Family Economics Review [1975, Number 3]

              · tO'a ·.Cj'lS.J
o44l
NOV 14 1975
UN 1Vch~l1 y OF
AT '"'R ~ORT/-1 '- MttOllNA
· '" EE.NSBORO
HIGHLIGHTS/SUMMER 1975
SERVICE-LIFE OF APPLIANCES
ENERGY: SOME TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS
NUTRITION LABELING- TOOLS FOR ITS USE
NONWOVEN FABRICS: AN OVERVIEW
HOUSING IN MULTIUNIT BUILDINGS
ARS-NE-36
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute and on information from
other sources relating to economic aspects of
family living. It is prepared primarily for home
economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Authors are on the staff of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute unless otherwise noted.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett Assistant Editor: Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
SERVICE-LIFE EXPECTANCY OF HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES
Katherine S. Tippett and Marilyn Doss Ruffin
The Estimates
The USDA has developed estimates of the
service-life expectancy under one owner for
seven major household appliances (see chart).
The estimates show current practice in the use
of appliances, indicating hqw long, on the
average, households keep each appliance; not
how long the appliance could have been made
to last.
Separate estimates are given for appliances
acquired new and for those acquired used; new
and used are not additive. The service-life
expectancy under one owner for appliances
obtained new was highest for freezers (20
years) and lowest for washers and dishwashers
(11 years). Items obtained used had service
lives about one-third to two-thirds as long as
the same items obtained new. Such comparison
may be helpful to families in making
replacement decisions, particularly when the
appliance must be replaced shortly before a
change of residence or if for some other reason
a short period of use is anticipated.
The actuarial or current-life table method
was used in developing the estimates. The
method's best-known use is in estimating the
life expectancy of persons in the population.
The actuarial table summarizes the mortality
experience of a population group. From the
probabilities of surviving the individual years of
the lifespan, average life expectancy is
calculated. The average reflects the combined
current experience of all age groups. While
there are several approaches simpler than the
actuarial method that can be used to estimate
average service life of household appliances, the
actuarial method is preferred as it
(a) minimizes the effect of trends and
variations in appliance sales and inventory,
and (b) considers the longevity of items still in
use as well as those that have been discarded.
Life tables for the human population are
constructed from census data, from public
records of births and deaths, or from insurance
statistics. Since no such data source is regularly
available for the appliance population, data
were collected in a special nationwide survey of
nearly 12,000 households in order to estimate
SUMMER 1975
average service-life expectancy. Information on
appliances owned on July 1, 1972, and on
those discarded during the preceding 12
months was collected for the Consumer and
Food Economics Institute as a supplement to
the July 1972 Quarterly Survey of Consumer
Buying Expectations of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
The estimates given here update estimates
made in four USDA studies between 1957 and
1961.1 The 1972 service-life expectancies
were, in most cases, almost identical to the
service-life expectancies obtained in the earlier
studies. Where differences in service life were
observed, the differences were not statistically
significant and may have been due to sampling
variation rather than to any change in the
average length of time families keep their
appliances. A more detailed discussion of the
methodology used in this study and a com­parison
of this study and the earlier ones
appears in the March 1975 issue of the HOME
ECONOMICS RESEARCH JOURNAL.2
Using Service Life Estimates in Budgeting
The estimates of service life reflect the
replacement practices of families and are
particularly suitable for use in developing
family budgets on a long-term basis and as an
aid in deciding whether to own an appliance or
to obtain a necessary service in some other
way.
Long-term budget planning. Planning ahead
for the replacement or first-time purchase of a
major appliance may mean: ( 1) Saving in
advance to pay cash; or (2) planning for the
purchase on credit, thereby increasing the part
of the monthly budget allocated for install­ment
payments. Advance planning is especially
1 Pennock, J.L. Planning ahead for the buying of
major equipment. Paper presented at the 40th Annual
Agricultural Outlook Conference, 1962. Consumer and
Food Economics Institute, Agricultural Research
Service, USDA.
2 Ruffin, M.D., and Tippett, K.S. Service-life expect­ancy
of household appliances: New estimates from the
USDA. Home Econ. Res. Jour. 3(3): 159-170. 1975.
3
LIFE OF APPLIANCES
FREEZER ·~··9···y···rIl.l!! ••·······-20 yr.
REFRIGERATOR ~~~-7··y···r·!.!!I I••••••• 15 yr.
RANGE: gas* ~~··7···y··r~~~.~~ ~····- 13 yr .
electric* I&&J&MjiiiJIIIIIIIJII··~G~ylr.••••• 12 yr.
DISHWASHER ~~-······~···11 yr.
~7yr.
OBTAINED:
new
~used
WASHER 0 111111111·~······11 yr.
~5yr.
DRYER: gas
·-----------13 yr. 6
electric ~~-5··y·lrl.!l ·------· 14 yr.
TV: black & whitei_&MMM1•y•1111r11~5!.11 •••·- 11 yr.
color ~6 ----------· 12 yr.
EXPECTED YEARS OF USE BY ONE OWNER. CONSUMER AND FOOD ECONOMICS INSTITUTE SURVEY, JULY 1972. * FREESTANDING 0 AUTOMATIC 61NSUFFICIENT DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
important in times of inflation when the family
budget is subject to pressure from many
sources.
The estimates of service-life expectancy
presented here are useful for families already
owning or planning to own an appliance who
need to know how soon they are likely to
replace the item, how much it will cost, and
whether it would be better to purchase a new
or a used appliance. The estimates give an idea
of how long families keep major household
appliances on the average. However, the survey
showed wide differences a.mong families; some
appliances were discarded within a year of
purchase; some were retained in service for ·
more than 30 years. Families may choose to
replace their appliances for a variety of
reasons: Availability of new convenience or
luxury features; changes in equipment needs
over the family life cycle; or frequent and
expensive repairs. Recent experiences or
expectations for the future will also affect the
timing of a replacement and the decision to
purchase a new or a used item. For example,
4
NEG. ARS 6090-75 (7) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
appliances acquired with the purchase of an
existing house may not fit the needs and
preferences of the family and may be replaced
early, or a family desiring to acquire appliances
but planning a move to a new home may
postpone the purchase until after the move or
purchase a used appliance for interim use.
Although the prices of appliances will
probably increase in years to come, an estimate
of the amount of money needed for replace­ment
may be obtained by pricing an item or
items similar to those that will be purchased
and adjusting for possible price increases. The
cost of appliances has risen moderately in
recent years compared with price increases for
many other items. Between 1954 and 1966 the
Consumer Price Index ( CPI) actually declined
for washing machines, refrigerators, and
televisions (see table).
The CPI measures changes in prices of a market
basket of items. The content of this market
basket is kept unchanged as much as possible.
When a price change for an item is accom­panied
by a change in the quality of the item,
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the index is adjusted for the changed quality.
This procedure accounts for declines in an
index while the price of that item, in absolute
terms, may have risen. The moderate growth in
recent years of the indexes for appliances may
reflect general improvements in these
appliances along with an increase in the
number of features ·offered as standard equip·
ment that were once options.
Deciding whether or not to own an
appliance. The cost of doing laundry at home
versus the cost in a self-service laundry, or the.
cost of food prepared from food that has been
homegrown or that has been purchased in
quantity and frozen in a home freezer versus
the cost of food purchased commercially as
needed for consumption, may play a major
part in a family's decision to own or not to
own a washer and dryer, or a freezer. The
estimates of service-life expectancy provide
part of the information needed to compute the
total costs involved in owning and operating
these appliances at home.
The expected lifespan of the appliance must
be known in order for the appliance cost to be
allocated as a fixed cost to individual loads of
wash done or to pounds of food frozen. For
example, in figuring the cost of washing clothes
at home, a share of the cost of the washer must
be allocated as a fixed cost to each load of
laundry. This share is calculated as the initial
cost of the washer (cash price plus any credit
charges) divided by the total number of loads
of laundry that will be washed by the appliance
during its lifetime. The total number of loads
can be estimated by the average number of
loads done per week, times the number of
weeks the washer is used per year, times the
number of years the appliance is expected to
last. In addition to a share of the appliance
cost, the cost per load of owning and operating
the washing machine at home will include a
share of repair costs and operating costs
(laundry supplies, water, and energy).3
The total cost per load will vary from family
to family and from area to area, depending on
the price of the appliance purchased, the
number of loads of wash done, the quantities
of fuel and water used and the local rates
charged for these utilities, the cost of supplies,
and the cost of repairs. The cost of using a
self-service laundry will also vary, depending on
the local rate for using the washer and dryer,
the cost of supplies, and the cost of trans­portation
to and from the laundry. The
location of the self-service laundry and the
3 Additional information on this topic is available in
the following article: Mork, L.F. Figuring the cost of
doing laundry at home. Family Economics Review,
pp. 6·7. December 1970.
Consumer Price Index
(1967=100)
Year (annual average)
Index
1954 I 1958 I 1962 I 1966 I 1970 I 1974
All items ................ 80.5 86.6 90.6 97.2 116.3 147.7
Washing machines ....... 121.8 115.8 104.5 99.7 107.3 117.1
Refrigerators ........... 166.0 119.6 112.5 100.2 105.8 114.6
Ranges ................ 109.6 107.6 104.0 99.2 108.5 115.8
Clothes dryers .......... 100.0 108.4 121.4
TV sets ............... 123.9 124.6 117.7 102.1 99.8 98.9
Washing machine
95.2 123.8
repairs .............. 166.4
TV repairs ............. 82.5 99.6 103.7 99.1 96.9 101.8
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5
SUMMER 1975
convenience of getting there is also an
important consideration.
In figuring the cost of freezing and storing
food in a home freezer, a share of the cost of
the appliance is allocated to each pound of
food frozen over the lifetime of the appliance.
The pounds of food frozen will depend on the
capacity of the freezer, how full it is kept, and
the turnover of food. A share of the cost of
repairs, packaging, and electricity, and if food
is homegrown, the cost of planting and growing
that food and preparing it for freezing, will also
need to be allocated to each pound of food.
The cost of electricity for freezing food and for
maintaining a temperature of 0° F ( -18° C)
will depend on the local utility rate, the size
and efficiency of the freezer, the number of
pounds of food frozen, and the turnover of
food.4
A family's decision to own or not to own a
specific appliance may be based on factors
other than the cost of owning and operating
the appliance. The convenience of having a
washer and dryer, or a freezer; the space
available in the home for these appliances; and
the frequency of need for the service supplied
by these appliances may be important consider­ations
for some families.
4 Redstrom, R.A. Practices in the use of home
freezers. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Agri­cultural
Outlook Conference, 1967. Consumer and
Food Economics Institute, Agricultural Research Serv­ice,
USDA.
TRENDS IN OVERTIME HOURS AND PAY
In May 1974, about 16.1 million workers, or
one of every five employed persons, worked
more than 40 hours in his or her principal job.
Eight million, or one-half, of the persons
working overtime were white-collar workers,
6 million blue-collar workers, 1 million service
workers, and a half million farmworkers. Men
were almost three times more liely than
women to work overtime.
The number of persons working overtime
increased only slightly between 1969 and 1974
despite a sizable growth in total employment,
perhaps indicating that workers place a greater
value on a shorter workweek than on
additional income. During this period, the
overtime schedules of white-collar and service
workers were less likely to be affected by
changes in economic conditions than the
schedules of blue-collar and farmworkers.
About one-half of persons working overtime
in 1974 put in from 1 to 8 extra hours per
week; one-fifth put in 20 or more extra hours.
Only 42 percent of overtime workers collected
premium pay (time and a half or double time)
for these extra hours. Premium pay was more
usual for blue-collar than white-collar jobs, and
younger workers were more likely to receive
premium pay than older workers. Younger
workers are generally concentrated in pro­duction
and nonsupervisory jobs where the
probability of receiving premium pay is
6
greatest, whereas many older workers on over­time
are supervisory or administrative workers
who typically do not receive premium pay.
Receipt of premium pay was much more
prevalent among persons who worked overtime
only occasionally than among those for whom
overtime work was a general routine. Only
one-third of persons who usually worked over­time
received premium pay, compared with
two-thirds of those for whom overtime work
was only an occasional practice. The prob­ability
of receiving premium pay for extra
hours also declined as the number of hours
increased. Only one-fifth of the jobholders who
usually worked 60 hours or longer received
premium pay. These relationships largely result
from occupational differences. A large pro­portion
of the people who usually work over­time,
and of those who put in the longest
workweeks, are in white-collar occupations
where the payment of premium pay is the
exception.
Workers with overtime pay are heavily con­centrated
in the middle-earning brackets­between
$100 and $300 a week. Overtime
wages raise workers income from the lowest
level, but are not sufficiently large to push
them into the uppermost brackets.
Source: Westcott, D.N. Trends in overtime hours
and pay, 1969-74. Monthly Labor Reu. 98(2):45-52.
1975 (Feb.).
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
ENERGY: SOME TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Energy prices are up and consumers are the U.S. is 400 kilowatt hours per month for
using less. As measured by the Consumer Price $10. FEA is funding a pilot project to study
Index, prices in March 1975 were 16 percent the effect of this rate structure on con-higher
for electricity., 18 percent higher for gas, sumption by U.S. households. The lifeline
and 13 percent higher for fuel oil and coal than concept has already been instituted in Puerto
in March 1974. Domestic consumption of fossil Rico and is said to be working well. "Peak-fuels
declined 3 percent in 197 4 according to load" or time-of-day pricing is being studied in
the Federal Energy Administration (FEA). FEA-funded projects in six States. Under peak-
Consumption of natural gas dropped 4 percent, load pricing, lower rates are charged for
and consumption of electric power increased electricity used during nonpeak hours and
less than 1 percent despite shifts to electric higher rates are charged for electricity used
heating in new homes caused by continued w h en system demands are high. In one case,
tight supplies of utility gas.1 Public debate has the rate charged for peak use is nearly 10 times
focused on the need for continued con- that charged for off-peak use. The rationale for
servation of energy and the development of peak-load pricing is that "shaving" of system
national policies that encourage better energy peaks may slow the need for additional
decisions by consumers.
Economic Incentives to Conserve
Several proposed measures would provide
greater economic incentive than at present to
consumers who conserve energy. These
measures include changes in the way energy
costs are allocated among users, and grants and
tax benefits for investment in energy­conserving
home improvements. At the request
of the President, the Energy Resources Council
is reviewing the entire regulatory process and
financial situation relating to electric utilities
to determine what reforms or actions are
needed.
Of particular interest to consumers are alter­natives
to the "declining block rate" pricing of
electricity that is in general use today. With
declining block rate pricing, the cost of
additional units of electricity is less as larger
amounts are used. Consumers of modest
amounts of electricity therefore pay more per
unit than those at higher levels of monthly use.
Thus a decrease in consumption results in a less
than proportionate cost reduction to the con­sumer.
The "lifeline rate concept" would
provide a minimum amount of electricity (in
effect, the first block) to all households at a
reasonable cost with higher rates for additional
blocks. The rate most often discussed for use in
1 Data on 1974 U.S. average consumption per
residential customer are not yet available.
SUMMER 1975
generating equipment as well as reducing the
use of inefficient equipment that must be
brought into service to meet peak demands.
Also funded by FEA is a 6-month study of
electricity consumption by renters to deter­mine
the difference in level of use in buildings
that include electricity in rental charges
(master metering) and in those where
individual meters are provided and tenants pay
their own bills (single-unit metering). Pre­liminary
research by FEA's Office of Energy
Conservation indicated that 20 to 40 percent
more electricity is used with master metering.
The final report will make policy recom­mendations
on metering practices.
The energy conservation program proposed
by the Administration includes a 15-percent
energy conservation tax credit for homeowners
who add insulation or other specified energy­conserving
improvements to their homes.
Another proposed measure would provide $55
million of aid annually through 1978 to help
States develop and implement programs to
insulate the dwellings of low-income persons,
particularly the elderly. These measures were
before the Congress when FAMILY ECONOM­ICS
REVIEW went to press. In some States,
community action agencies and volunteers are
aiding low-income families in weatherproofing
their dwellings-in Maine, nearly 3,000 homes
have been "winterized." A Federal Energy
Administration pilot program also focuses on
Maine; about 700 substandard homes will be
upgraded under a cooperative project.
7
Improved Energy Efficiency
Improved energy efficiency in building and
appliances was proposed as part of the Admin­istration's
energy conservation program.
Legislation is being sought to require improved
standards for home and commercial buildings.
An estimated 18 million existing homes lack
adequate insulation.2 Voluntary improvement
is proposed for improving energy efficiency of
appliances. The goal is a 20-percent reduction
in energy consumption by 1980.
Competition and the pressure of energy
shortages on industry already are resulting in
the use of energy efficiency as a marketing tool
and in the development of products with
improved efficiency. Over 7 5 percent of room
air-conditioners produced in 197 4 had per­manent
split capacitor motors, a feature
resulting in considerably improved energy
efficiency. According to industry forecasts, the
use of the more effective polyurethane
"foamed-in-place" insulation (as opposed to
fiber glass) in refrigerators and freezers is
increasing and will continue to do so as more
facilities are developed for the process. In
addition to the energy benefit to the consumer,
the foamed construction strengthens the
cabinet walls. Future construction modifi­cations
permitted by reduced need for steel
may mean economies in production. With
respect to ovens, a possible trend to smaller
size has been noted. Although the 30-inch
width range remains standard, models have
been introduced that feature a smaller oven
combined with side storage. From an energy
standpoint, consumers are advised to select the
smallest oven that meets the family's needs.
Comparative Energy Information
Comparative energy consumption infor­mation
for major energy products will aid
consumers in making informed energy choices.
In developing such information the challenge is
twofold: To arrive at realistic standards for
testing that relate to actual consumer practice;
and to express test findings in concepts that are
readily understood and used by the layman.
For most appliances, the current thinking is
that cost is the most readily understood energy
yardstick so far as the consumer is concerned.
2 Federal Energy Administration, Energy Reporter
(Citizen Newsletter), 1975 (Mar.).
8
Whether energy labeling should be man­datory
or voluntary is yet to be resolved. A
federally administered (Department of Com­merce)
voluntary energy conservation labeling
program is in effect for room air-conditioners,
and a proposal has been published in the
Federal Register for refrigerators and freezers. 3
Other energy-intensive appliances ultimately to
be included in the program are water heaters,
dishwashers, washers, dryers, ranges, ovens,
central air-conditioners, and heating equip­ment.
Industry favors the voluntary approach
and is cooperating with the Department of
Commerce in developing test criteria and con­sumer
guidelines. Industry efforts did, in fact,
precede the Federal voluntary program and
provide the basis for evaluating air-conditioners
and refrigerators and freezers. The Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
publishes the Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER)
of most room air-conditioner models and the
monthly energy consumption for most models
of refrigerators and freezers. Reference copies
of the directories are available in many public
libraries and where the appliances are sold.
Industry also is developing revised voluntary
standards for forced-air gas furnaces that will
permit comparison of energy consumption.
Legislation pending in Congress4 would
require mandatory energy labeling of major
energy-consuming appliances and of autos.
Testing by the manufacturer or supplier and
calculation of average annual operating costs
under government-developed guidelines would
be required. Energy cost information would
appear on any tag, label, display, contract,
estimate, printed advertisement, or any other
display of the price.
Consumer Education Aids
Consumer education and information pro­fessionals
are eligible to receive free of charge
Federal Energy Administration newsletters and
other informational aids. The monthly news­letter,
ENERGY REPORTER, is available to
"Key communicators and leaders" in schools
'
3 Refrigerators, refrigerator· freezers, and freezers,
Federal Register, December 31, 1974, 39(259)
45334-45347. ,
4 "Energy Information and Disclosure" bill as
reported out of Senate Commerce Committee on
June 12.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
organizations, and businesses. Address inquiries
to Office of Communications and Public
Affairs, Federal Energy Administration.
Editors and writers who are associated with
Spanish language newspapers, magazines, or
organization newsletters and who wish to
receive news releases and a weely column in
Spanish may be placed on FEA's Spanish
mailing list. Address inquiries to Hector
Mimiaga, Office of Communications and Public
Affairs, Federal Energy Administration. FEA
offers assistance to educational groups and
schools preparing energy materials or an energy
conservation program. Direct inquiries and
suggestions to Education Editor, Office of
Communications and Public Affairs, Federal
Energy Administration. FEA is located at 12th
and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
D.C. 20461.
ENERGY CONSERVATION PUBLICATIONS
Single copies are available free from the following Government agencies.
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234:
• ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS. No. LC 1053. Pamphlet.
(Department of Commerce).
Consumer Information, Dept. FE, Pueblo, Colorado 81009:
• CHECKING YOUR UTILITY BILLS. No. 260C. (Office of Consumer Affairs).
• COMO ECONOMIZAR ENERGIA Y DINERO EN SU HOGAR (How to Save Energy
and Money in Your Home). (Federal Energy Administration).
• 1975 GAS MILEAGE GUIDE FOR NEW CAR BUYERS. 10 pages; prepared by
Environmental Protection Agency; lists fuel economy of over 250 new car models. Gives
number of miles per gallon for each model, both domestic and foreign. (FEA).
• TIPS FOR ENERGY SAVERS. 32 pages. Recommends practical ways to conserve
energy around the home and in the automobile. (FEA).
• TIPS FOR MOTORISTS. 10 pages; gives 30 ways to make gasoline go further. (FEA).
Public Information Office, Federal Power Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, D .. C. 20426:
• YOUR ELECTRIC METER ... HOW TO READ IT.
Office of Public Affairs, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20590:
• GASOLINE: MORE MILES PER GALLON. 12 pages.
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT OF 1974
Home buyers and sellers will receive advance
disclosure of all finance charges and settlement
costs under provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 197 4. The law,
which became effective on June 20, 1975,
applies to most transactions involving federally
related mortgage loans. In addition to advance
SUMMER 1975
disclosure of costs, the law prohibits kickbacks
or referral fees, limits the amounts home
buyers are required to place in escrow accounts
established to insure the payment of real estate
taxes and insurance, and requires reforms and
modernization of local recordkeeping of land­title
information.
9
NONWOVEN FABRICS: AN OVERVIEW
Nancy G. Harries
Consumers can expect to see additional
nonwoven fabrics in the marketplace in the
future. Non woven fabrics in durable products
are expected to show the largest growth,
although nonwovens in disposable products
will continue to be important. In 197 4, the
value of nonwoven fabrics consumed in the
United States was reported to be $585 million,
about equally divided between durable and
disposable products. The value of nonwoven
fabrics is predicted to increase to $1.4 billion
in 1980, which represents a growth rate of
about 16 percent per year1
Definition of Nonwoven Fabrics
Non woven fabrics are structured directly
from fibers or fiber solutions; the yarn stage of
fabric manufacture is omitted. The Inter­national
Nonwovens and Disposable Asso­ciation
defines nonwoven fabrics as " ... sheet or
web structures made by bonding fibers, yarns,
or filaments by mechanical, thermal, chemical
and/or solvent means."2 Nonwoven fabrics are
generally classified either by the manufacturing
process used for fabric formation or the
intended end use (disposable or durable). There
are mar.y manufacturing processes used to
produce nonwoven fabrics, and many of the
processes can be used to produce fabrics for
use in either disposable or durable products.
Disposable products include those discarded
after a single use (diapers), or at most a few
uses (a wiping cloth or lab coat, for example).
Durable nonwoven fabrics are those incor­porated
into other products and used con­tinuously
(the interlining in a dress or the
backing of a carpet). Some of the new durable
nonwovens are being produced for use as
independent fabrics (as in draperies) rather
than as parts of other products.
1 Arthur D. Little, Inc. The outlook for the non­wovens
industry. In Idea 74 Conference Papers, The
International Nonwovens and Disposables Association,
1974.
2 Moremen, L.J. Nonwovens: An industry overview.
American Association of Textile Technology Annual
Conference, New York, 1975.
10
The definition of the term nonwoven has
created some confusion within the textile
trade. Several other fabric structuring methods
that do not involve weaving-knit, net, lace,
and braid structures-produce fabrics that are
technically not woven, but that are not
classified as nonwoven. Furthermore, the non­woven
fabric category, as defined within the
textile industry, excludes: Heavyweight felts,
such as blankets, carpets, and pressed wool
felts; conventional paper products made from
wood pulp, such as paper napkins; scrim­reinforced
vinyl fabrics, such as upholstery, or
tapes; and pharmaceutical coil, tipped
applicators, cotton and rayon balls, and gauze­based
surgical dressings filled with cotton or
rayon batting.
Manufacturing Processes for Nonwoven Fabrics
Most manufacturing techniqes fall into five
general processes-dry, wet, composite, spun­bonded,
and spunlaced.
Dry processes. Dry-process nonwovens
currently account for about 50 percent of
nonwoven production and may continue to be
the largest category of production through
1980 (see footnote 1). The fiber web is
generally produced by one of two methods­carding
or air-laying. In the carding process,
which is the more common of the two
methods, the fibers are alined or oriented
somewhat parallel to each other. The weight of
the web is often built up by using a series of
cards to form a wingle web. For added strength
and pliability, the carded webs can be laid with
the fiber direction alternated in every other
layer (referred to as cross-laying the fibers). In
the air-lay method the fibers are dispersed by
air and laid down with a vacuum to produce
the fiber web. The air-lay web generally has its
fibers in a more random orientation than that
of the alined carded webs, with little pref­erence
for the fibers laying in a given direction.
A nonwoven product made from one of the
random, air-laid webs has more give and is
more like the bias of a woven fabric than are
products made from carded webs which have
increased fabric strength in the direction of the
fiber alinement.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Fibers in the webs made with the carding
and air-laying processes are bonded and
finished by chemical, thermal, or mechanical
methods. The bonding methods available
include spray, immersion, needle punching, and
solvent or print bonding. In the needle-punch
fiber-bonding process, the fibers are secured in
the web by fiber entanglement, a mechanical
method. This method forms a fiber inter­locking
cohesion similar to that achieved with
yarns in woven fabrics. Many new techniques
of fiber entanglement, without the use of
binders or needles, can be expected in the
future. Webs formed by fiber entanglement
generally provide a softer hand and drape in
nonwoven fabrics than do fiber webs which are
carded or air laid and then bonded together.
The dry-lay methods of nonwoven manu­facture
typically require less capital investment
and generate a web at a much slower speed
than the wet-lay processes. Most fibers, both
natural and manmade, can be used in the
dry-lay processes. There is a wide degree of
flexibility in the type of product produced
based on the directional orientation of the
fibers in the web, and the bonding application
used. Many of the nonwoven interfacing
fabrics, wiping cloths, and limited-use apparel
are produced by dry-lay processes.
Wet processes. In the wet forming processes,
fibers are suspended in a large volume of water,
then dispersed on a rotating drum or screen
while the water is extracted leaving a web of
fibers held together by surface tension. This
fiber web is removed from the screen and is
processed through the drying, bonding, curing,
and finishing processes. Cellulosic fibers (rayon
and acetate) are used primarily in the wet
processes because they cost less than synthetic
fibers and because they have natural hydrogen
bonding characteristics. Polyester, polypro­pylene,
and nylon synthetic fibers also can be
used. The wet processes offer high speed and
uniform production in a broad range of
product weights. A high capital investment and
special technical skills are required. Producers
of wet-lay products must look to large markets
for their products because of the high pro­duction
speed. In 1974 only 15 percent of
nonwovens were made by the wet processes,
and most of these were for industrial use (see
footnote 1).
SUMMER 1975
Composite processes. Composite and
laminated nonwoven fabrics are multi­component
or layered fabrics. The nonwoven
layer may include reinforced fabrics, com­binations
of wet and dry-formed nonwovens,
spunbonded and needle-punched laminates,
and a wide variety of other combinations.
Examples of uses of nonwoven composite
fabrics include surgical gowns, drapes, and
hospital bed sheets. Composite nonwoven
fabrics are advantageous because of the
increased tensile and tear strength the added
layers provide. The outerlayers are frequently
reinforced with a nylon scrim or web, laminat­ed
in between the two outer layers. Composite
nonwovens accounted for about 1 percent of
nonwoven production in 1974 (see foot­note
1).
Spunbonded processes. The fastest growing
type of web-forming process is known as
spunbonding. Fibers or filaments are produced
in a molten state and extruded through a
spinneret. Bonding takes place as the molten,
semimelted fibers cross over each other and
fuse as they are laid down on a moving.
conveyor. The web may receive further
finishing treatment after this bonding takes
place. Thermoplastic fibers (those that melt
with heat rather than scorch) of polyester,
polyolefin, polypropylene, and nylon are the
primary fibers used. The capital investment for
spunbonding is very high, and product develop­ment
requires a lengthy lead time. However,
the high expenditure is considered worthwhile
by industry because the fabric has better tear
and tensile strength than woven or knitted
fabrics of similar weights, and the highly
automated process makes the finished fabric ·
comparatively inexpensive. Spunbonded fabrics
have a smooth surface that can be embossed,
flocked, or printed, and require little spe­cialized
finishing such as bleaching or
shrinking. Current uses for spunbonded fabrics
include primary and secondary carpet backing,
carpet underpads, bedspreads, mattress pads,
and wall coverings.
Spunlaced processes. In this different and
newest type of fabric-structuring process, jet
streams of water are forced through a web
structure·, forming an almost wovenlike fabric.
The fibers interlace with each other as a result
of the water-jet action. The fibers in the
11
spunlaced web have a loose bond, compared
with the more rigid bond of the spunbonded
webs discussed above. Finished fabrics have the
elasticity and flexibility of knitted structures.
Spunlaced webs are currently formed from
polyester fibers, although other fibers can be
used. Spunlaced fabrics, which are just now
being commercialized, appear to have great
potential for selected large textile markets such
as decorative drapery, upholstery, and bed­spread
fabrics. Industrial applications include
secondary carpet backings, shoe liners, coating
substrate, laminated backings, and plastic
reinforcements. Also, spunlaced fabrics are
predicted to have a future for use in soft,
apparel fabrics.
Spunlaced and spunbonded nonwoven
fabrics together accounted for about 25 per­cent
of nonwoven output in 1974. By 1980
they are predicted to account for nearly 40
percent of all nonwoven fabric production (see
footnote 1). Their unique properties which
allow them to compete with woven and knitted
fabrics will contribute to the growth of non­woven
fabrics in durable products.
Consumer Uses for Nonwoven Fabrics
Disposable nonwoven products account for
about one-half of all nonwoven fabric pro­duction.
Retail sales of products that contained
nonwoven disposable fabric were estimated at
$1.5 billion in 1974 (see footnote 1). The
disposable nonwoven product that consumers
used in the largest quantity was diapers. Next
in consumer-use volume were sanitary napkins
and tampons. The remaining disposable­product
sales were for products such as wiping
cloths; surgical packs, gowns, and underpads;
and limited or single-use apparel. Disposable
diapers are predicted to continue to lead the
nonwoven market and may more than double
in sales by 1980. Disposable diapers now
account for about 50 percent of all diaper
changes in the United States (see footnote 1 ).
Durable nonwoven products-products
designed to be used continuously-account for
the remaining 50 percent of nonwoven fabric
production. In the durable nonwoven field,
industrial applications are expanding rapidly.
Among the many uses are coated, abrasive
buffing pads; electrical insulation; highway
construction stabilizers; bagging, packaging,
12
and bale wraps; industrial tapes; papermaker's
felts; bookbinding, labels, tags, maps, and signs;
and substrate for vinyl-coated material such as
auto tops and in other products designed to be
leather substitutes. In the homefurnishings
arena, durable nonwovens are becoming a
significant part of the market. They are being
used extensively as quilt backing material;
carpet backing; dust liners; mattress com­ponents;
drapery headings; table covers;
curtains; and wall coverings.
The nonwoven market is expanding into new
products not associated in the past with non­woven
structures. The variety of web forming
processes, bonding methods, web treatments
and finishes; the availability of synthetic
fabrics with different varying chemical and
physical properties and the technological
ability to make composite fabrics allow
increased versatility for nonwoven fabrics. At
present, however, nonwoven fabrics are not
being used as outer fabrics in the apparel field.
Prices of products made wholly or partially
with nonwoven fabrics have generally been
competitive with products made with more
conventional fabrics. HQwever, recent price
increases for nonwoven fabrics may affect their
use in products that can be made from con­ventional
fabrics, especially where the prices of
conventional fabrics have declined. Price
increases are unlikely to affect either the
availability or the consumption of products
whose use has been due more to the unique
performance of the product than to its price;
this situation has predominated the nonwoven
fabric markets in the past. For example,
disposable diapers are purchased instead of
reusable diapers presumably because consumers
consider their convenience worth the
additional cost. Also, in areas such as home
furnishings where the use of nonwovens has
become integral to the manufacturing process
price increases that are in line with generai
economic conditions, are unlikely to affect the
use of nonwovens.
Sources: The International Nonwovens and Dis­posables
Association (INDA), Idea 74 Conference
Papers, December 197 4. Plus personal communications
with representatives from INDA, 10 East 40th Street,
New York, N.Y. 10016, and with producers of non­woven
fabrics.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
USDA CLOTHING BUDGETS: 1975 COSTS
Children's and adults' clothing budgets at three cost levels have been updated to 1975 prices and are presented in
tables 1, 2, and 3. The seaso_nally adjusted indexes for March 1975 were used to represent 1975. A description of
these budgets may be found m the Summer 1974 issue of Family Economics Review.
Table ].-Children's clothing budgets: Annual cost of clothing purchases for children
at 3 cDst levels, by urbanization and region, United States, 1975 prices'
Girls Boys Urbanization, Infants
region, and under 2 to 5 I 6 to 11 I 12 to 15 2 to 5 I 6 to 11 I cost level 12 to 15 2 years years years years years years
FARM Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
North Central:
Economy ............... 28 71 90 136 71 107 128 Low-cost • 0 ••••••••• 0 ••• 43 109 154 260 92 145 190 Moderate-cost ........... . -- --- 237 418 111 208 265 South:
Economy .............. . 38 70 110 143 63 124 137 Low-cost ••• 0 ••• •••••••• 60 112 174 251 102 158 210 Moderate-cost • 0 0 •••• 0 ••• --- --- 235 357 --- 214 302
RURAL NONFARM
North Central:
Economy •......•....... 44 44 92 --- 53 91 --- Low-cost 0 0 •• • • •• ••••• 0 0 55 74 124 246 76 131 174 Moderate-cost •• 0 •••••••• 69 128 181 377 118 191 243 South:
Economy ............... 40 63 84 126 69 96 118 Low-cost ••••• 0 • ••••• • •• 64 107 144 240 99 143 193 Moderate-cost ••••••• 0 • •• 86 180 236 360 147 228 294 Northeast:
Low-cost •••••••••• 0 •••• 66 96 158 205 98 155 215 Moderate-cost •••••••• 0 •• 82 166 259 356 152 244 302
West:
Low-cost •• 0 • ....... 0 • ••• --- 100 170 237 118 135 194
Moderate-cost 0 • ••••••••• --- 149 250 380 --- 185 276
URBAN
North Central:
Economy ............... 48 54 85 --- 60 106 --- Low-cost ............... 65 107 156 230 95 151 165
Moderate-cost ••••• 0 0 •••• 78 150 224 341 131 205 233
South:
Economy . . .......... .. . 42 72 109 115 73 111 --- Low-cost •••• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 0 67 110 147 210 101 155 177
Moderate-cost ••••• 0 0 •••• 90 164 228 368 150 233 273
Northeast:
Economy ••••••••••• 0 • •• 37 84 104 --- 95 142 ---
Low-cost •••••••• 0 0 0 •••• 59 108 151 199 118 149 180
Moderate-cost •• 0 0 •••• 0 •• 82 170 252 374 171 226 285
West:
Economy ......•........ 37 60 101 --- 68 102 ---
Low-cost ....... 0. 0 •• 0 ••• 61 98 157 188 99 136 162
Moderate-cost • 0 • ••• 0 • • • 0 78 151 235 318 143 205 241
1 Estimates based on expenditure data from the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and on changes in prices paid by urban families since the Survey date.
Budget levels: The economic levels of the budgets are those at which families spent for food at the levels of 3 USDA food
Plans-economy,low-cost, and moderate-cost.
Computation: The budgets were based on the data for all children in families of husband and wife with 1 to 5 children and no
other persons. Budgets are not shown for categories that had data on less than 30 individual children. Estimates could not be
computed at any of the 3 budget levels for farm children in the Northeast and West, and at the economy level for rural nonfarm
children in the Northeast and West. Urban budgets at low-cost and moderate-cost were derived from categories with 100 or more
children. Most of the other budgets were derived from categories with 30 to 99 children.
Items covered: The budgets show costs for garments and shoes, but exclude clothing materials and clothing upkeep, as data for
individual persons are not available for these 2 categories. On the basis of family data from the 1960-61 Survey, costs of clothing
materials and upkeep might add 10 to 15 percent to the cost of a given budget.
Updating costs: Annual costs of the clothing budgets were updated to 1975 by adjusting for price changes for clothing since
the Survey dates. The Apparel and Upkeep Index, and the price indexes for women's and girls' garments, men's and boys'
garments, and footwear, subgroups of the Consumer Price Index published regularly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, were
used for adjusting components. The seasonally adjusted indexes for March 1975 were used to represent 1975.
SUMMER 1975 13
Table 2. -Women's clothing budgets: Annual cost of clothing purchases for women at 3 cost
levels, by urbanization and region, United States, 1975 prices'
Urbanization,
region, and
cost level
FARM
North Central:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...... .
South:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ..•....
Northeast:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost ......... . .
Moderate-cost ...... .
RURAL NONFARM
North Central:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost ......•....
Moderate-cost ...... .
South:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...... .
Northeast:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...... .
West:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost .....•.
URBAN
North Central:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...... .
South:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...... .
Northeast:
Economy .....•....•
Low-cost .......... .
Moderate-cost ...•...
West:
Economy .......... .
Low-cost .....•.....
Moderate-cost ...... .
Unmarried,
living in families
16 to 17
years
Dollars
173
308
294
458
332
314
448
300
462
298
481
243
367
18 to 24
years
Dollars
511
736
327
480
349
354
454
591
198
464
669
436
610
443
563
18 to 24
years,
not
employed
Dollars
147
160
120
101
156
270
221
307
147
244
373
222
364
108
197
305
Married
25 to 64
years,
not
employed
Dollars
113
144
238
97
145
260
85
113
202
71
119
227
74
125
255
74
133
263
74
127
248
81
175
269
90
167
291
84
176
303
78
177
295
25 to 64
years,
employed
Dollars
183
218
376
266
499
220
334
185
361
202
376
187
349
Independent
consumers
25 to 64 25 to 64
years, years,
employed not
employed
Dollars Dollars
201
296
307
470
182
316
242
330
55
127
154
101
225
192
65
years
and
over
Dollars
67
103
71
81
54
81
165
47
76
167
49
70
53
113
179
60
88
156
77
117
171
68
107
162
1 Estimates based on expenditure data from the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and on changes in prices paid by urban families since the Survey date.
Budget levels: The economic levels of the budgets are those at which families spent for food at the levels of 3 USDA food
plans--1lconomy,low-cost, and moderate-cost.
Computation: The budgets for unmarried women, living in families, and for married women were based on the data for women
in families of various types. Independent consumers are persons living alone or in a household with others but independent
financially-not pooling income and expenditures. The group 65 years and over includes both independent consumers and family
members. Budgets are not shown for categories that had data on less than 30 individual women. Estimates could not be computed
at any of the 3 budget levels for farm women in the West.
Items covered: The budgets show costs for garments and shoes, but exclude clothing materials and clothing upkeep, as data for
individual persons are not available for these 2 categories. On the basis of family data from the 1960-61 Survey, costs of clothing
materials and upkeep might add 10 to 15 percent to the cost of a given budget.
Updating costs: Annual costs of the clothing budgets were updated to 1975 by adjusting for price changes for clothing since
the Survey dates. The Apparel and Upkeep Index, and the price indexes for women's and girls' garments, men's and boys'
garments, and footwear, subgroups of the Consumer Price Index published regularly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, were
used for adjusting components. The seasonally adjusted indexes for March 1975 were used to represent 1975.
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 3.-Men 's clothing budgets: Annual cost of clothing purchases for men at 3 cost
levels, by urbanization and region, United States, 1975 prices'
Urbanization,
region, and
cost level
FARM
North Central:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost •...........
Moderate-cost ....... .
South:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost ........ . .. ,
Moderate-cost ....... .
Northeast:
Economy., .. ,, ... ,,.
Low-cost ..... , ..... .
Moderate-cost ....•...
RURAL NONFARM
North Central:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost ........... .
Moderate-cost ....... .
South:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost , , ..... , .. , ,
Moderate-cost ... , , ...
Northeast:
Economy ....... ,,,,.
Low-cost ........... .
Moderate-cost ....... .
West:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost ...•.....•..
Moderate-cost ....... .
URBAN
North Central:
Economy •... , ...... .
Low-cost ........... .
Moderate-cost ....... .
South:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost ........... .
Moderate-cost ...... , .
Northeast:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost ........... .
Moderate-cost ....... .
West:
Economy ........... .
Low-cost .......••...
Moderate-cost ....... .
Unmarried,
living in families
16 to 17
years
Dollars
---
221
338
161
212 ---
---
---
---
--- --- ---
---
187 -- -
--- -- -
---
--- --- ---
---
238
308
---
192
277
---
208
297
---
178
246
I 18 to 24
years
Dollars
---
252
322
---
247
382
---
--- ---
---
251 ---
---
237
391
-- -
314
399
---
---
---
---
263
341
---
278
376
---
234
330
---
246
312
18 to 24
years
Dollars
---
--- -- -
---
204 ---
---
---
---
- -- ---
---
---
242
297
---
238
313
---
203
292
---
232
286
Married
I 25 to 64
years
Dollars
130
172
258
124
179
268
115
130
196
91
146
237
99
169
287
87
179
282
129
189
280
86
179
255
101
180
285
93
165
272
109
194
284
Independent
consumers,
25 to 64
years
Dollars
--- ---
---
---
---
---
--- ---
---
129
144
159
286
120
265
207
307
65
years
and
over
Dollars
78
100
148
73
95
148
---
88 ---
47
70
119
64
87
142
57
82
100
45
95
144
50
82
141
45
80
129
53
77
116
1 Estimates based on expenditure data from the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and on changes in prices paid by urban families since the Survey date.
Budget levels: The economic levels of the budgets are those at which families spent for food at the levels of 3 USDA food
plan~conomy,low•cost, and moderate-cost.
Computation: The budgets for unmarried men, living in families, and for married men were based on the data for men in
families of various types. Indepedent consumers are persons living alone or in a household with others but independent
financially-not pooling income and expenditures. The group 65 years and over includes both independent consumers and family
members. Budgets are not shown for categories that had data on less than 30 individual men. Estimates could not be computed at
any of the 3 budget levels for farm men in the West.
Items covered: The budgets show costs for garments and shoes, but exclude clothing materials and clothing upkeep, as data for
individual persons are not available for these 2 categories. On the basis of family data from the 1960-61 Survey, costs of clothing
materials and upkeep might add 10 to 15 percent to the cost of a given budget.
Updating costs: Annual costs of the clothing budgets were updated to 1975 by adjusting for price changes for clothing since
the Survey dates. The Apparel and Upkeep Index, and the price indexes for women's and girls' garments. men's and boys'
garments. and footwear, subgroups of the Consumer Price Index published regularly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, were
used for adjusting components. The seasonally adjusted indexes for March 1975 were used to represent 1975.
SUMMER 1975 15
Purposes of Bulletin and NUTRIMETER
Finding out how good a diet is in terms of
nutrients it provides is a basic step to using
nutrition information on food labels to
improve that diet. To accomplish that basic
step, information such as that included in the
bulletin-nutritive values of foods not labeled the part of the U.S. RDA recommended for'
men, women, and children of different ages,
and procedures for using this information--is
required.
The purpose of the NUTRIMETER is three­fold:
(1) To help total the calories and the
percentages of the U.S. RDA for nutrients
provided by foods for a day; (2) to demon­strate
the concept that nutrients from a variety
of foods together provide a nutritious diet;
and ( 3) to encourage people, through the
novelty of the device, to evaluate their diets for
a few days and, if indicated, change food
selections to improve their diets.
The bulletin and the NUTRIMETER do not
provide guidance for people with health prob­lems
that require special diets. They do not
provide information about the types of fat,
cholesterol, and sodium, for which values are
shown on labels of some foods.
Users
Some people want tools for determining the
nutritive value of foods they eat, as evidenced
by requests for USDA publications such as
Nutritive Value of Foods, HG-72. This number
will probably increase as nutrition information
on labels is promoted and Food and Drug
Administration regulations go into effect
SUMMER 1975
(July 1, 1975). The bulletin and the NUTRI­METER
will be useful to these people.
Teachers, extension agents, and other
nutrition educators across the country are
attempting to educate people to use nutrition
information on food labels. It is expected that
many of these educators will assist and encour­age
groups of interested consumers and
students in their initial use of the bulletin and
the NUTRIMETER.
Many people probably will not care to or be
able to use procedures for checking and
improving their diets described in the bulletin
and on the NUTRIMETER. To provide
guidance for people who prefer a simpler
approach to selecting a nutritious diet, USDA
consumer publications on food selection will
continue to present and interpret The Daily
Food Guide as a basis for making food choices.
How to Order
Materials are for sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Prices for
single copies as follows:
Nutrition Labeling-Tools for Its Use, Agri­culture
Information Bulletin No. 382,
$1.15.
NUTRIMETER, 70 cents.
NUTRIMETER Student's Guide, Miscellane­ous
Publication No. 1303, 30 cents.
NUTRIMETER Teacher's Guide, Miscellane­ous
Publication No. 1304, 25 cents.
A discount of 25 percent may be allowed on
orders of 100 or more copies of a single
publication.
17
Purposes of Bulletin and NUTRIMETER
Finding out how good a diet is in terms of
nutrients it provides is a basic step to using
nutrition information on food labels to
improve that diet. To accomplish that basic
step, information such as that included in the
bulletin-nutritive values of foods not labeled the part of the U.S. RDA recommended for'
men, women, and children of different ages,
and procedures for using this information--is
required.
The purpose of the NUTRIMETER is three­fold:
(1) To help total the calories and the
percentages of the U.S. RDA for nutrients
provided by foods for a day; (2) to demon­strate
the concept that nutrients from a variety
of foods together provide a nutritious diet;
and ( 3) to encourage people, through the
novelty of the device, to evaluate their diets for
a few days and, if indicated, change food
selections to improve their diets.
The bulletin and the NUTRIMETER do not
provide guidance for people with health prob­lems
that require special diets. They do not
provide information about the types of fat,
cholesterol, and sodium, for which values are
shown on labels of some foods.
Users
Some people want tools for determining the
nutritive value of foods they eat, as evidenced
by requests for USDA publications such as
Nutritive Value of Foods, HG-72. This number
will probably increase as nutrition information
on labels is promoted and Food and Drug
Administration regulations go into effect
SUMMER 1975
(July 1, 1975). The bulletin and the NUTRI­METER
will be useful to these people.
Teachers, extension agents, and other
nutrition educators across the country are
attempting to educate people to use nutrition
information on food labels. It is expected that
many of these educators will assist and encour­age
groups of interested consumers and
students in their initial use of the bulletin and
the NUTRIMETER.
Many people probably will not care to or be
able to use procedures for checking and
improving their diets described in the bulletin
and on the NUTRIMETER. To provide
guidance for people who prefer a simpler
approach to selecting a nutritious diet, USDA
consumer publications on food selection will
continue to present and interpret The Daily
Food Guide as a basis for making food choices.
How to Order
Materials are for sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Prices for
single copies as follows:
Nutrition Labeling-Tools for Its Use, Agri­culture
Information Bulletin No. 382,
$1.15.
NUTRIMETER, 70 cents.
NUTRIMETER Student's Guide, Miscellane­ous
Publication No. 1303, 30 cents.
NUTRIMETER Teacher's Guide, Miscellane­ous
Publication No. 1304, 25 cents.
A discount of 25 percent may be allowed on
orders of 100 or more copies of a single
publication.
17
HOUSING IN MULTIUNIT BUILDINGS
Lucie G. Krassa
Nine out of 10 housing units in multiunit
buildings under construction in 1973 were in
buildings with five or more units. The majority
of these units had air-conditioning, electric
heat, two or more bedrooms, one bathroom,
and were in buildings with fewer than four
floors (see table). These data, which include
buildings with units for rent or condominium
ownership and buildings owned by coopera­tives,
are from a new series of statistics
published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
This series "Characteristics of New Multiunit
Residential Buildings" includes the character­istics
of units in buildings with five or more
units, and in buildings with two or more units.
The series also includes data on the character­istics
of the buildings, such as the availability
of parking spaces. All data are tabulated for the
United States and for four regions.
As new units are added to the total existing
housing stock, and as older units are removed
and some existing units improved, the overall
Selected characteristics of housing units in multiunit buildings under construction, 1
December 31, 1973, United States and 4 regions
(Buildings with five or more units)
Characteristic United North- North South
States east Central
Total units (thousands) .. 932 153 154 478
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Total2
• 0 0 ••••••••• 0 •• 100 100 100 100
With air-conditioning • 0 ••• 88 e) 89 97
Heating fuel:
Electric heat ........... 62 e) 40 76
Gas .................. 31 e) 58 19
Oil .................. 6 e) 1 6
Other ................ 1 e) 1 (4)
Number of bedrooms:
None •• 0 •••• 0 •••••• 0. 4 7 4 3
1 ••••• 0 0 • • •• 0 ••••• 0. 38 45 41 33
2 ........... 0 •••••••• 49 37 49 54
3 or more ............. 9 11 6 10
Number of bathrooms:
1 •••••••• 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0. 0. 52 e) 71 43
1-1/2 0 •••••••••• 0 •••• 17 e) 16 20
2 or more ............. 31 e) 14 37
Number of floors:
1 to 3 ................ 68 50 80 67
4 or more ............. 32 50 20 33
1 Refers to buildings with less than 50 percent of the units occupied or ready for occupancy.
2 Excludes units for which characteristics were not reported.
s Estimate does not meet publication standards.
4 Less than 0.5 percent.
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
West
147
Percent
100
61
55
44
(4)
(4)
7
41
43
9
56
12
32
79
21
Source: U:S. _Depart:men~ of C?~merce, Bur~au of the Cencus, Housing Starts-Supplement, "Characteristics of
~;;4. Multmmt Res1dentrnl Bmldmgs: 1973, (Construction Reports, C20-7 4-Supplement), Washington, D.C.,
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
characteristics of available housing change.
Families looking for housing must choose from
the existing stock of housing, and the new
series from the Bureau of the Census gives an
indication of the direction of changes in the
characteristics of multiunit housing and the
housing that families will find available in the
future. Data from the 1970 Census of Housing
show that only 42 percent of renter-occupied
units in multiunit housing with five or more
units had air-conditioning in 197 0.1 One-half
of the apartments had only one bedroom and
12 percent had none. Electric heat was avail­able
in only 10 percent of the units. Units
surveyed as part of the 1970 Census, of course,
included units in all existing buildings; 79
percent were in buildings constructed before
1965.
The proportion of units in new buildings
with five or more units that were condomin­iums
or cooperatives has increased rapidly in
the last 3 years. According to data from the
U.S. Bureau of the Census series "Market
1 Data from the new series on multiunit housing and
from the 1970 Census of Housing are not strictly
comparable because the data from the 1970 Census of
Housing refer to renter-occupied units only and the
new series includes units that were condominiums or
cooperative housing.
Absorption of Apartments," 23 percent of the
units in buildings completed in the first three
quarters of 197 4 were in these categories
compared with 13 percent in 1973, and 8
percent in 1972 and 1971.
The trend of new units to have air­conditioning
and electric heat, and the
decreasing proportion of new units that are for
rent may have implications for families with
low and moderate incomes. Those unable to
pay the price of energy-consuming utilities or
unable to purchase a condominium may find
their choices of available housing reduced. On
the other hand, families who wish to buy but
who cannot afford single-family homes may
find that the increase in condominium housing
and the trend toward larger units in multiunit
housing will make home-buying a possibility.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Housing Starts-Supplement, "Character­istics
of New Multiunit Residential Buildings: 1973,"
(Construction Reports, C20-74-Supplement), Washing­ton,
D.C., 1974; 1970 Census of Housing, "Metro­politan
Housing Characteristics" (HC[2]-1), Washing­ton,
D.C., 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce and
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Market Absorption of Apartments (Current Housing
Reports, H-130-74-4), Washington, D.C. 1975.
OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE OF U.S. JOBS: 1960 AND 1970
The U.S. work force increased from 65
million to 77 million persons between 1960
and 1970. White collar workers made up 45.6
percent of the work force in 1970, up from
40.8 percent 10 years earlier. The growth of
the white-collar work force reflected an
increase in commercial and government offices
and in consumer demand for services. The
relatively slow growth of manufacturing and
construction industries during the 1960's
depressed the demand for operatives, nonfarm
laborers, and craft workers, and accounted for
the decline of blue-collar workers from 36.5 to
33.4 percent of the work force. Service
workers retained their relative share of total
employment over the decade-about 12 per­cent,
but farmworkers fell from 6.2 percent to
2. 9 percent of all employed persons.
Women made up 38 percent of the work
force in 1970, up from 33 percent in 1960.
SUMMER 1975
The largest advances in female employment
occurred where women traditionally have
represented a significant proportion of
workers-clerical and service jobs.
Changes in the occupational patterns
between 1960 and 1970 generally reinforced
trends observed during the 1950's, when pro­fessional,
technical, and kindred workers led all
occupational groups in rate of expansion
followed by clerical workers. There were two
major exceptions: Private household workers
declined in number between 1960 and 1970 in
contrast to their growth over the previous 10
years, and sales workers increased more
gradually than in the past as many retail stores
adopted self-service merchandising.
Source: Dicesare, C.B. Changes in the occupational
structure of U.S. jobs. Monthly Labor Rev.
98(3):24-34. 1975 (Mar.).
19
POVERTY IN 1973
The number of persons whose incomes were
below the low-income or poverty threshold
decreased in 1973 for the second straight year.
About 23 million persons were classified as low
income, 6.1 percent fewer than in 1972.
The low-income or poverty threshold is a
measure of the income l:.~eded to provide
families differing in size, composition, and
place of residence a minimum adequate level of
living. It is adjusted annually in line with the
Consumer Price Index to allow for increasing
costs. In 1973, the low-income threshold was
$4,540 for a nonfarm family of four, and
$3,871 for a farm family.
The number of white persons below the
low-income level declined between 1972 and
1973 as it had the previous year. Although
white persons made up almost two-thirds of all
low-income persons in 1973, the poverty rate
for white persons was considerably lower (8.4
percent) than the rate for black persons (31.4
percent) or for persons of Spanish origin (21.9
percent).
The number of low-income aged persons (65
and over) declined by 10 percent between
1972 and 1973. This continues a decrease
observed the previous year and reflects sub­stantial
increases in Social Security benefits
enacted since 1970. In 1973 there were 3.4
million persons 65 and over below the low-income
level. They accounted for about 15
percent of all poor persons.
Families headed by a woman made up 45
percent of all low-income families in 1973-up
from 43 percent in 1972. Low-income black
families were more likely to be headed by a
woman than low-income white families-64
and 37 percent, respectively.
About 6 of every 10 low-income persons
resided in metropolitan areas in 197 3. A higher
proportion of low-income blacks than whites
lived in metropolitan areas (68 percent com­pared
with 56 percent). Black low-income
persons were disproportionately concentrated
in the central cities whereas whites were
distributed more equally between the central
cities and the suburban rings. Of the 10 Federal
regions, Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta had the
highest concentration of poor persons (17.5
and 15.5 percent, respectively), and Chicago
and Boston had the lowest (8.1 percent and 8.4
percent, respectively) .1
1 The Federal regions are represented by the
following cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Kansas City,
Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Characteristics
of the Low-Income Population: 1973. (Current
Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 98) Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
FARM POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1973
Approximately 9% million persons, or 4.5
percent of the total U.S. population, lived on
farms in April 1973. Although this was an
apparent drop in farm population from the
previous year and a continuation of the long­time
downward trend in the farm population,
it was not a statistically significant change. The
drop in farm population between 197 0 and
1973 was the first time since the end of World
War II that a 3-year interval did not result in a
significant loss in the number of farm residents.
This apparent stability, however, applied only
to the white farm population; the number of
persons of minority races living on farms con­tinued
to decline sharply.
20
Between 1970 and 1973 the number of farm
children under 14 years old declined by 13 per­cent,
paralleling the recent national decline in
the birth rate which has extended to farm as
well as nonfarm areas. In 1973 children under
14 years accounted for less than a fourth of the
total farm population compared with a third in
1960. In the 3-year period between 1970 and
1973, there was no significant change in the
number of farm persons 14 years and older.
About three-fifths of farm residents 14 years
and older were in the labor force in 1973,
either working or seeking work. Unemploy­ment
was low-1.9 percent among farm
residents compared with 5.3 for the civilian
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
nonfarm population-reflecting, in part, the
high incidence of multiple job holding among
persons employed in agriculture. About half
the farm resident labor force was engaged
solely or primarily in nonagricultural pursuits.
Although the same number were so employed
in 1960, the declipe in number of farm
residents has meant an increase in the pro­portion
of farm residents employed in non­agricultural
industries-48 percent in 197 3
compared with 33 percent in 1960. Nonagri­cultural
employment in the farm resident labor
force was more prevalent among women than
among men. About two-thirds of the women
were employed in nonagricultural industries in
1973 compared with two-fifths of the men.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS,
Series Census-ERS P-27, No. 45, September 1974.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
• BUYING A USED APPLIANCE. PA 110~. 30 cents. November 1974.
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. 20250. Please address your request to the office indicated.
From Office of Communication:
• NUTRITION-FOOD AT WORK FOR YOU. GS 1. Slightly revised January 1975.
• GROWING AZALEAS AND RHODODENDRONS. G 71. Revised February 1974.
• EGGS IN FAMILY MEALS-A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS. G 103. Slightly revised
January 1975.
• VEGETABLES IN FAMILY MEALS: A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS. G 105. Slightly
revised January 1975.
• FRUITS IN FAMILY MEALS-A GUIDE FOR·CONSUMERS. G 105. Revised February
1975.
• MILK IN FAMILY MEALS: A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS. G 127. Slightly revised
December 1974.
From Information Division, Agricultural Marketing Service:
• HANDLED WITH CARE-EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT. AMS 560. November
1974.
From Economic Research Service, Division of Information:
• BALANCE SHEET OF THE FARMING SECTOR 1974. AB 376. September 1974.
• BALANCE SHEET OF THE FARMING SECTOR BY VALUE OF SALES CLASS,
1960-73. AB 376 Sup. 1. Apri11975.
• THE FOOD AND FIBER SYSTEM-HOW IT WORKS. AB 383. March 1975.
• SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION IN METRO
AND NONMETRO COUNTIES, 1970. AER 272. March 1975.
From Special Reports Division, Office of Communication:
• U.S. INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE: ITS GROWING IMPORTANCE
TO THE NATION'S ECONOMY, and QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE WORLD
FOOD SITUATION. (Set of six booklets prepared jointly by Economic Research
Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. June to November 1974.)
SUMMER 1975 21
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of Food at Home1 Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels,
April 1975, U.S. Average
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan plan plan cost plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20 to 54 years ............. 27.90 34.90 41.90 121.00 151.40
55 years and over .......... 24.90 30.60 36.60 107.50 132.90
Family of 4:
Children, 1·2 and 3-5 years ... 39.50 49.00 58.80 171.00 212.60
Children, 6-8 and 9-11 years .. 47.90 59.80 71.70 207.40 259.30
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
7 months to 1 year ......... 5.40 6.50 7.70 23.20 28.30
1 to 2 years .... . . . ........ 6.40 7.80 9.30 27.70 33.90
3 to 5 years ... . ........... 7.70 9.50 11.40 33.30 41.10
6 to 8 years ............... 10.00 12.50 14.90 43.30 54.00
9 to 11 years .. . ........... 12.50 15.60 18.70 54.10 67.70
Male:
12 to 14 years ............. 13.30 16.60 19.80 57.60 71.90
15 to 19 years ............. 14.60 18.30 21.90 63.40 79.10
20 to 54 years ............. 14.10 17.70 21.30 61.00 76.70
55 years and over .......... 12.40 15.30 18.40 53.60 66.50
Female:
12 to 19 years ............. 11.80 14.60 17.40 51.20 63.30
20 to 54 years ............. 11.30 14.00 16.80 49.00 60.90
55 years and over ....... . .. 10.20 12.50 14.90 44.10 54.30
Pregnant ................. 14.00 17.20 20.40 60.50 74.50
Nursing .................. 14.80 18.40 21.90 64.30 79.80
Liberal
plan
Dollars
181.20
158.40
254.10
310.20
33.30
40.20
49.20
64.60
80.90
85.90
94.90
92.10
79.60
75.30
72.60
64.40
88.50
94.90
1 These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review, Winter
1975. The costs of the food plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food group
paid by urban survey families at three selected food cost levels in 1965-66. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Ten percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. 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 person; 6-or-more-person-subtract 10 percent.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967 = 100)
Group Apr. 1975 Mar. 1975 Feb. 1975 Apr. 1974
All items ••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 158.6 157.8 157.2 144.0
Food ....................... 171.2 171.3 171.6 158.6
Food at home . .... . ......... 171.0 171.4 172.0 159.4
Food away from home ........ 172.2 171.3 170.5 155.6
HO US.i ng ..................... 164.7 163.6 162.7 146.0
Shelter .................... 167.6 166.6 165.8 150.2
Rent • 0 •• 0 0. 0 ••••• 0 •••• 0. 135.9 135.5 135.1 128.8
Homeownership 0 •• 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 179.4 178.2 177.3 158.2
Fuel and utilities 0 0 ••• 0 •• 0 ••• 164.6 163.0 162.2 147.0
Fuel oil and coal ........... 229.0 228.3 229.5 206.5
Gas and electricity .......... 166.3 164.0 162.7 142.0
Household furnishings and
operation ................. 156.8 155.6 154.7 134.0
Apparel and upkeep •• 0 ••• 0. 0 •• 141.3 140.9 140.2 133.6
Men's and boys' ............. 142.2 141.3 140.6 134.2
Women's and girls' ........... 136.0 136.1 135.4 132.4
Footwear .................. 144.4 144.0 143.0 136.3
Transportation •• 0 ••••••••••• 0 146.2 144.8 143.5 134.4
Private ••••• 0 ••• 0 •• 0 •• 0. 0 •• 145.5 144.0 142.5 133.1
Public ..................... 152.4 152.3 152.3 146.3
Health and recreation 0 0 •••••••• 152.1 151.1 150.2 136.3
Medical care ................ 165.8 164.6 163.0 145.6
Personal care ••••••••••• 0 0 0 0 149.5 148.9 147.8 133.1
Reading and recreation ........ 143.5 142.0 141.8 130.4
Other goods and services •• 0 ••• 146.8 146.5 145.9 133.6
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1967 = 100)
Item May Apr. Mar. May Apr. Mar.
1975 1975 1975 1974 1974 1974
All items •• 0 0 •••• 0. 0 •••• 0 •••• • 0 175 173 173 163 157 156
Food and tobacco • 0 •••• 0 •••••• -.- -- - 176 --- - -- 161
Clothing .......... . .......... 182 --- -- . --- - - - 162
Household operation •••••••• 0 •• - -- 170 --- . -- - - - 149
Household furnishings •••• 0 ••••• - - - 153 . - - . - - - - - 135
Building materials, house •• 0. 0 ••• --- --- 183 - -- --- 169
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
Note: Survey months for prices paid by farmers for clothing, household operation, and household furnishings have
been changed. The index for clothing is now being published for February, May, August, and November. Indexes
for household operation, and household furnishings are being published for January, April, July, and October.
SUMMER 1975
23
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SUMMER 1975
CONTENTS
Page
Service-Life Expectancy of Household Appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Katherine S. Tippett and Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Trends in Overtime Hours and Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Energy: Some Trends and Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Energy Conservation Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Nonwoven Fabrics: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Nancy G. Harries
USDA Clothing Budgets: 1975 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nutrition Labeling-Tools for Its Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Betty Peterkin
Housing in Multiunit Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Lucie G. Krassa
Occupational Structure of U.S. Jobs: 1960 and 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Poverty in 197 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Farm Population of the United States 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cost of Food at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Issued August 197 5
* U.S. 50VERNMENT PRINTIN5 OFFICE: 1975-621-869/3401 3-1
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW