOO such
counties in 30 States were participating in late l958. In recent months the
progra.~ in some States has been expanded beyond the pilot counties.
The Rural Development Program is a cooperative effort of Federal, State,
and local groups. Federal agencies participating are the Departments of
Agriculture~ Commerce, Interior, Labor, and Health, Education and Welfarej the
President's Council of Economic Advisersj and the Small Business Administra­tion.
A national church group has assigned staff to the progra.~. Private
organizations are showing a growing interestj several national trade associa­tions
and firms are urging their members to become active in county and area
projects. At the State level personnel from land grant colleges and univer­sities,
along with representatives from other agricultural groups, industry,
labor; and welfare give direction to the program. But the primary role is
played by local committees composed of farm, business, civic, and church
leaders who adapt the program to local needs.
Within the USDA, the program is supported principally by a redirection
and strengthening of existing agencies, with emphasis on new methods and
approaches. Department of Agriculture units participating in the program are
the Agricultural Marketing Service, Agricultural Research Service, Farmers
Home AQministration, Federal Extension Service, Forest Service, Rural Electri­fication
Administration, Farmer Cooperative Service, Agricultural Conservation
Program Service, Commodity Stabilization. Service, and Soil Ca.nservation Service.
Surveys of low-income areas that reveal existing conditions and indicate
available resources and current levels of living, are useful to Extension per­sonnel
and others working in the Rural Development Program. They not only
provide knowledge of the current situation, a tool useful in planning for
change, but a benchmark from which to measure change. The Household Economics
Research Division in the Institute of HOme Economics is conducting a series of
studies in Rural Development areas to describe the levels of living of families
living in the open country aTJ.d to compare the levels attained by families en­gaged
in full-time farming with those of families engaged in part-time farming
or supported entirely from nonfarm sources .
-2-
The first of these studies was conducted in 1957 in 5 counties in
Kentucky--Barren, Cumberland, Hart, Metcalfe, and Monroe. The second was made
in 1959 in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and
covered 5 East Texas counties--Cherokee, Anderson, Smith, Rusk, and Nacog­doches.
About 350 families were interviewed in each of these areas. Since
these are small studies, only families that were headed by both husband a.'1d
wife were included in the samples and interviewing was limited to those living
in the open country. Information was obtained about the number and ages of
family members, the year's income and expenditures for goods and services for
family living, food families produced for family use, what their housing was
like, and what furniture, equipment, clothing, and automobiles they owned.
A preliminary analysis of these data indicates that an outstanding char­acteristic
of these areas is the loss of young adults from their population.
(See chart, page 3.) In 1950 the rQral population of the Kentucky counties ~
was distributed in an age pattern much like that of the rural population of
the country as a whole. Each age class was smaller than the next younger
class • The decrease was gradual a.'1d fairly regular. The only marked cha.l'J.ge
in pace was in the age class 20-29 years, when cities exert a strong attrac­tion
for young people starting out on their own.
By 1957 the rate of outmigration among the young adults had been stepped
up sharply. In the survey population there was a smaller proportion of 20-to-
29-year-olds than of 30-to-39-year-olds and the latter in turn were fewer than
the 40-to-49-year-olds . Persons between 20 and 39 years of age formed 22 per­cent
of the population in the survey in contrast to 27 percent in 1950.
This pattern of outmigration had set in earlier in the Texas counties
tha.'1 in Kentucky. In 1950 it had already passed the stage reached in Kentucky
in 1957. Even then, the usual pattern of fewer persons in each succeeding
10-year age span had been broken and there were more persons in their thir­ties
than in their twenties, and in turn more in their forties than in their
thirties. The proportion of persons between 20 and 39 in the population had
already fallen to 24 percent. By 1958 this proportion had decreased even
further to 18 percent.
Continued outmigration such as is taking place in these areas must even­tually
have an effect on the child population. The loss of young adults
results in the formation of fewer new families, and this in turn decreases the
number of children born. This chain of events is evident in the survey data
for the Texas counties. By 1958 there were fewer children under 10 tha.'1
between 10 and 19. The Kentucky area, being less advanced in this cycle,
!/ The populations covered in these surveys are not strictly comparable to
the rural population as reported in the Census. The most important difference
is that these surveys were limited to the open country while the Census class­ification
"rural" includes the small towns a.l'J.d villages. There is no reason
to believe, however, that the population movement in the open country has
differed materially from that in built up, but nonurban areas, and so, lacking
precisely comparable earlier data, the Census data have been used to indicate
the change over time.
10
y
gj
-3-
CHANGES IN AGE DISTRIBUTION
10 Rural Development Counties in Kentucky and Texas
KENTUCKY TEXAS
Rural Population, 1950 !/
Male Age Female Male Age Female
Survey Population g/
1957
5 0 5 10 10 5 0 5
Percent of population Percent of population
Source I Bureau of the Census. 1/ Preliminary.
Husband-and-wife families in the open country.
10
still had larger numbers of children under 10 than in their teens, but a be ­ginning
had taken place there also. There were fewer children under 5 than
between 5 and 10, a fact which does not show in the chart.
As is to be expected in view of the loss of young adults, a relatively
large proportion of these families in both areas have been long established
~~d the problems of the family just starting out are of concern to relatively
few. In the Kentucky area, 21 percent had been married less than 10 years but
31 percent had been married 30 years or more. In the Texas area an even
larger proportion--35 percent--were long established and fewer--17 percent-­had
been married less than 10 years.
-4-
The average size of family was the sa~e in the two areas--3.6 year-e~uiv­alent
persons. This is rather surprising since a larger proportion of the
Texas than of the Kentucky families were Negro--22 percent of the families as
compared with 3 percent--and Negro families tend to be larger than white.
Possibly this lack of difference in family size can be attributed to the fact
that outmigration has been in process longer in Texas and made greater inroads
into the age group in which families tend to be largest.
The Kentucky families were the average size of white farm-operator fami­lies
in the South. The Texas families were smaller than the average for all
southern farm-operator families, Negro a~d white. In both study groups,
families who farm.ed a..YJ.d families who did not were about the same in size.
MOst of the families in both studies were of the conventional types-­husband
and wife only or husband a.11d wife and their unmarried children. In
both areas only 8 percent of the economic families--the unit that ~s dependent
on the pooled earnings of its members--contained other persons in addition to
these. When other persons were included, they were most fre~uently married
children and their families. The proportion of families sharing the household
with others was somewhat larger in Texas than in Kentucky--12 percent as com­pared
to 8 percent. MOst of these others in the household but not in the
economic family were persons related to the family and comparatively few were
there for the full year.
The educational level in these areas is relatively low. Both the family
heads and their wives had had less schooling than the national average for the
rural population 25 years of age and older. The median grade completed by the
family heads was the eighth in Texas and the seventh in Kentucky. In the Texas
area 22 percent had graduated from high school and 7 percent had gone on to
get some college training. In Kentucky these proportions were 10 and 2 per­cent.
In both areas, as is generally true, the wives of the family heads had
had somewhat more schooling, on the average, than their husbands.
An encouraging circumsta..11ce is that the level of education is rising in
these areas. For example, the Kentucky heads of families under 30 years of
age had a median attainment of 8 grades while those in the age interval 50-59
years had only completed 5 grades. This advance falls short of that shown by
the total population, however.
While sharing the problem of low income, these two areas differ in sev­eral
respects. Both are preoominantly rural, but the Texas area had within it
a city of approximately 4o,ooo population a..YJ.d in each county at least one town
that meets the Census definition of an urban place while the Kentucky area
has only one urban place and its population is only about 7,000. In 1950,
about 90 percent of the population of the Kentucky area was rural, compared
with 60 percent in the Texas area.
Largely because of the greater opportunities for off-farm. employment that
go along with more towns, fewer of the Texas fa~ilies were completely depend­ent
on farm.ing and a larger proportion got all of their income from nonfarm
sources. (See table 1.) In the Kentucky area, 78 percent of the families
were at least partly dependent on agriculture and 55 percent got most or all
-5-
Table l. --Family income y by source
5 Rural Develop-ment
counties in
Kentucky, 1957
Source of income
Families Average
having amount
Percent Dollars
All sources •....•••••..•••••. 100 2,o87
Farming sole source •..••..• 27 1,836
Farming furnishing 50 per-cent
or more of total .... 28 2,321
Farming furnishing some but
less th&~ 50 percent ..•.. 24 2,.341
All income from nonfarm
sources ••.........•.....• 22 I 1,811
Note: Percentages may not add because of rounding.
y Cash income after taxes.
?} Preliminary.
5 Rural Develop-ment
counties in
Texas, 1958 ?}
Families Average
having amount
Percent Dollars
100 2,786
6 1,442
5 1,946
4o 2,484
49 3,281
of their income from farming, whereas in the Texas counties 49 percent had no
income from farming a~d 40 percent got more income from other sources than
from farming, leaving only ll percent principally dependent on farming.
Texas families that were completely dependent on farming had lower income~
on the average, than the comparable group in Kentucky, but those principally
dependent on nonfarm sources had higher incomes than the comparable Kentucky
families. In the Texas area, families with nonfarm income only had by far the
highest average income of the four source-of-income groups, but in Kentucky
they had the lowest. It should be noted that nonfarm income includes invest­ment
income and various forms of pensions and public assistance as well as
earnings from nonfarm employment. A precise comparison of the sources of non­farm
income studied in the two areas cannot be made, but it appears that
retirement income and public assistance were a larger part of the total i n
Kentucky. It is probable that more individuaU.s were employed in the Texas
area and that some of them must have had jobs at substantially higher rates of
pay than those in Kentucky.
The increased importance of nonfarm income in the Texas area raised the
income level there considerably above the level in Kentucky. Net cash income
after taxes averaged $2,786 per family for the Texas families, more t han a
third again as much as the average of $2, o87 of the Kentucky families. This
indicates the value to an area of developing diversi fication in sources of
income.
-6-
The data on family composition and income presented here are only a part
of the material collected in these surveys. Information on family living
expenditures, home-production practices, and the money value of a year's
living will be released as analysis is completed. Mbre detailed data on the
income and income-producing resources of Rural Development area families are
being developed by agricultural economists in the USDA.
--Jean L. Pennock.
AGE OF THE HOMEMAKER AND FOOD CONSUMPTION OF THE HOUSEHOlD y
Expenditures for food for the family group tend to be at their peak when
homemakers are between 30 and 50 years old, and smallest, when they are
60 years or over. Food spending per person, however, is greatest in households
in which the homemaker is 50-59 years old, least in those with homemakers under
30. These are facts learned from the USDA's survey of food consumption in a
spring week in 1955.
Variations in food spending by age of the homemaker are due in part, at
least, to differences in the size and age composition of the household at
different stages of the family life cycle. Table l shows how these several
factors relate •to each other.
Table 1. --Money value of food used in a week, average household size, and per­cent
of household with children under 16, by age of homemaker, spring 1955
Household With children Money value of food
Age of homemaker size under 16 years Per household Per person
Persons Percent Dollars Dollars
Under 30 years ••..•..•. 3.62 82.3 24.93 6.89
30-49 years .......•...• 3.96 72.8 29.84 7.54
50-59 years •...•....... 2.98 21.8 24.92 8.36
60 years and over ...... i 2.58
I
10.2 19.31
I
7.48
Meat, poultry, fis~ and eggs are the most customary main dish components
of meals in this country. The per person use of these foods tended to increase
with the age of the homemaker up to 50-59 years, then to taper off in house­holds
with older homemakers. Luncheon meats were one exception to this pat­tern.
Unlike other items, they were used more by homemakers under 50 than by
those older.
y From Household Food Consumption Survey, 1955, Report No. 14, Food Con­sum
tion and Dieta Levels of Households as Related to the A e of Homemaker
United States, by Region. In press . )
-7-
More butter was used by the older homemakers than by the younger ones.
The pattern of age difference was not so consistent for other fats and oils,
however. The money value per person of margarine, shortening, salad and
cooking oils was about the sa~e for one age group as another at the same
income level. Readymade salad dressing was less popular in households with
homemakers 60 a..'1.d over than in those of younger ones.
The expenditure per person for fresh fluid milk was greater in succes­sively
older groups among lower income households ($2,000-$3, 999), but less in
successively older groups among higher income households. (See table 2.)
Young homemakers might be expected to spend more for milk than older ones
because they have more young children. For the young homemaker with a larger
family to provide for, however, a restricted income imposes a greater limita­tion
on food choices than that felt by the older homemaker. Young homemakers
used more processed milk items--condensed, evaporated, and dry--tha..'1. older
homemakers. More of these products were used at lower than at higher income
levels. Older households used about the same q_uanti ty of fluid milk per
person at all income levels.
Table 2.--Money value per person of selected milk products used
in a week, by fa~ily income after taxes and age of homemaker
Food i tern a..'1.d family
Age of homemaker
income after taxes U:::1der 30 30-49 50-59 60 years
years years years and over
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Fresh fluid milk:
$2,000-$3,999············ 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.69
$4,000-$5, 999 · ........... .80 .78 .71 .66
Processed milk:
$2, 000-$3, 999 ..••..•..... .08 .o8 .07 .05
$4,000-$5,999············ .06 .06 .04 .04
Cheese:
$2,000-$3,999··········· .ll .13 .18 I .19
$4,000-$5,999··········· .13 .15 .21
I
.19
Ice crea~:
$2,000-$3,999··········· .12 .15 .14 .14
$4,000-$5,999 ••.•.•••.•• .17 .16 .18 .16
Cream:
$2, 000-:3, 999 .•••.••.•.. .02 .04 .06 .o8
$4,000- 5,999··········· .o4 .04 .06 .06
More use was made of cheese and cream in fa~ilies with homemakers over
50. The use of ice crea~ was not so much a question of age as of income.
The use of bakery products differed more in relation to income than age.
·Households with older homemakers were more likely to use flour other than
-8-
mixes while the younger homemakers tended to use flour mixes somewhat more
than the older ones. Breakfast cereals followed the same pattern as fresh
fluid milk.
Money value per person for all fruits and vegetables followed the pattern
typical for value of total foods, with the peak in the 50-59 age group.
Younger families used relatively more commercially processed fruits and vege­tables.
(See table 3.) Potato chips, commercially canned vegetables and-­naturally
enough--canned strained and chopped fruits and vegetables were more
in demand by younger households . There was little age difference in the use
of canned fruits.
Table 3.--Money value per person of fruits and vegetables
(including potatoes, sweetpotatoes) used in a week by house­holds
with incomes of $4,000-$5,999, by age of homemaker
Money value
Fresh y Commercially
Age of homemaker per person processed
Dollars Percent of total
!
Under 30 years ..•...... l.40 58.6 4l.4
30-49 years ............ L4l 64.5 35·5
50-59 years ......•••.•. l.69 66.9 33.1
60 years and over •....• L64 68.9 3l.l
!/ Includes fresh produce canned or frozen at home.
Commercially frozen vegetables ~~d juiqes were used most by homemakers
between 50 and 59 years of age. They were less well accepted by those 60 and
older. In contrast, dried fruits and vegetables were used to an increasing
extent by successively older age groups .
A convenient way to describe in summary form the pattern of eating habits
of different groups of households is to compare the division of their "food
dollar" among the major food categories. Such a comparison for households
with homemakers under 30 and 60 and over shows that the food patterns of the
two groups are ~uite similar. (See table 4.) But age differences appeared
in the selection of individual foods within these broad food groups, as we
have pointed out earlier. Younger households were more likely to select such
items as luncheon meats, canned vegetables, soups, mixes, fresh fluid and
processed milk, soft drinks, chocolate and cocoa. Older households tended to
have more of most types of meat, poultry, cheese, butter, coffee, tea, sugar,
and fresh fruits and vegetables.
Families with homemakers 60 or over spent less , on the average, for meals
eaten away from home than did the younger families . Their average expenditure
was lower because fewer of these older families "ate out, 11 however, and not
because those who bought meals away from home spent less per meal. In fact,
considering the smaller size of the older families , their expenditures were
-9-
quite in line with or even larger than those of other age groups reporting
such meals.
Table 4.--Division of the food dollar among major food
categories by households, by age of homemaker
Food group
TotaJ.. . ............................ .
Meat, poultry, fish, eggs ....... .
Milk, cream, ice cream, cheese .. .
Flour, cereals, bakery products •.
Potatoes, sweetpotatoes ....•..•.•
Fresh fruits and vegetables ..... .
Commercially frozen, canned, and
dried fruits and vegetablesJ
juices ........................ .
Fats and oils •..••...••..........
Sugars and sweets .••...•.•....•..
Beverages •.•....•..•......•..•..•
Miscellaneous •..•....••.•...•....
Age of homemaker
Under 60 years
30 years and over
Cents
100.0
33·7
15.9
10.6
2.3
9 ·5
7.2
4.3
3.2
8.2
5·3
Cents
100.0
35·9
14.9
9.8
2.0
12.3
5.3
4.7
3·3
8.5
3·3
Note: May not add to total because of rounding.
The 1955 survey showed that about 4o percent (in terms of money value) of
the food used by the farm family was home produced. Home-produced food was
relatively more important in older than in younger households. It accounted
for 44 percent of the value of food used in a week in farm households with
homemakers 50 ~r over, as compared to 39 percent in those with younger home­makers.
In general, food consumption patterns related to age of homemaker were
about the same in the North and the South, in farm a."ld urban families, as
those we have described for the United States as a whole. Younger households,
for example, used more ca."llled goods and more processed foods than older ones,
Wherever they lived. But there were some notable differences, too. In the
~uthern farm group, peak expenditures per person for food was by households
With homemakers 60 years in age or over, instead of those between 50 and 59.
In the southern urban group, the high expenditure--the same dollar amount for
both--was by the households with homemakers in the age brackets 30-49 and
50-59. In the South, households with homemakers 60 or over used as much or
more milk per person as the younger families; in the North they used less.
-10-
In the South the use of eggs and butter increased more steeply with age of
homemaker than in the North. But use of bakery bread and commercially frozen
vegetables and juices by older households was relatively less in the South
than in the North.
Because of the differences in their food patterns a somewhat larger pro­portion
of older than younger households failed to meet the recommendations of
the National Research Council in nutrients. For example, 13 percent of bouse­holds
with homemaker 60 years and over had food that failed to furnish the
recommended allowances for protein compared with 5 to 8 percent in the younger
groups; 27 percent failed to meet the riboflavin allowa..'1ces compared to 14 to
20 percent in other groups; and 29 percent had less than recommended amounts
of ascorbic acid as compared to 24 percent in the other groups .
- -Ja..'1et Murray.
E3TD1A.TED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD--U.S.A. AVERAGE AND FOUR RJroiONS
Estimated costs of buying the family's food according to USDA's food
plans have been a regular feature of this publication since 1951. These are
estimates of U.S.A. average costs for food to be prepared and served at home
by nonfarm fa."'llilies. Table 1 on page 12 presents these estimates at July
1959 prices.
This issue of Family Economics Review presents estimates of the cost of
buying food according to the USDA food plans for nonfarm families living in
4 regions--the Northeast, the North Central region, the South, and the West.
(See tables 2 and 3, pages 13 and 14.) We expect to revise and publish such
regional estimates once a year--probably in the spring issue--in addition to
the estimates for U.S.A. published every ~uarter.
How the estimates were made
The cost estimates given for the United States and each of the 4 regions
are for the ~uantities of food in the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal
food plans published in the October 1957 issue of Famil~ Economics Review, as
slightly revised in Ja..'1uary 1959 to comply with the 195 National Research
Council's Recommended Dietary Allowances. The cost of the food in each plan
was first calculated by using average prices per pound paid for the food in
each of the ll food groups by nonfarm families at different income levels,
as shown by the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey. The following income
levels, representing the lowest third, the middle third, and the highest third
-ll-of
the after-tax income distribution of nonfarm families, were used:
I.J::>w- Moderate- Liberal
cost plan cost pla..'1 plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars
U.S. average .••. 2,000-2,999 4,000-4,999 6,000-7,999
Northeast ...••• 2,000-2,999 4,000-4,999 6,000-7,999
North Central •• 2,000-2,999 4,000-4,999 6,000-7,999
South •....•...• l,OOO-l,999 3,000-3,999 4,999-5,999
West ••..•.••..• 2,000-2,999 4,000-4,999 6,000-7,999
The prices thus calculated are adjusted to current price levels period­ically,
using as a basis for adjustment the retail food prices collected in
cities by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average prices in 46 cities
are uaed in adjusting the prices for the U.S.A. average. Prices in the fol­lowing
cities are used to adjust the regional estimates: Boston for the
Northeastj St. Louis for the North Centralj Atlanta for the Southj and IDs
Angeles for the West.
The estimated costs for each region reflect regional preferences within
food groups , buying habits, and prices. (See tables 2 a.TJ.d 3.) The same quan­tities
of food for each of the ll food groups are used for each regional esti­mate,
but different items or proportions of various items within the groups.
For example, the fats and oils group for the West was made up, in part, of
27 percent margarine, l9 percent hydrogenated shortenings, l3 percent lard and
chicken fat, and ll percent salad and cooking oils. The corresponding figures
fo r the South were l7, l3, 4l, and 3 percent, respectively. This difference
in the assortment within food groups makes little change in the nutritive
value because each group contains foods similar in nutritive value.
The summary below shows regional differences in costs of diets selected
according to these plans in July l959 for a fa~ily of four (husband, wife,
boy lO years, girl 8 years), and the relative cost for each region when U.S.
average cost = lOO.
l.J::>w- Moderate- Liberal
cost plan cost plan plan
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
U.S. average .••• 24.00 lOO 32.40 lOO 36.80 lOO
Northeast •.•••• 26.50 llO 34.lO l05 37.80 l03
North Central .• 25.30 l05 3l.l0 96 35·50 96
South •••.•.•..• 20.80 87 28.00 86 32.30 88
West . ..••..••.• 26.lO l09 33.l0 l02 38 .00 l03
--Eloise Cofer.
-12-
Table l.--Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, y July 1959 --U.S.A. Average
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two 1 20-34 years '?) •••••••••••••
Family of two, 55-74 years gj •••••••••••••
Family of four 1 preschool children lJ .....
Family of four 1 school children !Jj ••••••••
Children:
Under l year •••••o••••o•o••o•o•o••••••••
l-3 yearS eoeoo••••••••o•ooeoeoeoeo••••••
4-6 years eAeeoeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeee•eeeeoee
7-9 years o••••••o••o••••••o••oo••••o•••o
10-12 years •••••o•••••o••o••••~•o•••••••
Girls, l3-l5 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
16-l9 years ••••••••••o••••••••••••••••••
Boys, l3-l5 years •••••••••o•••••••••••••••
16-19 years ••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••o
Women:
20-34 years •••••••••••oo•••••••eooo••••o
35-54 years ••••o•o••o•••o•••••••••••••••
55-74 years oo•••••·················•o•••
75 years and over ••o•••••••••ooeeooo••••
Pl:"egnant • o ••••••••••••••••• o •• o •••••••••
Nt.lrsing o ••••••••••••••• o • •••• o • ••• o •••••
Men:
20-34 years ••••••••o•o••••oo•o••••••••••
35-54 years ••••••••••••••••••••o••••••••
55-74 years ••••oooo•••••••o•o•••o••o•oo•
75 years and over ••••••••••••o••••••••••
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
15.20
l3.&J
20.8o
24.00
3.00
3-70
4.40
5.20
6.10
6.40
6.50
6.90
8.30
5.50
5.30
5.00
4.8o
6.8o
8.50
7.20
6.70
6.30
6.10
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
20.90
l8.8o
27.70
32.40
3.8o
4.&J
5·70
6.8o
8.20
8.70
8.70
9.&J
ll.30
7.&J
7·40
1.00
6.50
8.90
ll.OO
Liberal
plan
Dollars
23.50
2l.OO
3l.&J
36.8o
4.10
5.30
6.70
7o8o
9.40
lO.OO
9·90
10.90
12.70
8.&J
8.30
1·90
7·40
9·8o
l2.l0
ll.OO
lO.lO
9oW
9·20
~ These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderate-cost,
and liberal food plans. These plans were published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of
the October 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. Quantities for children
were revised Jan. 1959 to comply with the 1958 NRC Recommended Dietary Allow­ances.
The cost of the food plans was first estimated by using the average
prices per pound of each food group paid by nonfarm survey families at 3
selected income levels. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use
of Average Retail Prices of Food in 46 Large Cities Combined released period­ically
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimates for food of individualS
and small families have been rounded to nearest $O.l0.
'?) Twenty percent added for small families.
3/ Man and woman 20-34 years, children l-~ and 4-6 years.
;' Man and woman 20-34 years, children 7-9 and l0-l2 years.
Table 2.--Estimated Cost of One Week 1 s Food, July l959,for Northeast and North Central Regions
Northeast North Central
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES y
Family of two, 20-34 years ••••••••••• 16.90 22.10 24.20 16.10 19.90 22.70
Family of two, 55-74 years ••••••••••• 15.10 l9.8o 2l.6o l4.4o 17 ·90 20.30
Family of four, preschool children ••• 22.70 29.10 32.4o 2l.8o 26.6o 30.6o
Family of four, school children •••••• 26. 50 34.10 37 .8o 25.30 31.10 35-50
INDIVIDUALS
Children:
Under l year ••o•o••••••••o••o•o•••• 3.20 3-90 4.10 3.10 3 -70 4.00
l-3 years eoooo•••o•oo•••••ooeoo•••• 3-90 4.8o 5.4o 3.8o 4.50 5.20
4-6 years ••o•••••oo•••••o•••••••ooo 4.70 5·90 6.8o 4.6o 5-50 6.50
7-9 years ••••••o•oo•••oeoo•o••••••• 5.70 7.10 8.00 5-50 6.6o 7-50
10-12 years ..• o ••••••• o o o •••••••••• 6.70 8.6o 9.6o 6.4o 1·90 9.10
Girls, 13-15 years ••••••••••••••••••• 7.00 9.20 10.30 6.70 8.4o 9.70
16-19 years •••••••••oo•••ooo•••o••o 7.00 9.10 10.20 6.90 8.4o 9.6o
Boys, 13-15 years •••••••••••••••••••• 7o70 10.20 ll.30 7.4o 9.30 l0.6o
16-19 years o• •o•••••o•••••••••••o•• 9.20 11.90 13.10 8.8o 10.90 l2.4o
Women:
20-34 years o••o•••••o•••••••o••••o• 6.00 8.00 8.8o 5.8o 7-30 8.30
35-54 yearS ••••o•• o ••••••ooo•o••••o 5-90 7.8o 8.6o 5.6o 7.00 8.10
55-74 years ••••o••o••••o••••••o•••• 5-50 1·30 8.10 5.30 6.6o 7.6o
75 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 5-30 6.90 7 .6o 5ol0 6.20 7.10
Pl;egnan.t ••••• o • o • o • o •• o o • o o • o • o •••• 7o30 9.30 10.00 7.10 8.6o 9.6o
N11rsing ••• o • •• o • ••••••• o •• •• o ••• o • o 9.20 ll.4o l2.4o 9.00 l0.6o ll.8o
Men:
20-34 years •••••••o•••o•o••••o••o•o 8 .10 l0.4o ll.4o 7·6o 9.30 l0.6o
35-54 years o •e ooeooooo ••o•••••• o •o• 7o50 9.70 ll.50 7.10 8.70 9.8o
55-74 years ooo •••••oo•• o• • o ••••• oo • 7.10 9.20 9·90 6.70 8.30 9-30
75 years and over ••••ooooooo•······ 6.8o I 8.8o 9.50 6.50 7-90 8.90
~ See footnotes 21 31 and 4 of table l on page 12.
I
1--' w
I
Table 3.--Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, July l95~for Southern and Western Regions
South West
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan plan plan cost plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES y
Family of two, 20-34 years ••••••••••• 13.10 17-90 20.6o 16.70 21.4o
Family of two, 55-74 years ••••••••••• 11.80 16.30 18.50 15.00 19.20
Family of four, preschool children ••• 18.00 24.00 28.00 22.50 28.30
Family of four, school children •••••• 20.80 28.00 32.30 26.10 33.10
INDJ:VIDUALS
Children:
Under 1 year ••••••••••••••••••••••• 2.80 3o4o 3-70 3.20 3.80
l-3 years ••••••••••••••o••••••••••• 3.30 4.10 4.80 3-90 4.70
4-6 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3.80 5.00 6.00 4.70 5.80
7-9 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4.6o 6.00 6.90 5.6o 6.90
l0-l2 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 5.30 7.10 8.20 6.6o 8.4o
Girls, 13-15 years ••••••••••••••••••• 5.6o 7 .6o 8.70 6.90 8.90
l6-l9 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 5o70 7 .6o 8.80 7.10 8.90
Boys, 13-15 years •••••••••••••••••••• 6.00 8.30 9.50 7-50 9.80
16-19 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 7.10 I 9.6o 11.00 9.00 . 11.50
Women:
20-34 years ••.....•..•............. 4.70 6.6o 7-6o 6.00 7.80
35-54 yesxs • •. •. • • • • • • • • •. •. •. • • ... 4.6o 6.4o 7.4o 5.80 7 .6o
55-74 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 4.30 6.10 7.00 5.50 7.10
75 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 4.20 5-70 6.6o 5.30 6.70
Pl:-egnar1t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.00 7.80 8.80 7.4o 9.10
Nllrsi.ng .••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7-50 9.6o 10.80 9.30 11.20
Men:
20-34 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.20 8.30 9.6o 7-90 10.00
35-54 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 5.80 7·80 8.80 7.4o 9.4o
55-74 years ••ooe•o•••o••o•oo••o•o•• 5-50 7-50 8.4o 7.00 8.90
75 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 5.30 7.20 8.10 6.70 8.50
~ See footnotes 2, 3, and 4 of table 1 on page 12.
Liberal
plan
Dollars
24.4o
21.70
32.70
38.00
4.20
5-50
6.90
8.00
9-70
10.30
10.30
11.30
13.20
8.90
8.70
8.20
7 .6o
10.20
l2.6o
ll.4o
10.50
9-90
9.50
I
I-' + I
-15-
AN ADAPTATION OF THE LOW-COST FOOD PLAN FOR THE SOUTH
Food habits of families in the South, especially in the lower income
groups, differ from those of families living in other regions. Table 1 shows
how quantities of food used by households in the South differed from those in
the other regions in the spring of 1955. The southern families consumed more
grain products and fats. This reflects their habits of using more rice and
grits and doing more rome baking. They consumed less meat, milk, potatoes
a.'1d some other vegetables, and fruit.
JL~ adaptation of the low-cost food plan described in the October 1957 and
March 1959 issues of Family Economics Review has been made for the South which
recognizes these differences.
This plan uses the same 11 groupings of food as the standard plan. But
it uses different quantities of food in each of these groups, taking into
account the differences mentioned above while providing nutritionally adequate
diets . The National Research Council's Recommended Dietary Allowances have
been used as the minimum goals for 8 nutrients a'1d the maximum goal for
Table 1.--Regional Differences in Food Consumption: Average amounts of
foods used per person in a week by households in the Northeast, North
Central, West, and South, spring 19551 selected low-income groups
Food group
Milk, cream, ice cream,
cheese y ............... . quarts ..
Meat, poultry, fish gj ..... pounds •.
Eggs • ......•.•......••.•.. • nl.lDlber • .
Dry bea'1s, peas, nuts •.•.•. pounds •.
Grain products ]/ ....•..•.... do ••••
Citrus frQit, tomatoes ....•.. do •.•.
Dark-green and deep-yellow
vegetables ••.....•.• do •.••
Pota-toes ..................... do ... .
Other vegetables and
fruits ..................... do ... .
Fats, oils •.•.......•...•.... do ••••
Sugars, sweets .......•....... do ••••
Average of North-east,
North
Central, and West
$2,000-
$2,999
4.6
4.2
7·9
.2
2.5
2.4
.6
2.0
5.1
.8
1.2
South
$1,000- $2,000-
$1,999 $2,999
3.0 3.2
3·5 4.0
6.7 6.8
.4 .4
3.8 3·5
1.4 1.9
·5 .6
1.4 1.4
3·7 4.3
·9 ·9
1.4 1.4
I
y Milk equivalent: The approximate quantity of fluid milk to which
the dairy products (except butter) are equivalent in calcium.
?} Includes bacon a'1d salt pork.
J/ Includes the dry weight of the flour in purchased baked goods.
Table 2.--Food Plan at Low Cost Adapted for the Southern Region: Suggested weekly quantities of food
(as purchased assuming average choices within groups) for 19 sex-age groups
Dark-
Milk,
Meat,
green Other
cheese, Dry Grain Citrus and vege-
Sex-age group y ice poultry, Eggs beans, prod- fruit, deep- Pot a- tables Fats, Sugar,
crea'D. fish peas, ucts toma- yellow toes and oils sweets
gj ]/ nuts y toes vege- fruits
tables
Qt. Lb. Oz. No. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. Lb. Oz. - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - Children:
Under 1 year •...• 5·5 0 -12 5 0 - 0 0 -12 1 - 8 0 - 2 0 - 8 l - 0 0 - 1 0 - 1
1-3 years •.••..•• 5·5 1 - 0 5 0 - 1 1 - 8 1 - 8 0 - 4 0 - 8 2 - 0 0 - 4 0 - 4
4-6 years .••.•.•. 5·5 1 - 4 5 0 - 2 2 - 4 1 - 8 0 - 4 0 - 8 3 - 0 0 - 8 0 - 6
7-9 years ••....•. 5 l-l2 6 0 - 6 2 -12 1 -12 0 - 8 1 - 8 4 - 0 0 -10 0 -10
10-l2 years .•..•• 6 2 - 0 6 0 - 8 3 - 8 2 - 0 0 - 8 2 - 0 4 -12 0 -10 0 -12
Girls, 13-15 years. 7 2 - 0 6 0 - 6 3 - 8 2 - 4 0 -12 2 - 0 4 -12 0 -l2 0 -12
16-19 years .•.••. 7 2 - 0 6 0 - 6 3 - 4 2 - 4 0 -12 1 -12 4 - 8 0 - 8 0 -10
Boys, 13-15 years •. 6.5 2 - 0 6 0 - 8 4 -12 2 - 4 0 -12 2 -12 5 - 0 0 -14 0 -12
16-19 years .••..• 6.5 2 -12 6 0 -10 5 -12 2 - 4 0 -12 4 - 4 5 - 4 l - 0 0 -14
Women:
20-34 years •.••.• 3·5 2 - 0 5 0 - 6 3 - 0 1 -12 0 -12 1 - 0 4 -12 0 - 8 0 -10
35-54 years •.••.• 3·5 2 - 0 5 0 - 6 3 - 0 1 -12 0 -12 1 - 0 4 - 4 0 - 6 0 -10
55-74 years ..••.. 3·5 2 - 0 5 0 - 4 2 - 8 1 -12 0 -12 1 - 0 3 - 0 0 - 6 0 - 6
75 years and over 3·5 2 - 0 5 0 - 4 2 - 4 1 -12 0 -12 l - 0 2 -12 0 - 6 0 - 6
Pregnant •...••..• 7 2 - 4 7 0 - 4 3 - 0 3 - 4 1 - 8 l - 0 4 -12 0 - 8 0 - 8
Lactating .•..•.•• 10 2 -12 7 0 - 6 3 - 8 4 - 8 1 - 8 2 - 4 5 - 4 0 -12 0 - 8
Men:
20-34 years ...•.• 3 3 - 4 6 0 - 8 4 -12 2 - 0 O-l2 2-l2 5 - 4 0 -14 1 - 0
35-54 years .••••• 3 3 - 0 6 0 - 8 4 - 4 2 - 0 0 -12 2 - 8 4 -12 0 -12 0 -l2
55-74 years ••.•.. 3 2 -12 6 0 - 6 4 - 0 2 - 0 0 -12 2 - 0 4 - 4 0 -12 0 -10
75 years and over 3 2 -12 6 0 - 6 3 - 8 2 - 0 0 -12 2 - 0 4 - 0 0 -10 0 -10
--- y Quantities of food suggested here are based on growth and activity levels believed to fit average
conditions in this country. gj Fluid whole milk or the calcium equivalent of milk products . Count as
1 cup milk, 3/4 pound cottage cheese (creamed), 1 pound cream cheese, 1-1/3 ounces cheddar cheese, about
3 large dips or 1 scant pint ice cream. }/ Meat, poultry, and fish including bacon and salt pork. Pro ­tein
content of groull assumed to be 60 grams I>er pound. Bacon and salt I>Ork not to exceed l/ 3 pound for
each 5 I>Ound.s of meat groull. ~ Weight in tenns of flour and. cereal; count l-l/2 I>Ound.s o:f bread and
ba:k.ea_ goods as l -oouna_ "flour.
I
1-'
0\
I
-17-
calo ries.~ It is assumed that families following the plans will select
foods within each food group much like the averages reported for the South in
the household food survey. Table 2 (opposite page) gives suggested ~uantities
for 19 different classes of individuals--men, women, and children of different
ages. In planning ~uantities of food within the 11 food groups food consump­tion
patterns of southern nonfarm households with incomes of $1,000 to $2,000
were used as a guide.
The same procedure was followed in estimating the cost of food for the
low-cost southern plan as for the standard plans. Costs were first calculated
by using average prices paid per pound by southern nonfarm families reporting
incomes of $1,000-$2,000 in the 1955 survey. These estimated costs were
adjusted to curre·nt price levels by use of the BI..S retail food prices for
Atlanta. Table 3 presents the costs in July 1959 of the southern adaptation
of the low-cost pl~~. They are 90-95 percent of the cost of food in the
standard plan using southern prices.
Table 3.--Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, for Special Adaptation
of Low-Cost Plan for the South, July 1959
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES gj
Family of two, 20-34 years .....•.••
Family of two, 55-74 years .•.•....•.
Family of four, preschool children.
Family of four, school children ....
JJIDIVIDUAI..S
Children:
Under 1 year •••....•.......•.....
1-3 years ....................... .
4-6 year-s •...•.•.......•.........
7-9 years .... ................... .
10-12 years ..•..•..•..•...•...•••
Gl' rl s, 13-15 years ..•••...•..•....•
16-19 years •..•....••..•.•.......
Special
low-cost
plan ~
-Do-ll-ar-s
12.40
10.90
17.10
19.80
2.60
3.10
3.70
4.4o
5.10
5.40
5·50
Sex-age groups
INDIVIDUAI..S--Con.
Boys, 13-15 years •.••.
16-19 years .........
Women:
20-34 years .........
35-54 years .......•.
55-74 years .•.......
75 years and over ...
Pregnant •....•..•••.
Nursing .•..........•
Men:
20-34 years ..•..•...
35-54 years ......•..
55-74 years .........
75 years a..11d over .••
!/ Based on ~uantities suggested in table 2 on page 17.
3/ See footnotes 2, 3, and 4 of table 1 on page 12.
--Eloise Cofer.
Special
low-cost
plan ~
Dollars
5·70
6.70
4.50
4.4o
4.00
4.00
5.80
7 .30
5.80
5.4o
5.10
4.90
!/ Calories for adults were as modified in "Applying 1953 Dietary Allow­ances
to U. S. Population Groups," by C. LeBovit and H. K. Stiebeling in
~rnal of the American Dietetic Association. 33: 219-224. 1957.
-18-
TEXTILE FIBER IDENTIFICATION
The Federal Trade Commission has issued to the textile industry the final
rules for complying with the new Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. y
Industry has until March 3, 1960 to put these new rules into effect.
The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for interpreting and enforcing
the textile law as Congress passed it. The Commission held public hearings in
March 1959 to give industry a chance to express opinions about its originally
proposed rules. After the hearings the agency reviewed all comments on the
proposed rules and regulations before drawing up those finally adopted.
The Textile Fiber Identification Act will enable consumers to buy most
apparel and fabrics labeled as to fiber content in much the same way they have
become accustomed to in shopping for wool products . Under the rules, the
generic term designating type or types of fibers present must be used along
with the trade name in labeling and advertising textile products. "Generic
term" is a term or name indicating the source of origin or composition of the
fiber. ~~e generic names of all fibers making up more than 5 percent of the
total fiber weight must be given, as for example, "cotton," "rayon," "silk,"
"linen," "nylon," etc. The list below gives the generic terms as established
by the Federal Trade Commission for manufactured fiberq with some trade names
of fibers that fall under each class. gj
Generic term
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
gl) (k
(1
(m
(n
(o)
(p)
Acrylic
Modacrylic
Polyester
Rayon
Acetate
Saran
Azlon
Nytril
Nylon
Rubber
Spandex
Vinal
Olefin
Vinyon
Metallic
Glass
Examples of trade name
Acrilan, Creslan, Orlon, Zefran
Dynel, Verel
Dacron, Kodel, Teron, Vycron
Rayon, Fortisan, Super L, Corval, Topel
Acetate, Arnel
Dawbarn, Velon
None currently manufactured in the
United States
Darvin
Nylon
Polyisoprene
Fiber K
Vinylon
Reevon
Vinyon
Lurex, Reymet, Fairtex, Malora,
Chromeflex, Lame, Metlon
Fiberglas, PPG, Uniformat
!/ See October 1958 issue of Family Economics Review for a summary of the
provisions of the law.
gj Adapted from the Daily News Record, June 3, 1959.
-19-
CHANGES IN INCOME AND SPENDING OF CITY WORKER FAMILIES
Families of city workers attained successively higher levels of living
during the twentieth century. Contributing to this progress have been rising
incomes, increasing variety and volume in consumer goods available for pur­chase,
and desire of workers to have more of the comforts and leisure that
mark living above the subsistence level.
Information about city workers as consumers is provided mainly by surveys
made by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Four of the major consumption
studies made by this agency since the beginning of the century fell at con­venient
intervals for tracing urban family progress: 1901, 1917-19, 1934-36,
and 1950. The purposes a..'1d methods of these surveys were not identical, but
the data they provide are comparable enough to give a good description of
changes in family living during the period. Such a description, given in
great detail, is presented in a recent publication, How American Buying Habits
Change. y
City worker incomes rise
The average "normal family" ?} living in the principal industrial centers
in 33 States in 1901 had money income of $650. In 1950 the average money
income (after personal taxes) of city wage-earner and clerical-worker families
of 2 or more persons was over $4, 000. Wives did their part toward raising the
level of family incomes. Three out of 10 wives were employed outside the home
in the 1950's, as compared to l in 20 in 1901.
But money incomes in years a half century apart should not be compared
directly, because the value of the dollar has fallen so much in the meantime.
In terms of equivalent (1950) buying power the average worker's income, even
go, was twice as large in 1950 as in 1901. (See table 1.) By 1956 it was
Per
Per
Table 1.--Average net income of city workers'
families as a percent of 1950 buying power
Item 1901 1950 1956
family •.•........•.. 48 100 123
family member •.•..•• 39 100 119
Y How American Buying Habits Change. U. S. Department of Labor, 253 pp.
1959 . For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price $1.00.
The above article is adapted from Chapter II of this publication, titled
"T he Broadening Base of Consumpt ion."
?) A "normal family" had a husband and wife, not over 5 children with none
over age 14, no boarders or dependents; did not own its dwelling place; and
reported expenditures for rent, fuel, lighting, clothing, and food.
-20-
almost a quarter larger than in 1950. The gain per family member between 1901
and the 1950's was even greater than the gain per family, because the family
of the 1950's was smaller.
Low-income workers made relatively greater progress than others. Dif­ferences
between the incomes of various parts of the population narrowed.
There is considerably less difference now than 50 years ago, for example,
between the rate of pay of the unskilled and the skilled worker; between the
low-wage and the high-wage regions of the countryj between manual ~~d white­collar
workers; ~~d between racial groups. The result is a greater concentra­tion
of workers in the middle-income groups. The "average worker" at mid­century
is, therefore, more typical of workers in general than he was in 1901.
The welfare of workers has been improved also by the increase during the
century of nonmoney income in such forms as the "fringe benefits" of workers
in industry, community facilities, and recreational and educational advantages
provided by Government.
Savings, credit, and economic security
Families of working men put larger portions of their earnings into cash
savings in 1901 than they do now. About half of the families reported a
surplus then, and only 1 in 6 reported a deficit--that is, spending more than
they earned. The average surplus for the families that had one amounted to
about 10 weeks' pay.
In 1950, the amount the average city worker's family spent for current
consumption was just about the same as its income after taxes • People now in­cur
debt much more readily than they used to. In 1957, 2 out of 3 families in
the typical wage-earner income group ($3,000-$5,000) had personal debt. About
half had debts larger than their liquid assets (savings accounts, bonds, etc.).
This greater readiness of today's workers to incur debts reflects their
greater feeling of security. Early in the century the city worker family's
only resources in an emergency were either savings or the earnings of other
family members. In the 1950's he has many resources, in the form of unemploy­ment
compensation, workmen's compensation, provision for paid sick leave,
private insurance and pension plans, and other forms of social security bene­fits
. He is also much more likely to have an equity in his home.
Patterns of consumption change
As buying power (real income) rises, the proportion of income consumers
must spend for necessities declines, and the proportion they can spend for
other goods and services increases. The ability of the consumer to buy these
other goods and services ("secondary necessities," "conveniences," and "lux­uries"--
the "sundries" of earlier surveys) is usually considered a measure of
his well-being .
The BI.S studies show how important the "margin of spending beyond the
subsistence level" has been to city worker families in achieving a level of
-21-
living that includes the automobile, TV sets, new homes, and vacation trips
that earlier workers had to do without. The -workers represented are wage
earners and lower salaried clerical and sales employees. With their families
they now make up about three-fourths of the population in urban areas. They
comprise two-thirds of all employed family heads in the United States.
The "pies" in the chart below show how the pattern of expenditure of city
workers for family living has changed in 50 years. Each pie represents a
dollar of expenditure for current consumption of an average -worker's family.
In 1901, food alone took 43 percent of the workers' dollar, the basic
HOW URBAN WAGE-EARNER AND CLERICAL-WORKER FAMILIES
OF 2 OR MORE DIVIDED THEIR EXPENDITURES FOR CURRENT
CONSUMPTION AT SELECTED TIMES ....
FUEL, LIGHT,
'----=;;_AND REFRIG.ERATION
J United States, 1950 I
HOUIE­I"
URNISHINII
AND HOUSEHOLD
Ol'ERATIONI
EL, LIIHT,
AND REI"RIIERATION
-22-
necessities all together--food, shelter, and clothing--SO percent. This left
only 20 percent for the "sundries" that represent greater choice in spending.
In 1950, the average city worker spent 30 percent of his total consumption
dollar for food, 58 percent for all "necessities," and had 42 percent left for
the "sundries."
Changes in actual buying power
Figures on average income and outlays for current consumption of worker
families of 2 or more persons in large cities, converted into dollars of 1950
buying power, are shown in table 2. Although rising prices cut the buying
power of each dollar by 66 percent between 1901 and 1950, incomes rose enough
to buy 2-l/4 times as many goods and services. Thus, although the proportion
of spending going for necessities decreased, the smaller share would buy
larger quantities or better qualities of goods. Also, the fact that the share
Table 2. --Average consumption expenditures of families of city-wage
and clerical workers of 2 or more persons, selected periods
(In dollars of l950 purchasing power)
Item l90l y l9l7-l9 1934-36 I l950
1950 dollars
Money income after personal
ta.x.es ••.•••••••••••••••••••••• l,9l4 2,4o8 2,659 4,005
Total expenditure for current
consumption •••.•••..•.••.•.••• l,8l7 2,l63 2,564 4,076
Food and drink •••••••••••••••• 952 854 1,030 1,335
Clothing . ..................... -- 343 399 473
Shelter (current expense) ••••• -- 252 356 448
Fuel, light, refrigeration,
water . ...................... -- l26 l58 l53
Furnishings and equipment ••.•• -- l09 119 28l
Household operation ••.•••••••• -- l 80 l67
Automobile purchase and
operation . .................. -- l50 457
Other transportation •.••.••••• -- 479 57 81
Medical care . ................. -- 88 2l3
Personal care ................. -- 55 93
Recreation and reading •••••••• -- 94 227
Edtlcation • .....••.•....•..•..• -- ll l9
'l'o ba.c co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- 46 80
Miscellan.eous ................. -- ll 49 ~
y Official indexes for converting other items than those shown not
available.
-23-
going for "sundries" has doubled seems even more important when we consider
that the number of dollars given to such purchases now buys nearly 3 times
the quantity it did in 1917-19.
"Necessities" a..'1d "sundries"
As city worker families have obtained more buying power--especially in
periods of rapidly rising real income--they have usually made a complex
series of adjustments in spending, increasing their food consumption, improv­ing
their housing, and buying more medical care and recreation. Although they
have spent successively smaller shares of their dollar for the "necessities,"
this share has provided steadily increasing values and satisfactions. For
example, home ownership has increased, more families enjoy the use of house­hold
comforts and conveniences, diets are more interesting B..'1d nutritionally
adequate, and class distinctions in clothing have dimmed. In fact, the three
basic necessities (food, shelter, and clothing) now include m~~y goods and
services that would have been considered luxuries a half century ago.
The group of i terns called "sundries" includes such things as transporta­tion,
medical and personal care, recreation, reading, education, and tobacco.
Although spending for all of these increased, the most amazing change was in
spending for transportation. Wage earners and clerical workers were allocating
only 3 percent of their spending for current consumption to transportation in
1917-19 and almost 9 percent in 1934-36. By 1950 it was one of the largest
.items in the family budget, taking 14 percent of the total. The automobile
is the main reason for the difference, of course.
The larger proportion of expenditures workers can devote to the conven­iences
and luxuries doesn't really giye an adequate idea of how much they have
advanced. Five percent of a worker's buying power devoted to rec:::reation in
earlier years, for example, would have represented only a fraction of 5 per­cent
of his buying power in the 1950's. But even more important to workers
is the greater· freedom they have to widen their range of choice to make
selections of goods and services beyond the basic necessities of living.
MONEY INCOME OF AGED PERSONS y
Older citizens today are probably living better than those of 10 years
ago, if the increased number receiving regular incomes and the higher level of
their incomes are indications. Much of the added income is from social insur­~~
ce and related Government programs, including Old Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (OASDI); railroad retirement; Government e~ployees'
retirement; and veterans• compensation and pensions. Two out of 3 persons
65 years of age and over received some income from these sources in June 1958.
Ten years earlier only 1 out of every 5 persons received these benefits.
Y Adapted from: Lenore A. Epstein . "MJney Income of Aged Persons: A
10-Year Review, 1948 to 1958." Social Security Bulletin, pp. 3-11, June 1959 .
-24-
Source of money income
Social insurance a~d related programs.--Benefits under the OASDI program
were by far the most common source of income for persons 65 years and over
in June l958· Over 58 percent (8.8 million) of abl persons in this age group
received such benefits, compared with l3 percent (l.5 million) in June l948.
(See table l.) These included retired workers and aged wives, widow~ and
parents of deceased workers •
The number receiving benefits under railroad retirement, veterans' com­pensation
and pensions, a~d Government employees' retirement increased too,
but these programs are small compared to OASDI. The three together provided
incomes for 8 percent of persons 65 and over in l948, and for l6 percent of
them in l958.
Public assistance.--Old age assistance grants by States continue to
supplement the income of many older persons. Such assistance is often neces­sary
for those whose OASDI benefits are small because they had low average
earnings when they were employed. It is also necessary in cases where medical
Table l.--Estimated number and percent of persons aged 65 and over
receiving money income fr,om specified sources, June l948 and June l958
Source of money income
Population aged 65 and over, total ..•.•
E:n.ployment •....•..•.•.•••.••••....•..•.
Earners ............................. .
Nonworking wives of earners •••••.....
Social insurance and related programs y
Old age, survivors, and disability
insurance . ........................ .
Railroad retirement programs .....•...
Government employees' retirement
prograzn.s .......................... .
Veterans' compensation a~d pensions ••
Public assistance ......••........•.....
No money income or income solely from
other sources ....................... .
Total number
l948 l958
Millions Millions
ll.5
3.8
2.9
·9
2.3
l.5
.3
·3
.4
2.4
3.4
l5.2
4.0
3.l
·9
l0.4
8.8
.6
.8
l.2
2.5
l.5
Percent
l948 l958
lOO.O
33.2
25.4
7.8
20.2
l2.7
2.6
2.6
3.0
20.8
lOO.O
26.0
20.2
5.8
68.2
58.2
3.8
4.9
7.6
l6.6
9·9
Note: Because persons frequently have income from more than one of the
saurces, the sum of persons exceeds the total number in the population.
Wives were counted as having income if their husbands had income from
employment or social insurance.
!J Persons with income from more than one of the programs listed are
counted only once. Unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, and
temporary disability insurance programs also provided income for an unknown
number.
-25-
care or other special needs make an unusually heavy drain on income. In June
1958, about 7 percent receiving OASDI also received old-age assistance or aid
to the blind, compared to about 10 percent in 1948.
In June 1958, four-fifths of the men and three-fifths of the women with
nQ income from employment or social insurance received public assistance. Ten
years earlier, less than half of the men and slightly more than a third of the
women in this situation were on the assistance rolls.
Paid employment.--Relatively fewer aged persons had income from paid
emp,loyment--either as workers or wives of workers--in 1958 than in 1948. In
1958, one-fourth of those 65 years old or over had employment income; in 1948,
one -third did. The rate of employment of older men dropped from 44 percent in
the earlier to 33 percent in the later year; that of women was about 9 percent
in both years .
Other.--The proportion of elderly persons receiving no income, or income
only from sources other than social insurance, public assistance, and employ­ment,
dropped from 29 percent in 1948 to 10 percent in 1958.
Size of income
Incomes of older persons as a group have improved considerably since 1948.
The proportion with incomes over $1,000 in dollars of 1957 buying power
increased from 32 percent in 1948 to 4o percent in 1957. (See table 2.)
Table 2.--Percent distribution of persons 65 and over
by total money income, 1948 and 1957
(Excludes those in institutions)
1948
Money income In 1948 In 1957
dollars dollars y
Number of persons (millions) ... 11.6 11.6
Total percent .................. 100 100
No income ...................... 32 32
$1-$999 ..•.•...........•.•..... 42 36
$1, 000-$1, 999 ••....•••..••.•..• 13 16
$2,000-$2,999 .................. 7 7
$3,000-$4,999·················· 4 6
$5,000 or more ..•.....•••...••• 2 3
l957
14.6
100
18
43
20
8
7
5
Note: Details may not necessarily add to totals because of rounding.
Wives were counted as having income only if they received income
independent of their husbands.
y Estimated roughly by converting the limits of each income class
in 1948 to 1957 dollars, using the BLS Consumer Price Index, then
recalculating the number of persons at each revised income level.
-26-
The income position of many aged people is better than the income distri­bution
in table 2 indicates • The figures give the income of all individuals
65 years of age or older. Some of these individuals are husbands and wives
living together. The wife may have no income but shares her husband's . Or
each may have an income--perhaps a monthly social security check. A majority
of those who reported no income in 1957-58 were women, many of whom had hus­bands
with income.
Tables 1 and 2 seemingly disagree in the proportion of aged persons w.ith
no income. The disagreement is due largely to (1) underreporting of income in
the study reported in table 2, and (2) the fact that incomes of wives were
treated differently in the two tabulations. In table 1, wives were counted as
having income if their husbands had income from employment or social insurance.
In table 2, wives were counted as having income only if they themselves
received money, independent of their husbands' income.
1960 CENSUS
It "is anticipated that nearly 180 million persons will be counted when
the Eighteenth Decennial Population Census is taken in April 1960. Each of us
can help to make an accurate and complete job of this gigantic undertaking.
Its success will be up to the women particularly, for they, for the most part,
will be the ones to ask and answer the questions.
The Bureau of the Census is one of the principal fact finders for the
Nation, and has been since the first count in 1790. The Bureau sends enumera­tors
out every 10 years to get figures about Population and Housing, and every
5 years to get data on Agriculture. Four other important censuses are carried
out by mail at 5-year intervals: Manufactures, Business, Mineral Industries,
and Governments (principally concerned with statistics of State and local
Government). The Census of Agriculture will be taken in the fall of 1959 when
information on farm operation is more readily obtainable than in April.
We will have questions put to us that concern only population and housing
when the enumerator comes around next April.
Uses for Census figures
Census figures are used extensively by people in various fields, and the
big books are a must in most public and university libraries. The primary
purpose of the Census of Population is to determine the n~~ber of Representa­tives
each State may elect to Congress. The Constitution of the United States
specified this. Distribution of Federal and State tax revenues may also be
based on population figures. For example, funds for roads and schools are
sometimes figured on such totals. The number of State, county, and city
officials and the salaries they receive are determined by population totals in
some States .
-27-
Business people planning new outlets such as supermarkets, laundries, and
dry cleaning establishments use figures on population numbers and characteris­tics
(age, income, and occupation) before deciding on a new business or area.
Manufacturers may use the figures in deciding how many autos to make, or how
much clothing to produce in a year.
It is evident that there are good reasons for collecting information on
many details such as place of residence, sex, race, age, number of rooms in
the house, and ownership of household equipment so that a record of our
national inventory of persons and resources can be made.
Procedure for April 1960 Census
This Census will introduce a new procedure. An advance Census form will
be sent during March 1960 to each household in the United States. This form
will have space to answer six questions on population and about the same num­ber
on housing. A letter will come with the form, explaining that you are to
fill in carefully the answers to all the questions, then hold the form until
the enumerator calls . When he comes, he will check over your answers with you.
Accuracy in every detail is extremely important because after a schedule
reaches headquarters it cannot be changed, even if incorrect. Accuracy could
prove helpful to individuals personally if they happen to have no birth cer­tificate
available. In such a case, the transcript of his ceD$US record might
be accepted for a passport or the settling of a claim to an estate. This
record would be given out by the Census Bureau only upon the individual's
written request, however.
The census enumerator will ask additional questions in every fourth house­hold.
By collecting certain detailed information from the "one-in-four"
household, the census taking process is shortened and money is saved, yet
sufficient information is obtained for an accurate estimate for many purposes.
The "one-in-four" household is chosen in simple numerical order of all occu. ­pied
dwellings. The fourth household automatically gets into this sample,
and the enumerator will leave a second form to be filled in and mailed to the
Census Bureau. He will also leave a postage-free envelope for mailing it.
All information given is strictly confidential and absolutely no one
except the Census Bureau employees who collect and process it is entitled to
see individual records .for any purpose. In fact, the Census Bur eau is not
interested in a person as an individual, but as an important part of a total.
For example, a housewife becomes one of the thousands of women classified as
" not in the labor force." The enumerator is more interested in the proper
recording of the information on the schedule than in any detail of a person's
age or income.
-28-
INCOMES SHIFT UPWARD !_/
Personal incomes of U.S. families and single individuals underwent a
general upgrading during the past decade. ("Personal income" includes money
income from all sources, plus nonmoney income like wages in kind, the value of
food and fuel produced and consumed on farms, the net imputed rental value of
owner-occupied homes, and imputed interest.) The median income in 1958 was
$5,050--that is, half of the fa~ilies and single individuals had incomes lower
than this, half higher.
The chart below shows how families and single individuals have shifted
upward along the income scale. Incomes for 1947 are expressed in terms of
1958 dollars, to eliminate the effect of the rise in prices and make them
directly comparable with the 1958 incomes. The proportion of families in each
income class under $6,000 fell, reducing the total with less than $6,000 (in
1958 dollars) from 72 percent in 1947 to 61 percent in 1958. The proportion
in each of the higher classes rose, so that the total with $6,000 or more
increased from 28 percent in the earlier to 39 percent in the later year.
Changes in family composition occurred too. Family size increased
slightly, age of family head rose moderately, and the proportion of wives
employed outside the home increased substantially. The size of families in
the lowest income group changed little, but the number of children in families
with higher incomes increased. As a result, a smaller proportion of the
Nation's children were in lower income families than 10 years earlier.
DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONAL INCOME (BEFORE TAXES)
IN 1947 AND 1958 ( 1958 DOLLARS)
Percent of families
20
lO
0
U. S. Department of Commerce
-1947
~1958
y Selma F. Goldsmith. "Income Distribution by Size--1955-58." Survey
of Current Business, April 1959, pp. 9-16.
-29-
CONSUMER PRICE3
Table 1.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living
(1947-49 = 100)
August 1958; December 1958-August 1959
Aug. Jan.
Item 1958 Dec. 1959 Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug.
All commodities .•••••...•.•. 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118
Food and tobacco •......... -- 116 -- -- 115 -- -- 117 -- --
Clothing •••.....••..••.... -- 114 -- -- 114 -- -- 114 -- --
Household operation .••.•.• -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- 117 -- --
Household furnishings •.••. -- 104 -- -- 104 -- -- 104 -- --
Building materials, house. -- 119 -- -- 120 -- -- 121 -- --
Auto and auto supplies ••.. -- l39 -- -- 141 -- -- 141 -- --
I
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.
Table 2.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families
(1947-49 = 100)
July 1958; November 1958-July 1959
July ' Jan.
Item 1958 Nov. Dec. 1959 Feb. Mar. April May June July
-
m items ................... 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 125
Food ...................... 122 119 119 119 118 118 118 118 119 119
Apparel ................... 107 lo8 lo8 107 107 107 107 107 107 108
Housing ................ ··. 128 128 128 128 128 129 129 129 129 129
Rent .................... 138 138 139 139 139 139 139 139 14o 14o
Gas and electricity ..... 117 118 118 118 118 118 118 119 119 120
Solid fuels and fuel oil I 132 136 137 139 14o 14o 139 135 134 134
Housefurnishings ........ 104 104 l04 103 104 104 104 104 104 104
Household operation ..... 131 133 133 133' 133 134 134 134 134 134
Transportation ............ 14o 144 144 144 144 145 145 145 146 146
Medical care .............. 145 14r( 148 148 149 149 150 150 151 151
Personal care ............. 129 129 129 129 130 130 130 131 131 131
Reading and recreation .... 117 117 117 117 117 117 118 118 118 119
Other goods and services .. 127 127 127 127 127 127 128 128 129 131 - I
Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
<> U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1959 0 • SZ••••