Family Economics Review [Oct. 1957]

              Institute of Home Economics, !gricultural Research Service.,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AG RICULTU R·E ~iilliffillitiillllii~~iilli
Prepared for home agents and home economics specialists of the Agricultural
Extension Service, this publication reports current developments in family
and food economics, and economic aspects of home management.
CONTENTS
FOOD
Family Food Budgets, Revised 1957•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
Home Freezing and Canning by Households in the United States... 12
FAMILY FINANCE
Consumer Borrowing is Up....................................... 16
Changes in the Consumer Price Index, 1947-1957••••••••••••••••• 19
Consumer Prices•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21
Incomes of Men and Women in 1956............................... 23
CLOI'HING AND TRANSPORTATION
Holllf! Sew'ing. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24
Farm Family Automobile OwnerShip............................... 25
ARS 62-5
October 1957
Washington, D. c.
WOOD I
FAMILY FOOD BUDGETS, REVISED 1957
The food budgets of the Department of Agriculture have served for
more than twenty-five years as a guide for estimating food needs and food
costs of families and population groups. They have been widely used by
nutritionists, economists, teachers, and welfare agencies as well as by
families. Many welfare agencies base their family food allotments on the
Department • s food budgets and use them as guides in their counseling pro­grams
for families. Economists use the food plans to estimate potential
demand for agricultural products. Their wide use as an educational tool
in teaching nutrition and food management and in planning home production
and preservation programs attests to their adaptability.
New food budgets must be developed from time to time to keep pace
with advancing nutritional knowledge, and with changes in food supplies,
food habits, and cost relationships among foods as shown by surveys of
food consumption and dietary levels. Since December 1948 when the last
complete revision of the food budgets was made (Helping Families Plan
Food Budgets, Misc. Pub. 662), the National Research Council's ~­mended
Dietary Allowances, . commonly used as nutritional goals in diet
planning in the United States, have been revised. Since 1948, consider­able
change has also taken place in family food habits.
In order to take account of a lowered calcium allowance for adults
in the National Research Council' s Recommended Dietary Allowances, an
interim revision of the Department ' s plans was made in 1955 and published
in the March 1955 issue of Rural Family Living. M:>re recently, up-to­date
information on family food habits has become available from the De­partment's
1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption. The present modern­ization
of the food pl ans is based on this latest information on food
consumption as well as the latest nutritional recommendations.
As soon as possible, a publication to take the place of Helping
Families Plan Food Bu.dgets will be prepared, followed by a new set of
publications for more popular use.
In this revision of the food budgets, three plans are included--a
low-cost, a moderate-cost, and .a liberal plan. Each plan has separate
figures for sex and age groups and for women during pregnancy and lacta­tion
so that household or population totals may be obtained.
The food groups
For convenience and for flexibility in the use of the plans, food
items are grouped into 11 categories. The foods in each of these groups
are similar in nutritive value and use in the diet. The groupings are
slightly different from those in previous plans but are consistent with
those suggested in Essentials of an Adequate Diet y (table 1). In these
1/ Agriculture Information Bull etin No. 160.
-2-
as in previous plans, it is assumed that families following the plans
make average selections of food within each food group, such as are re­ported
in household food surveys and per capita food supply reports.
If families make better selections--nutritionwise--within the food
groups, they will have diets of higher nutritive value than the minimum
discussed below. If the reverse is true, there may be some nutrients in
which the total diet will fall slightly below the nutritional goal.
Basic crit~ria of 1957 budgets
1) Nutritional recommendations:
National Research Council ' s Recommended Dietary Allowances,
Revised ·l953, with cal ories for adults as modified in tiApplying
1953 Dietary Allowances to U. s. Population Groups, " by c. LeBovit
and H. K. Stiebeling. (Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
33: 219-224. 1957.) .
These allowances have been used as minimum goals for eight
nutrients and as ~ goals for calories.
The NRC allowances are for nutrients in food as ingested
while the quantities in the food plans are for foods as they enter
the kitchen, some of which may not be eaten. Therefore, in develop­ing
food plans, allowance must be made for food losses. It seems
reasonable to assume that losses and discards on a low-cost food
plan would be minimum, with larger losses at the moderate-cost and
liberal levels.
2) Current food habits:
Food consumption patterns of nonfarm households in three income
groups as reported in the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey
have been used as a guide in planning quantities of the 11 food
groups. For the low-cost food plan, the $2,000-$2,999 income class
( a.:fter taxes) has been used; for the moderate-cost, the $4,000-$4, 999
class and for the liberal, the $6,000-$7,999 income class. These i n­come
levels have been used to represent the lower third, the median,
and the upper third of the income distribution of nonfarm families
in 1955·
The 1957 food plans
Tables 2 , 3 , and 4 show suggested quanti ties of food for 18 sex-age
groups and for women during pregnancy and lactation at the low-cost, moder·
ate-cost, and liberal-cost levels. The interim plans that were published
in the Mu-ch 1955 issue of Rural Family Living and all earlier plans had
-3-
suggested quant · ; :for men and women of three degrees of activity--
sedentary, mode y active, and very active--chiefly, because in the
earlier versions the National Research Council's tables had allowances
tor these categories of adults. The 1953 version of the NRC table has
allowances for three age classes instead, with no specific recommenda­tion
in the tables for adjustment for activity. A fourth age class,
75 years and over, has been added in the food plans.
The quantities of foods suggested in these plans for adults in the
respective age ranges are for the general average o:f the population at
"ideal" weight. Quantities may need to be adjusted to the individual's
need :for calories as indicated by his activity, height, and weight. Any
decrease in quanti ties o:f food to lower calories should be made so as to
·lower the nutrient level of the plan as little as possible. In many
cases, this can be done most readily by lowering quantities of fats and
oils and sugar and sweets.
Illustrated below are quantities :for one week o:f the three food plans
for a typical family group (man and woman 33 years of age, girl 8, boy 11).
Quanti ties are in decimal fractions as they were added up from tables 2. ,
3 , 4. Decimal portions of pounds may be converted to ounces at the rate
o:f • o6 pound per ounce.
Food groups
Milk, milk products ••••••• quarts •••
Meat, poultry, fish ••••••• pounds •••
Eggs •••••••••••••••••••••• number •••
Dry beans, peas, nuts ••••• pounds •••
Grain products •••••••••••••• do •••••
Potatoes •••••••••••••••••••• do •••••
Citrus fruit, tomatoes •••••• do •••••
Dark green, deep yellow
vegetables •••••••••••••••• do •••••
other vegetables, fruits •••• do •••••
Fats, oils •••••••••••••••••• do •••••
Sugars, sweets •••••••••••••• do •••••
Low-cost
plan
19.0
10.50
23
1.25
12.00
9-75
8.50
2.50
19.75
2.00
2.88
MJderate­cost
plan
19.5
16.75
27
-75
11.00
8.50
10.00
2.75
22.50
2.62
3·75
Liberal
plan
20.5
19.25
27
.69
10.25
7-75
11.75
2-75
25.25
2.62
4.50
As expected the low-cost plan contains more of the less expensive
foods such as potatoes and grain products than the other two plans.
The moderate-cost and liberal plans have larger quantities of milk,
eggs, meat, fruits, and vegetables for planning more varied meals. Also
mre expensive i te:ms within the groups, such as foods out of season and
the more highly processed foods, can be used. These more expensive choices
w1 thin the groups will usually account for most of the increased cost of the
liberal plan.
Quanti ties of food are in terms of food as purchased (or as brought in­to
the kitchen if home produced). Because the foOd plans take account of
-4-
family food habits, quantities of foods in the groups and group nutri­tive
values (used in calculating the adequacy of the plan) assume the
purchase of some fresh, some canned, and some frozen fruits and vege­tables
in proportions typical of the average household. It is assumed,
as well, that quanti ties of meat, poultry, and fish will be proportioned
between bony and meaty pieces in accordance with family food practices,
and that purchases of bacon and salt pork will not exceed 6 to 7 percent
of the total weight of the meat purchased.
Nutritional adequacy of food plans
The nutritive value of the food plans was based on quantities of
food groups suggested in tables 2, 3, and 4, and on average nutritive
values per pound of food groups from the 1955 Food Consumption Survey
and National Food Supply data. These group values were computed from
1955 food supply estimates for all groups except grain products and sugar
and sweets. The nutritive values of grain products and sugar and sweets
were computed from the 1955 Food Consumption Survey because food supply
data do not report these foods in the forms in which they are consumed.
The energy values of the food plans exceed the weighted average NRC
allowance by relatively small margins. The margins for protein, minerals,
and vitamins are considerably greater for the liberal and moderate-cost
plans than the low-cost. Even for the latter, however, margins are gener­ous.
Compared to the nutritive value of the food supplies of families as
estimated in surveys, the margins are relatively greater for the eight
nutrients than for calories.
The allowances for nutrients in the food plans for individuals in
general exceed the NRC recolllllendations by generous SJOOunts. However, ado­lescent
girls and pregnant women, with their low calories allowances in
relation to high recommended nutrient levels will need to take care to se­lect
meats and vegetables high in iron in order to meet their allowance
for this nutrient. This is especially true for those following the low­cost
plan. A large serving of liver weekly would solve this problem.
For small children and pregnant and nursing women, same source of
vitamin D is needed. For elderly persons and for persons who have no op­portunity
for ,exposure to clear sunshine, also, a small amount of vitamin
D is desirable. The amount of vitamin D needed by these individuals should
be prescribed by a physician. In some cases this need may be met by the
use of vitamin D milk.
The calorie values of the food plans do not include the fat estimated
to be lost in the cooking and serving of meat.
-5-
Estimated cost of plans
The cost of the food in these plans was first estimated by using the
average prices per pound of each food group paid by nonfarm families at the
three selected income levels. The cost in each case is less than the aver­age
value of the week's food eaten at home by the comparable income group
largely because of the restriction put on calories in the food plans.
Twenty-eight percent of the nonfarm families in the $2 000-$2 999 income
class in 1955, however, spent less than the money valu~ of t~ low-cGst
plan ($5.15 per person ?)). Thirty-five percent at the $4,000-$4,999 in­come
level spent less than the value of the moderate-cost plan for food at
home ($6.90 ?)). Forty-two percent of the nonfarm families at the
$~A000-$7{999 income level spent less than the cost of the liberal plan
(;po.20 ?) )·
In order to adjust 1955 survey prices to current prices a weighting
scheme was developed using prices for those foods which the u. s. Bureau
of Labor Statistics prices for its Consumer Price Index. The costs of
the plans thus estimated for June 1957 are shown in table 5. df
Adaptations of plans
The food plans described above, as well as earlier plans of the De­partment
of Agriculture, take into account average food habits and food
prices in the United States. Because of the use of broad groups of food,
they are general enough in character for use in most regions, especially
in the North and West. Modifications of quantities to adapt the plan more
closely to food habits in the South might be made.
Special adaptations of the plans might also be made for farm families,
giving greater emphasis to foods that are produced at home. Another adap­tation
might be a plan that would cost less than the low-cost plan. This
could be developed by changing the relative quantities of the food groups.
Considerable leeway exists within the three suggested food plans de­scribed
herein for lowering the costs of the plans as given in table 5.
Limiting choices to the cheaper foods in each food group can reduce cost
considerably. Use of the lower grades and cheaper cuts of meat, for ex­ample,
reduces the price per pound of the meat, poultry, and fish group.
This is only one of many ways of keeping food costs low.
--Eloise Cofer.
?) Weighted by number of meals served at home to men, women and chil­dren
of specified ages in households in indicated income class, 1955 House­hold
Food Consumption Survey (Reports 6-10). This average is different
from that based on sex-age distribution of United States population (farm
and nonfarm) and shown in table 5·
Jl Table 5 replaces the Estimated Cost of One Week's Food based on the
March 1955 interim revision of the food plans, which has been a regular fea­ture
of this publication. An estimate of the cost of the interim plans,
based on June 15 1957 m.s food prices has been made, and is available on
request. In the' futur~, no estimates will be made for the interim plans.
Table 1.--Definition of Eleven Food Groups--Old and New
Food groups used in previous plans Food groups used in current plans
Group name
(l)
Milk, cheese, ice cream
Meat, poultry, fish,
excluding bacon
and salt pork
Eggs
Dry beans and peas, nuts
Flour, cereals, baked
goods ]:_/
Potatoes and sweet­potatoes
Foods included Group name
(2) ( 3)
Milk-whole, skim, buttermilk,ISame as colo 1
dry, evaporated, condensed;
cheese; ice cream
Beef, veal, lamb, pork
(bacon and salt pork
grouped with fats)
Variety meats such as
liver, heart, tongue
Luncheon meats
Poultry
Fish and shellfish
Eggs
Dry beans of all kinds,
dry peas, lentils
Soybeans and soya products
Peanuts, peanut butter, and
tree nuts
Flour and meal
Cereals, including ready-to­eat
cereals
Rice, hominy, noodles,
macaroni, spaghetti
Bread, cake, other baked
goods
Potatoes and sweetpotatoes
Meat, poultry, fish,
including bacon
and salt pork
Same as col. l
Same as col. l
Same as col. l
Potatoes
Foods included
(4)
Same as col. 2
Same as col. 2, plus
bacon, salt pork,
mixtures mostly meat
Same as colo 2
Same as colo 2. Also
soups mostly legumes
Same as col. 2. Also
mixtures mostly grain
Potatoes, fresh and
processed
I
CJ\
I
Leafy, green, and yellow
vegetables
Citrus fruit, tomatoes
Other vegetables and
fruits
Fats and oils including
bacon and salt pork
Sugar, sirup, preserves
Green asparagus, snap beans,
green lima beans, broccoli,
brussels sprouts, green
cabbage, chard, collards,
kale, leaf lettuce, spin­ach,
and other dark and
light greens, okra, peas,
green peppers
Carrots, pumpkin, yellow
winter squash
Grapefruit, lemons, limes,
oranges, tangerines
Tomatoes
Dark green and deep
yellow vegetables
Same as col. 1
Beets, white cabbage, cauli- !Same as col. 1
flower, celery, corn,
cucumbers, head lettuce,
onions, parsnips, ruta-bagas,
sauerkraut, turnips
Apples, bananas, berries,
cherries, dates, figs,
grapes, peaches, pears,
plums, prunes, raisins,
rhubarb
Broccoli, chard, kale
collards, green
peppers, spinach,
other dark greens
Sweetpotatoes, carrots,
pumpkin, yellow winter
squash
Sams as col. 2
Same as col. 2 and snap
beans, green lima
beans, asparagus, leaf
lettuce, brussels
sprouts, cabbage, okra,
peas, other light green
and yellow vegetables
Butter, margarine, mayon­naise,
salad dressing,
salad oil, shortening
Bacon, salt pork, lard, suet
Fats and oils exclud- Same as col. 2, but ex-ing
bacon and salt eluding bacon and salt
pork pork
Sugar, granulated, powdered, !Same as col. 1
brown, maple
Molasses, sirup, honey
Jams, jellies, preserves
Same as col. 2 and powdered
prepared desserts.
y Weight in terms of flour and cereal.
I
-.:]
I
-
Table 2.--Food Plan at Low Cost: Suggested weekly quantities of food (as purchased, assuming average
choices within groups) for 20 sex-age groups (Tentative)
Dark
Dry green Other
Milk and Meat, beans Grain Citrus and vege-
Sex-age group lJ milk poultry, Eggs and prod- Pota- fruit, deep tables Fats, Sugars,
products fish peas, ucts toes toma- yellow and oils sweets
?:/ 'JI nuts lj} toes vege- fruits
tables
Qt . Lb. No . Lb . Lb. Lb. Lb . Lb . Lb. Lb . Lb .
Children: - - - - - - - - - -
Under 1 year •• • • • 5 o5 1 .00 5 0 0 . 75 0. 50 1.50 0.12 1 . 00 o. o6 0.12
1-3 years •••••••• 5· 5 1 . 25 5 . o6 1.25 o75 1.50 . 25 2. 25 .12 .12
4-6 years • ••••• • • 5·5 1.50 5 .12 ·75 1.25 1 . 75 . 25 3 o25 o25 . 25
7-9 years • • • •• •• • 5 o5 2.00 6 . 25 2 . 25 2. 00 2. 00 o50 4 . 25 -38 . 50
Girls: 10-12 years 6. 5 2.25 6 o25 2o75 2 . 25 2. 25 o50 4 . 75 . 38 . 62
13-15 years •• • • •• 7 .0 2. 50 6 . 25 3. 00 2 o50 2. 25 · 75 5 o00 o50 . 62
16- 20 years ••• ••• 7o0 2 . 50 6 . 25 2.75 2.25 2. 25 · 75 4 .75 . 38 . 62
Boys: 10-12 years 6 . 5 2.25 6 -38 3 o00 2.50 2.25 o50 5. 00 . 50 o75
13-15 years •• •• • • 7 o0 2. 50 6 . 38 4.50 3 o25 2. 50 o75 5 o25 . 88 o75
16- 20 years • ••• • • 7 o0 3 o25 6 o50 5o 50 4 . 75 2. 50 o75 5 ·50 1 .00 1.00
Women : 21-34 years 3 ·5 2. 50 5 . 25 2 . 50 2. 00 2 .00 o75 5o00 . 38 . 62
35- 54 years • • • • •• 3· 5 2.50 5 o25 2.50 1.50 2.00 o75 4 . 50 .25 . 62
55-74 years ••• • •• 3 ·5 2.50 5 . 25 2 . 25 1.25 2. 00 · 75 3 o50 . 25 . 38
75 years and over 3 ·5 2 . 50 5 . 25 2 .00 1.25 2 . 00 · 75 3 . 00 . 25 . 38
Pregnant women ••• •• 7 o0 2o75 7 . 25 2 .00 1.50 2 . 75 1.50 2. 50 . 25 . 38
Lactating women •• • • 10.0 3 o25 7 o25 3o25 3 · 25 4 . 50 1.50 3.50 o50 . 50
Men: 21-34 years • • 3 o5 3o75 6 o38 4 . 25 3 o25 2. 25 · 75 5 o50 o75 1.00
35- 54 years ••••• • 3 o5 3 o50 6 . 38 3· 75 3 . 00 2.25 -75 5 o00 . 62 o75
55-74 years • •• • •• 3 -5 3 o25 6 . 25 3·50 2.50 2. 25 o75 4 . 75 . 62 . 62
75 years and over 3 o5 3 -25 6 . 25 3o25 2.25 2 . 00 ·75 4 . 50 . 50 . 62
lJ Quantities of food suggested here are based on growth and activity levels believed to fit average
conditions in this country . ~ Fluid whole milk or the calcium equivalent of milk products . Count as 1
quart milk, 4-1/3 pounds cottage cheese (creamed ) , 2-2/3 pounds cream cheese or cheese spread, 1/3 pound
other cheese, 1-2/3 quarts i ce cream. 'JI Meat, poultry, and fish including bacon and salt pork . Protein
content of group assumed t o be 62 grams per pound. lj} Weight in terms of flour and cereal; count 1-1/2
~ounds of bread and baked goods as l pound flour.
I
CP
I
Table 3.--Food Plan at Moderate Cost: Suggested weekly quantities of food (as purchased, assuming
average choices within groups) for 20 sex-age groups (Tentative)
Dark
Dry green Other
Milk and Meat, beans Grain Citrus and vege-
Sex-age group l} milk poultry, Eggs and prod- Pota- fruit, deep tables Fats, Sugars,
products fish peas, ucts toes toroa- yellow and oils sweets
5.1 Jl nuts !±/ toes vege- fruits
tables
Qt. Lb. No. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb.
Children: - - - - - - -
Under l year ••••• 6.0 1.25 6 0 0.75 0.50 1.50 0.12 1.50 o.o6 0.12
l-3 years •••••••• 6.0 1.75 6 .o6 1.00 ·75 1.50 .25 2.75 .12 .12
4-6 years •••••••• 6.0 2.25 6 .o6 1.50 1.00 2.00 .25 4.00 o3l .50
7-9 years •••••••• 6.0 3.00 7 .12 2.00 1.75 2.25 .50 4.75 ·50 ·75
Girls: 10-12 years 6.5 4.00 7 .12 2.50 2.00 2.50 ·75 5.25 .50 ·75
13-15 years •••••• 7·0 4.50 7 .12 2.75 2.25 2.50 ·75 5o75 .62 ·75
16-20 years •••••• 7o0 4.25 7 .12 2.50 2.00 2.50 o75 5.50 .62 ·75
Boys: 10-12 years 6.5 4.00 7 .25 2o75 2.25 2.50 o75 5.50 .62 .88
13-15 years •••••• 7.0 4.75 7 .25 4.25 3.00 2.75 ·75 6.00 1.00 1.00
16-20 years •••••• 7o0 5o 50 7 .38 5o25 4.25 3.00 o75 6.25 1.25 1.25
Women: 21-34 years 3·5 4.25 6 .12 2.25 1.50 2.50 o75 5·75 .50 .88
35-54 years •••••• 3·5 4.25 6 .12 2.00 1.25 2.50 ·75 5.25 o50 ·75
55-74 years •••••• 3·5 4.25 6 .12 lo75 1.25 2.25 ·75 4.25 .38 o50
75 years and over 3·5 3·75 6 ' .12 1.75 1.00 2.25 ·75 3·75 .38 .50
Pregnant women ••••• 7o0 4.75 7 .12 1.75 1.25 3.00 1.50 3.00 .25 .50
Lactating women •••• 10.0 5·75 7 .12 3.00 2.75 4.75 1.50 4.25 .62 ·75
Men: 21-34 years •• 3·5 5·50 7 .25 4.00 3.00 2. 75. ·75 6.50 1.00 1.25
35-54 years •••••• 3o5 5·25 7 .25 3o50 2.50 2.75 ·75 5o75 .88 1.00
55-74 years •••••• 3·5 5.00 7 .12 3.25 2.25 2.75 ·75 5.50 ·75 .88
75 years and over 3·5 5.00 7 .12 2.75 2.00 2.50 o75 5.25 .62 -75
l} Quantities of food suggested here are based on growth and activity levels believed to fit average
conditions in this country. 5./ Fluid whole milk or the calcium equivalent of milk products. Count as l
quart milk, 4-l/3 pounds cottage cheese (creamed), 2-2/3 pounds cream cheese or cheese spread, l/3 pound
other cheese, l-2/3 quarts ice cream. Jl Meat, poultry, and fish including bacon and salt pork. Protein
content of group assumed to be 62 grams per pound. ~ Weight in terms of flour and cereal; count l-l/2
pounds of bread and baked goods as l pound flour.
I
\0
I
Table 4.--Food Plan at Liberal Cost: Suggested weekly quantities of food (as purchased,
assuming average choices within groups) for 20 sex-age groups (Tentative)
Dark
Dry green Other
Milk and Meat, beans Grain Citrus and vege-
Sex-age group ~ milk poultry, Eggs and prod- Pota- fruit, deep tables Fats,
products fish peas, ucts toes toma- yellow and oils
5.1 ll nuts }}} toes vege- fruits
tables
Qt. Lb. No. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb.
Children: - - - - - -
Under l year ••••• 6.0 l.25 7 0 Oo75 0.50 lo75 O.l2 l.50 O.l2
l-3 years •••••••• 6.0 2.25 7 .06 l.OO o75 l-75 .25 2.75 .l2
4-6 years •••••••• 6.0 3.00 7 .o6 lo25 -75 2.25 o50 4.50 .38
7-9 years •••••••• 6.0 3o75 7 .l2 lo75 lo50 2-75 o50 5o25 .50
Girls : l0-l2 years 6.5 4.75 7 .l2 2.25 2.00 3.00 -75 5o 50 o50
l3-l5 years •••••• 7-0 5-50 7 .l2 2.50 2.25 3.00 ·75 6.00 .62
26-20 years •••••• 7-0 5o25 7 .l2 2.25 lo75 3.00 ·75 5o75 .62
Boys: l0-l2 years 6.5 4.75 7 .25 2o75 2o25 3.00 ·75 6.00 .62
l3-l5 years •••••• 7o0 5o 50 7 .25 4.25 3.00 3o25 -75 6.50 loOO
l6-20 years •••••• 7o0 6.25 7 .38 5o25 4.25 3·50 -75 7-25 lo38
Women: 2l-34 years 4.0 4.75 6 .o6 2.00 lo25 3.00 o75 6.25 .50
35-54 years •••••• 4.0 4.75 6 .o6 lo75 l.OO 3.00 ·75 6.00 o50
55-74 years •••••• 4.0 4.75 6 .o6 lo50 l.OO 3.00 o75 4.50 .38
75 years and over 4.0 4.25 6 .o6 l.50 o75 3.00 o75 4.00 -38
Pregnant woman ••••• 7-0 5o25 7 .l2 lo50 loOO 3o00 lo50 4.25 .38
Lactating woman •••• lO.O 6.00 7 .l2 3.00 2.50 5.00 lo50 5o 50 ·75
Men: 2l-34 years •• 4.0 6.00 7 .25 3·75 2o75 3o00 o75 7o75 loOO
35-54 years •••••• 4.0 5o 50 7 .25 3o50 2.25 3.00 o75 6.50 .88
55-74 years •••••• 4.0 5o25 7 .l2 3o25 2.00 3.00 o75 6.00 -75
75 years and over 4.0 5·25 7 .l2 2.75 lo75 2.75 o75 5o75 .62
- - .... - - - - - - - . - - . . . . - - - - . . .
Sugars,
sweets
Lb.
O.l2
.l2
.62
.88
loOO
l.OO
l.OO
l.OO
l.25
lo25
lol2
loOO
·75
.62
.62
loOO
l.50
lo25
l.l2
l.OO
conditions in this country. 5./ Fluid whole milk or the calcium equivalent of milk products. Count as l
quart milk, 4-l/3 pounds cottage cheese (creamed), 2-2/3 pounds cream cheese or cheese spread, l/3 pound
other cheese, l-2/3 quarts ice cream. lf Meat, poultry, and fish including bacon and salt pork. Protein
content of group assumed to be 62 grams per pound. }}} Weight in terms of flour and cereal; count l-l/2
~cunQs of breaQ ann baked goods as l pound flour .
I
I-'
0
I
-11-
Table 5.--Estimated Cost of One Week's Food~ June 1957
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two, 21-34 years of age 5f ••••••
Family of two, 55-74 years of age g; ..... .
Family of four with preschool children~·
Family of four, school age children~····
INDIVIDUAlS
Children:
Under 1 year••••o•••••••o••oo••o•••o••o•
1-3 years .. o o ••••••••••• o • •• o • ••••••••••
4-6 years o ••••••• o • o • o •••••• o •••••••••••
7-9 years. •••o•o••••o•••o••••••••••••••o
Girls, 10-12 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
13-15 yearSo•••o•••o•eoo••••ooa•o••••oo•
16-20 yearSaoeooaoaaoo•o•••••••o•••o••••
Boys, 10-12 yearSaaoo•o••••••••oo•••ooao•o
13-15 years. o • o • o • o •••••• o •• o • o •••••••••
16-20 years.oo•o•••o••o•o••o•••••o••••••
Women:
21-34 years •. o•••o••••••••••••••••••••••
3 5-54 years . o •••••••• o o o ••••••••••••••••
55-74 years•••••••••••••••••••••o•••••••
75 years and over . ........... o •••••••••••
Pregnant .. o •• o o • ••••• •••••••• o • o • o •••• o •
Nursing .. o • o •• o ••• o ••• o •• o ••••••••••• o ••
Men:
21-34 years•••••oooeeo••o••••••••••••o••
35-54 yearSoeeeoo••o••eooeoo••••••••••••
55-74 years••••oo:o••••o••o~o••••••o•••o
75 years and over .•. o•••o••••••••••o••••
Per capita 5/•••••••o•••••••••••••o········
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
14.50
13.00
19.50
22.50
2.75
3o50
4.00
5.00
5o 50
6.00
6.00
5·75
6.75
7o75
5o25
5.00
4.75
4.50
5-75
7o75
6.75
6.25
6.00
5·75
5o 50
Moderate-cost
plan
Dollars
19.50
17.50
25.50
30.50
3o50
4.25
5-25
6.25
7-50
8.25
8.00
7·75
9.25
10.50
7.25
6.75
6.50
6.00
7·75
10.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7o75
7o25
Liberal
plan
Dollars
22.00
19.50
29.50
34.50
3o75
5.00
6.25
7.25
8.50
9-25
9.00
8.75
10.50
12.00
8.00
7·75
7o25
7o00
8.50
11.50
10.25
9.50
9.00
8.75
8.25
~ These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal ~ood plans published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the
September 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. 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 individuals have been rounded
to nearest $0.25 and for families to the nearest half dollar.
g/ Twenty percent.added for small families.
3/ Man and woman 21-34 years; children, l-3 and 4-6 years.
~ Man and woman 21-34 years; child 7-9; and boy, 10-12 years.
~ Based on estimate of age distribution of u. S. population for 1955·
U. S. Bureau of Census.
-12-
HOME FREEZING AND CANNING BY HOUSEHOLDS IN THE UNITED STATES
Housekeeping families in the United States in 1954 preserved by can­ning
and freezing an average (in processed weight) of' 160 pounds of food
for home use, according to a nationwide food consumption survey made in
the spring of 1955. This amounts to approximately one-tenth of the
weight of vegetables, fruits, and meat, poultry, and fish used in the
household during the year. 1-bre than half (93 pounds or 42 quarts) of the
food was preserved by canning. Home canning was much more common than
home freezing, but the average amount frozen per family freezing food was
considerably greater than the amount canned per family canning food.
Urban-rural differences
Farm families froze and canned more food than city families, mainly
because of the large amounts of food supplies by the home farm or garden.
Nearly all (95 percent) of the farm families canning or freezing vege­tables
and freezing meat produced some of the food themselves. Two-thirds
of the families f~reezing frUit and 80 percent of those canning fruit pro­duced
some of it. Many of the rural nonfarm and some of the city families
also preserved homegrown food--chiefly vegetables--although much less than
the farm families.
During the year 1954 the total quantity of food canned and frozen per
farm family averaged 636 pounds, more than half of which was frozen. In
contrast, the average amount for the urban family was 57 pounds, more than
three-fif't~s of which was canned. The rural nonfarm household preserved,
on the average, 199 pounds--considerably more than the city household and
about one-third as much as the farm. If the consumption of home-preserved
food were spread evenly throughout the year, it would add about 12 pounds
a week to the food supply for the farm household, 4 pounds for the rural
nonfarm household, and l pound for the urban household.
A much larger proportion of the farm families than of the rural non­farm
and city families had facilities for freezing food; 64 percent of the
farm, 26 percent of the rural nonfarm, and 12 percent of the city families
had use of' a home freezer or rented a freezer locker. Consequently, city­farm
differences were greater for the proportion of households freezing
food than for the proportion canning. Farm families were seven times as
l ikely as city families to do freezing but only three times as likely to
do canning, as the following shows:
Urban •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rural nonfarm•••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rural farm ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Percent of households--
Canning Freezing
9
23
62
A few families who reported the ownership or availability of' freezing
facili ties reported no freezing of food.
-13-
M:>st of the food frozen was meat, poultry, or fish (88 percent of
that frozen by farm families, and 82 percent of that frozen by nonfarm
families). Both farm and nonfarm groups froze about the same proportion
of beef--about 45 percent of the total food frozen--but farm families
froze relatively more pork--26 percent of the total food frozen, com­pared
with ll percent for nonfarm families.
Although urban households were less likely than nonfarm households
to can any food, their order of preference among the vegetables and fruits
to be canned was the same. Jams, jellies, and the like were put up by
more households than any other food (table 6). Tomatoes and peaches were
the individual foods most likely to be canned as such.
Table 6.--Percent of households freezing and canning
specified foods, 1954
Households freezing .Households canning
Food Rural Rural Rural
Urban nonfarm farm Urban nonfarm
Percent
-
Any food ••••••••• 9 23 62 29 63
Vegetables !/••••••••• 4 15 37 17 49
Tomatoes ••••••••••• y y y 12 37
Bean.s • ••••••••••••• 2 10 23 5 25
Corn ••••••••••••••• 3 9 28 2 11
Peas ••• o••••••••••• 1 7 22 1 7
Greens ••••••••••••• 1 2 6 1 5
Other vegetables ••• 1 4 9 4 12
Pickles, relishes •• - - - 8 26
Fruits •••••••••••••••• 4 12 30 25 55
Peaches •••••••••••• 2 5 15 12 34
Berries •••••••••••• 3 9 23 4 14
Other fruits ••••••• 1 3 10 10 20
Jellies, jams, etc. - - - 19 44
~ats Y, poultry, fish,
and game •••••••• 7 19 60 l 5
Poultry •••••••••••• 4 12 41 'Y 'Y
Beef ••••••••••••••• 5 12 48 Jl Jl
Pork ••••••••••••••• 2 7 36 Jl Jl
Fish and game ••••••• 1 5 8 y y
y Includes vegetable soups and mixes not shown separately.
gj Includes veal, lamb and mutton not shown separately.
~ Data not available.
Rural
farm
87
77
61
47
22
18
10
22
54
81
59
26
37
67
15
'Y
Jl
Jyl
-14-
Income differences
Freezing.--Families with high incomes, farm and nonfarm alike, more
often had freezing facilities than those with low incomes, and froze con­siderably
larger quantities of food. There were differences among income
groups in kinds as well as amounts of food frozen. The higher the income
the more likely the family--farm or nonfarm--was to freeze corn and peas,
berries and other fruits. Also, the proportion of families freezing beef
or poultry increased considerably more with increasing income than the
proportion of those freezing pork.
Farm families at all income levels produced at home a large share of
the food they froze. However, higher income families, both farm and non­farm,
were more likely than lower income families to bu:r some meat, poultry,
and fruit for freezing. At all incomes, families buying food to freeze
were much less likely to select vegetables than other foods.
Canning.--In general, for both farm and nonfarm households the percent·
ages canning food varied little with money income. There was some evidence
that those with high incomes were a little more likely to can food than
those with low incomes, and in some instances, among urban households, that
they canned larger amounts. There was relatively little change with income
in kinds of food canned, except that high-income families were less likely
to can berries and corn, somewhat more likely to can peaches and tomatoes.
As with food frozen, fruit canned by higher income families was more
likely to include some purchased for this purpose. For vegetables there
was little difference in this respect between low- and high-income families.
Regional differences
Since much of the food preserved is food produced by rural families
for their own use, we might anticipate regional differences in food preser·
vation practices because of different kinds of fruits, vegetables, and
livestock raised in different parts of the country.
Farm families in the Northeast and North Central regions did more can·
ning than those in the South and West: more families canned some food, and
those doing so canned larger amounts. The percentages of farm households
that canned any food were 92 percent in the Northeast, 91 in the North
Central, 84 in the South, and 74 in the West. The total amounts canned per
household canning in·the various regions were 192, 168, 143, and 153 quarts,
respectively. These reeional differences held for each type of food canned·
vegetables, fruits, and meats--as well as for the total, except in the West.
There farm households canning fruit canned considerably more than in any
other region, while those canning vegetables canned considerably less.
Farm families in the West were more likely than those in other regions
to purchase food for canning. In the West, 21 percent of the farm families
canning vegetables bought all of the vegetables canned, compared with onlY
-15-
3 percent in the othe~ regions. Similarly, 43 percent of the farm fami­lies
in the West cann~ng any fruit purchased all of it, compared with
only about 20 percent in the other regions.
Tomatoes were the most common single item canned by farm families out­side
of the West, but in the West both peaches and other fruit were canned
by more families than were tomatoes. Peas were much more likely to be can­ned
in the South than elsewhere, corn in the Northeast. Jellies or jams
were favorite items in all regions--with two-thirds or more of the house­holds
making them. Vegetables were pickled by fewer households in the South
and West than in the rest of the country: in the Northeast and North Central
States three-fifths of the families made pickles, compared with one-half
of the families in the South, and only one-foUrth in the West.
Less than half of the southern farm households had freezers or freezer
lockers, compared with more than three-fourths of the farm households in
other regions. Furthermore, those in the South who froze any food froze
considerably less--an average of 427 pounds as against 519 in the Northeast
and about 600 in the North Central and West. This is chiefly accounted for
by the smaller quantities of meat and poultry frozen by households in the
South. The average quantity of fruits and vegetables they froze, though
relatively small, was as much as or more than that in other regions.
For farm families, as a whole, beef represented the largest share of
the meat put in the freezer. In the West this preponderance of beef was
considerably greater than in other regions, as was the proportion of
frozen food obtained by hunting and fishing, while the proportion of pork
was considerably less.
Three-fourths of the farm families in the Northeast and the South
freezing meat or poultry produced all of it at home, compared with two-thirds
of the farm families in the North Central and Western States.
Among urban families, 41 percent did canning and 13 percent did freez­ing
in the North Central and West, only 20 percent did canning and 6 percent
freezing in the Northeast and Southo However, there was little regional
difference in total amount of food preserved, except that in the South fami­lies
canning food tended to can a little less and those freezing food tended
to freeze a little more than in other regions. For example, among urban
families those in the South which canned any food put up an average of
47 quart~, compiu-ed with about 57 quarts in other regions. The southern
city family which froze any food froze an average of about 287 pounds,
compared with 216 pounds in other regions.
Regional differences in choices of foods for canning by urban families
were similar to those by farm families. In the West, for example, city
households like farm households canned much more fruit and considerably
less vegetables than in other parts of the country. On the other hand,
regional differences in choices of foods for freezing were somewhat differ­ent
among city families than among farm families. The southern city family
that froze food, unlike the farm family, put relatively more meat and less
fruit in the freezer than the city family in other regions.
--M:>llie Orshansky and Mary Ann M:>ss.
-16-
'FAMILY FINANCE]
CONSUMER BORROWING IS UP y
Consumers ended the year 1955 with the biggest installment debt they
ever had in the form of personal loans. During the year they had added
almost $1 billion to the amount outstanding in these cash installment
loans, bringing the total to approximately $7.2 billion (table 7) . By
the end of May this year, for the first time since World War II, this
debt was almost as large as the installment debt for such consumer goods
as furniture, appliances, jewelry, etc. (called "other consumer goods
credit" in the table below).
Table 7.--Amount of installment credit outstanding December 31, 1956
and increase since 1955, by type of credit
- -
Credit outstanding December 31, 1956
Increase during year
Type of Amount Amount
installment credit (millions (millions Percent
of dollars) of dollars'
All installment credit ••••••••••••• 31,552 2,532 8.7
Personal loans ••••••••••••••••••• 7,184 928 14.8
Automobile financing ••••••••••••• 14,436 968 7.2
other consumer goods credit •••••• 8,139 513 6 .7
Repair and modernization loans ••• 1,793 123 7.4
- - --
The increase in installment debt outstanding in personal loans has not
been as spectacular as that for automobiles. However, it has been a steady
increase since 1950, as compared to the irregular changes in other types
of installment credit (chart l). Because of this steady growth pattern
y This article is based on information from the following publications
of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve Bank System:
Consumer Installment Credit: Part I, Volume I, Growth and Import.
PP• 32-65 (1957).
Federal Reserve Bulletin:
"Survey of Finance Companies, Mid-1955"· April 1957, pp. 392-400.
Consumer Credit by Major Parts (table). July 1957, p. 808.
-17-
Chart l
INST.ALI.MENT CREDIT OUTSTANDING
December 31, 1950 - May 31, 1957, by type
$ Billion
15
10
5
1951 1953 1955 1957
Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin, July 1957
and the large amount of consumer borrowing represented, persons interested
in the economic problems of families may profitably give some consideration
to what these loans are and how they work.
Personal loans, as defined by the Federal Reserve Board, are loans of
cash made directly to consumers, to be repaid in regular installments over
a specified period of' time. The bulk of them are made by personal finance
companies (sometimes called small loan companies), commercial banks, and
credit unions. In 1955, the first two each held about one-third of the
personal loans outstanding, credit unions about one-sixth. Smaller amounts
of' personal loans are loaned by industrial loan companies, mutual savings
banks, sales finance companies, etc.
Personal loans are usually fairly small. The maximum loan that con­sumer
finance companies may make is set by ~ tate laws. In most states
this maximum ranges from $300 to $500; in twelve it is from $1,000 to
$5,000. The maximum has recently been increased by many states, and as a
result the average size of loan granted has grown steadily. For two large
consumer finance companies studied by Federal Reserve, the average loan
-18-
doubled between 1945 and 1955, increasing from $182 to $361. It has
been estimated that in a recent year about one-seventh of the families
in the United States were in debt at any given time to a consumer fi­nance
company.
This type of loan is largely a "character loan"--that is, unsecured
or on a signature basis, made on the borrower's ability to pay as de­termined
by investigation made by the lender. When security is required,
it is usually a chattel mortgage on household goods or automobile. Data
from the Federal Reserve study show that 60 percent of the loans made by
consumer finance companies in 14 States in 1954 were secured by chattel
mortgage, 30 percent were unsecured notes. Commercial banks require col­lateral
less frequently than consumer finance companies, partly because
their borrowers tend to be better credit risks.
Another feature of personal loans is their relatively high rate of
interest. Interest rates are stated by consumer finance companies and
cred.i t unions as a monthly percentage on the unpaid balance of the loan.
For the consumer finance companies, rates generally range from ~to 3
percent a month on loans of $300 or less, an effective annual rate of
30 to 36 percent. Graduated interest rates are used in states permit­ting
loans over $300--that is, the rates are higher for smaller than for
larger loans. This is explained by the fact that it costs about as much
to service a small loan as a large one, hence takes a larger proportion
of the amount of the loan to pay for this service. The ma.x:im:um interest
charge permitted by most cred.i t uniDns is l percent per month on the un­paid
balance, or an effective rate of 12 percent a year.
Commercial banks and other lending agencies frequently state their
charge as an annual rate. This may be on a discount or an add-on basis,
and fees for recording, servicing, delinquencies, etc., may be added.
For example, a $300 loan may be made for 12 months (to be repaid in
12 monthly installments), at 6 percent discount (a commonly used rate)
plus a $5 fee. The borrower would receive $277, and the effective annual
rate of interest would be 15 percent.
The fact that the amount of credit extended in personal installment
loans has increased steadily over the past several years may seem sur­prising,
in view of the high and rising level of personal income during
the period. It would seem reasonable to expect that as incomes rise,
the need for loans to pay for the types of goods and services personal
loans are used for would be lessened. But as incomes rise so do prices
and so does the standard of living, so that the need for credit increases
too.
A considerable proportion of the borrowers from small loan companies
(as much as one-third, according to some studies) applies for the loans
to pay overdue bills or old debts, or to consolidate small scattered debts
so payments ·can be made to one creditor instead of many. Other common
reasons for such borrowing are emergency needs like medical or funeral ex­pense,
or current living expenses including payment of taxes, insurance,
-19-
and interest. Less frequently personal loans are taken for travel educa­tion,
helping relatives, and a variety of other uses. Of the sum loaned
by one large finance company in 1955, 74 percent went to borrowers who .,
already had loans, who needed additional money before completing pay- -
ment on their existing contracts. Borrowers from this company were in
debt to it an average of 2t years by the time they paid the original
debt, additions, and renewals.
CHANGES IN CONSUMER PRICES, 1947-1957
Consumer prices have been making news this year because of their
steady rise. The Consumer Price Index, one of the most widely used in­dexes
for measuring changes in consumer prices, had a larger gain between
December 1956 and July 1957 than at any time since 1951, when prices
climbed sharply due to the Korean crisis (chart 2). The July 1957 index
was 26 percent above the average for 1947. This means that it took $1.26
this July to buy the goods and services bought in 1947 for $1.
The Consumer Price Index, compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
measures the average change in retail prices of a definite "market basket~'•
of goods, services, and rents customarily bought by city wage-earner and
clerical-worker families. The things in this "market basket" don't all
change prices at the same rate. This is evident in chart 2, which is a
picture of what has been happening since World War II to the various
groups of items in the "market basket".
Before examining this chart in detail, let's consider briefly what
went on in the period immediately preceding that pictured. The general
price level rose 52 percent between 1941 and 1947, a mild increase as com­pared
with those that occurred during previous wars. But for various rea­sons,
food and apparel prices increased far more than the average (up 84
percent and 75 percent, respectively), medical care, transportation, and
housing, far less than the average (up 30, 25, and 21 percent, respectively).
Nearest the average were personal care, which rose 60 percent, and reading
and recreation 44 percent. MOst of the increase took place before price
controls were ~nforced in 1942 and after they were relaxed following the
end of the war.
Prices of all the index items continued their post-war rise in 1947
and 1948 as consumers continued their buying spree. After that different
items ac't ed in different ways again except for the fact that each rose
rather sharply in 1951 due to the effect of the conflict in Korea. Since
1951 some continued on upward others remained fairly steady until recent
months. It is interesting to'note that the index components that rose most
in the 1941-1947 period--food and apparel--both made less than average gains
since. On the contrary, transportation, medical care, and housing, all be­low
the average in gains in the earlier period, have increased more than
the others since 1947 (table 8).
-20-
Chart 2
CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
1947 - July 1957, by item
Index
(1947-49::~100)
Index
(1947-49=100)
up~~~~~--r-~~------1 140
12)
110
I
Transportation~ //""-~ /1
/ -...
;'Housing~
I
I
I ... ~
I ,;.
.... ___F_o_od 4 _/ /
,..,/
I
.lpperel
---
~
1953 1955 1957
130
120
110
Medical oere._
I
Peraona.l /"
cere~~ ,--------
1949 1951 1953 1955
Source: u. s. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Table 8.--Changes in prices of items in the
Consumer Price Index
1957
Percent of change to July 1957 from--
Item July July Year
1956 19~0 1947
All items . •.•...••••••.••••••.•• 3 17 26
Food ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 14 22
Housing •••••••••••••••••••••• 3 19 32
Apparel •••••••••••••••••••••• 1 10 10
Transportation ••••••••••••••• 6 22 50
Medical care ••••••••••••••••• 4 31 46
Personal care •••••••••••••••• 4 25 28
Reading and recreation ••••••• 4 11 18
Other goods and services ••••• 4 22 32
Source: U. s. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-21-
Food and housing are the two items in the "market basket" that
ordinarily take a larger proportion of total expenditures for living
than any of the others, so what these prices do is particularly impor­tant
to families. Food took the biggest jump of all items in 1951
rose some in 1952, then settled down and dropped slightly until this
year. Housing prices, on the other hand, increased steadily during the
entire period, ending one-third higher this June than the average for
1947, as compared to an increase of about one-fifth for food.
Apparel is another basic item of the family budget. Prices for ap­parel
have changed relatively little since their Sharp rise in 1951. Their
increase since 1947 (10 percent) is less than that of any other major item
in. the "market basket". On the contrary, the index for transportation,
whJ.ch nov takes as much or more than apparel in many family budgets, has
gone upward at such a rate that it_ is 50 percent higher than in 1947. The
trend of medical care costs has been generally similar, except that its
rise has been continuous, while transportation prices hesitated, even drop­ped
some, in 1954 and 1955. Higher cost of hospital care is an important
factor in the 45 percent increase since 1947 in the medical care index.
Both the personal care and the reading and recreation indexes were
fairly steady between 1952 and 1955, then started climbing again. The for­mer
index is nov 28 percent above 1947, while the latter is up only 18
percent.
Each of the "market basket" items that we have mentioned is made up
of a number of subgroups of goods and services, and these have changed at
different rates too. For example, the index for apparel as a whole is a
weighted average of prices for men 1 s and boys 1 apparel, w.omen 1 s and girls'
apparel, footwear, and other (yard goods, diapers, and miscellaneous). As
of July 1957 indexes of two of these (men 1 s and boys 1 apparel and· foot­wear)
were above the 1947-49 average, while two of them (women's and girls'
clothing and other) were below.
--Emma G. Holmes.
CONSUMER PRICES
The Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family
Living reached 118 in June then remained at this level through July
and August (table 9). At ll8, the index was about 2 percent higher than
in August 1956. Food and tobacco prices rose almost three percent between
March and June. Building materials prices made a smaller advance.
The Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker
Families rose to a new high in July. (table 10). At 121, it was 3 percent
higher than in July 1956.
-22-
Table 9.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities
Used in Family Living (1947-49=100)
August 1956; January-August 1957
Item
Aug. Jan. Feb. Mu-. Apr. May June July
1956 1957
All Commodities •••••••••••• 115 116 116 116 117 117 118
Food and tobacco ••••••••• -- -- -- 115 -- -- 118
Clothing ••••••••••••••••• -- -- -- 113 -- -- 113
Household operation •••••• -- -- -- 115 -- -- 115
Household furnishings •••• -- -- -- loB -- -- loB
Building materials, house -- -- -- 120 -- -- 121
Autos and auto supplies •• -- -- -- 136 -- -- 136
-
Source: Agricultural Mu-keting Service.
Table 10.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner
and Clerical-Worker Families (1947-49=100)
July 1956; January-July 1957
Item
July Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May
1956 1957
All items ••••••••••••••••••••• 117 118 119 119 119 120
Food. •••••••••••••••••••••••• 115 113 114 113 114 115
Apparel ••••••••••••••••••••• 105 1o6 lo6 107 lo6 lo6
Housing ••••••••••••••••••••• 122 124 124 125 125 125
Rent •••••••••••••••••••••• 133 134 134 134 134 135
Gas and electricity ••••••• 112 112 112 112 112 112
Solid fUels and fuel oil •• 129 139 139 139 138 135
Housefurnishings •••••••••• 103 104 105 105 105 104
Household operation ••••••• 123 125 126 126 126 127
Transportation •••••••••••••• 128 134 134 135 136 135
Medical care •••••••••••••••• 133 135 136 136 137 137
Personal care ••••••••••••••• 120 122 123 123 123 123
Reading and recreation •••••• loB 110 110 110 112 111
Other goods and services •••• 122 124 124 124 124 124
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
118
--
--
-- --
-- --
June
120
116
107
126
135
112
135
105
128
135
138
124
112
125
Aug.
118
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
July
121
117
lo6
126
135
112
136
104
128
136
138
125
112
127
-23-
mGOMES OF MEN AND WOMEN IN 1956
Incomes of men 14 years of age or older were higher than ever before
in 1956; those of women were at about the same level as in 1955 y. These
are conclusions made by the Census Bureau from a survey of a sample of the
civilian population and members of the Armed Forces living off post or
with their families on post in the continental United States. tncome as
defined for this survey, represents total money income (before taxes)'- -that
is, the sum of money wages and salaries, net income from self-employment,
and income other than earnings.
Ninety-two percent of the men in the United states, and 52 percent of
the women had some money income in 1956, according to the survey. The dis­tribution
of those with income, by amount of income, was as follOws:
Total money income (dollars)
Under 1,000 ••••••••••••••••••
1,000-1,999··················
2,000-3,999··················
4,000-5,999··················
6,000 and over •••••••••••••••
Percent of--
Men Women
17
12
27
28
16
47
19
27
6
l
For men with any money income in 1956, the median income was about
$31
6oo. This was $250 :mqre than the median for 1955, and double that for
l9LJ.5. (The median is the income that is half-way between the highest and
the lowest incomes reported. ) The proportion of men whose incomes were
$4,000 or more rose from 8 percent in 1945 to 44 percent in 1956.
For women reporting any money income in 1956, the median income was
approximately $1,100. This wa.s about the same as the median income for
women in the previous year, and about $200 more than in 1945. The lower
level of income for women reflects in part lower pay scales for women.
However, wage and salary rates have increased sharply for women as well
as men since the war.
A better explanation of the low median income for women is the fact
that so many women--increasingly many--work only part time, perhaps for
Just a few days or weeks during the year. Men are more likely to hold
t'ull-time jobs. Also a considerably larger proportion of women than men
report as their only income money fran sources other than earnings from
employment. In 1955 for instance 22 percent of the women with money in­come
had "other inco~" only, but ~o earnings; the corresponding figure
!/ U. s. Department of commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population
Reports: Consumer Income. Series P-6o, No. 25. June 1957 •
-24-
for men was 8 percent. This 11other income" includes such things as in­terest,
dividends, gifts, receipts from roamers and boarders, rents, pay­ments
from retirement funds, social security, welfare. Hence, it is
likely to be small in amount. So when all the wanen who work only short
periods during the year and all those who have only small amounts of
"other income" than earnings report, the number of small incomes is so
great that the median turns out to be low too.
I CLamiNG AND 'IRANSPCRTATION I
HOME SEWlNG
About wo-thirds of the women in the United States had sewing ma­chines
in 1955 ( 62 percent owned and 7 percent rented or borrowed machines ),
according to a survey made by the Agricultural M:Lrketing Service, U. s.
Department of Agriculture y. Interviews were conducted during the fall
and winter of 1956 and inquiries made regarding sewing activities during
the preceding 12 months. MOre than 2,000 women, a representative sample
of all women between the ages of 18 and 65, were questioned.
Although 69 percent of the women interviewed had sewing machines avail­able,
only 58 percent reported using them during the year. The uses of these
machines were as follows: 46 percent of the women used them for mending,
40 percent for making new clothes, 37 percent for altering clothes, and 35 ¢
cent for ma.k1 ng household items. Of the 4o percent who made new clothes, tw
fifths made 1 to 6 garments, about one-fourth made 7 to 12 garments, and one·
third made more than 12 garments. Home sewers were considerably less likely
to make new clothes for children than for women--presumably for themselves .
The number making clothes for infants was even smaller. New garments made
for women and children and the proportion of all women making each were:
Percent Percent
Women's garments making Children' s garments making
Dresses ••••••••••• 28 Dresses ••••••••••••• 16
Skirts •••••••••••• 16 Skirts •••••••••••••• 10
Blouses ••••••••••• 13 Suits or coats •••••• 5
Lingerie. ••••••••• 6 Infants' wear ••••••• 5
Suits or coats •••• 4 other ••.••••••.••••• 14
other ••.•••.•••••• 11
Only 4 percent of the women made men' s shirts, and 3 percent men 1 s lounging
or sleeping garments.
y Women 1 s Attitudes Toward Wool and Other Fibers, Part II, 11Home Sewing,
Knitting, Needlework." M:t.rketing Research Report No. 153· u. s. Depart­ment
of Agriculture.
-25-
Use of sewing machines for home sewing was most frequently men­tioned
by women between the ages of 4o and 49, least frequently by those
under 30. Women in smaller communities tended to sew more than those in
large cities; up to a certain point, at least, those with higher incomes
more than those with low; those with higher education more than those
with less schooling. However, these relationships are not as simple as
they might seem. For example, those with higher education are also likely
to have higher incomes.
FARM FAMILY AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP
In 1955, 87 percent of the farm-operator families in the United
States owned a car or truck (or both) that they used for family transpor­tation.
This group included 97 percent of the operator families in the
North Central region and 78 percent of those in the South. These facts
were learned in a survey made last year by the U. s. Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. The survey included 4,000 farm­operator
families, representing all such families in the United States.
Ownership of one or more automobiles was reported by 74 percent of
all farm operators interviewed (table 9). In the North Central region
nine-tenths of the families were car owners; in the South about two-thirds
owned cars. Almost half of the car owners gave the model year of their
automobile (or the newest automobile if they had more than one) as 1950
or earlier. About two-fifths had cars that were 1951 to 1954 models,
and about one-eighth owned new cars (1955 or 1956 models bought in 1955).
The distribution of cars by age was about the same in both the North
Central and the Southern regions as in the United States as a whole.
Table 9.--Percent of farm-operator families owning cars
and age of newest car owned, by region, 1955
----------- Car-owning families
with car model--
Families
Region
~~cars 1950 or 1951- 1955-
earlier 1954 1956
Percent
United States ••••••••••••• 74 47 4o 13
North Central ••••••••••• 91 44 44 12
South ••••••••••••••••••• ~ 50 36 14