Family Economics Review [1964, Number 2]

              j For Buil..:ing Use Only )
~
MICS
EW
Cunsumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Servic:c•,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE @.,~~~~~~~~~1@~~:~iliii~
A quarterly report on current developments in family and food economics and economic aspects
of home management, prepared for home economics agents and home economics specialists of
the Cooperative Extension Service.
CONTENTS
Page
Changes in urban family spending, 1950 to 1960-61
Net worth, assets, and debts of families .......................................... .
Incomes of U. S. women ......................................... . .............. .
Equal Pay Act of 1963 becomes effective ........................................... .
Family food discards ........................................................... . .
A consideration of cash vs. credit buying ......................................... .
Personal income in 1963 . ............ .......... ................................. .
Food and Drug Administration expands its consumer education program ............... .
Questions about Family Economics Review answered .............................. .
Some new USDA publications ................. .................................... .
USDA food plans to be revised .................................................. .
Estimated cost of 1 week's food .................................................. .
Consumer prices ................................................................ .
ARS 62-5
June 1964
PRCPER-Y CF T!-!E
Ll F.ARY
JUL 3 1964
3
5
7
9
9
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
15
3
CHANGES IN URBAN FAMILY SPENDING, 1950 to 1960-61
The level of living of urban families1 increased by about an eighth between 1950 and
1960-61, according to data from Surveys of Consumer Expenditure for those years. City fami­lies
spent an average of $5,390 for current living in 1960-61 (see table). Their average expendi­ture
in 1950 was $3,808, which in terms of 1961 purchasing power amounted to $4,736.
Average expenditures of urban families and single consnmas, 1960-61 and 1950
Item
ExFpoeondd iatunrde sb efvoerr acguersr _e_n_t_ c__o_n_s_u_m__p__ti_o__n_'-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_- _-
Housing, total -------------------------------------
Shelter, fuel, light, refrigeration, and wa.ter ________ _
Household operation -----------------------------
Housefurnishings and equipment_ _________________ _
Clothing, materials, services ________________________ _
Personal care --------------------------------------
1\Iedical care --------------------------------------­RReecardeiantgio
ann d- -e-d-u-c-a-t-io-n- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
Automobile purchase and operation __________________ _
Other transportation -------------------------------
Tobacco -------------------------------------------
Other expenditures ---------------------------------
Gifts and contributions ____________ ___________________ _
Personal insurance ----------------------------------­Average
1960-61
$5,390
1,401
1,588
992
319
277
558
155
355
217
109
700
93
95
119
303
324
expenditures
1950 I
$3,808
1,195
1,035
596
178
261
437
85
197
168
58
443
67
68
55
165
177
Percent of expenditures
for current consumption
1960-61
100.0
26.0
29.5
18.4
5.9
5.1
10.4
2.9
6.6
4.0
2.0
13.0
1.7
1.8
2.2
1950
100.0
31.4
27.2
15.6
4.7
6.9
11.5
2.2
5.2
4.4
1.5
11.6
1.8
1.8
1.4
'From the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1950. See Study of Con.~wner Expenditm·es, Incomes and
Srwin,q.~, Statistical Table.~, Urban U.S.-1950, (University of Pennsylvania, 1956-57), vol. 18.
:The classification of items in the two surveys is not strictly comparable.
Higher expenditures in the more recent period "·ere made possible by higher incomes. In­comes
averaged $6,691 before taxes and $5,906 after taxes in 1960-61, in comparison with
$4,237 before taxes and $3,910 after taxes in 1950.
Out of their larger incomes families in 1960-61 made greater outlays for gifts and contri­butions
than in 1950-$303 as compared with $165-and for personal insurance and retirement
plans-$324 and $177, respectively. In 1950, due partly to the wave of scare buying at the be­ginning
of the Korean conflict, families had an average net dissaving of $74. (That is, debts
increased more than assets .) In 1960-61 they made an average net saving of $177.
Expenditures were higher in 1960-61 than in 1950 in all major categories of consumption.
However, significant shifts occurred in the proportion of the total expenditure used for the
different categories. For example, food and beverages and clothing decreased in importance,
while shelter (including the dwelling, fuel, light, refrigeration, and water) increased. (See
chart.) The share of family living expenditures taken by these three basic categories of the
budget together decreased from 58 percent in 1950 to 55 percent in 1960-61.
The decrease in the share of total expenditures taken by food and beverages is one of the
most striking changes revealed by the new study. Food and beverages accounted for 30 percent
of the family's expenditures for cunent living in 1950, but only 26 percent in 1960-61. This de­crease
in the relative importance of food and beverages results in large part from the increase
in income; which permits families to maintain their spending for food and beverages and still
satisfy other formerly unmet wants. It is also explained in part by the fact that food prices rose
less during the decade than the average for all items purchased by consumers.
The decrease in the relative importance of clothing expenditures-from 12 to 10 percent of
the total-continues a downward trend that has been evident over the past half century.
'"Families" in this report include families and "unrelated individuals."
4
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES
Urban Families, 1950 and 1960- 61
d b :.:.:.:.:., 31,
Foo , everages =~-~-~-: '0 -% Shelter...................
18
%
Transportation····-75%
Cl Ot h .• n g ................ ~::::1::::2::::":::' /o
10%
Medt.c al care·········•.·=.····:···:· ·:5·%:
7%
All other .............. 32%4%
BLS DATA.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 64 ( 5)- 5744 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The increased importance of spending for shelter-from 16 to 18 percent of total expendi­tures
for current living-results in large part from improvements in the level of housing. Con­tributing
to this improvement were the growth in home ownership and "trading up" in quality
of housing as the move to the suburbs progressed.
Transportation also took a larger proportion of the urban family's expenditures ·for living
in 1960-61 than in 1950. Spending for the purchase and operation of automobiles increased
from 12 to 13 percent of the total during that time. Almost three out of four families were car
owners in1960-61, compared with about three out of five families 10 years earlier. The num­ber
of two-car families increased also, as suburban living spread, and families used their cars
more intensively. These changes all contributed to the uptrend in automobile expenditures.
Medical care and personal care each took a greater share of family spending in 1960-61 than
in 1950. About one-fourth of the total medical expenditure in 1960-61 was for hospitalization,
surgical, and other forms of health insurance or health service plans, which were reported by
three out of four urban families.
The information in this report is from a nationwide survey of consumer expenditures
conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The BLS
will also publish data on expenditures of rural nonfarm families in 1961, and the USDA on ex­penditures
of farm families in the same year. Findings from the rural nonfarm and farm sur­veys
will be reported in Fctmily Economics Review as they become available.
For further information about expenditures and income of city families in 1960-61 and
more details about the way the data were collected, see Consumer Expeditures and Income, Ur­ban
United States, 1960-61, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Report No.
237-38 (April 1964).
5
NET WORTH, ASSETS, AND DEBTS OF FAMILIES
The net worth of the "average" U.S. family amounted to about $22,600 at the end of 1962,
according to a survey made by the Bureau of the Census for the Federal Reserve Board.1 For
individual families 2 it varied over a wide range, from negative amounts to millions of dollars.
Out of every 100 families in the population-
S had negative net worth-that is, more debts than assets.
17 had net worth of from $0 to $999.
31 had $1,000 to $9,999.
35 had $10,000 to $49,999.
S had net worth of $50,000 or more.
Among families headed by a person 35 to 44 years old, average net worth on December 31,
1962, was $19,500, in contrast with $"34,SOO for those with heads 55 to 64 years old. (See table
1.) Families in which the head was self-employed in his own business or profession (including
farm operators) were considerably better off as to net worth than other families.
Components of Net Worth.-The $22,600 net worth of the average family repr~sented as­sets
amounting to $23,100 minus personal debts (excluding automobile debts) of $500. For
the families with negative net worth, assets averaged only about $365 and debts $900, leaving
a negative balance of approximately $535. This group of families included a third of the young­est
families (head under 25 years) and about one-fifth of the families headed by a person 25 to
34 years old. (See table 2.)
More families owned an outomobile than any other one type of asset except money in the
bank or .other liquid assets (such as savings bonds and shares in building and loan associations
or credit unions). Of every 100 families at the end of 1962, approximately-
SO had liquid assets.
70 owned an automobile.
60 owned equity in a home.
30 had investments in stocks, marketable bonds, real estate,
or mortgages.
20 had money in a farm or nonfarm business or profession
in which they were active in management.
10 had such miscellaneous assets as funds held in trust or
in profit-sharing and deferred income plans; royalties;
and patents.
On the other side of the ledger, 50 out of every 100 families owed some personal debt, not
including automobile debt. ("Personal debt" here refers to consumer debt not secured by any
of the assets listed above, such as installment debt on furnishings, equipment, and other con­sumer
durables; home modernization loans; and debts to doctors and hospitals.)
The composition of the family's net worth changes as the head ages and the net worth in­creases.
(These two conditions usually, though not always, go together.) Most young families
own a car, have liquid assets, and owe personal debts, but few have acquired an equity in a
1 Reported in Su1·vey of Financial Characte1·istics of Consume1·s, Federal Reserve Bulletin, March 1964, pp.
285-293.
'"Families" in this report include families and "unrelated individuals."
6
house, investments in stocks and bonds, or an interest in a business or profession. (See table
3.) Thereafter, up to retirement age or thereabouts, the proportion of families with owned
homes, investments, owned business or profession, and assets in life insurance, annuities, or re­tirement
plans increases, while the proportion with personal debts decreases.
Table 1.-Avera,qe assets, pe1·sonal debts, and net worth of families, l1y age of head, December .'Jl, 1962
Personal debts
(excludes
Age of head Assets automobile) Net worth
Dollar~ Dollars Dollar8
All families -------------------------------------------- 23,071 483 22,588
U25n dtoe r 3425 _ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_ 1,255 493 762 8,153 492 7,661
3455 ttoo 4544 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_ 19,988 546 19,442 26,189 730 25,459
5655 aton d6 o4v-e-r- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_ 35,137 356 34,781 30,977 259 30,718
Table 2.-Fami lies with specified net worth, by age of h ead, Dec ..'J 1, 1962
$1,000- $5,000- $10,000- $25,000- $50,000
Age of head Total Negative $0-999 4,999 9,999 24,999 49,999 and over
Pe1·cent Pe1·cent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
All families ------------------ 100' 8 17 17 14 24 11 8
2U5n tdoe r3 42 _5_ -_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 100 33 48 14 5 (' ) (') (') 100 18 26 25 15 13 3 1 35 to 44_ ___________________ 100 8 13 18 18 28 8 7 45 to 54 ____________________ 100 7 10 19 10 29 16 9 55 to 64 ____________________ 100 2 14 10 14 29 16 15 65 and over _______________ 100 2 17 13 17 25 16 10
'Due to rounding to whole numbers, percentages may total ± 100.
'No cases or less than 0.50 percent.
Table 3.-Families reporting specified assets and personal debt, by age of head, December 31, 1962
Life in-sura
nee,
annui-
Age of head ties,
retire-
Own Auto- ment
home mobile plans
Percent Percent Percent
All families ----------------- 59 73 58
Under 25 ------------------ 12 75 43
25 to 34 ____________________ 42 86 58 35 to 44 ____________________ 60 83 66 45 to 54 ____________________ 71 81 68 55 to 64 ____________________ 69 70 62
65 and over _______________ 64 46 38
Assets
Liquid Invest-assets'
ments '
Percent Percent
78 29
74 5
76 21
81 28
80 33
77 38
78 29
Busi-ness,
profes-sion
3
Percent
17
1
12
20
20
23
14
Mis-eel-
Jan-eo
us'
Percent
12
8
10
16
14
12
9
Person­al
debt
(ex­cludes
auto­mobile)
Percent
50
72
72
63
54
32
19
'Checking accounts, savings accounts, shares in savings and loan associations and credit unions, U.S. Sav-ings
Bonds.
'Stocks, marketable bonds, mortgage assets, real estate, business not personally managed.
'Equity in farm or nonfarm business in which family was active in management.
'Assets in trust, in profit-sharing or deferred income plans; oil royalties; patents, etc.
7
INCOMES OF U.S. WOMEN
About 60 percent of all women in the United States receive some money income in their own
right. The proportion varies among age groups, from 40 percent of the young (14 to 19 years
old) to 80 percent of the elderly (65 years and older). (See table 1.)
The amount of money received by many of these women is quite small. This is partly be­cause
the only money many of them receive is from a part-time job or such sources as interest
on a savings account, social security benefits, public assistance grants, or rents. Out of every
10 women reporting income in 1962, about 3 had year-round, full-time jobs, 4 had jobs for shorter
periods of time (sometimes only a few hours, days, or weeks), and 3 had no paid employment at
all. About two-fifths of the women receiving income that year had less than $1,000, and only 7
percent had as much as $5,000. Their median income was about $1,350.2
Incomes of the youngest (under 20) and the oldest (65 or over). women were considerably
below those of other ages. Approximately 80 percent of the young and 60 percent of the elderly
received less than $1,000 in 1962, and· median incomes were approximately $400 and $900, re­spectively.
These incomes reflect their main sources, which for the teen-age group are after­school
or vacation jobs, and for the older women social security or other pension benefits.
Table 1.-Women (14 years of age and over) receiving income, and median income in 1962, by age
Women receiving income
Age
All ------------------------------- -----
1204 ttoo 1249 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-
25 to 34 _____________________________ _
35 to 44 _____________________________ _
45 to 54 ____________________________ _
55 to 64 _____________________________ _
65 and over _________________________ _
Any income
Pe1·cent
58
41
64
50
53
60
60
80
Incomes of Women with Full-time Employment
Income from
full-time job
Percent
16
3
20
16
20
27
21
4
Median income
Women with Women with
any income full-time jobs
Dollars Dollars
1,350 3,450
400 2,750
1,600 3,200
1,750 3,600
2,100 3,500
2,250 3,600
1,650 3,550
900 2,600
In general, the women reporting the largest incomes were those with year-round, full-time
paid employment. The median income for this group was $3,450 in 1962.
The median income of men with year-round, full-time jobs was $5,800, or about 70 percent
greater than that of the women. Part of this difference is due to occupational differences.
Women workers are largely concentrated in clerical and service occupations where pay scales
are likely to be low. Moreover, women frequently have lower incomes than men in the same oc­cupational
groups. Table 2 shows the median wage or salary incomes of full-time employed
women and men in the occupational groups common to women.
' Women in this article refers to females 14 years of age or older. The source of the data in this article is:
Bureau of the Census. Cur1·ent Population Rep01·ts, Conswne1· Income, Series P-60, No. 41, October 1963.
'Median income figures are rounded to the nearest $50.
8
Table 2.-Median wage or salary income of women and men with year-1·ound, full-time employment, by
principal occupational groups of women, 1962
Occupational group
Professional, technical, and kindred _________________ _
Managerial, official, proprietor (except farm) ________ _
Clerical and kindred ______________________________ _
SOapleersa t-i-v-e- -a-n-d- -k-in--d-re-d- -_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
Private household work ____________________________ _
Service other than household ______________________ _
Women
Dollars
4,850
4,300
3,850
2,700
3,150
1,100
2,300
Men
Dollars
7,350
7,450
5,600
6,200
5,300
4,400
Discrimination against women in setting pay rates undoubtedly accounts for some of the
difference between wage and salary incomes of men and women in the same occupational group.
However, this is not the whole story. Each occupational group obviously includes jobs requir­ing
different degrees of training, skill, and responsibility, and it may be that men held more of
the most demanding and therefore better paying ones. It seems likely that men worked more
overtime, too, and that more of them received pay differentials for years of service. Men are gen­erally
more stable as job-holders than women, partly because they stay in the labor force con­tinuously
while women move in and out as their family responsibilities change. In January
1963, more than one-third of the men as compared with one-fifth of the women workers had been ·
on the same job over 10 years, and twice as large a proportion of men as of women had been
on the same job more than 15 years.3
The higher wage and salary incomes of men may also reflect the fact that more men are
"moonlighters"-that is, working in more than one job. In May 1963, for example, about 7
percent of the employed men and 2 percent of the employed women held two or more jobs.4 For
most "moonlighters," at least one of their jobs was a full-time one.
Incomes of Women Heading Families
About 10 percent of all families were headed by women in 1962. These women did better
than the average for all U.S. women when it came to income. This, of course, was partly be­cause
of payments received as aid to dependent children, social security benefits, and alimony.
The median for female family heads receiving any income was about $1,900, and for those with
full-time jobs all year about $3,700. Incomes of other members brought the total income for
families of these employed women up to approximately $4,900. This was about $2,000 less than
the total for families headed by fully employed men.
Incomes of Women "Unrelated Individuals"
The women with the highest median income ($3,800) were those the Census calls "unre­lated
individuals" (unmarried. widowed, separated, or divorced women not living with rela­tives)
who had year-round, full-time jobs. These probably include a considerable number of
single, well-educated "career women" with relatively high incomes, giving a lift to the general
income level for the group.
Emma G. Holmes
3 Job Tenure of American Workers, January 1963. Monthly Labor Review, p. 1146, October 1963.
'Multiple Jobholders in May 1963. Monthly Labor Review, p. 251, March 1964.
-
9
EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 BECOMES EFFECTIVE
Speaking of women's incomes, higher pay is in order for some women workers now, since the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 went into effect June 11, 1964. This act forbids an employer whose em­ployees
are covered by the minimum wage law to discriminate between them on the basis of sex
alone in setting wage rates. He must pay women the same wages as men for equal work on jobs
requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.
If he has been paying women less than men for equal work, moreover, he will have to raise the
women's wages instead of cutting the men's to eliminate the difference. This act does not, of
course, rule out different rates of pay based on a seniority or merit system, or one where the
worker's earnings are determined by the quantity or quality of his production.
Since the Equal Pay Act applies only where the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act are in force, many workers are still not covered by it. For example, it does not
apply to employees in certain retail and service establishments such as hotels, motels, and res­taurants;
hospitals and institutions for the care of the sick, mentally retarded, and such; amuse­ments
or recreational establishments operating seasonally; small newspapers, telephone ex­changes,
laundries and dry cleaning establishments; and certain other establishments where
volume of sales is small and most of the goods and services are sold within the State where the
business is located.
Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that was in effect on May 11, 1963,
and ends after June 11, 1964, will be exempt from the provisions of the Equal Pay Act until
the agreement terminates or until June 11, 1965, whichever comes first.
The idea of equal pay legislation is not new. State laws were in effect in almost one-half
of the individual states when the Federal law was passed-the first of these dating back to 1919.
A variety of equal pay bills had been considered by Congress over a period of many years be­fore
it finally passed this one on June 10, 1963.
FAMILY FOOD DISCARDS
How much of the food families bring into their kitchens is discarded instead of eaten by the
family? What do food discards mean in terms of lost nutritive values?
The effect of edible discards on the calorie and fat content of the family food supply has been
studied in three small groups-city families in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Los Angeles, California,
and farm families in DeKalb County, Missouri. The homemakers volunteered to keep records
of the foods used and discarded in their homes for four 1-week periods. During each period they
kept records for two or three different groups of food, and by the end ot the four periods had
covered all foods.
The records kept by the homemakers indicate that 7 to 10 percent of the calories in the
food supplies of these households were thrown away, fed to animals, or used for nonfood pur­poses.
Food discards reduced the average number of calories per person per day in household
food supplies as follows:
DeKalb County ______________________________ from 3,025 to 2,780
St. Paul ____________________________________ from 2,550 to 2,375
Los Angeles ________________________________ from 2,570 to 2,325
The lost calories were largely from discarded edible parts of foods rich in the nutrient fat.
Discard of meat, poultry, and fish caused the greatest loss in the cities, and discard of milk
10
products other than butter the greatest loss on the farm. Much of the "discarded" fluid milk on
farms was fed to animals, including pets. Discard of food in the fats and oils (including but­ter)
and grain products groups also accounted for considerable loss of calories. (See table 1.)
Table 1.-Loss of calories in discarded edible foods, by food group
DeKalb County, Mo. St. Paul, Minn. Los Angeles, Calif.
Calories lost Percent of Calories lost Percent of Calories lost Percent of
per person total lost per person total lost per person total lost
Food group per week calories 1 per week calories 1 per week calories'
All food ---------------- 1,715 100 1,250 100 1,745 100
Meat, poultry, fish _____ 500 29 560 45 1,145 66
Milk products (excluding
butter) ------------ 625 36 100 8 85 5
Grain products ------- 235 14 220 18 160 9
Fats, oils (including
butter) ------------ 180 10 190 15 ' 260 15
Vegetables, fruits, nuts 115 7 130 10 70 4
Sugars, sweets ________ 30 2 35 3 10 1
Eggs ---------------- 30 2 15 1 15 1
'Due to ro\mding to whole numbers, percentages may total ± 100.
All of the households studied in St. Paul and 90 percent in DeKalb County discarded some
food from the meat, poultry, fish group. (See table 2.) Within this group the items discarded
by the most families were meat and poultry drippings and trimmed-off fat, in that order. To­gether
these accounted for most of the discarded meat, poultry, and fish. At least 80 percent of
the St. Paul and DeKalb households discarded grain products, vegetables, and milk products, and
at least 50 percent discarded food fats and oils, eggs, and fruits. (This type of information was
not obtained in Los Angeles.)
Table 2.-Households discarding food, and quantity discarded in a week, by food group
Food group
Meat, poultry, fish ______________________ _
Milk products (excluding butter)--------­Grain
products ------------------------­Fats,
oils (including butter)--------------
Veg~tables -----------------~~--------
Fruits --------------------------~------
Sugars, sweets -------------------------
Eggs ----------------------------------
DeKalb County, Mo.
Average quan-
Households tity discarded
discarding (all households)
Percent Pounds
90 0.59
83 8.00
92 0.68
83 0.18
83 1.16
53 0.30
43 0.08
52 0.15
St. Paul, Minn.
Average quan-
Households tity discarded
discarding (all households)
Percent Pounds
100 0.99
85 1.27
94 0.68
61 0.23
98 1.28
66 0.58
55 0.12
56 0.09
The calorie loss from food discards was smaller than expected. The researchers consider
that it would have been higher if the data had been collected in a single week instead of four
widely separated weeks, and if the households had been a random ~ample instead of selected on
the basis of the homemaker's interest. A picked sample rather than a random sample is fre­quently
used in such an exploratory study. However, the responsiveness of volunteer home­makers
raises the question of whether they are as prone to discard food as others.
The studies of used and discarded food were done by the Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division in cooperation with the University of California, the University of Minne­sota,
and the University of Missouri. Details about the way the studies were done and more
findings from them are given in the October 1963 issue of the Journal of Home Economics. (See
Discard of Edible Food in Households, pages 633-638.)
Sadye F. Adelson
11
A CONSIDERATION OF CASH VS. CREDIT BUYING
Buy now and pay later, or save now and buy later? The first alternative has wide appeal
because it means immediate satisfaction of wants. Saving ahead to pay cash has its appeal, too,
for although it means going without for a while it also means being able to satisfy more wants
in the long run. It is the choice that might well be made by the family considering a purchase
that is not an immediate necessity-say a replacement for an out-of-date but still usable refrig­erator
or a new, but not essential, piece of furniture--or the family planning ahead for the
equipping of its first house.
The table shows how the "buy now and pay later" and the "save now and buy later" plans
would work in the purchase of five items of household equipment from a certain mail order com­pany.
In the "buy now" plan the items are to be purchased and paid for in monthly install­ments,
as provided for in this company's credit plan for the purchase of appliances. In the
"save now" plan they are to be paid for with cash saved in monthly amounts equal to the in­stallment
payments.
The family that saved and bought for cash would have the washing machine, clothes dryer,
refrigerator, range, and dishwasher (bought one after the other) in 9 years. The family that
used the installment credit plan would need 20 months more than that to pay for the same five
items, because it would have an extra $200 to pay for credit charges. In this 20 months the first
family, by continuing to save at the same rate as the installment payments, could accumulate cash
enough to buy another major item, such as a TV set or room air conditioner.
Money and time required to buy five items of equipment on a specified installment plan, and with cash saved
at th e same rate
Credit
Item Cash price charge '
Dollars Dollars
Range ----------------- 224 44
Refrigerator ----------- 250 49
Washing machine _______ 242 49
Clothes dryer ------- - --- 183 35
Dishwasher ------------ 160 26
Total ---------------- 1,059 203
Cash price
plus credit Monthly
charge payment 1
Dollars Dollars
268 10.50
299 11.00
291 11.00
218 9.00
186 7.50
1,262
Months required-
To pay credit
price'
Number
25.5
27.2
26.5
24.2
24.8
128.2
To save the
cash price
at monthly
payment
rate'
Number
21.3
22.7
22.0
20.3
21.3
107.6
1 Based on the installment credit plan offered by a certain mail-order company for purchase of appliances.
This plan allows 36 months to pay for a $500 purchase, shorter periods for smaller amounts.
• Smaller final payments are represented by fractional months.
Lucile F . Mork
PERSONAL INCOME IN 1963
The median personal income of U.S. families-and unattached individuals amounted to $6,140
in 1963, according to the Department of Commerce's Office of Business Economics.1 This rep­resented
a $300 or 5 percent rise in personal income since 1962, when the median was $5,840.
'"Size Dist1·ibntion of Income in 1969," U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, pages
3 to 11, inclusive, April 1964.
12
Consumer prices also increased in 1963; therefore, the $300 increase in personal income
meant a boost of about 2 percent in buying power. This is about the same as the annual increase
in buying power since 1947.
Approximately 12.3 million families and unattached individuals had personal incomes above
$10,000 in 1963-1 million more than in 1962. The number with less than $4,000 declined dur­ing
the year from 17.5 to 16.9 million.
"Personal income" includes money income from all sources plus the net rental value of
owner-occupied homes, the value of food and fuel produced and used on farms, and wages in
kind.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION EXPANDS ITS
CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAM
The Food and Drug Administration has recently stepped up its consumer education activi­ties,
expanding its two existing consumer programs and adding a third. A new Division of Con­sumer
Education combines and coordinates the three branches carrying on these programs-the
Consumer Information, Consumer Consultant, and Consumer Survey branches. It operates un­der
the assumption that an informed consumer is a better consumer and needs less Governn ent
protection than one who is not informed.
The Consumer Information Branch prepares informational materials of various kinds, in­cluding
pamphlets, exhibits, films, slides, records and tapes, and radio and TV scripts. It pre­pares
materials suitable for use by many kinds of groups, such as school children, senior citi­zens,
adult education groups, and the blind. This Branch is also responsible for answering the
many letters of inquiry which come from consumers all over the country.
The Consumer Consultant Branch provides for personal contact with consumer groups,
through consumer consultants or specialists located in the FDA field offices. For some time,
part-time consumer consultants have been working on this program. Now the plan calls for a
full-time consultant in each of the 18 FDA field district offices. (Offices are located in Boston,
New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, Cincinnati, Detroit,
Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.)
The job of the consumer specialists is to "provide channels of communication," through which
FDA carries information about its program to consumers and consumers convey their needs
and express their views to FDA.
The Consumer Survey Branch, which is just being organized, will conduct studies of con­sumer
attitudes, interests, prejudices, understandings, buying habits, and product use. Findings
from these studies will, it is hoped, help FDA to serve and protect consumers more effectively
and direct its educational efforts to the best purpose.
QUESTIONS ABOUT FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW ANSWERED
Family Economics Review is distributed regularly to home economists of the Cooperative
Extension Service and heads of home economics in colleges and universites. Others who may
receive this periodical on request are: College and university administrators and teachers, re­search
workers, social welfare workers, public health nutritionists, high school home economics
teachers, and members of the press and information services. Those wishing to receive Family
Economics Review regularly (except Extension personnel) should write to the Consumer and
13
Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Maryland 20781. Each request should specify what
type of work the writer is engaged in. The mailing list for Extension Service personnel is main­tained
by the Federal Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
20250.
Students and homemakers may not be added to the mailing list for Family Economics Re­view.
Students who think they will want the publication as a teaching tool after graduation
should wait until they are situated in their new jobs before sending their requests.
Teachers frequently ask for enough copies of an issue to distribute to members of their
classes. They can usually be provided with up to five extra copies, but not more than that. Be­cause
of the limited budget for printing, only enough copies are printed to supply the regular
mailing list plus a small surplus to answer requests for single copies. Anyone wishing multi­ple
copies of a particular article may have duplicate copies made, giving credit to Family Eco­nomics
Review as the source.
Once a year USDA sends each person on the "request" mailing list a postcard inquiring
whether he or she wants to continue receiving Family Economics Review, and whether the ad­dress
is still correct. Those who do not return the card are dropped from the list. Because of
this it is important to get the card back within the specified time. Each year a few evidently for­get
to do this, then write to ask why they are no longer receiving their copies.
The answer to questions about publication dates is that Family Economics Review is pub­lished
four times a year, usually in March, June, September, and December. Occasionally, how­ever.
for reasons beyond our control, it is not possible to adhere to this schedule. This hap­pended
with the first issue of 1964, which came out in April instead of March. The December
issue is customarily devoted to papers presented at the annual Outlook Conference, which is held
each November in Washington, D.C.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
COMPOSITION OF FOODS-RAW, PROCESSED, PREPARED. Agriculture Handbook 8, Re­vised
1963. $1.50 from Sup. of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 20402.
This publication is a standard reference for food values-the most comprehensive in this
field. It presents food values for 2,483 food items (the 1950 edition included only 751 items).
Values for some nutrients in nearly every food item have been revised and many new foods
have been added. The new foods include numerous kinds of nut, fish, and poultry items; foods
in prepared or partially prepared form; and foods of tropical or semi-tropical origin. Values
for additional nutrients are also included in the revised edition.
SANITATION IN HOME LAUNDERING. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 97 (April 1964).
Single copy free from Office of Information, USDA, Washington, D.C., 20250.
This 8-page bulletin discusses the importance of disinfectants in home laundering, and re­ports
on the use of four types of disinfectants that have been found effective in killing bacteria
during laundering.
A CONSUMER'S GUIDE TO USDA SERVICES. Miscellaneous Publication No. 959. Single
copy free from Office of Information, USDA, Washington, D.C., 20250.
This handy 49-pag-e booklet gives an excellent idea of the many services USDA performs
for consumers. It includes digests from USDA publications on food, health, clothing, housing
and equipment, pest control, gardening, recreation, family finance, and emergencies. It lists by
subject matter a large number of USDA publications available to consumers.
14
USDA FOOD PLANS TO BE REVISED
The USDA food plans, for which the April1964 cost estimates are shown below, are designed
to help families and other groups plan nutritionally adequate and satisfying meals for the money
they can afford. Amounts of foods suggested in the food plans need to be revised from time to
time as more is learned regarding the nutritional needs of people and the nutrient content of
foods, and as food habits change. Such revisions are now being made, based on the National
Research Council's 1963 recommended dietary allowances, the nutritive values of foods as pub­lished
in the 1963 revision of Composition/of Foods . .. Raw, Processed, Prepared (Agriculture
Handbook No. 8), and USDA's most recent estimates of food consumption patterns.
We expect to present the revised food plans in the September issue of Family Economics
Review. Slight revisions reflecting food plan changes will be made as soon as possible in USDA
popular publications of the food budgeting series. Continued use of these publications prior to
revision is encouraged, since they contain useful food management information that will be af­fected
only slightly by the food plan revisions. The publications to be revised are Family Food
Budgeting-for Good Meals and Good Nutrition; Food fo1· the Family with Young Children;
Food for the Family with School Children; Food Guide for Older Folks; Food for the Young
Couple; Family Fare; and Nutrition Up to Date, Up to You.
ESTIMATED COST OF 1 WEEK'S FOOD
Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home, Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels,' April196J,.-U.S.A. Average
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20 to 34 years'-----------­Family
of two, 55 to 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 ----------------------------
Gi1rl0s-,1 21 3y-1e5a rsy e-a-r-s- -_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
Bo1y6s-,1 193 -y1e5a yrse a-r-s -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
VV1o6rn-1e9n, y2e0a-3rs4 -y-e-a-r-s- -_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_--_-__-_-_-_--__-_-_- -_
35-54 years --------------------------
7555 -7y4e ayres aarsn d- -o-v-e-r-_ -_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_
Pregnant ---------------------------­Nursing
-----------------------------
~en, 20-34 years ______________________ _
35-54 years --------------------------
5755 -7y4e ayres aarsn d- -o-v-e-r- -_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--__-_-_-_--__- -_
Low-cost plan
Dollars
14.20
12.70
21.20
24.40
3.10
3.80
4.50
5.30
6.20
6.50
6.70
7.10 .
8.40
5.60
5.40
5.10
4.90
7.00
8.80
7.30
6.80
6.40
6.20
Moderate-cost plan
Dollars
19.40
17.40
28.10
32.80
3.90
4.70
5.80
6.90
8.30
8.80
8.80
9.80
11.40
7.70
7.50
7.00
6.60
9.10
11.20
9.90
9.20
8.80
8.40
Liberal plan
Dollars
21.90
19.60
32.20
37.40
4.20
5.40
6.90
7.90
9.60
10.10
10.10
11.10
12.90
8.70
8.50
8.00
7.50
10.10
12.40
11.20
10.30
9.80
9.30
'These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in USDA Horne Economics Re­search
Report No. 20, Family Food Plans and Food Costs. The costs of the food plans were first estimated by
using the average price per pound of each food group paid by nonfarm survey families at three selected income
levels in 1955. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities released
periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
'Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factors for adjustment, see HERR No.
20, appendix B.
• Man and woman 20 to 34 years; children, 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 years.
• Man and woman 20 to 34 years; children, 7 to 9 and 10 to 12 years.
• The costs given are for individuals in 4-person famii;es. For individuals in other size families, the fol­lowing
adjustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 per­cent;
5-person-subtract 5 percent; 6-or-rnore-person-subtract 10 percent.
15
CONSUMER PRICES
Table 1.-Consumer Prtce Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (including single worke1·s) (New series)'
(1957-59=100)
Jan. Feb. March
Group 1964 1964 1964
All items ------------------------------ 107.7 107.6 1(:,.7
Food -------------------------------- 105.8 106.0 105.7
Food at
home _______________________ 104.2 104.4* 104.0*
Food away from home _______________ 114.3 114.4 114.7
Housing ----------------------------- 106.9 106.9 107.1
Shelter' --------------------------- 108.1 108.3** 108.4
Rent ---------------------------- 107.3 107.5 107.5
Homeownership • ----------------- 108.5 108.8 108.9
Fuel and utilities'------------------ 107.7 106.8 107.3
Fuel oil and coal __________________ 106.6 106.6 106.1
Gas and electricity---------------- . 108.1 106.2** 107.1
Household furnishings & operation ___ 102.7 102.7 102.8
Apparel and upkeep •------------------ 105.0 105.1 105.3
Men's and boys'--------------------- 105.2 105.0 105.2
Women's and girls~----------------- 101.4 101.8 102.1
Footwear -------------------------- 110.9 110.7 110.7
Transportation ----------------------- 109.4 108.6 108.9*
Private ---------------------------- 108.0 107.2 107.4
Public ----------------------------- 118.3 118.4 118.3**
Health and recreation _________________ 112.7 112.9 113.1
Medical care ----------------------- 118.2 118.5 118.7
Personal care ---------------------- 108.5 108.4 108.7
Reading and recreation ______________ 113.1 113.3 113.6
Other goods and services •------------ 108.3 108.4 108.5
April
1964
107.8
105.7
103.9
114.9
107.0
108.2
107.7
108.6
107.4
103.3
108.0
102.9
105.6*
105.9
102.2*
110.9
109.0
107.6
118.4
113.4
119.0
108.7
114.0
108.6
'The "new series" Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage-earner and Clerical-worker Families (exclud­ing
single workers) is identical with the Index above, except where indicated by asterisks. Indexes indicated
by * are 0.1 higher, those indicated by ** are 0.1 lower than the corresponding indexes in the CPI for families.
'Also includes hotel and motel rates not shown separately.
' Includes home purchase, mortgage interest, taxes, insurance, and maintenance and repairs.
• Also includes telephone, water, and sewerage service not shown separately.
• Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel upkeep services not shown separately.
• Includes tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and funeral, legal, and bank service charges.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 2.-Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical
Worker Families (Old Series)
Group
All items
(1957-59 = 100)
Apr.1963
106.2
Jan.1964
107.6
Food -------------------------------- 104.3 105.7
Food at home -------------------- 102.6 104.0
Food away from home ------------- 112.8 114.4
Housing ----------------------------- 105.8 106.9
Rent ----------------------------- 106.5 107.3
Gas and electricity ---------------- 107.5 108.4
Solid fuels and fuel oil ----------- 104.2 106.6
Housefurnishings ----------------- 98.5 98.4
Household operation --------------- 109.9 110.9
Apparel ------------------------------ 103.8 104.3
Men's and boys' ------------------- 104.1 105.7
Women's and girls' --------------- 101.4 101.0
Footwear ------------------------ 110.2 111.0
Other apparel -------------------- 100.9 101.3
Transportation ----------------------- 107.0 108.9
Private -------------------------- 105.5 107.5
Public --------------------------- 116.5 118.5
Medical care ------------------------- 116.1 118.2
Personal care ------------------------ 107.6 109.1
Reading and recreation --------------- 111.0 113.0
Other goods and services -------------- 105.8 108.3
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Feb.1964 Mar. 1964
107.6 107.8
105.8 105.6
104.0 103.8
114.6 114.9
106·.9 107.2
107.4 107.5
104.8 106.8
106.6 106.5
98.6 98.9
111.3 111.7
104.2 104.4
105.5 105.4
100.9 101.5
111.2 111.2
101.4 101.4
108.3 108.9
106.6 107.3
119.4 119.4
118.5 118.8
108.8 109.0
11~.8 113.9
10 .3 108.5
Apr.1964
108.0
106.1
104.3
115.1
107.3
107.7
108.4
105.1
99.0
112.0
104.6
105.8
101.3
111.4
101.6
108.7
107.1
119.6
119.1
109.0
114.3
108.5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON, D.C .. 20250
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Sue Vernon Williams
Head Ref. Librarian
Library of the iome n's C~oll. 1~ e
8-26-59 Univ. of Nor· th t;arot!.u 1
HE-4 Grec ns~ oro, : . c.
Table 3.-Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living
(1957-59 = 100)
Item
All commodities -----------------------------------
Food and tobacco -------------------------------­Clothing
---------------------------------------­Household
operation ----------------------------­Household
furnishings --------------------------­Building
materials, house -----------------------­Auto
and auto supplies --------------------------
May
1963
104
Dec.
1963
104
104
110
108
96
100
103
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service.
Jan. Feb. Mar.
1964 1964 1964
104 105 104
105
110
108
96
101
103
Apr. May
1964 1964
105 105