Family Economics Review [Mar. 1958]

              r i_Fo_rB ___,
MICS
EW
Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service.,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~~~!~~-g~~~iiillllim~
for home agents and home economics specialists of the Agricultural
uCUO.J..\..'U Service) this publication reports current developments in family
food economics, and economic aspects of home management.
HOlvfE 'BAKIN'G. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
FACTS AOOUT J?()TA.IDES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• o • • • • • 6
RELATING SIZE AND PRICE OF EGGS.............................. 8
CHANGES IN POPULATION AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS............. 11
USE OF GENERAL HOSPITAlS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION OF MEN'S SUITS, TROUSERS, AND JACKETS.. 18
FARMERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE......................... 21
ADDITIONS TO FINANCIAL ASSETS OF CONSUMERS, 1957••••••••••••• 22
CONS~ PRICES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • 24
ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD............................ 24
Washington, D. C.
HOME BAKING
Three out of 4 housekeeping households in the United States baked 1
or more of 11 specified foods at home in a week, according to a nation­wide
food consumption survey made in the spring of 1955. In fact, except
for brea~which nearly all families buy, and products like rolls, sweet
buns, and doughnuts most of the baked goods served at home in the survey
week came from the home oven rather than from commercial bakeries. A
good share of some of the home-baked products--for example, cake and
griddlecakes--were made from purchased mixes.
The ll products considered in the study included 2 requlrlng yeast-­namely,
bread and rolls--and 9 not requiring yeast--namely, gingerbread,
biscuits, griddlecakes (or waffles), cornbread, muffins, pie crust, cake
with fat, cake with no fat, and cookies. Of these, cake with fat was
baked by more households (36 percent) in the week than any other items;
iscuits, baked by 31 percent, were a close second (table 1). Homemade
cakes, pies, and quickbreads were fairly common, half of the families
having at least one home-baked cake or pie during the week, and the same
roportion having some form of homemade quickbread.
About half of the households that made none of these foods at home
uring the week made some during the preceding month, and three-fourths
de some during the preceding 12 months. Thus in 9 out of 10 households
ome-baked cakes, pies, biscuits, waffles, or the like did appear on the
amily table in the course of the year, though in some cases only on
pecial occasions.
Among the households that did any baking in the survey week, 31 per­ent
made only 1 of the 11 products studied, and 20 percent made 4 or
ore different kinds. (Each of the 11 foods was considered 1 item re­ardless
of the number of units or batches made.)
Many homemakers who reported making an item made it more than once
uring the survey week. This was particularly true in the case of hot
reads--nearly three-fourths of those making cornbread or biscuits made
hem more than once--but was true for other products as well. For
xample, half of the homemakers who baked pie crust and nearly the same
roportion of those making griddlecakes or cookies in the week made them
wo or more times. While relatively few baked any bread, a third of
hose who did, baked it more than once.
Gingerbread, baked by only 3 percent of all households during the
urvey week, was the least likely to be baked of the ll items studied •
. en made, however, it was the most likely to be made from a commercial
lXJ with griddlecakes and cake with no fat (that is, angel or sponge
ake) next in order. Except for bread, for which there are few mixes on
he market, cornbread was the least likely of the items, when baked, to
e prepared from a purchased mix. Chocolate cake and marble or spice
ake were more likely to be made from a mix than other types of cake with
~t. About half of all cakes with fat made were made from a mix, compared
lth nearly two-thirds of the cakes without fat.
-2-
Table 1.--Households baking specified foods and use of commercial mixes
by those baking, for the United States, urban, and rural farm house-holds,
spring 1955
Item
Bread, rolls (with
yeast) •••••••••••••
Bread ••.••••••.••••••
Rolls . ..............•
Cake, pie ••.•..••••••••
Cake ••.••••••••••••••
With fat •••••••••••
With no fat ••••••••
Pie crust ••••••••••••
Cookies ..••••••.•.•••••
Quickbreads ••••••••••••
Biscuits •••••••••••••
Griddlecakes, waf-fles
~··••••••••••
Cornbread ••••••••••••
Muffins ••••••••••••••
Gingerbread ••••••••••••
.A:rly ••••••••••••••••••••
Households baking
in a week
u. s. Urban
Rural
farm
Proportion of those
baking who used a mix
Rural
U. S. Urban farm
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
9
5
6
52
39
36
6
28
12
53
31
24
24
3
3
74
6
3
4
45
34
31
5
23
9
47
24
25
18
2
2
67
22
15
15
72
58
53
10
47
22
75
54
29
43
4
4
93
1
13
49
48
65
18
16
21
65
11
29
74
4
17
56
53
72
21
20
31
69
16
39
86
y
6
34
33
41
8
8
8
47
4
14
51
y Less than 0.05.
~ Griddlecakes (or waffles) are included with biscuits, muffins, and
other quickbreads, though not ovenbaked. In 5 percent of the househol~
the only batter or dough made in the survey week was for griddlecakes or
waffles. If baking is defined as oven baking, 69 percent of the house­holds
baked one or more of the items studied in the survey week and 48
percent baked quickbreads.
Urban-rural differences
Earlier reports of the 1955 food survey showed that rural families
used more flour than urban families. This fits in with the fact that
fewer of the rural families used purchased bread and other bakery prod­ucts,
confirming the general impression that rural families do more
home baking. But baking is by no means a lost art even among urban
-3-
families , while most farm families, however much they bake, buy some of
the bread and other baked products they use as table 2 shows.
Table 2.--Use of baked products and ingredients for baking by urban,
rural nonfarm, and farm households, spring 1955
Households using
Amount used per
household 1]
Item Urban Rural Rural nonfarm Farm Urban nonfarm Farm
Percent Percent Percent Pounds Pounds Pounds
Flour other than mixes . 72 89 95 1 .4 3.8 7.1
Purchased flour mixes •• 40 39 34 .6 ·1 .6
Home-baked products •••• 67 83 93 -- -- --
Purchased bread •••••••• 96 92 85 4.7 5.0 4.4
Purchased other bakery
products ••••••••••••• 85 80 74 2.1 1.9 1.5
~ Based on all households .
Not only were rural households more likely to bake, but they also
baked more kinds of things than urban households . Among the urban house­holds
doing any baking, 38 percent made just 1 of the 11 kinds of batters
and doughs studied, and 14 percent made 4 or more kinds . Among rural
farm households baking, l2 percent made just l of the kinds of batter or
dough and 38 percent made 4 or more .
The amount of home baking in farm households, nevertheless, is con­siderably
less than it used to be . One indication is the change in use
of commercial baked goods . Between 1942 and 1955, the dates of two
nationwide household food surveys, the total quantity of flour used at
home in a week by the average farm family dropped from 2.5 to 1.8 pounds
per person. At the same time, the bought baked goods used (in flour
equivalent ) rose from 0 .5 to 0. 9 pounds . A more direct indication is the
percentage of farm homemakers who reported baking some common items in
1955 as compared with 1948, the only earlier year for which data on home
baking are available . In both of the two largest farm regions--the
North Central and the South--the percentage of farm families baking bread
or rolls, pie, cake, or cookies at any time during a month in spring 1955
was considerably lower than in 1948. The largest decrease since 1948
occurred in the making of bread and rolls, items which take the most time
to make. In the South home baking of biscuits decreased much less than
baking of other items. Southern families, as is well known, still like
their hot breads .
Even though home baking has declined, sweet baked goods served in
the home--farm and nonfarm alike--are still likely to be made there, as
chart on page 4 shows . The percentages of U. S. households having
commercially baked cake at home in a week in 1942 were 40 percent for
-4-
BUYING VS. BAKING AT HOME
Urban and Farm Families, Spring 1955
% buying and % baking in a week
URBAN FARM
BREAD 96%
BISCUIT·~
~24%
CAKE ~
~34%
PIE ~
~23%
Buying.
85%
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 57 ( 10)-5535 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
urban, 26 for rural nonfarm, and J2 for rural farm. Corresponding figures
for 1955 were 25, 19, and 14 percent. The downward trend, somewhat at
variance with the general increase in use of purchased processed foods
over the same period, is no doubt related to the growing popularity of
prepared flour mixes. The percentage of all rural farm households using
commercial mixes is for several items much the same as ·that of the urban.
However, since fewer urban families bake, a larger proportion of the
items they bake are made from mixes. .Among urban homemakers a commercial
mix was used by 56 percent making cake, 31 percent making biscuits, and
21 percent making pie (table 1). Mixes were used by 34 percent of the
farm homemakers making cake and 8 percent making biscuits or pie.
Cookies were baked in 9 percent of urban and 22 percent of farm
homes during the survey week. In 20 percent of these city homes and 8
percent of the farm homes where cookies were baked the cookies were made
from commercial mixes. Griddlecakes or waffles, more likely to be made
from mixes than most other products, were baked in 25 percent of urban
and 29 percent of farm households. In 69 percent of the urban and 47
percent of the farm households making them a purchased mix was used.
The order of preference among the 11 items considered was, on the
whole, the same for urban and rural families; The baking of quickbreads
and that of pie or cake were almost equally likely, while bread or rolls
were much less likely to be undertaken than either pie or cake.
-5-
Regional differences
In the four regions of the country, families in the Northeast did the least
home baking and those in the South the most. This was true for both farm and
nonfarm families, but differences were greatest for the nonfarm: Among urban
families , 50 :percent in the Northeast made one or more of the baked items during
the week, com:pared with 80 :percent in the South. Corresponding figures for farm
families were 88 :percent (Northeast) and 97 :percent (South).
There were also definite regional :patterns in kinds of :products made.
Southern families were more likely to make quickbreads than bread and rolls or
pie and cake. Nearly all southern farm families (95 :percent) baked cornbread or
biscuits during the week (table 3). Half of them made cornbread 7 or more times.
Biscuits, too, were baked on the average more than once a day. In southern urban
ho~seholds , more than a fourth made biscuits at least 3 times a week, and a like
proportion made cornbread.
In the West as in the South, more households made hot breads than baked other
items. However, few western households made either biscuits or cornbread often
enough to average once every other day. In the Northeast and North Central
regions, the most :popular items for home baking were cake and pie.
Table 3.--Households baking at home in 1 week
Bakin at home
Region Any Bread, Quick- Cake,
rolls breads :pie
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Urban:
Northeast •••••••• 50 4 27 34
North Central •••• 72 7 43 54
South •••••.••••.. 80 6 71 46
West •••• ••••••••• 75 7 54 51
Rural farm:
Northeast •••••••• 88 21 48 74
North Central •••• 90 34 58 77
South •••••••••••. 97 10 95 68
West ••••••••••••• 89 32 78 75
Although families in the South did more baking than those in other regions,
fewer of those baking used commercial mixes. In the Northeast, the region where
families were least likely to bake, a higher :proportion of urban families who
baked used mixes than in other regions. Northeastern farm families were more
likely to use mixes than southern farm families, but less likely to use them for
some items than farm families in the West or North Central States.
--Mollie Orshansky.
-6-
FACTS AIDUT roTATOES
Potatoes are widely used.--Almost all families in the United States
use potatoes at least once a week, according to reports of food surveys,
and considerably more potatoes are used than any other one kind of vege­table.
According to a survey conducted in the spring of 1955, average
consumption of fresh potatoes was equivalent to about 5 to 6 medium­sized
potatoes per person per week.
Amounts of potatoes used varied with section of the country and
type of community in which the families lived (table 4). Larger avera~
quantities of potatoes were used by families in the North Central and
Northeast regions than by those in the West and South. Families living
in rural areas not only used more home-produced potatoes, but purchased
more fresh potatoes than families living in urban communities.
Table 4.--Average quantities of potatoes consumed in a week by house­keeping
families of 2 or more persons, spring 1955, by region and type
of community
Total y gj Fresh potatoes per household
Region and type of community Per Per Total Home- household person gj Purchased produced
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
Region
North Central •••••••• 8.55 2.41+ 7.21 6.50 0.70
Northeast •••••••••••• 7.07 2.09 6.26 5.85 .41
West ••••••••••••••••• 6.29 1.87 5·37 5.16 . 21
South • .••.••.•..•.•... 5·72 1.53 5.36 4.50 .86
Type of community
Rural fa:rrn • •••••••••• 9.47 2.28 8.96 6.10 2.74
Rural nonfarm. •••••••• 7.86 2.14 7.12 6.29 .62
Urban ••.•.•.••••••••• 6.17 1.85 5.24 5.14 5I . 09
Y Includes fresh potatoes and the fresh equivalent of processed
potatoes.
gj Includes some potatoes received as a gift or as pay.
Potatoes differ from many other foods in that the quantity used doeS
not rise consistently with income. In the food survey, as income in­creased
up to about the $3,000 and $4,000 levels, slight increases in
potato consumption per family were noted, but above $4,000 consumption
tended to decrease. With more money to spend, consumers chose more of
other foods and less of potatoes. Potatoes in a ready-to-eat form, espe·
cially potato chips and sticks, were an exception. Although the total
consumption of these processed potato products was relatively small, hi~'
income families used several times the quantity used by those in the lo'.fer
income groups (6 ounces and 1/3 ounce for the highest and lowest income
groups, respectively).
-7-
Average per capita civilian consumption of potatoes showed a down­ward
trend in the 40-year period 1909-48. In the following 5 years,
however, consumption tended to level off. Part of the decline in the use
of potatoes has been due to the greater availability of fresh fruits and
vegetables and to increased buying power of consumers, which has resulted
in purchases of more of the higher priced foods. Also, population shifts
from farm to nonfarm areas may have resulted in some change in food
habits, including lower potato consumption.
It is also possible that the quantity of potatoes actually served
and eaten has decreased less than per capita consumption figures would
indicate . The current practice of buying in small quanti ties may mean
less waste (spoilage and shrinkage) than formerly, which contributes to
the decline in the total quantity used by the household.
Potatoes offer a bargain in food values.--Few foods offer as much in
nutrient return for the money spent as potatoes. In the survey made in
the spring of 1955, families spent an average of 48 cents, or about 2
percent of their weekly food budget, for potatoes. In return these fami­lies
received 10 percent of their ascorbic acid; from 4 to 6 percent of
their iron, niacin, and thiamine; and from 2 to 3 percent of their ribo­flavin,
protein, and food energy--contributions representing more than
twice their cost for 4 nutrients and at least as high a percentage as the
cost for 3 others. (See chart below.)
PERCENT OF FOOD DOLLAR SPENT FOR POTATOES AND
PERCENT OF NUTRIENTS CONTRIBUTED IN DIETS
FOOD EXPENSE -
ASCORBIC ACID
NIACIN------
THIAMINE----
IRON--------
FOOD ENERGY -
PROTEIN-------
RIBOFLAVIN----
4 6 8
Estimated average cooking loaaea have been deducted.
PERCENT
10
NEG. 57 (8)-5503
-8-
u. s. grade standards, both wholesale and retail, have been estab­lished
for fresh potatoes. Grade standards have also been established
for peeled potatoes, for frozen french-fried potatoes, and for canned
potatoes. The use of U. S. grade standards is voluntary.
On the retail market, the grade designation most often seen is the
wholesale grade "U. S. No. 1." The U. S. No. 1 grade, as a rule, repre­sents
the average quality that is practicable to pack under normal growing
conditions. U. S. consumer grades, effective in 1947, were issued for
use mainly with small consumer packages, but they have not been used to
a very great extent.
The U. S. standards for potatoes have been officially promulgated
by many States. ~ other producing States, U. S. standards are widely
used as a basis of packing and sale of potatoes. A few States have
adopted official trade-marks and brands under which potatoes may be
packed if they meet certain requirements. Such requirements are usually
based on U. S. standards.
More facts about potatoes are given in Agricultural Information
Bulletin No. 178, Potatoes, Facts for Consumer Education (December 1957).
These include such topics as buying, storing, and cooking potatoes;
production, marketing, and inspection.
--Lillian J. Fincher.
RElATING SIZE AND PRICE OF EGGS
The homemaker, faced with higher costs of food for her family,
should consider the relative economy of different sizes of eggs. Eggs
are a nutritious food, and they may be used in many ways to add interest
and variety to meals. As a main dish, extender, or garnish, eggs have
many attractive assets. They ar~ a source of excellent quality protein
and a rich source of iron, vitamin A, and riboflavin.
Eggs may be graded on the basis of quality or size or both. The
rour U. S. consumer quality grades range from AA for the best quality,
to grade C. The quality labels are a good guide as to the usefulness of
each grade for particular cooking purposes; the highest grades have a
large proportion of firm white that stands up well around a high yolk,
are delicate in flavor, and, therefore, most desirable for such cooking
methods as poaching and soft-boiling. Grade B eggs have the same nutri­tive
value as Grade AA, and, if there is a price differential on the
basis of market quality, Grade B may be a better buy than the higher
quality grades for purposes where firmness and flavor are not of para­mount
importance.
-9-
Eggs vary considerably in size and there are usually differences in
price on this basis. Sometimes these price differences do not adequately
reflect the amount of edible food purchased. The consumer should, there­fore,
be prepared to make comparisons that will enable her to get the
most food value for her money.
Table 5 shows the minimum weight required by Federal Standards for
a dozen eggs in each of five sizes (column b). The relative weight of
the shell varies with size of the egg--that is, the larger the egg, the
smaller the proportions of total weight represented by shell. Data on
weight of shell and edible portion are shown as percent of total weight
(columns c and d). Eggs contain about 12.8 percent protein in the
edible portion; this value was used with the data on weight per dozen
and yield to derive the grams of protein in l dozen eggs of each size
(column e).
Table 5.--Weight, shell and protein content, and equivalent prices per
dozen of eggs in 5 sizes
Minimum Prices to pay
weight Yield Protein Relative per dozen to get
Size per Shell edible per protein equivalent nu-dozen
portion dozen content tritive value
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Ounces Percent Percent Grams Cents
Jumbo • •••••••• 30 9 91 99 1.29 52 64 77 90
Extra La.r ge ••• 27 10 90 88 1.15 46 58 69 80
large •••••...• 24 12 88 77 1.00 40 50 60 70
Medium •••••••• 21 12 88 67 .88 35 44 53 62
Small ••••••••• 18 13 87 57 .74 30 37 44 52
We can now compare the nutritive value of 1-dozen lots of eggs of
different sizes because all the nutrients will occur in the same relation­ship
as the protein in these sizes. If we take Large size as our base for
comparison and call it 1 . 00, it can be seen that Extra Large size will be
1.15 (15 percent more protein) and Medium size only 0.88 (12 percent less
protein). This relationship, then, serves as a guide as to what price to
pay to get the most nutrients for your money.
Columns (g) to (j) each show amounts of money that buy the same
~unts of nutrients in each of the five sizes, at specific price level.
If Large eggs are 60 cents per dozen, Extra Large at 69 cents or Medium
at 53 cents are equally good buys, but if Extra Large or Medium eggs are
less than these prices they are better buys. For prices not shown, the
ratios in column (f) can be used to calculate the maximum prices to pay
for other grades. For example, if Large eggs are 55 cents, Extra Large
shoUld not be more than 63 cents (55 x 1.15).
-10-
PRICE SCALE FOR roGS OF DIFFERENT SIZES
I
I"
6i
]lr-
- 17 -
- 1/
v I"'
d
1/
1/
~' 1/
v
~: v
1/
v
/
IL
Broken lines illustrate
method of determining
J equivalent prices for
other sizes when Medium
size is 30 cents per
v dozen.
-
[/
J.':V. I
~
,./,,.6 ¥
0 20 40 6o 80 100 ].20
Price per dozen (cents)
-ll-
The chart on page 10 may also be used to find equivalent prices of
eggs of different sizes. Find the price per dozen of any one size on the
scale at the bottom of the chart. Follow the vertical line above the
price to the point at which it intersects the diagonal line for this
size. From this point move along the horizontal line to the other sizes
and read the prices to pay on the bottom scale.
For example, If Medium size eggs are 30 cents a dozen, find this
price on the scale and follow the vertical line to the point at which the
Medium line intersects. Then, follow the horizontal line that goes through
this point and read the prices for the other sizes, namely, Jumbo 44 cents,
Extra Large 39, Large 34, and Small 25 cents.
Spread in store prices for various sizes reflects supply and demand
situation. The wise buyer will get the most food for her money if she
figures out which sizes of eggs are the bargains.
--Rebecca K. Pecot.
CHANGES IN POPULATION AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
Excerpts from a talk given by Gladys K. Bowles
Farm Population and Rural Life Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service
at the 35th Annual Agricultural Outlook Conference, November 1957
Before beginning a discussion of certain trends and changes in
population and family composition, I should like to enumerate a few popu­lation
facts which will give a general view of the population picture in
the United States as it stands today:
(1) The population of the United States, including Armed Forces
overseas, now numbers about 172 million people.
(2) Slightly over half of the population are females.
(3) About 57 million are young people under 18. Over 14
million are people 65 years old and over.
( 4) About l2 percent now live on farms.
(5) Over 71 million are in the labor force.
(6) Nearly 40 million are enrolled in school or college.
(7) About 68 percent of the people of labor force age (14 years
and over) are married.
(8)
-12-
The civilian population (and the Armed Forces personnel
living off post or on post with their families) live in
49.5 million households, averaging 3.39 persons per
household.
For more than a century after the first census was taken in 1790,
this was largely a rural country. In 1890 about 65 percent of the total
population lived in rural areas. Since then the United States has under­gone
rapid urbanization and industrialization. Some time between 1910
and 1920--probably in the latter half of 1917--for the first time more
people were living in urban than in rural places in the United States.
Today our rural people number many millions fewer than the urban resi­dents.
Since 1916, with a few interruptions, the trend in the number of
persons living on farms has been generally downward. The two principal
reversals of the trend occurred in the depression years of the 1930's
and in the years immediately after World War II. In 1957, it is estimated
that there are about 20,396,000 persons living on farms in the United
States (table 6) .
Table 6.--Farm population, United States, 1910-57
Number Percent of total
Year (000) population
1910 32,077 34.9
1920 31,974 30.1
1930 30,529 24.9
1940 30,547 23.2
1950 25,058 16.6
1957 20,396 12.0
Source: u. s. Bureau of the Census.
The proportion of farm residents in the total population has fallen
rapidly with the continued growth of total population. In April 1957,
only 12 percent of the Nation's people lived on farms, a decline from 35
percent since 1910, and from 16.6 percent since 1950.
Lowered requirements for manpower in agriculture, increased oppor­tunities
for employment in nonagricultural industries, and the unfavorable
disparity between farm and nonfarm incomes in certain regions are the
major factors to which the downward trend in numbers of farm people iS
generally attributed. Search by farm people for educational advantages
and for other opportunities and change of residence for retired persons
are also important. And for many, service in the Armed Forces means lea'~'
ing the farm never to return permanently.
-13-
Farm births exceed farm deaths; most of the farm population
loss occurs through migration of persons to nonfarm residences. The
remaining loss is the net result of changes in the census classifi­cation
of dwelling units as farm or nonfarm, without movement of the
residents . The extent of decline in farm population caused by such
reclassification is not precisely known. There is evidence that it
has been substantial in recent years. Most of us know of farms which
have been "subdivided, 11 or of land which has been taken over for
roads, airbases, reservoirs, or converted to other nonfarm uses .
Most areas of the United States have experienced heavy rates of out­migration
from the farm population since 1940, but particularly high
rates occurred in the South and in the North Central States.
Between 1950 and 1957, there were heavy decreases in the number
of farm people 18 to 44 years .old and smaller decreases at all other
ages. Because of the disproportionate decreases among the age groups,
the oldest and youngest groups comprise larger proportions of the
farm population in 1957 than they did in 1950. This age distribution
creates a high ratio of persons of dependent ages to those of working
age.
A new factor is thought to have contributed to changes in the
number of older persons in the farm population in recent years. This
is the opportunity afforded older farm persons to retire from farming
under the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program. There is some
evidence that after the extension of social qecurity coverage to farm
operators , some older persons remained on farms who might have been
expected to retire, and some returned to farming long enough to obtain
coverage .
According to estimates made by the Census Bureau and the Agricul­tural
Marketing Service, there was about the same number of people 65
years old and over on farms in 1956 as in 1950. Data from the 1956
Survey of Farmers' Expenditures indicate that the number of farm
operators 65 years old and over may have increased some between 1954
and 1956. However, later estimates show a decline of about 13 percent
for farm men in this age group between 1956 and 1957. If these older
men cease operating their farms, they are no longer counted in the
farm population, but in the rural nonfarm. If they retire to nonfarm
residences, their land may continue to be farmed, but without a
resident farm family.
The employed labor force residing on farms in April 1957 numbered
~·7 million. Of these, 62 percent were employed wholly or primarily
ln agriculture. The percentage of farm residents employed in non­agricultural
industries has increased markedly since 1930. In April
1957, nearly 3 million farm residents were working principally at non­farm
work, of whom slightly over 1 million were women. Nearness to
urban centers strongly affects principal occupation of farm people.
Fifty-three percent of the employed farm residents living within
-14-
Standard Metropolitan Areas were in nonagricultural jobs, compared to 35
percent of those who lived outside metropolitan territory. ~
Households and families.--In March 1957, there were an estimated
49·5 million households in the United States, 44.3 million urban and
rural nonfarm households and 5.2 million rural farm households. The
annual average increase was about 850,000 households during the 1950 to
1957 period. On the average, nonfarm households increased about a million
a year while rural farm households decreased about 150,000 a year during
this period.
Farm households are more apt to include both husband and wife than
are nonfarm households. The farm widow who is unable to hire help or does
not have a son old enough to carry on the operations usually has to give
up her farm, and the farm widower is likely to marry again if he remains
on the farm. Eighty-four percent of rural farm households in the Survey
of Farmers 1 Expenditures had both husband and wife. This compared with
75 percent for nonfarm households. On the other hand, farm households
are less likely than nonfarm to include only one person or only unrelated
people living together.
Average size of both farm and nonfarm households has been decreasing
for a long time. Average size of household in rural farm and urban areas
has declined more than that in rural nonfarm areas. Still, rural farm
households are largest in size and urban households smallest in size at
the present time. Average size decreased sharply between 1940 and 1950,
but hasn't changed as much since 1950. The decrease in size in the 1940's
was largely due to increased numbers of marriages, which created small
households. Most of these households have since become larger with the
addition of children.
Among farm-operator families in the Expenditure Survey, about 3 in
every 10 had only 2 members. Most of these were husband and wife units.
About half of the families have 3 to 5 members, the modal type being
husband, wife, and children units. Less than 2 out of 10 families had 6
or more members, and only a small proportion had only 1 member.
Farm operators tend to be somewhat older on the average than the
heads of other households in the United States. Median age of heads of
all households in the United States in 1955 was 45 years. According to
the Survey of Farm Family Expenditures, the median age of farm operators,
most of whom are heads of their households, was about 6 years more--51
years. Since men generally marry women younger than themselves, the
median age of farm-operators' wives was somewhat under that of operators•
~ A Standard Metropolitan Area is a county or group of contiguous
counties (towns in New England) containing at least one city of 50,000
inhabitants or more. In addition to the county, or counties, containing
such a city, or cities, contiguous counties are included in a Standard
Metropolitan Area if they are essentially metropolitan in character and
socially and economically integrated with the central city.
-15-
Employment of wives . --Recent reports of the Bureau of the Census in­dicate
that the long term upward trend in the labor force participation
of married women continued in the first part of 1957, then leveled off in
the summer and fall months to about the same rate as in the previous
year. During the period between the end of World War II and March 1957,
the number of wives working increased, on the average, about 500,000 per
year. Most of this increase occurred among wives living in households
with their husbands (that is, not widowed, divorced, or separated).
Particularly striking has been the increase in the employment of
wives who are 35 and more years old. Many of the women have part-time
jobs, and many move in and out of the labor force in the course of a year.
The phenomenon of increased labor force participation is not limited to
any one residence group . Over one-fourth of the rural wives and nearly
one-third of the urban wives (with husbands present) are working or
looking for work .
Education. --Farm people age 20 to 24 years in 1955 averaged 10.5
years of school; those 45 to 49 years of age had 8 .5 years, while the
average for those 70 to 74 years of age was only 7 .5 years of schooling.
These figures indicate that steady progress has been made over the years
in amount of schooling. Improvement in education among farm operators
is indicated by the percentages who have attained the various levels, as
shown in table 7. In spite of the improvement, 62 percent of the farm
operators have completed fewer than 9 years of schooling.
Table 7. --Schooling of farm operators, by age
Highest school Percent of farm operat ors
grade completed 1940 y 1955
Under 9 years •••• • •• 76 62
9 to l2 years ••••••• 20 31
13 or more years •••• 4 7
y Based on number of native white and Negro
operators only; does not include operators 65
years old and over . Therefore, the distribu
tion may be slightly distorted.
Future prospects . --We have discussed briefly a variety of changes and
trends in population. Perhaps we can have just a quick look now at pros­P~
cts for future numbers of people and households. Census Bureau projec­tlons
indicate that the United States will have between 207 and 228 million
pe~ple in 1975 . Increased population is anticipated for all States except
Ma.lne, Vermont, Mississippi, Arkansas and Oklahoma . We may expect by
1975 households numbering 61 .6 to 67 .4 million. How the population and
households will be distributed between urban and rural or farm and nonfarm
-16-
we cannot say, as there are too many uncertainties to make official pro­jections
at this time.
SOURCE MATERIAIB: Current Popul.a.tion Reports, Series P-20, 25 , 50, and
57; Census of Popul.a.tion, 1940 and 1950; Census of Agriculture, 1940,
1950, and 1954; Census-Agricultural Marketing Service: Farm Popul.a.tion,
Series P-27; Census-United States Department of Agriculture: Survey of
Farmers' Expenditures in 1955; Farms and Farm People.
USE OF GENERAL HOSPITAI.B
What are the chances you will be hospitalized within a year? And if
you are hospitalized, what is likely to put you there and how long are
you likely to stay? A study made by the u. S. Public Health Service and
the u. S. Bureau of the Census gives answers to these and other ques­tions.
'?) Data on the use of hospitals other than psychiatric and
tuberculosis were obtained in a sample household survey made in September
1956 in the 48 States and the District of Columbia . One person in each
household in the sample was asked to report on hospitalization received
in the preceding 12-month period by persons in the household at the time
of the interview.
Hospital admission rates.--According to this study, the chances are
about 1 in 10 that you will be admitted to a hospital within a year; the
annual admission rate was found to be 101 persons per 1,000 popul.a.tion.
Your age, sex, color, occupation, and place of residence, however, all
influence this possibility.
Children under 14 years of age have a hospital admission rate only
about half that for the population as a whole. The rate rises with
increase in age to a peak of 162 admissions per 1,000 persons in the age
group 25-34, which is the principal childbearing period. It then falls
below the general average in the age group 45-54 (93 per 1,000), and,
again reversing its trend, rises to a secondary peak in the group aged
65 and over (125 per 1,000). The rates for the two sexes differ from
the average by about one-fourth, being higher for females (124 admissions
per 1,000 females) than for males (76 admissions per 1,000 males). White
persons have higher admission rates than nonwhite (lo4 per 1,000 as
compared with 72).
Persons in the labor force have a lower hospital admission rate than
those not in the labor force. For the labor force as a whole, the rate
is 82 admissions per 1, 000 population, but there is considerable variation
among occupations. Workers in agriculture reported the lowest rate (57
per 1,000), those in mining, forestry, and fisheries the highest (138 per
1,000). Persons not in the labor force had an average rate of 174
'?) Odoroff, M. E., and Abbe, L. M. 11Use of general hospitals. 11
Health Reports, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1957.
-17-
admissions per 1, 000 population. This overall rate is made up of such
varying rates as 48 for those going to school, 199 for those keeping
house, and 239 for those unable to work .
There is considerable variation in admission rates among the differ­ent
geographic regions of the Nation. Rates are highest in the West (lll
admissions per 1, 000 population) , lowest in the Northeast (96 per 1, 000),
and about average in the North Central and the South . Within your region
your chances of hospitalization are greater if you are a rural nonfarm
resident than if you live on a farm or in the city. And except in the
West, they are least if you are a farm resident.
Length of stay in hospital . - -The average stay in general hospitals
was found to be 8.1 days per admission . Children under 14 years of age
stay an average of 5.2 days per admission . Length of stay gradually in­creases
with age until among persons 65 and over it averages 14.0 days.
Males, though hospitalized less frequently than females, stay longer--
10.1 days per admission as compared with 6.8 days . Similarly, nonwhite
persons, though hospitalized less frequently than white persons, stay
longer (9.1 and 8 .0 days, respectively) .
Location of hospital used.--About 60 percent of all admissions are to
hospitals in metropolitan areas 1/: only 5 percent are to hospitals in
rural areas. Even among rural residents of nonmetropolitan areas, only
about one-sixth of all admissions are to rural hospitals . About one-sixth
of admissions of these rural people are to hospitals in metropolitan areas,
and about one-third each to hospitals in cities of 10,000 to 50,000 popu­lation
and urban places with populations under 10,000.
Residents of metropolitan areas tend to use hospitals in the central
city of the area . As might be expected, this tendency is particularly
strong among those who live in the central city itself; in this group 90
percent of all admissions are to hospitals in the central city. The
hospitals just outside the central city draw from the population of the
metropolitan area outside the city, but they are always secondary to the
hospitals in the central city. Interestingly enough, rural residents of
the metropolitan area, both farm and nonfarm, are more likely to go to
the central city for hospitalization than are the residents of suburbia.
In nonmetropolitan areas the urban residents are slightly less likely to
travel to metropolitan areas for hospital care than are the rural resi­dents.
Distance travelled . --As there is much concern about the availability
of hospital facilities when needed, information on the distance travelled
t~ hospitals is of interest . For the population as a whole, the median
dlstance travelled per admission is 7.4 miles . The median distance trav­elled
ranged from 5.6 miles for residents of the central city of a metro­politan
area to 18.1 miles for rural farm residents outside metropolitan
areas. If you live on a farm outside a metropolitan area you will probably
---~------------
~ See definition in footnote 1, page 14 .
-18-
travel about 60 miles if you elect to enter a hospital in a metropoli~n
area 18 miles if you enter a hospital in a city of 10,000 to 50,000
population; and only 9 miles if you enter a rural hospital.
Reasons for admissions .--This study gives the following distribution
of hospital admissions:
Reason for admission
S1..1.:rgery • ••••••••••••••••••
Obstetrics ••••••••••••••••
Pediatrics ••••••••••••••••
Accidents ••••••.••••••.•••
Other • •••••••••.••••••••••
Percent of hospital admissions
25
22
16
6
32
This distribution is generally true for hospitals in metropolitan, other
urban, and rural areas. You can expect a longer stay if you enter because
of an accident or for surgery than for the other types of care.
There will be further releases from this study, including data on the
relationship between income of families and individuals and the use of
hospitals, and data on health insurance.
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION OF MEN 1 S SUITS, TROUSERS, AND JACKETS
Recent changes in production of men 1 s clothing reflect changing cloth·
ing preferences of men in this country. For suits, per capita productwn
varied little between 1951 and 1956, remaining at a level that would pro·
vide a new suit every 2-1/2 to 3 years for each man 18 years of age or
older. If there was any change in suits, it was a slight shift toward
lighter weight, or summer weight suits, with a corresponding drop for
regular weight suits. Production of separate sport coats and jackets
shifted down, then up, ending one-third higher in 1956 than in 1951.
Biggest change was in production of separate dress and sport trousers
which increased steadily, from less than l (0.75) pair per man in the
earlier year to 1-1/3 pairs per man in 1956 (table 8 ). The rise in produc·
tion of trousers reflects the trend to nonmatching trousers and jackets,
and to preference for leisure wear, such as fancy sport shirt worn with
sport trousers and no jacket. The so-called "sport coat or jacket,"
formerly worn almost entirely for the use implied by the name, is now
frequently combined with separate sport trousers for business wear or
even for dressier occasions. The mix-match custom also makes it possible
to buy separate trousers to use with already owned suit coats.
Per capita production of work pants also increased during the period,
from approximately 1 pair per man per year to 1-1/3 pairs. There was a
decrease in the number of dungarees and waistband overalls made, however•
These counterbalancing changes may indicate a growing preference for ~o~
pants instead of overalls.
-19-
Table 8.--Per capita production of men's suits, jackets, and trousers,
1951-1957
(Per capita figures based on population of males 18 years and over)
Year
Suits Separate Separate dress and dress and
Regular Summer sport sport
Total weight weight jackets trousers
-------+------+-~~~~~~~~~
1951. ••
1952 •••
1953· ••
1954 •••
1955···
1956 •••
1957 y
0.38 0.29 o.os 0.12
.37 .29 .o8 .16
.41 -31 .10 .14
·35 .26 .09 .ll
.38 .29 .09 .15
.39 .28 I· .ll .16
·37 .27 .ll gj .16
0.75
.87
1.07
1.05
1.26
1.34
1.19
Work
pants
0.99
1.10
1.22
1.11
1.30
1-30
11
Dungarees
and waist­band
overalls
0.84
.89
l.o4
.91
.83
·76
.63
NOTE: Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of rounding.
~ 1957 figures are estimates based on average weekly cuttings from
monthly reports.
gj Estimate based on production for 5 months. "J/ Not available.
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Facts for Industry, Series M23B
(formerly M67B) and M23A.
Fiber use
The trend toward less formal attire for men is indicated also in the
increased use of lighter weight fabrics. Manmade fibers, used either
singly, in combinations, or in blends with wool and cotton, are often used
to produce the lighter weight garments. Well-heated homes and offices,
automobiles, buses and trains now mean that men may be quite comfortable
in light-weight clothing in all seasons.
Wool is still the major fiber used in men's regular weight suits,
maybe because of its wearing qualities as well as the fact that it looks
tailored, holds its shape well, and keeps a press. Over 90 percent of the
regular weight suits since 1951 have been made of fabrics having 50 per­cent
or more wool content. (See chart on page 20.)
A greater change in fiber use has occurred in summer weight suits
than in regular weight suits. Historically a smaller proportion of summer
Weight suits have been made of wool and this continues to be true. During
the period 1951-5q, less than two-fifths of all cuttings of summer suits
Were made of fibers containing 50 percent or more wool. The proportion of
cuttings of summer suits that were 50 percent or more wool dropped from 35
Percent in 1951 to a low of 28 percent in 19p2, then gradually increased
~0 39 percent of the total in 1956. Conversely, use of other fabrics,
lncluding those made of cotton, rayon and other synthetics, or blends of
these fibers with each other or with up to 49 percent wool, have declined
somewhat since 1952.
-20-
FABRICS USED IN MEN'S CLOTHING, 1951-1956
A. Regular suits B· summer suits c. Dress and sport
trousers
Percent of
cuttings
100 r- -- -50% c r more
80 we ol
other fibers Chiefl 'f man-
--~ 60 ---
/-.. , ......... i , .. -- made Pibers
~-- ,..
' ~
.......... ,_
other fiber1 ---- ' ..... It' --
40
20
0
1953 1956 1957
~ ~ ~ r more
we ol
1963 1955 1957
.......-....... OV'fo woro orr•
, " "
,~·"
~1y _____ .. 'Chie
cott pn
1953 1955 1957
Source: u. s. Bureau of the Census, Facts for Industry.
In separate dress and sport trousers (excluding work pants) use of
fabrics 50 percent or more wool has remained fairly steady. There has
been a sharp rise in use of cotton. Considered cool, comfortable, and
easy to keep clean, cotton has displaced some of the manmade fibers in
separate trousers since 1953. Trousers of materials that are chiefly
cotton increased from 8 percent of total production in 1953 to 26 per­cent
in 1956, while those of chiefly manmade fibers declined from 62
percent to 47 percent of the total. This may indicate that more all­cotton
trousers are being produced or that there are blends using larger
proportions of cotton than before, or both.
Information on fiber use for dress and sport jackets is not available•
Light weight clothing means not only the use of clothing weighing
less per yard but also fewer yards of cloth in some garments. It used to
be generally estimated that the average suit for a man required three and
a half yards of material, but now the estimate is closer to three yards•
The shift away from double-breasted suits and elimination of the matching
vest partially account for the smaller amount of cloth used.
--Lucile F. Mork•
-21-
FARMERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE
Many farmers have now had firsthand experience with the operations
of the social security program. About 3 million have paid taxes on their
self-employment income from agriculture in the last 3 years, and about
a half million farmers or their widows are receiving monthly payments.
Farmers acquire three types of economic protection for themselves
and their families when they meet the requirements of the social security
laws. The most widely known protection is the retirement benefit, which
is payable to farmers when they reach the age of 65 . Payments now range
from $30 to $1o8 . 50 per month, depending on the average earnings of the
individual farmer for a specified period. Farmers' wives become eligible
to receive monthly payments when they reach 65 . The payment to a farm
wife amounts to half that of her husband. Or, a wife may elect to re­ceive
·a reduced benefit when she reaches 62 .
Social security also protects survivors in case of the untimely
death of the farmer . His wife and his children under 18 would receive
monthly payments, as well as a lump sum for burial expenses . This part
of the program was described in detail in the June 1957 issue of the
Family Economics Review .
The third type of economic protection included in the social
security program is relatively new and therefore is not so well known .
The basic law was amended in 1956 to provide for benefits in case of
total disability. To be eligible for these payments, the insured worker
must be at least 50 years old, must have earned coverage for at least 5
of the 10 years prior to his disability, and must be unable to work at
any gainful employment . The amount of the monthly payment for disability
is calculated in the same way as the old-age benefit payment, but no
allowance is made for dependents . Farmers who have earned coverage con­tinuously
since 1954 may become eligible for disability benefit payments
in 1960.
Length of time of coverage required to be eligible for social
security benefits varies for the different types of benefits. A self­employment
tax return must be filed for at least 2 years before benefit
ayments can be made to survivors, and for at least 5 years before dis­ability
payments can be made . To receive retirement benefits, a farmer
ust have filed social security tax returns for 2 to 10 years, depending
on his age . Older farmers could receive these benefits after paying
axes for only 2 years , but this does not apply to younger men. Farmers
orn after 1904 will have to pay taxes for 10 years in order to qualify
for retirement benefits .
Farm operators are required by law to pay a social security tax on
1
hetr annual net farm incomes of from $400 to $4, 200 in any tax year after
95 ' unless they also have incomes of $4, 200 or more from nonfarm employ­ent
that is covered by social security. The maximum amount of income on
-22-
which social security tax is payable is $4,200, regardless of its source,
If, for example, a farmer had $3,000 wages from covered factory employ­ment,
he could pay the social security tax on his net self-employment
income from farming up to $1,2001 or enough to make up the difference
between his wage and $4,200.
The rules permit low-income farmers to build up more adequate bene­fits
than their net incomes would provide. A farmer who had gross sales
of at least $800 in 1955 may assume that half of his gross income from
farming was net income. If he had gross farm sales of $600 or more in
1956 and later years, he may assume that two-thirds of the gross is net}
provided the assumed net income does not amount to more than $1,200.
Farmers who use this option need not list farm expenses, as they would
be required to do if they showed actual net incomes.
It seems likely that some farmers who have not yet paid the social
security tax could do so and thus begin to accumulate quarters of cover­age.
These farmers may have had incomes so low that they have never
filed income tax returns. Lacking this experience, they may hesitate w
assemble the necessary information and fill out the forms. If so, t he
first step the farmer would take would be to ascertain whether his net
or gross farm income is large enough to come under the social security
law. Evidence of production and amount of sales is required, and copies
of leases may be necessary. For information as to which items may
properly be included as income or which must be deducted as expenses,
consult representatives of social security or the Internal Revenue
Service.
Income tax returns may be accepted and the self -employment tax paid
up to 3 years after they are due. Thus, until April 1959 farmers have
an opportunity to pay taxes and receive credits toward social security
coverage on their incomes from farming in 1955.
--John c. Ellickson
Farm Economics Research Division
ADDITIONS TO FINANCIAL ASSETS OF CONSUMERS, 1957
The personal disposable income of consumers in this country in 1957
was higher than ever before and 5 percent above 1956, according to the
U. S. Department of Commerce. !!} 11Personal disposable income 11 refers to
income after tax, and includes not only money income from all sources,
but certain nonmoney income such as wages in kind, the value of food and
!!} McHugh, Loughlin F. 11The Financial Position of Consumers. 11 ~
of Current Business, December 1957, PP• 12-17, 23. (This article
is a summary of a portion of Mr. McHugh's analysis.)
-23-
fuel produced and consumed on farms , the net
owner-occupied homes , and imputed interest .
3-1/2 percent higher in 1957 than in 1956.
imputed rental value of
Consumer prices averaged
With higher incomes , consumers spent a record amount for consumer
goods and services in 1957· But they also added to their financial
assets at a record rate . It is these assets that we shall consider here .
data on assets are based on amounts reported for the first 6 months
of the year, adjusted to annual rates . However, preliminary estimates
indicate that final figures for the year as a whole will not be much
different from the adjusted ones .
While cash assets--that is , currency and checking accounts--changed
ttle, the growth in savings a ccounts was substantial, especially those
in the form of shares in savings and loan associations . Additions to
forms of savings accounts during the first half of 1957 were at an
1 a.u.w.w•..L rate of $ll billion--$2 billion more than in 1956 (table 9) .
Table 9.- - Increase in financial assets of U. S. consumers
Type of asset 1957 y
Billions of dollars
. Total .• .....•..... . .•.•..•.... 9.8 16.9 23 -7 26.5
• Currency and checking accounts .o 2. 0 .4 ·5
• Savings accounts •••••••••••••• 3·6 6-3 8 .9 ll.O
• Marketable securities ••••••••• 1 .0 3·5 9-0 ll.5
• U. S. Savings Bonds ••••••••••• 1 .6 ·3 - .1 -1.5
• Private insurance gj ••........ 3·6 4 .8 5·5 5.0
~ First half of year, seasonally adjusted at annual rates .
gj Includes private life insurance and insured pension plans .
Source: Securities and Exchange Commission and U. S. Department of
Consumers also added to their financial assets by buying marketable
•s ••~,,~ities- - stocks and bonds--at a record annual rate of $ll. 5 billion.
represented 43 percent of the total estimated increase in all
---···~-~u .... assets in 1957, compared with 38 percent in 1956 and 10 percent
1946-49. The $ll.5 billion increase is in terms of current market
ices--that is , prices when the securities were purchased- -and does not
the drop experienced in prices of most securities since that time .
The purchase of small series E and H, U. S. Savings Bonds was about
same in early 1957 as in previous years . Sales of larger bonds fell
-24-
off however and redemptions of bonds increased. The result was a net
dec~ease of $L5 billion (adjusted annual rate) • This shift from savings
bonds probably accounts in part for the increase in savings accounts and
marketable securities.
Consumers continued in 1957 to add to their insurance assets. Pri­vate
insurance increased at an annual rate of $5 billion, higher than in
any year except 1956, when the increase was $5.5 billion. "Private
insurance" includes private life insurance and insured pension plans
(those contracted for through insurance companies). It does not include
Government insurance plans nor uninsured pension plans, both of which
have grown substantially in recent years. Amounts added to noninsured
pension plans show up in table 9 as increases in the various types of
assets accumulated by these plans. For example, stocks and bonds bought
with private pension funds are included on line 4.
While adding to their financial assets in 1957, consumers also con­tinued
to pile up debts. The net increase in short- and intermediate­term
consumer installment debt was $2.3 billion. This was somewhat lower
than usual in recent years, but still a sizable amount.
CONSUMER PRICES
The Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family
Living (table 10) reached a new high during February due principally to
higher costs of food, household furnishings, and auto supplies. The
February index was almost 3 percent higher in 1958 than a year ago.
The Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker
Families in January 1958 was 122 (1947-49 = 100), over 3 percent higber
than in January 1957 (table ll). Prices of food, reading and recreation,
medical care and personal care increased during the month, while apparel
prices decreased somewhat.
ESTIMATED COST OF ONE WEEK'S FOOD
Table 12 (page 26) presents the estimated cost of l week's food to
be prepared and served at home. The estimate is based on the quantitieS
of food in the low cost, moderate cost, and liberal plan published in
the October 1957 Family Economics Review. These plans are also available
as a separate leaflet--Low Cost Moderate Cost and Liberal Famil Food
Budgets, Revised 1957, HHE Adm. -53· The weekly cost of food for a
specific family can be estimated from table 12, since costs are given for
individuals of different ages. The costs presented are based on averages
of food prices,collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 46 U. s.
cities, and may not apply to any specific city or region.
~ -25-
trable 10.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living
(1947-49 = 100)
February 1957 : June 1957-February 1958
Item Feb .
June Jan.
1957 July Aug. Sept . Oct . Nov. Dec . 1958 Feb.
~11 commodities ••••••••••••• 116 118 118 118 118 117 118 118 118 119
Food and tobacco •••••••••• -- 118 -- -- 117 -- -- 116 -- --
CJ.othing . .••••...••..••••• -- 113 -- -- 114 -- -- 114 -- --
Household operation ••••••• -- 115 -- -- 117 -- -- 117 -- --
Household furnishings ••••• -- lo8 -- -- 109 -- -- 109 -- --
Building materials, house -- 121 -- -- 121 -- -- 121 -- --
Auto and auto supplies •••• -- 136 -- -- 135 -- -- 140 -- --
Source: Agricultural Marketing Service .
rable 11.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families
(1947-49 = 100)
January 1957: May 1957 -January 1958
Item Jan . May June July Aug . Sept. Oct . Nov. Dec. Jan.
1957 1958
ll i terns • •• •••••••••••••••• 118 120 120 121 121 121 121 122 122 122
Food ••• •.• •••••••••••••••• 113 115 116 117 118 117 116 116 116 118
Apparel • .•••••••.••••••••• 106 106 107 106 107 107 lo8 lo8 lo8 107
Housing . •••.•••.•.•.•.•••. 124 125 126 126 126 126 127 127 127 127
Rent •••••••••••• ••.•.•.. 134 135 135 135 135 136 136 136 137 137
Gas and electricity ••••• 112 112 112 112 113 114 114 114 114 116
Solid fuels and fuel oil 139 135 135 136 136 137 138 138 138 138
Housefurn l· sh "l ngs •••••.•• lo4 lo4 105 104 104 105 105 lo4 105 lo4
Household operation ••••• 125 127 128 128 128 128 129 129 130 130
Transportation •••••••••••• 134 135 135 136 136 136 136 140 139 139
Medical care •••••••••••••• 135 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 141 142
Personal car e ... .......... 122 123 124 125 125 125 126 127 127 128
Reading and recreation •••• 110 lll 112 112 113 113 113 114 115 117
Other goods and services •• 124 124 125 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 -
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics .
u
-26-
Table 12.--Estimated Cost of One Week's Food, ~ January 1958
Moderate-
Sex-age groups low-cost cost Liberal
plan plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILJES
Family of two, 21-34 years of age~····· 15 . 50 20.50 23.00
Family of two, 55-74 years of age gj ..... 13 .50 18. 50 20.50
Family of four with preschool children 1/ 21.00 27 -50 31.00
Family of four, school age children~··· 24 .00 32 .00 36.00
INDDIIDUALS
Children:
Under 1 year . .......•...•..••.•••..•.•• 3·00 3 -75 4.25
1-3 years . ...•.•.......•............... 3·75 4.50 5.25
4-6 years . ............................. 4 . 25 5 -50 6. 50
7-9 years . ............. • .. · • · • • · • · · • • • · 5-25 6.75 7-50
Girls, 10-12 years ....................... 5·75 7 -75 8.75
13-15 years ....•.........•............. 6.25 8.50 9-75
16-20 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.50 8.75 9-75
Boys, 10-12 years •...•........•.....•..•• 6.00 8 . 00 9-25
13-15 years . ........................... 7-00 9 -50 10.75
16-20 years •••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 8.25 ll. 25 12.75
Women:
21-34 years . ..••....•..••.••.•......... 5-50 7 . 50 8.50
35-54 years • ...•...••..•.•........•.... 5-25 7 -25 8.25
55-74 years •••••.••••••••••••••••••••.• 5.00 7 -00 7·75
75 years and over •••••••••••••••••••••• 5.00 6 . 50 7-25
Pr-egiJant • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.25 8 . 25 9.25
Nl.l:r's ing • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8.25 ll . OO 12.00
Men.:
21-34 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7·25 9 ·75 10.75
35-54 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.75 9. 00 10.00
55-74 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.25 8 . 50 9-50
75 years and over •••••••••••••••••••••• 6.25 8 . 25 9.00
Y These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderate·
cost, and liberal food plans published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the
October 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. The cost of the food P~~
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 Price~
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 .
~ 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 .
;19)08 •v. S. GIJVUl~MENT PRI!'<TlNG OHI E: 19'8 0.