Family Economics Review [Mar. 1961]

              77 7/J :fl/or r./
Institute of Home Economics, Agricultural Research Service_,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~;-~-=;=-
Prepared for home demonstration 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
GUARDIANS OF OUR FOOD SUPPLY • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • 3
HIGH CONSUMPTION OF FOODS . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 5
MOBILITY OF THE POPULATION, 1958-59 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7
RETIRED COUPLE'S BUDGET REVISED ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 9
BUREAU OF LA:OOR STATISTICS '1\J COLLECT DATA ON CONSUMER EXPENDITURES. • 12
ENERGY USED BY WOMEN IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES ••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 14
SOCIAL SECURITY RULES AMENDED .•••••••••••.•••••.•••••••••.•••••••••. 15
STATE POPULk~ION CHANGES, 1950-1960 ••••.•••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• 16
HE:ALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE 18
LAWS TO PROTEXJT CONSUMERS 19
ESTIMATED COST OF 1 WEEK'S FOOD--U.S.A. AVERAGE AND FOUR RIDIONS . • • • 20
CONSUMER PRICES • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . 26
INDEX OF ARTICLES APPEARING MARCH-DECEMBER 1960
ARS 62-5
March 1961 u~ • RY OF
THE wo· )f.LF.GE OF
TH£ Ul"IVL H I Of ORTH CAROU
~REt.NSJul 0, N. C.
27
Washington, D. C.
GUARDIANS OF OUR FOOD SUPPLY
Most consumers take it :for granted that the lrundreds o:f attractive and
abundant :foods in the market are wholesome and sa:fe to eat. This is a tribute
to the producers o:f :food--fanners, processors, and other segments o:f the food
:industry responsible :for its high quality and wholesomeness. It also reflects
the wisdom o:f the Congress in providing Federal authority for regulations to
maintain these high standards o:f sa:fety.
The :first Federal Food and Drug Act in 1906, o:ften called the "Pure Food
Law," was directed chiefly to control certain chemicals used as preservatives.
Since then the problem has become inf'initely more complicated. O'ur :food must
be ample in quantity to feed an ever-increasing population. It must be so
grown, processed, and packaged that it can be transported thousands of' miles
and still be in good condition. Fann operations must be profitable enough for
:fanners to stay in business. Agricultural chemicals are as essential to e:f:fi­cient
production o:f :food as :farm machinery and improved varieties of' crops •
Other kinds o:f chemicals are used in the processing of' :food. Called food
additives, they have brought about great improvements in the quality or nutri­tive
value o:f many :food products. The -words "chemicals" or "chemical addi­tives"
sometimes alarm people who do not understand that foods themselves are
chemicals and that adding salt to a :food is using a chemical additive.
The number o:f chemical substances being developed :for more efficient :food
production (:fertilizers, insecticides, weed killers, and the like) and :for use
in the processing and marketing of' :food products is increasing rapidly. So
are the problems o:f insuring that their use in foods is completely sa:fe.
Responsibility :for the sa:fety o:f our :food is shared by two Federal
agencies--the Department o:f Agriculture, and the Department o:f Health, Educa­tion,
and Wel:fare--and by their counterparts in every State. These agencies
work closely together on the problems related to the protection o:f our food
supply.
Depa.rbn.ent o:f Agriculture
The Depa.rbn.ent o:f Agriculture bas responsibility :for inspection of' :fresh
meat and poultry, and processed meat and poultry products to assure that they
are wholesome, :free :from disease and adulteration, and accurately labeled.
Legal authority :for this -work is the Meat Inspection Act o:f 1906 and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act o:f. 1957. This inspection applies to products
that move in both interstate and :foreign commerce. In addition, it requires
Federal approval o:f the construction, equipment, and procedures to be used in
processing plants i:f products are to be shipped in interstate commerce. All
ingredients used in meat and poultry products must meet high standards of'
sa:fety. All :food additives :for use in :federally inspected plants must be
approved by USDA before they can be used. The Department of' Agriculture is
al-so charged with control o:f labeling and standardization o:f meat and meat :food
products, a :function protecting the consumer from false or misleading claims.
-4-
In relation to the safety of meat the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of l9l3 gives
the USDA the responsibility for licensing vaccines, serums, and other veteri­nary
biologic materials used to protect animal health.
Increasing use of agricultural chemicals has brought new responsibilities
to the Department of Agriculture. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act of l947 provides for the examination, registration, and proper
labeling of a large group of agricultural chemicals. Registration of these t
chemicals is administered by the Plant Pest Control Division of Agriculturall
Research Service. Before a produc.:t may be registered, scientific evidence
must be submitted to show that it is effective, safe, and that proper use will
not result in ha.nnf'ul residues on food or feed.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Under the Food, D:rug, and Cosmetic Act the Department of Health, Educa­tion,
and Welfare has responsibility for the safety and wholesomeness of all
foods except meat and poultry and their products. Several amendments in
recent years have put more emphasis on the preclearance of chemicals used in
food production or as additives, to give greater assurance of' the safety of
foods.
The "Miller .Amendment" in l954 authorized the establisl:nnent of' tolerances
(legal levels) of' pesticide chemicals for use in or on raw agricultural com­modities.
Directions for use of pesticides, on labels registered by USDA, are
geared to meet these tolerances.
The Food Additives .Amendment of l958 provides for preclearance of chem­icals
and other food additives. For the first time the Food and Drug
Administration has the same kind of prior control over the use of food addi­tives
in other foods as USDA has been exercising for meats. This law requires
that food and chemical manufacturers must run extensive animal feeding tests
on these additives before they are marketed. If' FDA scientists are satisfied
that the additive will be safe, regulations are issued specifying conditions
under which it may be used. Considerable administrative discretion is per­mitted.
As more experience is gained with the practical operation of' this
law, and as new problems arise, additional legislation may be required.
Another provision of' the Food, D:rug, and Cosmetic Act is authority to
promulgate definitions and standards of identity for foods to promote honesty
and fair dealing in the interest of constnn.ers. For example, the enricl:nnent of
bread and flour was legalized through establisl:nnent of standards of identity.
Under the watchful eye of these two Federal agencies and their State
coworkers and with the cooperation of the chemical and food industries, con­sumers
can look forward with confidence to continued enjoyment of our bounti­ful
food supply.
--Esther F. Phipard
-5-
HIGH CONSUMPTION OF FOODS
Some people eat more than others! The truth of this statement is so
obvious that we don1t need food consumption surveys to prove it. We do need
them, however, to answer the question, "How much more?"
Usually comparisons of quantities of food consumed are made on the basis
of the average consumption of households grouped by such characteristics as
size, income, and location (North or South, city or country). Such a compari­son
shows, for example, that on the average households in the North Central
region eat more meat, poultry, and fish, but less flour and other cereal prod­ucts
than households in the South. But within each of these two regional
groups of households there is considerable variation.
For some purposes, it would be helpful to know, "How much more of a food
does an individual use when he is a high consumer rather than an average con­sumer
of that food?" The knowledge could be of use to scientists trying to
deter.mine the tolerance limits of chemical residues and food additives in
foods, to nutritionists preparing food budgets,and to persons doing research
in food consumption. The Household Economics Research Division has used data
from its 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey to estimate "high consumption"
of various foods • y
Measur~ high consumption.--One measure of "high consumption," of course,
would be the quantity of each food consumed in the household reporting the
very highest amount. But this figure, depending on just one household in a
sample, would not be a very reliable measure. The one the Division used is
the "ninth decile." This is bow it was estimated:
• For each household the quantity of a food used at home in a week
was divided by the size of the household (in 21-meal-at-l:nm.e equiv­alent
persons). This gave average quantity consumed per person.
• These figures were listed in the order of their size, from the
highest to the lowest, and the ninth decile ~ located. It is
the figure diViding the highest 10 percent of the cons'lfiners
from the lowest 90 percent.
How does "high" compare with "average" consumption? --High and average
quantities consumed per perron in the South and North Central regions are
shown for the 16 food groups. (See table.) The figures for the West and the
Northeast are much like those for the North Central region.
Unlike the .;t'igures in the "average" column of the table, those in the
"high" column cannot be added together to get a total amount of food consumed
y Hi'h Consumption of Foods. Houseoold Economics Research Division, USDA.
HHE(Aam. -24, November 1960. This includes data on approximately 200 items
for four regions, and a more detailed account of procedures used and limita­tions
involved. Most of the steps in the estimating precedure tended to under­state
high consumption.
-6-
High and average :food consumption per person per week in bouaeb::>lds,
South and North Central regions, spring 1955
South North Central
Food group High Average Ratio High Average Ratio y gj 21 y gj 21
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds-
Milk, cream, ice cream, cheese!!/ 16.2 8.6 l.9 15.8 10.2 l.5
Fats and oils, including butter. 1.7 1.0 l.7 l.5 ·9 L.7
Flour and other cereal products. 4.8 2.8 l.7 2.6 l.4 l.9
Bakery products ................ 3.2 l.6 2.0 3.8 2.2 l.7
Eggs ........................... l.6 .8 2.0 l.6 -9 1.8
Meat, poultry, :fish ............ 7-0 3-7 l.9 7-4 4.4 l.7
Sugar, sweets .................. 3-3 l.4 2.3 2.3 l.3 l.8
Potatoes, sweetpotatoes •.•..••• 3.1 l.6 2.0 3.8 2.2 l.7
Fresh vegetables 21 ............ 6.1 2.8 2.1 4.8 2.4 2.0
Fresh :fruits 21 ............ · · · · 5-5 2.3 2.3 6.7 3-3 2.1
Commercially :frozen :fruits and
vegetables ................... .4 .1 3.4 .6 .2 3.2
Commercially canned :fruits and
vegetables ................... 2.6 l.O 2.6 2.9 l.4 ~.1
Fruit and vegetable juices,
:fresh, :frozen, canned,
powdered §/ ....•............. 2.0 -7 3-0 3.0 l.2 2.5
Dried :fruits and vegetables 11 .. -7 -3 2.4 .4 .1 3.0
So:ft drinks, :fruit ades fjJ ••••• 2.5 ·9 2.8 2.6 l.O 2.7
Soups, excluding canned baby
soups §/ •.................... ·3 .1 3-1 -7 .2 2.7
y Ninth decile. ?J Mean. 21 High + average. Computed :from values
having two decimals. '!lJ In :fluid milk equivalent based on calcium content
o:f products. 2./ Includes rome canned and :frozen items brought into the
home in :fresh :form. §/ Single strength equivalent. 11 Includes both
commercially and rome-dried products. §/ Largest items o:f beverage and
miscellaneous group, respectively.
i n a week. Persons eating ·large amounts o:f one :food are not necessarily the
same ones who eat large amounts o:f other :foods. No individual could possibly
consume all the :foods in the amounts given :for "high consumption."
For each :food group, the amount consumed per person in "high consumption"
households was l. 5 to 3. 5 times as much as in "average consumption" bouse holds .
This relationship is referred to as the "ratio" o:f high to average consumption.
For any one :food group, the ratio o:f high to average consumption is about
the same in all regions, even when average consumption varies considerably
~7-
from region to region. Take flour as an example • The average amount of fl.Dur
and other cereal products consumed in the South is twice as large as in the
West and North Central regions, and almost three times as large as in the
Northeast. But the ratio of high to average consumption is about the same in
all four regions--1.7 in two, and 1.9 in two.
In general, a food used by a large number of oouseholds has a lower ratio
of high to average consumption than a food used by only a few. For example,
the ratio for milk and fats and fl.Dur, which are used by almost all households,
is 1.5 to 2; that for frozen fruits and vegetables, used by only 25 percent in
the South to 44 percent in the Northeast, is 3 to 3.5. This same type of rela­tionship
holds for food items within food groups as the following figures for
milk items consumed in the North Central region show:
Milk item:
r ' 1..
Fre'Sh fluid milk
Cheese ................ .
Ice cream, ice milk .•.•
Cream. ................. .
Processed milk .•.•..•..
Ratio of high to
average consumption
1.6
2.4
2.5
3-3
8.9
Households using
Percent
97
82
64
29
30
The "high consumption" figure has been computed for about 45 separate
food items within the broad food groups. In general, the high to average con­sumption
ratios for these separate food items are somewhat higher than those
f'or the food groups. This is to be expected, for the more finely specified
the food, the more the amount used tends to vary from family to family. (For
example, in the North Central region the quantity of cream used varies more
than the quantity of the entire milk group. The ratio of high to average
consumption for these are 3-3 and 1.5, respectively.)
--Evelyn Grossman
MOBILITY OF THE POPUT~ION, 1958-59
Few people always live in the same muse. About 9 out of every 10 persons
in the United States move at least once in their lifetime. During the year
April 1958-59, as in the previous year, about a fifth of the civilian popula­tion
l year old and over moved to a dif'f'erent bouse, according to a recent
report of the Bureau of the Census . y
y U. S. Bureau of' the Census. Mobility of the Population of the United
States, April 1958 to 1959. Series P-201 No. 104. September 1960.
-8-
Type of mobility
Of the l7l million persons in the civilian population in April l959, about
l3 percent had lived in a different house in the same county a year before,
6 percent in a different county, and half of l percent lived abroad. About
half of the persons living in a different county had lived in a different
State also. (See table.)
Persons living in the same house or different muse,
April l959 compared with April l958
@ivilian population l year and oldeiJ
Different house in United States
Residence and age
Total. Same
Same
Different county y house Total
county Same Different
State State
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Total. •••••••••••••••••• 1t •• lOO 80 l9 l3 3 3
Rural. fann. .............. lOO 84 l6 ll 3 2
Rural nonfarm ........... lOO 79 20 l2 4 4
Urban ................... lOO 80 l9 l4 3 3
l-4 years ............... 100 7l 28 l9 4 5
5-l3 years .............. lOO 8l l8 l3 3 2
l4-l7 years ............. lOO 85 l5 ll 3 2
l8-l9 years ............. lOO 7l 28 l9 5 5
20-24 years ............. lOO 56 42 27 7 8
25-29 years ............. lOO 65 33 21. 5 7
30-34 years ............. lOO 76 23 l6 4 4
35-44 years ............. lOO 84 l5 lO 2 2
45-64 years ............. lOO 89 ll 8 2 l
65-74 years ............. lOO 9l 9 6 l l
75 years and over ....... lOO 89 ll 7 2 2
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
y Includes a few in each group who lived abroad in April l958.
Approximately one-third of' the persons who reported living in the same
house during this period had 1.i ved in at least one other house in the 3 years
before April 1958.
-9-
Wbo moves
Persons living on farms tend to move less often than others . In the year
April 1958-59, the mobility rate for the rural farm population was about
16 percent, for rural nonfarm 20 percent, and for urban 19 percent. Rural
farm people were also less likely to move to a different State.
Young adults do more moving than older adults. The age group 20 to
24 years was the most mobile in the year April 1958-59, with 42 percent ·n1oving.
The mobility rate for children l to 4 years old was high as compared with that
for older children, reflecting the high mobility of young families.
White persons moved less freq_uently than nonwhite. When they did move,
however, they more often went to a different county in the same State, or to
another State.
Self -employed persons in general moved less than wage and salary workers .
For example, fanners and farm managers had the lm.rest rate of mobility, farm
laborers and foremen one of the highest--10 and 33 percent, respectively~
Professional and technical workers had a similar situation--the self-employed
had a mobility rate of l2 percent and salaried workers 22 percent. Unemployed
men were almost consistently more mobile than emplnyed men.
RETIRED COUPLE 1 S BUIXIJ.<!r REVISED "})
A revision of a budget for a retired couple has recently been published,
with estimates of its cost in 20 large cities at autumn 1959 prices. This
budget was originally developed in 1946-47 by the SOcial Security A&ninistra­tion
to pa:rallel the City Worker 1 s Family Budget developed by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The "budget family" consisted of a husband and wife, aged
65 or over, maintaining their own 2- or 3-room rented dwelling in an urban
area. The couple was assumed to be self -supporting, in reasonably good health,
and able to take care of themselves. The budget represented a ''modest but
adeq_uate" level of living. Cost estimates for the originaJ. budget:. were not
published after 1950, because q_uantities and q_ualities of goods and services
included in it were based on standards prevailing before World War II and were
not representative of the postwar standard of living.
The purpose of the present revision was to develop a new list of goods
and services which would reflect a "modest but adeq_uate" level of living
according to standards prevailing in the 1950 1 s. No changes were made in the
basic concept or generaJ. procedures previously used. However, in estimating
the cost of two budget components--food and beverages, and transportation-­changes
were introduced which, in effect, raised the standard of living above
that provided by the original budget. These changes were made in order that
y Stotz, Margaret S. "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired Couple,"
M:mthly Labor Review, pp. 1141-1157. November 1960.
-10-
the standard of living provided by the Retired Couple's Budget would be com­parable
with that provided by the interim revision of the Bureau's City
Worker's Fmnily Budget. ?} Since this revision was limited to changing the
list of goods and services~ it is considered an "interim revision." A more
comprehensive revision is needed and may be made when data from the consumer
expenditure surveys planned for 1961-62 become available.
Level and manner of living
The revised budget provides estimates of the cost of a healthful, self­respecting
manner of _living which allows normal participation in community
life. Since it takes into account social and psychological as well as physical
needs, it is not a "minimum subsistence" budget . It was not designed to repre­sent
the actual expenditure pattern of an "average" retired couple or to serve
as a spending plan for an individual family.
The budget assumes that the couple lives alone in a 2- or 3-room rental
dwelling. Renting is not the prevailing custom for such families except in
large cities and at low-income levels in other places, but it was not possible
to estimate comparable housing costs for homeowners. This is one of the major
problems which must be considered when a comprehensive revision of the budget
is undertaken and when the interim revised budget cost estimates are used.
The home is assumed to be equipped with musefurnishings and mechanical
equipment usually considered household necessities, such as a gas or electric
cookstove, mechanical refrigerator, and small electrical appliances. The wife
dOes all of the cooking and most of the house cleaning and laundry.
Goods and services provided by the budget for housing and food conform
with scientific standards and reflect actual choices of large-city retired
elderly families. For other goods and services, where scientific standards
do not exist, the budget level was determined by the purchasing pattern of
families of this type. The budget makes no provision for life insurance or
income taxes, assuming that paJIIIlents on life insurance policies have been
completed before retirement, and that most of the income of retired couples
at this level is tax-exempt.
Cost of budget
The total annual. cost of the revised list of goods, rents, and services
at autumn 1959 prices in 20 large cities ranged from $2,641 in Houston to
$3,366 in Chicago. (See table.) Costs in 8 of the 20 cities for which esti­mates
were prepared ranged between $3,025 and $3,125; costs were under $3,025
in six cities and over $3,125 in six cities. The costs of the three principal
5/ See the August 1960 Monthly Labor Review for the interim revision of the
City Worker's Family Budget. This budget also appeared in the September 1960
Family Econ.dmics Review.
-ll-
Annual costs of the retired couplers budget, 20 large cities and suburbs,
autumn 1959
Total Food and Rent, Other
City budget beverages y heat, and goods and
utilities '?) services
Atlanta .................. $2,720 $768 $778 $1,174
Baltimore ................ 2,84o 781 802 :1,257
Boston ................... 3,304 953 )..,029 1,322
Chicago .................. 3,366 889 1,067 1,410
Cincinnati ............... 2,925 879 821 1,225
Cleveland ................ 3,244 860 1,015 1,369
Detroit .................. 3,096 899 858 1,339
Houston .................. 2,641 758 694 1,189
Kansas City .............. 3,034 841 942 1,251
Los Angeles .............. 3,lll 894 862 1,355
Minneapolis .............. 3,135 846 962 1,327
New York ................. 3,044 945 849 1,250
Philadelphia ............. 2,909 94o 754 1,215
Pittsburgh ............... 3,102 956 863 1,283
Portland, Oregon ......... 3,049 887 817 1,345
St. Louis ................ 3,099 870 970 1,259
San Francisco ............ 3,223 920 919 1,384
Scranton ................. 2,681 900 595 1,186
Seattle .................. 3,252 938 921 l, 393
Washington, D. C. . ....... 3,047 864 921 1,262
y Includes small allowances for guest meals and for alcoholic beverages.
2/ Average contract rent for 2- and 3-room tenant-occupied dwellings that
conform to the housing standards specified for the budget plus the cost of
required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, and specified
equipment.
components of the budget (food and beverages; rent, heat, and utilities; and
other goods and services) for each of the 20 cities are shown in the table.
Costs of the various categories included in these components and lists of the
items and quantities included in the budget are given in the November 1960
Monthly Labor Review.
-12-
Uses and limitations
The Retired Couple's Budget is designed to measure the cost of a speci­fied
standard of living for a retired couple living in a rental dwelling in a
large city or its suburbs. Differences in ~uantities and kinds of items in
the Retired Couple's Budget and the City Worker's Family Budget reflect the
different needs and actual consumption patterns of older persons as compared
with younger families .
Estimates of the total cost of the budget 'Provide a useful tool for eval­uating
the ade~uacy of incomes and for measuring differences in living costs
between cities. The uses and limitations of this budget are similar to those
for the City Worker's Family Budget reviewed in the September 1960 issue of
Family Economics Review.
BUREAU OF LAOOR STATISTICS. TO COLLECT DATA ON CONSUMER EXPENDriURES
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has initiated a series of household
surveys, primarily to provide information for revising its Consumer Price
Index. Information will be obtained from urban families residing in 66 cities
and their environs relative to the kinds and amounts of goods and services
they bought, the prices they paid, and their incomes during the survey year.
They will also be asked their detailed food expenditures for the immediately
preceding week and bow often they shop for food. One-half of the families
will be visited in the spring of 1961; their reported incomes and expenditures
will relate to 1960. The other half will be visited in the spring of 1962,
and will report their 1961 incomes and expenditures. The families to be inter­viewed
in the larger cities will be drawn from the list of respondents to the
BLS bous ing unit survey conducted in the fall preceding the expenditure survey.
Families to be interviewed in places under 50, 000 will be drawn from the list
of respondents to the 1960 Census of Housing. The BLS housing unit survey and
the Census survey provide information on characteristics of families and the
housing they occupy that is used in selecting the sample for the expenditure
survey.
The 66 cities where consumer expenditure surveys will be conducted are
listed opposite. The data from all of these will be used to establish weights
for the revised index, which is to be completed early in 1964. After that
date, prices for calculating the current indexes published periodically by BLS
will be collected in 50 of the cities --all of those listed except the 16 small
supplemental cities.
Six cities for which quarterly Consumer Price Indexes are now published
will not be included in the revised index. These are Cincinnati, Houston,
Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland (Oregon), and Scranton.
Cities of
1,250,000
or more
population
Cities of
250,000 to
1,250,000
Cities of
50,000 to
250,000
Cities of
2,500 to
50,000
Sixteen
small sup­plemental
cities
-13-
City sample for consumer expenditure surveys
To be surveyed in 1961
Boston, Mass .
New York, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Cleveland, Ohio
Detroit, Mich.
Chicago, Ill .
St. Louis, Mo.
Baltimore, Md.
Washington, D. C.
S~ Francisco, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Buffalo, N. Y.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Atlanta, Ga.
Dallas, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Hartford, Conn.
Portland, Me.
Champaign-Urbana, Ill.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Orlando, Fla.
Austin, Tex..
Kingston, N. Y.
Findlay, Ohio
Niles, Mich.
Devils Lake, N.D.
Union, S. C.
Vicksburg, Miss.
McAllen, Tex.
Klamath Falls, Oreg.
Anchorage, Alaska !}
Burlington, Vt.
Lewistown, Pa.
LaSalle, Ill.
Owatonna, Minn.
Griffin, Ga.
Cleveland, Tenn.
Reserve, La.
Gallup, N. Mex.
To be surveyed in 1962
The same l2 cities
listed in opposite
column. Surveys will
be conducted in these
cities in both years.
Dayton, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
Nashville, Tenn.
Denver, Colo .
Honolulu; Hawaii
Lancaster, Pa.
Green Bay, Wis.
Durham, N. C •
Baton Rouge, La.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Southbridge, Mass .
Millville, N. J.
Lo·gansport, Ind.
Crookston, Minn.
Martinsville, Va.
Florence, Ala.
Mangum, Okla.
Orem, Utah
Athol, Mass.
Cambridge, Ohio
Menasha, Wis.
Manhattan, Kans.
Sebring, Fla.
Okmulgee, Okla.
Gainesville, Te~.
Eureka, Calif.
y Consumer expenditures surveys were conducted in Anchorage in 1960 as
part of a special Alaskan price program. These surve:YB will be used to derive
the weights for the city in the revised CPI instead of surveying again in 1961.
-l4-
ENERGY USED BY WOMEN IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
If you are going to prepare a dinner, and want to spend the most possible
calories doing it (perhaps you could then consume more calories when dinner is
served wi tbout worrying about an expanding waistline), just reach and bend
and walk and li:ft in the most inefficient manner. The old-fashioned big
kitchen with long walks between sink and stove and pantry and dining table
-would be just the thing. And if you walk at an abnormally slow pace, you 1ll
use up more calories per trip than at your normal gait. Of course, dinner
might be late, but perhaps the family won 1 t mind.
This suggestion is the opposite of what the researchers are emphasizing
as they present results of' recent experiments carried out by the Clothing and
Housing Research Divis :ion of the Institute of' Home Economics. The study was
done to get information useful to persons making recommendations on energy­saving
ways of' doing bouse-work, and to house designers interested in providing
for efficient arrangements of' space and .equip:nent in oomes.
Nine -women were "subjects" in the experiments planned to find out how
much energy -women use when performing selected activities. Each woman's
height, weight, and basal metabolic rate were within a specified medium range.
The researchers in charge of the experiments used special apparatus to measure
the energy expenditures of' the "subjects."
Sitting required 10.2 percent more calories per bour than lying, on the
average; standing took 16.2 percent more than lying, and 5.6 percent more than
sitting. Walking at the rate of lo8 and l20 steps per minute took about 4 and
l3 percent more calories per hour, respectively, than walking at 96 steps a
minute. (The -women 1 s own walking rates ranged from 107 to l3l steps a minute 1
and averaged ll9.) This means that the rate of' energy expenditure increased
with increased speed of' walking.
In covering a given horizontal distanceJ bowever, the women used more
calories walking at a sl.ow rate than going faster. They averaged 62.6 Cal­ories
per mile walking at 96 steps a minute, 56.5 Calories walking at lo8, and
54.1 Calories going at l20 steps a minute. Probably they used more energy at
the slow speed because in taking more steps they lifted the body more times.
In other tests the women walked at the rate of 96 steps a minute making a
90-degree turn every lO feet, then at the same rate making a 180-degree turn
every lO feet. Walking with 90-degree turns took almost as much energy as
walking with 180-degree turns, and both took significantly more than walking
in a straight line (l6 and l8 percent more, respectively).
The expenditure for walking at l20 steps per minute while carrying an
l8-pound load and while pulling the same load on a 4-wheel.ed cart was also
investigated. Tbe load was a flexible plastic laundry basket full of' clothes,
with a handle on each end. Each 'WOman was permitted to carry the basket the
way she wanted to, but had to use that same way every time the test was
-15-
repeated. It took 81 percent more energy, on the average, to walk carrying
the load, and 69 percent more to walk pulling it than to walk at the same
speed without a load. Thus, the difference in the energy expenditure when
pulling as compared with carrying the load was relatively unimportant.
Another experiment involved taking a 5-p::>und load from a counter 36 inches
high and placing it on a shelf l2 inches from the floor. Doing this by knee­bending
took 24o percent more energy than standing at rest, and by trunk­bending
163 percent more than standing at rest.
Further details about the study are given in Home Economics Research
Report Number 11, Energy Expenditures of Women Performing Selected Activities
(Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 1960).
SOCIAL ~ITY RULES AMENDED
Several changes were made last year in the rules governing Old-Age,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI). The main ones are listed below.
Mbre people covered.--The coverage provisions of the program were amended
to include more people. The following groups can now become covered: •
(l) Parents employed by their children in trade or business (but not in bouse­hold
'WOrk); (2) U. S. citizens employed in the United States by foreign
governments and international organizations; (3) All employees of nonprofit
organi?.ations; (4) Additional State and local government employees.
Coverage comes quicker for some.--To be fully insured a 'WOrker now needs
l quarter of coverage for every 3 calendar quarters between January 1, 1951,
and the year in which he reaches retirement age, becomes disabled, or dies
(but not less than 6 or more than 40 quarters). Previously, the requirement
was l quarter for every 2. A 'WOrker who reaches retirement age in 1961 will
need 13 quarters, and in l97l 26 quarters of coverage to be fully insured.
This compares with 20 and 4o quarters under the old rule.
Workers can earn more .--Most retirees or widows who supplement OASDI
benefit payments by; 'WOrking can earn .more without loss of social security
benefits. I~ used to be that a 'WOrker lost l month's benefit check for each
$80 earned over $1,200. Now a worker earning more than $1, 200 in a year will
have $l of his benefits (or family's benefits) withheld for each $2 earned
between $1,200 and $1,500, and $1 in benefits for each $1 earned above $1,500.
A 'WOrker wbo earns $1,650 in 1961 will have $300 withheld in benefits, whereas
he could have lost 6 monthly benefit checks under the old rule • Benefits will
not be lost for any month in which wages are less than $100, and full benefits
will be paid to workers age 72 and over regardle.Rs of the amount earned. This
part of the law is unchanged.
-16-
Children 1 s payments may be higher.--A widow with two children received a
larger monthly payment beginning in January 1961, if' her deceased husband had
average monthly earnings between $250 and $350. The following shows the new
and old monthly payment schedules for a widow and two children under 18:
Worker's average monthly earnings:
$50 or less ............................. .
il~5§0 o•••••.•..••••••••••••.••••.••••••.•.• .....................................
.....................................
$4oo ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
M::mthly payments
New Old
$53
120
202
254
254
$53
120
190
232
254
Age f'or disability benefits lower.--Disabled workers under age 50 can
draw benefits for themselves and their dependents. Before, they had to be at
least 50 to be eligible •
Some aged widows may draw benefits .--Benefits will be paid to survivors
of' workers who had acquired 6 quarters of coverage and died before l94o. This
makes a few more people eligible for payments.
The Social Security Administration has dist~ict offices located through­out
the country. The people who work in these offices will give more informa­tion
about these and other rules applying to OASDI. To find the address of
the office in your locality, inquire at the post office or look in the tele­phone
book under United States Government, Departzn.ent of' Health, Education, and
Welfare, Social Security Administration.
STATE roPULATION CHANGES, 1950-1960
The population of the United States increased by 28 million in tre
10 years ending April l, 1960, according to the final count of the 1960 Census
of Population. y The total population residing in the United States ( exclud­ing
armed forces abroad) was approximately 179 million compared with 151 mil­lion
in 1950, an increase of 18.5 percent.
States with the largest rates of increase were Florida1 Nevada, Alaska,
and Arizona. Arkansas 1 the District of Columbia, and West Virginia lost popu­lation,
and Mississippi remained unchanged. The table shows the 1950 and 1960
populations of each State and the percent change.
y U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1960 Census of' Population, PC(Al)-l.
November 15, 1960.
Population o~ the United States, by States, 1950 and 1960
States 1960 1950 Percent change States 1960
United States .• 179,323,175 151,325,798 18.5 Missouri •••..... 4,3l9,813
Montana •........ 674,767
Alabama •••.•••• 3,266,740 3,061,743 6.7 Nebraska ..•...•. 1,411,330
Alaska ......... 226,167 128,643 75.8 Nevada .......... 285,278
Arizona •••••••• 1,302,161 749,587 73·7 New Hampshire .•. 606,921
Arkansas ••••••• 1,786,272 1,909,511 -6.5 New Jersey ...••. 6,o66,782
Cali~ornia •••.. 15,717,204 10,586,223 48.5 New Mexico ••...• 951,023
Colorado •••.••• 1,753,947 1,325,089 32.4 New York ..•.•... 16,782,304
Connecticut ••.• 2, 535,234 2, 007,280 26.3 North Carolina .. 4,556,155
Delaware ••..•••• 446,292 318,o85 40.3 North Dakota .... 632,446
Florida •••••.•• 4,951,560 2,771,305 78.7 Ohio ............ 9,706,397
Georgia •••••••• 3,943,ll6 3, 444,578 14.5 Okl.ahoma .•...•.• 2,328,284
Hawaii ••••••••• 632,772 499,794 26.6 Oregon .......... 1,768,687
Idaho .......... 667,191 588,637 13.3 Pennsylvania •... 11,319,366
Illinois ••••••• 10,081,158 8,712,176 15.7 Rhode Island ••.. 859,488
Indiana •••••••• 4,662,498 3,934,224 18.5 South Carolina .• 2,382,594
Iowa ......•.... 2,757,537 2,621,073 5.2 South Dakota .••. 680,514
Kansas •..•.•.•. 2,178,6ll 1,905,.299 14.3 Tennessee •.•.•.. 3,567,089
Kentucky ••••••• 3,038,156 2,944,806 3.2 Texas ........... 9,579,677
Lou~siana •••••• 3,257,022 2,683,516 21.4 Utah .....•...... 890,627
Maine .........• 969,265 913,774 6.1 Vermont •.....•.. 389,881
Maryland .•••••• 3,100,689 2, 343,001 32.3 Virginia •••.•.•• 3,966,949
Massachusetts •. 5,148, 578 4,690,514 9.8 Washington •...•• 2,853,214
Michigan ••••.•. 7,823,194 6,371,766 22.8 West Virginia ... 1,860,421
Minnesota •.•••• 3,413,864 2,982,483 14.5 Wisconsin .••.... 3,951,777
Mlssissippi •••. 2,178,141 2,178,914 (y) Wyoming •.•.....• 330,066
D. C. . .......... 763J956
!( Less than 0.1 percent.
1950
3,954,653
591,024
1, 325,510
160,083
533,242
4,835, 329
681,187
14,830,192
4,061,929 1
619,636
7,946,627 1
2,233,351
l, 521,341
10,498,012
791,896
2,117,027
652,740
3,291,718
7,711,194
688,862
377,747
3, 318,680
2,378,963
2,005,552
3,434, 575
290,529
802,178
Percent
change
9.2
14.2
6.5
78.2
13.8
25.5
39.6
13.2
12.2
2.1
22.1
4.3
16.3
7.8
8.5
12.5
4.3
8.4
24.2
29.3
3.2
19.5
19.9
-7.2
15.1
13.6
-4.8
I
f-'
-..1
I
-18-
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
The need for health insurance as protection against high medical expenses
has become generally recognized in the United States. At least two-thirds of
the population has some type of' health insurance, according to an experimental
study by the U. S. National Health Survey, in which 19,000 .housemld interviews
were taken during July-December 1959. y
The types of insurance covered in this survey are (l) hospital, (2) sur­gical,
and (3) doctor visit for nonsurgical care. For the population as a
whole, hospital insurance was the type most frequently carried (67 percent),
followed closely by surgical insurance (62 percent). The proportion covered
by doctor visit insurance was much lower (19 percent). (See table.)
Persons with health insurance, by place of residence
and family income
Place of residence Type of' insurance
and family income Hospital Surgical Doctor visit
Percent Percent Percent
All families y ........ 67 62 19
Place of residence%
Farm ................. 45 4o 12
Rural nonfarm ........ 68 64 20
Urban ................ 72 66 20
Family income:
Under $2, 000 ......... 33 27 9
$2,000-$3,999 ........ 56 50 14
$4,000-$6,999 ···•·•·· 79 74 22
$7,000 and over .••••• 84 80 28
y Includes a small number of' families whose income was not given.
Differences related to residence and income
Farm people were less likely to carry health insurance than persons in
rural nonfarm or urban areas. For example, only 45 percent in farm as compared
1J U. S. Department of' Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Interim Report on Health Insurance, United States, July-December
1959. Health Statistics 1 Series B-26. December 1960.
-l9-
with 68 percent in rural nonfarm and 72 percent in urban areas carried hospital
insurance. The pattern of distribution was similar for the other types of
insurance.
The rate of coverage increased as family income increased for all three
types of insurance. Only 33 percent were covered by hospital, 27 percent by
surgical, and 9 percent by doctor visit insurance in the lowest income group as
compared with 84, 80, and 28 percent,respectively, in the highest income group.
Rate of coverage related to employment and age
As might be expected, persons usually employed were more likely to have
health insurance than were others. About 75 percent of the usually working
population was covered by hospital insurance compared with 60 percent of other
persons l5 years of age and over.
Variations according to age reflected employment .status also. A higher
proportion o~ persons in the age range in which the working population i.s
concentrated had health insurance than children or older people. The lowest
rate of coverage_ was for persons age 65 or older. Approximately 46 percent of
them were covered by hospital, 37 percent by surgical, and lO percent by
~octor visit insurance.
LAWS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
Two regulations designed to protect consumers were passed by the last
Congress and signed into law by the President in July l960. They were as
follows:
Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act.--Poisoning in the home has
become so common that action was needed to replace the Federal Caustic Poison
Act of l927. This old law required a "Poison" label and first aid instruc­tions
on only a few household articles . The new law applies to chemical
household products made of substances or mixtures which are toxic, corrosive,
irritant, flannnab.le, or radioactive, or which generate pressure or are strong
sensitizers. Any such product that might cause injury or illness when used in
a customary or reasonable forseeable way--including ingestiop by children-­would
be .subject to the law. This would include many of the ordinary house­bold
items--polishes, bleaches, cleaners, paint thinners and removers.
The word "Danger" must appear on the label of products that are extremely
flammable, corrosive, or toxic. All others require "Warning" or "Caution."
Definite statements describing the hazard, such as "Causes Burns," "Vapor
Harmful," "Flammable," or "Absorbed through Skin," are required, as well as
"Poison" if the product is highly toxic.
-20-
The appropriate or necessary first aid treatment must be given on the
label, and instructions for handling and storage of packages needing special
care. The statement "Keep out of reach of children" or a similar warning is
also required.
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for enforcing this law.
Color Additive Amendments.--These amendments to the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act are intended to assure the purity and safety of all added
colorings used in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. Previously, the law required
the Food and Drug Administration to ban entirely the use of a coal tar color
found harmfUl in relatively large amounts, even though it was safe in the
small quanti ties used in consumer products . The new law covers all colors and
permits FDA to set limits on the amount of color that can be used. It requires
retesting by the manufacturer of a color if there is any doubt about its
safety. No color may be penni tted if it produces cancer by appropriate tests.
ESTIMATED COST OF l WEEK'S FOOD--U.S .A. AVERAGE AND FOUR REGIONS
This issue of Family Economics Review presents January l96l estimates of
the retail cost of food for the USDA food plans for the U.S.A. and for four
regions--the Northeast, the North Central, the South, and the West. (See
tables l to 3, pages 2l to 23.) Also, table 4 on page 24 presents January
l96l costs of the Southern adaptation of the low-cost plan. An explanation
of the development of the food plans and the cost estimates for the U.S.A. was
given in the October l957 issue of Family Economics Review. Information about
the estimates for the four regions and the adaptation of the low-cost food
plan for the South .appeared in the September l959 issue of Family Economics
Review.
Estimates of the cost of food for the plans for the U.S.A. will continue
to appear quarterly in this publication. Regional estimates will appear in
the March issues.
-21-
Table 1.--Estimated Cost of 1 Week's Food, y January 1961--U .S..A. Average
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20-34 years~ ••.•••••••••
Fanily of two, 55-74 ~ars gj ........... .
Family of f'our, preschool children ]/ ••••
Family of four, school children~ •••••••
INDIVIIUALS
Children:
Under l year .......................... .
l-3 years ............................. .
4-6 years ............................. .
7-9 years ............................. .
10-12 years ........................... .
Girls, 13-15 years ••••••••..•••••••••.•.•
l6-l9 years ........................... .
Boys, 13-15 ye:ars ....................... .
16-19 yea:r:s ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••
Women:
20-34 years ............................ .
35-54 ye.ars ........................... .
55-74 years ........................... .
75 year-s 8.Ild over ..................... .
Pregnan.t .•.............................
Nursing •...............................
Men:
20-34 years .....................•......
35-54 -years ........................... .
55-74 ~ar-s •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.
75 years and over ••••••••••••••••••••••
I.Dw-cost
plan
Dollars
14.00
12.4o
20.90
24.10
3.10
3.80
4.40
5-30
6.10
6.50
6.60
7.00
8.30
5-50
5.30
5.00
4.90
6.90
8.60
7.20
6.70
6.30
6.10
M:>derate- Liberal
cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars
19.10 21.60
17.30 19.20
27.90 31.80
32.60 37-00
3.90 4.20
4.70 5.40
5.80 6.80
6.90 7.90
8.30 9·50
8.80 10.10
8.80 10.00
9·70 11.00
11.30 12.80
7.60 8.60
7.40 8.40
7.00 7·90
6.50 7-lto
8.90 9.90
11.00 12.20
9.80 ll.OO
9.10 10.20
8.70 9.60
8.30 9.20
!/ These estimates were computed from quantities in low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal food plans -published in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the October
1957 issue of Family Economics Review. Quanti ties for children were revised
January 1959 to comply with the 1958 NRC Recommended Dietary Allowances. The
cost of the food plans was _first estimated by using the average prices per
pound of each food group paid by nonfann 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.
?) Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factor
for adjustment, see pages 3 and 4 of the September 1960 issue of Family
Economics Review.
3/ Man and woman 20-34 years; children, 1-3 and 4-6 yea:rs .
Tjj Man and woman 20-34 years; children, 7-9 and 10-12 ye-ars.
Table 2.--Estimated Cost of 1 Weekrs Food, January 1961, for Northeast and North Central Regions
Northeast North Central
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES y'
Family of two, 20-34 years •.•.••• 15.60 20.40 22.30 14.70 18.40 21.00
Family of two, 55-74 years ••••••• 14.00 18.40 20.00 13.20 16.50 18.80
Family of four 1 preschool children 23.20 29.50 32.80 22.00 26.90 31.00
Family of four 1 school children •• 26.80 34.60 38.10 25.40 ; 31.40 36.00
INDIVIDUALS
Children:
Under l year ................... 3.30 4.10 4.30 3.20 3.80 4.10
1-3 years ...................... 4.10 4.90 5.50 3.90 4.60 5.30
4-6 years ...................... 4.90 6.10 7.00 4.70 5.60 6.60
7-9 years ....................... 5.80 7.30 8.10 5-50 6.70 7.70
10-12 ye.a.:r-s •••••••••••••••••••• 6.80 8.80 9·70 6.50 8.00 9.20
Girls, 13-15 years •..•••••••••.•• 7.10 9·30 l0.4o 6.80 8.50 9.80
16-19 years .................... 7.20 9.30 10.30 6.90 8.50 9.80
Boys, 13-15 years ••.••••..•••.... 7.80 10.30 ll.4o 7.50 9.4o 10.70
16-19 y-'ear'S •• • ••••• • ••••••• • ••• 9.30 12.00 13.20 8.90 ll.OO 12.50
Women:
20-34 yea.rs •.•••••..•..•.••.••. 6.10 8.10 8.90 5.80 7.30 8.4o
35-54 years .................... 6.00 7.90 8.70 5.60 7..10 8.20
55-74 years .................... 5.60 7.40 8.20 5.30 6.70 7.70
75 years and over •.•.....•••••• 5.40 6.90 7.70 5.20 6.30 7.20
Pregnan.t .....•................. 7.50 9·50 10.20 7.20 8.70 9.70
Nursing ........................ 9.4o u.6o 12.60 9.10 10.70 12.00
Men:
20-34 years .................... 8.10 10.4o 11.40 7.60 9.40 10.70
35-54 years .................... 7.60 9.80 10.50 7.10 8.80 9.90
55-74 y-ears ...... • ........... •. 7.10 9.30 10.00 6.70 8.30 9.40
75 years and over ••.••••••••••. 6.90 8.90 9.60 6.50 8.00 9.00
~ See footnotes 2, 3, and 4 of table 1 on page 21.
I
1\)
1\)
I
Table 3.--Estimated Cost of l Week's Food, January l96l, for Southern and Western Regions
South West
Sex-age groups LJw-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost MJderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES"})
Family of two, 20-34 years ••••••. l2.l0 l6.6o l9.20 l5.80 20.00 22.80
Family of two, 55-74 years .•..••• l0.90 l5.00 l7 . .40 l4.20 l8.oo 20.40
Family of four, preschool children l8.20 24.4o 28.50 23.4o 29.l0 33.60
Family of four, school children .. 2l.OO 28.30 32.90 27.20 34.oo 39.00
INDIVIDUALS
Children: Under l year ................... 2.80 3.50 3.80 I 3.4o 4.00 4.50
l-3 years ....................... 3.30 4.20 4.90 I 4.l0 4.90 5.70
4-6 y-ears ...•..•............... 3.90 5.l0 6.l0 4.90 6.00 7.20
7-9 years ...................... 4.60 6.00
I
7.00 5.90 7.20 8.30
10-.1.2 -years ..........•......... 5.40 7.20 8.4o 6.90 8.60 lO.OO
Girls, l3-l5 years .•.•••••.••.••• 5.70 7.60 I 8.90 7.20 9.l0 l0.60
16-19 years .................... 5·70 7·70 I 9.00 7.40 9.20 l0.60
Boys, l3-l5 years ••••••.••••••••• 6.l0 8.30 9·70 7·90 lO.lO ll.60
16-19 years .................... 7.l0 9·70 ll.20 9·4o ll.8o l3.50
Women:
20-34 years .................... 4.80 6.70 7.80 6.20 8.00 9.l0
35-54 years • . • ... • .... • ..... • • • 4.60 6.50 7.60 6.00 7·70 8.90
55-74 years .................... 4.40 6.l0 7.20 5·70 7.30 8.30
75 years and over •.••.••.•.•.•. 4.20 5·70 6.70 5.50 6.80 7.80
Pregn< ......................... 6.00 7.90 9.00 7·70 9.4o l0.60
Nursing ........................ 7.60 9·70 ll.OO 9·70 ll.6o l3.00
Men:
20-34 years ..................... 6.20 8.4o 9.70 8.20 l0.20 ll.6o
35-54 yeal"S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5.80 7.90 9.00 7.60 9.60 l0.70
55-74 -years .................... 5·50 7.50 8.60 7.20 9.l0 l0.20
75 years and over •.••••.••••••• 5·30 7.20 8.30 7.00 8.70 9·70
- ---- y See footnotes 2, 3, and 4 of table l on page 2l.
I
1\)
w
I
-24-
Table 4.--Es~imated Cost of 1 Week's Food, for Special Adaptation of
Low-Cost Plan for the South, January 1961
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES ?)
Family of two, 20-34 years .....•.
Family of two, 55-74 years ...•...
Family of four, preschool children
Family of four, school children ..
INDIVIDUALS
Children:
Under 1 year ...............•...
1-3 years ..................... .
4-6 years ..................... .
7-9 years ..•.•.•...............
10-12 years •.•.............••..
Girls, 13-15 years •....•••.....•.
16-19 years ..•...............•.
Special
low-cost
plan y
Dollars
ll.30
10.10
17.20
19-90
2.60
3.20
3-70
4.40
5-20
5-50
5-60
Sex-age groups
INDIVIWALS--Con.
Boys, 13-15 years .•...
16-19 years .•...•...
Women:
20-34 years ...•.....
35-54 years .......•.
55-74 years ........ .
75 years and over .. .
Pregnant •...........
Nursing .....••......
Men:
20-34 years ........ .
35-54 years ........ .
55-74 years ........ .
75 years and over .•.
Special
low-co.st
plan y
Dollars
5-70
6.70
4.50
4.4o
4.10
4.00
5-90
7-4o
5-80
5.40
5.10
5-00
y Based on quantities suggested in table 2 on page 16, Family Economics
Review, September 1959.
?} See footnotes 2, 3, and 4 of table 1 on page 21.
Unit prices of food groups
The costs of food for the food plans are estimated by applying unit (qt.,
lb., doz.) prices for the food groups to the quanti ties suggested in the food
plans for individuals. The unit price for each food group assumes an assort­ment
of food within the groups similar to that used in 1955 by nonfarm families
at selected income levels. Of course, these unit prices will be quite differ­ent
if families make selections that deviate greatly from those assumed. Unit
prices can be used for making rough estimates of the costs of food when food
group quantities are different from those for the food plans. For example,
unit group prices are useful for estimating the money value of food consump­tion
in a local community and for estimating the value of home-produced food.
-25-
The unit prices used with the food plans are kept current by adjusting
them according to food prices collected periodically by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics •
Table 5 gives the January 1961 unit prices of food groups that were used
for estimating the cost of food for the U.S.A. for the low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal food plans.
Table 5.--Unit prices of food groups for USDA food plans at three levels,
January 1961 y
Food group and unit
Milk, cheese, ice cream ••••.•. quart •• equiv .•.•...
Meat, poultry, fish (including
bacon, salt pork) •.•...•••.. pound ••••..••••••.•
Eggs ........................... do zen ............. .
Dry beans, peas, nuts ••••..••• pound .••.••••••.••.
Grain products ...••••.•.•.•.••• pound flour equiv ••
Potatoes ....••.••.•..•.•.•.••. p:>und ..•..••...••..
Citrus fruit, tomatoes •••••••. pound ..•••••.••••••
Other fruits and vegetables
(includes dark-green and
deep-yellow vegetables) •..•• pound ..•••.•••..••.
Fats and oils ..•••••.••.••••.. pound •.••••••••.•••
Sugar, sweets ......•.......... pc>nnd . ............ .
Low-cost
plan
Cents
27.0
57-3
58.8
29.0
26.8
6.7
15.6
16.8
33.1
21.2
Moderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
Cents -Cen-ts
28.6 30.1
64.8 69.0
61.1 63.0
41.8 48.1
36.6 40.7
7-9 8.1
17-3 17.6
18.4 18.6
37.4 40.2
24.7 27.6
y An estimated amount is also added to the total for accessories such as
coffee, tea, vinegar, and spices. Prices for the low-cost plan were based
upon practices of households reporting in the 1955 Food Consumption Surveys
with incomes of $2,000-$2,999J moderate-cost, $4,000-$4,999; liberal, $6,000-
$7,999·
-26-
CONSUMER PRICES
Table 1.--Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living
(1947-49 == 100)
February 1960; June 1960-February 1961
Item Feb. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. De 'Jan. Feb.
1960 1960 c. '1961
All connnodities ............ 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 1 119 119
Food and tobacco ......... -- 117 -- -- 117 -- -- 118 1 -- II --
Clothing ................. -- 117 -- -- 119 -- -- 1201 -- --
Household operation ...... -- 117 -- -- 118 -- -- 117 1 -- --
Household furnishings .... -- 104 -- -- 103 -- -- 103 -- --
Building materials~ bouse. -- 122 -- -- 121 -- -- 120 -- --
Auto and auto supplies ... -- 14o -- -- 139 -- -- 140 -- --
i
Source: U. S. Department o1' Agriculture~ Agricultural Marketing Service.
Table 2.--Consumer Price Index . for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families
(1947-49 == 100)
January 1960; May 1960-January 1961
Item Jan. May June July Aug. .Sept. Oct. Nov . IDee. Jan.
1960 1960
'
1961
'
All items .................. 125 126 126 127 127 127 127 127 128 · 127
Food .•..•.........•..•... 118 120 120 121 120 120 121 121 121 121
Apparel ..•.......•........ lo8 109 109 109 109 ill 111 111 lll 109
Housing .................. 131 l3L 131 131 132 132 132 l32 i 132 132
Rent ................... 141 141 142 142 142 142 142 143 1 143 143
Gas and electricity •... 123 125 125 125 125 126 126 l26 i 126 126
Solid fuels and fuel oil 139 133 132 133 133 135 136 136 1 137 14o
House furnishings ....... 104 lo4 lo4 lo4 104 104 lo4 lo4 ! lo4 104 I Household operation ...• 136 137 137 137 138 138 138 1381 138 138
Transportation •....•.•..• 148 146 146 146 146 145 146 146 146 146
Medical care ............. 154 156 156 156 157 157 157 158 , 158 ' 158
Personal care ............ 133 133 133 133 134 134 134 1341 134! 134
Reading and recreation ..• 120 121 121 122 122 122 122 122 122 ' 122
Other goods and services . 132 132 132 132 132 133 133 133 133 133
Source: U.S. Department of Labor~ Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-
-27-
DIDEX OF .ARTICLES APPEARING MARCH-DEX!EMBER 1960
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Changes in Fiber Consumption ...•........•.....••.••••...
World Consumption of Cotton, Wool, and Manmade Fibers
FOOD
Estimated Cost of One Week's-Food--U.S.A. Average and ~
Four Regions ......................................... .
Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households with
Employed and Nonemployed Homemakers ...•.....•....•.•..
Grades for Eggs, Brlter, and Lamb : . •......... : ....•.....
Per Person Food Cost Differential in Large and Small
Families .............................................. .
Using the Estimated Cost of One Week's Food in Budget
Counseling •...••.•...•..........•..•.........•... • ....
FAMILY FINANCE
Calculating Installment Credit Costs ••.•.•..•..••.••....
Changes in Employment of Teachers in Public Schools,
1957-1958 ............................................ .
City Worker's Family Budget Revised •..•.....•...•......•
~~ Employment of High School Graduates .•..•...•••...••••...
Factors Affecting the Employment of Women ...........•.••
Family Living Expenditures of Low-Income Farm Families ..
Incomes of Families and Number of Earners (1958) ....••..
Income of Orphans and their Widowed Mothers .... : •..•.•..
Personal Incomes in 1959 ...•...•.••••.•...•......•••••..
Some Facts about Unemployment Insurance ..•....••.•.•.•..
Working Mothers and Child Care ...•..•....•.......•••.•..
HOUSING
FHA Reduces Downpayment .•.......•....•.........••.•.....
Trends in the Consumer Price Index for Housing during
1950's ............................................... .
MIScELLANIDUS
College Plans of Students •......•..•.....•.......•...•..
FDA's Consumer Consultant Program ........•.•.....•.••...
Foreign Travel in 1959 ...•...•..................... · · · · ·
Improvements in Education Noted •....•••••...•..••.•.•...
Index of Articles Appearing March 1959-December 1959 •.••
Marriage and Divorce Rates, 1925-1957 .......•..••.....•.
Results of Family Economics Review Questionnaire .•......
The 1959 Census of Agriculture ....•.•..•..•..••.•.......
ANNUAL OUTI.DOK ISSUE
20
20
7
9
ll
3
3
18
20
7
18
13
3
16
13
14
ll
16
20
15
19
10
15
22
26
22
6
23
Outlook for 1961 • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . • . • . . • . . • . . • . • . • . . . l-28
Issue
March
September
March
June
March
September
MarC'll
March
June
September
September
- June
June
March
March
September
September
September
June
June
June
September
September
March
March
September
September
March
December
;
I
Growth Through Agricultural Progress