•
•
3
5
7
11
13
17
20
23
23
25
27
ARS 62-5
March 1970
A Look Ahead in Consumer Affairs
National Economic Situation and Outlook
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and
Outlook for 1970
The Outlook for Food in 1970 D44
Cost of Raising a Child
PROPERTY OF THE
Family Use of Credit LIBRARY
Cost of Food at Home APR 21 1970
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAtWLINA
Some New USDA Publications AT GREENSBORO
Index of Articles in 1969 Issues
Famil~ Economics Review Evaluation
Questionnaire
Consumer Prices
THE CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
This issue is made up of papers prepared for the
National Agricultural Outlook Conference, held in Washington,
D. C., February 16 to 19, 1970. The papers on
pages 7 and 13 have been considerably condensed. For
a copy of the complete text, send your request--giving
the title and author of the article--to the Consumer and
Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural R e -
search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal
Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Please give
your ZIP code with your return address.
0 n page 25 you will find a questionnaire about
Family Economics Review. We will appreciate it if you
will fill it out and mail it to us.
Family Economics Review is a quarterly report on research of the
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division and on information
from other sources relating to economic aspects of family living. It
is developed by Dr. Emma G. Holmes, research family economist,
with the cooperation of other staff members of the Division. It is prepared
primarily for home economics agents and home economics specialists
of the Cooperative Extension Service.
I
~
A LOOK AHEAD IN CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Virginia H. Knauer, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs
Today I want to talk about the American marketplace as it relates to the consumer
in the cities, ... on the farms, and in the rural communities. The problems are the
same: Unsafe products, shoddy merchandise, shabby repair work, meaningless guarantees,
poor service, questionable business practices, and outright swindles.
These problems have caused the consumer revolution we are now witnessing.
This consumer revolution does not stop at the city line. It has hit the country road with
the same fervor that it has hit Main Street, and with the same impact. As a result,
things are happening. C<;mgress is taking action. There are nearly 150 consumer bills
pending, and plenty more to come, depending on the issues. The Government--at all
levels--is taking action. President Nixon outlined a strong administrative and legislative
program in his Consumer Message to Congress. More than 35 States and a number
of cities have established consumer protection bureaus.
Industry is taking action. . . . Many business associations--the Grocery Manufacturers
of America, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Better Business
Bureaus, and the Chamber of Commerce--just to name a few, have special programs
to benefit the consumer. And practically every industry is paying more attention
to complaints and services. I don't think this could have happened a decade or two ago.
It wasn't until the 1960's that American industry found itself face to face with a
consumer movement that was taking root and growing into what it is today--a permanent
part of the American scene, here to stay, with not the slightest intention of being gone
tomorrow.
And so we are seeing many changes in attitudes--in the attitude of business toward
the consumer, in the attitude of law-makers toward business, and in the attitude
of Government toward both business and the consumer. The passive policy of the past
has been replaced by an active desire to have the consumer and industry go forward together,
with both the buyer and the seller enjoying the advantages of the marketplace.
The activities of the present point to an even greater emphasis on a quality marketplace
for the future. To help make this possible, President Nixon asked me to be his
"pipeline" to the consumer. I see to it that the consumer's voice--your voice--gets to
the President. Sometimes he gives me a message to relay back to you, as he did when
he supported my fight for lower fat content in hot dogs. But his most comprehensive
reply went to you and all 200 million Americans through his Consumer Message to Congress.
. . . It was a reply that set the record straight on Administration policy regarding
the consumer. In it, the President asked for legislation and administrative reforms
that would help honest and conscientious businessmen as well as the buying public. Specifically,
the President proposed four legislative measures.
He asked Congress to establish my office as a new permanent, statutory Office
of Consumer Affairs, to give every American consumer a permanent voice in the White
House. As it is now, my office exists by ExecutiveOrder and could be abolished. by any
future President. Under the President's proposal, my office would continue to play a
leading role in the crusade for consumer justice and would be given added duties and
powers.
MARCH 1970
3
This same legislative measure would also establish a Consumer Protection Division
within the Department of Justice to represent consumers before Federal agencies
orhearings on complex, legal matters. This new Division would be aided and supported
by the 93 U.S. Attorney Offices and 800 U.S. Attorneys in the country.
The Consumer Protection Act would give the new Consumer Protection Division
authority to take action against 11 types of fraud and deception which account for 85 percent
of all deceptive practices existing in the marketplace. These practices include offering
goods or services for sale with the intent not to sell them. This technique is used
when the seller advertises "bait" items to attract customers into his store, then switches
the customer to a higher priced product. This is known as the "Bait and Switch" swindle.
The Consumer Protection Act also would prohibit passing off used goods as new goods,
a common practice in low-income neighborhoods. It would prohibit automobile, television,
and other repairmen from urging repairs, replacements or services when, to the
knowledge of these repairmen, such action is not needed. And it would prohibitmisrepresenting
the existence of price reductions--a widespread advertising gimmick.
In addition, the Consumer Protection Act provides for class action in Federal
courts. This is a new legal remedy for consumer grievances. Once the Justice Department
has won a case under the provisions of the new legislation, consumers would be
free to unite in class action suits to recover damages. As the President pointed out in
his Consumer Message, present Federal law gives private citizens no standing to sue
for fraudulent or deceptive practices, and State laws are often not adequate to their problems.
Even if private citizens could sue under Federal law, the damage suffered by an
individual consumer would not ordinarily be great enough to warrant a costly, individual
lawsuit ....
The Product Testing Act would assure the consumer that references to product
performance characteristics in advertising or labeling of products would be accurate by
insuring that the tests to measure these characteristics are up-to-date. As you know,
private testing laboratories issue quality endorsements for a wide variety of products.
Not all of these endorsements are based on adequate standards. The Federal Government
could provide an excellent service to the consumer if it could evaluate the testing
procedures on which these private endorsements are based. If no testing standard existed
or if the standard used was found to be inadequate, then the appropriate Government
agency would be authorized to develop a new one.
In the Drug Identification Code Act, drug manufacturers would be required to
print a code number on prescribed drug capsules and containers, so that rapid identification
of the drugs would be possible in time of personal emergency. Some drug manufacturers
are already doing this on a voluntary basis. This simple, life-saving device
should be required of all drug firms.
But legislation is only part of the answer. . . . It's the day-to-day routine, the
working together, that helps produce the best results. In my office, for example, we
have adopted a new procedure of writing directly to the head of a company when a consumer
letter of complaint warrants it. . . . If a gripe is legitimate--and my staff checks
out all letters to make sure--we have the power to take direct action. We have been
successful in a number of cases .... I think we have taken a step in the rightdirection,
and that the results will be well worth the effort, particularly when you consider thatour
mail now averages more than 2, 500 letters a month, and there is no sign of a let-up.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
But I don't want to give you the impression that the only consumer complaints we
get are the ones that affect industry. There are some very important issues that affect
agriculture. . . . My office has received a rash of consumer letters on high egg costs.
. . . Housewives are getting angry. They want to know why egg prices have gone up so
sharply and they have asked me for some answers. As you know, there are many factors
involved here, and they all add up to the fact that prices are up because of short
supply and high demand. However, just to make sure, the Commodity Exchange Authority
is conducting an investigation of futures trading in shell eggs. The purpose of this
investigation is to determine whether there has been any manipulation of futures prices.
Such manipulation would be detrimental to both farmers and consumers ....
Letters protesting the sale of cancerous chicken • . • started coming after newspapers
published the report that, in the future, housewives might be buying chicken minus
a leg or a wing that had showed signs of leukosis or cancerlike tumors. They were
the angriest letters I have ever received from consumers. Even though there was no
proof that the chicken cancer virus could betransmitted to humans, ther.ewasn't a letter
from a housewife saying she was willing to take the chance. And neither was I! I assure
you, the housewives' protests--including my own personal protest--were promptly
registered with the proper authorities. Happily, this issue has been resolved by the
Department of Agriculture on behalf of the consumer.
The chicken episode illustrates very well, I think, how effective consumers can
be when they make their voices heard on the important issues. We would like to hear
from more consumers on any upcoming issues ....
NATIONAL ECONOMIC SITUATION AND OUTLOOK
Rex F. Daly, Economic Research Service, USDA
The Situation
For the past several years, with few exceptions, the economy has been operating
near a full employment rate with strong consumer and investment demand, big gains in
personal income, and inflationary increases in prices and costs. But, as with most
booms, this one seems to be corning to an end.
Gains in Gross National Product (GNP) in real--or output--terms have been
smaller each quarter since mid-1968, with no increase at all in the fourth quarter of
1969 eventhoughprices continued to rise. Industrialproductionhas been declining since
mid-1969. Housing dropped sharply throughout 1969, except in September. Total nonagricultural
employment leveled off, though service-type employment rose. The rate
of unemployment remained low through December 1969 then rose sharply in January
1970 to 3.9percent of the labor force. In recent months, increases in personal incomes
were materially slower.
This deceleration of economic activity is largely due to monetary and fiscal ef-forts
to coo 1 inflation. Fiscal measures leveled the rise in Federal expenditures. Since
the surtax was imposed in mid-1968, Federal revenues increased enough to turn the
MARCH 1970
5
Federal Government account from a substantial deficit in the first half of 1968 to a sizable
surplus in 1969. This turnabout partially offset demand pressures. The sharp
decline in homebuilding and the reluctance of consumers to buy some big-ticket durable
goods in 1969 apparently was due largely to tight money ar..d expensive credit.
Although activity in some sectors slowed, overall demand increased in 1969.
Business outlays for new plants and equipment quickened; expenditures by State and local
governments expanded; and consumers spent most of their rising incomes for services
and nondurable goods. The result was a continued rise ~n prices and costs during most
of 1969.
The Outlook for 1970
The consensus in recent months as to forecasts for 1970 calls for: ( 1) A slowing
in economic activity but no recession; ( 2) no real growth in output during the first
half of 1970 and a moderate pickup during the last half; and ( 3) some easing of inflationary
pressures on prices and costs, particularly later in the year.
Most estimates of GNP for 1970 range from $980 to $990 billion. Some recent
forecasts exceed $990 billion. On the other hand, a few economists have predicted a
recession. Recent trends may bring more forecasts below the "consensus range," along
with appeals for countermeasures. Thus, the 1970 forecast may be uniquely uncertain
because of the difficulty of anticipating fiscal and monetary actions that may be adopted
to cool inflation and yet avoid reducing demand, output, and employment too much.
Government purchases are scheduled to rise in 1970, but much more slowly than
in recent years. The reduction scheduled in defense outlays more than offsets the small
gain expected in nondefense outlays. Cuts are already being felt in defense, space, and
construction industries. Expenditures by State and local governments will rise about as
much in 1970 as in 1969.
Business investment plans point to a continued but less rapid rise in fixed capital
outlays through mid-1970. A slowdown is likely because credit is expensive and scarce,
plant operating rates are the lowest in years, and prospects for sales and profits are
not verypromising. Tight money and risingbuilding costs willlikelycurtail homebuilding
further, despite strong demand for housing.
Consumer expenditures will make sizable overall gains in 1970. Most forecasts
predict sluggish markets for consumer durable goods and some cutback for automobiles.
Expenditures for food, other nondurable goods, and services will likely rise. Gains in
consumer expenditures are based largely on prospects for higher after-tax incomes.
The effect on income of a slower growth in economic activity will, according to most
forecasts, be much more than offset by lower taxes and higher social security payments.
These may be adding $12 or $13 billion (annual rate) to after-tax consumer income by
the last half of 1970.
Forecasts for real output in 1970 vary from only small gains--especially through
the first half--to modest cutbacks extending beyond midyear and practically no increase
for the year. Foreca;:;ts indicate some rise in unemployment. They also show a little
slower rise in consumer prices.
Fiscal and monetary developments and action relating to Vietnam and such domestic
problems as poverty, crime, and pollution will be important in shaping the outlook
for 1970 and beyond.
6 FAl\1ILY ECONOl\1ICS REVIEW
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1970
Virginia Britton, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Clothing Expenditures and Prices
Expenditures.-- Expenditures per capita for clothing and shoes reached an alltime
high in 1968 of $230. Preliminary data indicate that this record was broken in
1969. Per capita clothing expenditures will probably rise again in 1970 if incomes increase
as expected. Another reason these expenditures may be higher is that a larger
proportion of the population will be in the 15- to 24-year age group, which usually spends
more than other groups do for clothing.
The increase in expenditures for clothing and shoes is due in part to higher prices
and in part to increased real consumption of these items. Spending per capita in dollars
of constant buying power rose 1.6 percent in 1968 and probably a fraction of 1 percent in
1969. A rise similar to that in 1969 is likely in 1970.
Prices.--After trailingfor many years, the index of pricesfor apparel has risen
for 3 years now at a faster rate than the all-items index of the Consumer Price Index.
The apparel index was 5. 8 percent higher for 1969 than for 1968, the all-items index
5.4 percent higher (see table). As often occurred in the 1960's, price increases in 1969
were less for women's and girls' apparel than for footwear and for men's and boys' apparel.
The respective increases from 1968 to 1969 were 5. 5, 6.1, and 6. 4 percent.
Supplies of Fabrics and Raw Materials
Total fibers.--The quantity of fibers used per person in the United States is estimated
to be about 49.0 pounds in 1969, up from 48.6 pounds in 1968. The increase was
almost entirely in manmade fibers. In 1969, manmade fibers accounted for about 57
percent of total fibers used, cotton 40 percent, and wool 3 percent.
Cotton.--The U.S. cotton crop in 1969 is estimated to furnish at least 93 percent
of expected use in domestic mills and export during the 1969-70 season. Cotton in stocks
will supply the deficit. Use of U.S. cotton in 1969-70 is expected to be a little lower than
in 1968-69 and the least since 1938. Increased use of blends of manmade fibers with
cotton, reduced military purchases of cotton textiles, and large cotton textile imports
are contributing to the decline.
Changes in relative prices of fibers have also contributed to the decline in use of
cotton in recent years. Cotton prices hit a peak in December 196 7. The net price for
cotton, after waste, was considerably higher than the cotton-equivalent price of rayon
and almost as high as the cotton-equivalent price of polyester. The price of cotton has
dropped considerably since late 1967, but the decline has been largely matched by
greater discounts for manmade fibers.
Wool.-- u.s. mills have reduced their use of apparel wool since winter 1968-69
because of increased use of manmade fibers, a lower rate of advance in consumer incomes,
slightly higher prices of raw wool, and decreased military orders. The amount
of apparel wool used in 1969 was about 8 percent less than in 1968. World prod!.lction of
apparel wool is expected to be about the same in 1969-70 as in 1968-69. Mill use in
MARCH 1970
7
Percentage change in selected annual indexes of consumer prices
Index 1965 to 1966 to 1967 to 1968 to
1966 1967 1968 1969
Consumer Price Index --------- +2 .9 +2 .8 +4.2 +5.4
Apparel and Upkeep Index ~ +2 .6 +4.0 +5 .4 +5 .8
Men' s and boys' apparel -- +2 .7 +3.6 +5. 7 +6.4
Women 's and girls' apparel +1.9 +4.6 +5.9 +5. 5
Footwear ----------------- +5 .9 +4 .9 +5. 3 +6.1
~ Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel upkeep
services , for which separate indexes are not available .
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1970 may total about the same as in1969. Competitionfrom manmadefibers is expected
to increase, but lower raw wool prices and larger consumer incomes will aid the use of
wool.
Manmade fibers.--U.S. mills used about 8percentmore manmade fibers in 1969
than in 1968. A further increase is likely in 1970. U.S. producing capacity for manmade
fibers is expected to be 17 percent higher in December 1970 than in March 1969.
Most of the larger capacity will be for nonce.l.lulosic fibers, particularly polyester, and
a small part will be for rayon and acetate. Manmade fibers have gained markets by
large-scale promotion and advertising, more competitive prices, increased supplies,
and improved technology. Blends of manmade fibers with cotton, wool, or other manmades--
such as polyester with rayon--have played an important part in the growing use
of manmade fibers. Polyester-cotton blends amounted to about one-fifth of total production
of cotton broad woven goods (including cotton blends) in 1968 and probably almost
one-fourth in 1969. In the first 11 months of 1969, about 49 percent of total fibers used
by U.S. woolen and worsted mills were manmade.
Leather. --U.S. production of hides (cattle and calves), which was about the
same in 1969 as in 1968, will probably increase slightly in 1970. Prices rose in 1969,
largely due to strong world demand. Continued high demand in 1970 will support high
prices, but generally below the levels of spring 1969. U.S. production of the more important
types of leather declined about 8 percent from 1960 to 1969, while imports and
production of leather substitutes increased. U.S. tanners import about one-half of the
raw calf and sheep skins they use, and most of the goat and exotic skins--such as alligator,
lizard, and deer. Imports of leather and of finished leather products, such as
footwear and handbags, have also increased. Because of the high price of leather and
increased production of leather substitutes, the proportion of U. S.-made shoes in which
leather is used is decreasing. About 71 percent of U.S. -made shoes had leather or
part-leather uppers in 1969 compared with 83 percent in 1960. Only 19 percent in 1969
had leather soles.
Outlook for 1970. --Supplies of clothing and textiles in 1970 will be large and
varied. Producers of manmade fibers and leather substitutes will use enlarged plant
capacity and promotional campaigns to intensify competition with the natural fibers and
leather. Manufacturers and retailers of clothing and textiles wi.l.l be under extra pres-
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
sure to save on purchases, labor, and inventories. However, apparel and shoes will
probably come on the retail market in 1970 at higher prices than in 1969.
New Developments
Flame-resistant fabrics.-- The revised Flammable Fabrics Act of December
196 7 gave the U.S. Department of Commerce authority to develop flammability standards
when the need exists to protect the public from unreasonable risk of death, injury,
or economic loss from fires. In December 1969, the Department issued a proposed
flammability standard for carpets and rugs--the first standard under the revised act.
Rugs and carpets meet the standard if, in a controlled test, a fire goes out after spreading
less than 3 inches . . The National Bureau of Standards developed the standard in cooperation
with consumer, industry, and scientific groups. They tested samples of 43
different carpets and rugs and found that almost two-thirds would be classed as "resistant
to flammability" under the proposed standard. After comments received on the proposed
standard have been evaluated by the Department of Commerce, a final decision
will be made. If adopted, the flammability standard would apply to all carpets available
in this country.
In January 1970, the Department of Commerce issued notice that a flammability
standard may be needed for children's sleepwear, underwear, and dresses. Children
under 6 years of age are injured by clothing fires more often than most other age groups.
The flammability standard would apply to sleepwear, underwear, and dresses through
size 6X and to all fabrics and related materials expected to be used for such apparel.
Industry can provide fire-retardant treatment for cotton, which makes up 85 to
90 percent of children's nightwear. However, the chemicals are relatively expensive
and they increase the weight of the fabric, which affects "hand" (feel and drapability)
of the fabric to some extent. Two processes of durable fire-retardant treatment for
cotton for consumer goods are available. These processes should become cheaper if
they get into volume production. Industry is seeking a satisfactory flame-retardant
treatment for blends of cotton with more than 35 percent polyester. A rayon with a
flame-retardant compound incorporated in the fiber is available, and work is being done
to develop inherently flame-retardantpolyester, acrylic, and nylon fibers. Some flameretardant
treated garments are available. For example, a mail order company and
some stores offer a few items of children's wear that have such treatment.
The Department of Commerce expects soon to issue notice that a flammability
standard may be needed for bedding. Its research indicates a need for a retardant to
prevent smolderingthat causes deaths by asphyxiation, as when a mattress is ignited by
a burning cigarette.
Labeling of textile products.--Two changes have recently been made in the Textile
Fiber Products . Identification Act: ( 1) A rule that went into effect in August 1969
requires that if two manmade fibers are combined in the liquid stage into a single fiber,
the label on the fiber product must state that it is a biconstituent or multiconstituent
fiber and show the percentage of each fiber; and ( 2) an amendment that went into effect
in November 1969added a new generic name--anidex--to the list ofnames used to identify
textile products. Anidex is a stretch fiber and is the first wholly new fiber added
since the act went into effect in 1960.
MARCH 1970 9
For manmade fibers there are now 17 generic (general or family) names that
must be used in labeling, except where two specific names may be used when the fiber
fulfills the requirements. The generic names are as follows:
Cellulosic
Acetate
Triacetate ,!/
Rayon
Nonce llulosic
Acrylic
Anidex
Azlon '!:_/
Glass
Metallic
Modacrylic
Nylon
Nytril y
Olefin
Polyester
Rubber
Lastrile 2/ 3/
Saran
Spandex
Vinal'!:_/
Vinyon
These generic names, which may be accompanied by registered trade marks,
are required on labels on wearing apparel, yard goods, draperies, furnishings, rugs,
and bedding sold in interstate commerce. The labe1 must show the percentage by weight,
in decreasing order, of all fibers that are 5 percent or more of the total, and may mention
fibers that are less than 5 percent if they have a functional significance. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) strives to investigate reports of improper labeling under
the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool Products and Fur Products
Labeling Acts.
The FTC has proposed Trade Regulation Rules requiring that labels telling how
to care for and clean fabrics be sewn to textile products. When such information is given
it is usually on a detachable label or tag that may be lost shortly after purchase. The
proposed FTC rule states that it is unfair competition and a deceptive practice to sell in
commerce any textile product that does not have a permanently attached label giving
clear instructions for proper laundering, cleaning, care, and use. Public hearings on
the proposal were set for January and March 1970.
Product developments.--USDA's Southern Utilization Research and Development
Division (SURDD) is working on several finishes to improve the durable press properties
of cotton fabrics. One effort is to develop a commercially feasible continuous operation
steam-cure process, based on a batch steam-cure process widely used in Europe.
The steam-cure process may mean all-cotton durable press garments will be
about as comfortable as untreated cotton garments. Steam-cure fabrics have better
strength retention and abrasion resistance than those treated by conventional processes,
but wrinkle recovery is so far about the same.
One process being developed at SURDD but not yet ready for commercial use is
expected to produce cottons that dry smoothly when hung on the line damp rather than
dripping wet. This w:ill mean that garments can be hung on a line straight from the
1/ May be used instead of acetate when fiber fulfills requirements.
~/ Not produced in the United States.
3/ May be used instead of rubber when fiber fulfills requirements.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
washer instead of being tumble-dried in a dryer--a big help to the 62 percent of U.S.
households without dryers. (Only 30 percent are without washers.) The new finishing
process involves wetting the fabric with a chemical solution, then curing at relatively
low temperatures.
The growing use of knit goods has prompted research to improve the properties
of cotton knits. Simulated trouser cuffs from circular knit cotton fabric treated with
finishing agents used for durable-press woven fabrics retained their shape, creases,
and smooth, well-tailored appearance even after 30 launderings at SURDD. The cuffs
showed little evidence of damage due to abrasion.
SURDD has shown that mercerizing yarn reduces loss of strength in wash-wear
cotton knits and woven fabrics. Unusually high-strength retention results when washwear
finish is applied to . woven fabrics made from slack-mercerized cotton yarns.
Creases can be made in or eliminated from durable press fabrics by multiple
ironings with wetting steps in between, according to tests at SURDD. Equally effective
for making creases were ironing at the "linen" setting for three 30-second periods when
the fabric was wet with a chemical and for six 15-second periods when it was wet with
water. For eliminating creases, three 60-second ironings of fabrics wet with chemical
were more effective than multiple ironings of fabrics wet with water.
Machine washable wools may soon be available in loosely constructed knitwear
and woven goods. A treatment being developed at the USDA's Western Utilization Research
and Development Division (WURDD) produces materials that do not shrink in
machine washing or tumble drying and that retain their shape and appearance even after
repeated use. Commercial development is underway by a manufacturer of men's knitted
outerwear.
Wool and mohair fibers (from Angora goats) are improved by a treatment that
cuts the slickness that has been a major obstacle to making mohair into fabric. The
tensile strength of the yarn is increased and yarns may be spun more efficiently. The
modified fibers are shrink- and soil-resistant. They absorb water faster than untreated
fibers and feel slightly harsh to the touch, but these drawbacks can be overcome by
chemical treatments WURDD has developed.
WURDD is developing a method of determining consumer attitudes toward "hand"
of fabrics. Panelists will rate fabrics for a specified use as to roughness-smoothness,
stiffness-flexibility, heaviness-lightness, and coolness-warmth. The ratings will be in
terms usable by manufacturers and will help them to produce fabrics that will be pleasing
to consumers.
THE OUTLOOK FOR FOOD IN 1970
Robert M. Walsh, Economic Research Service, USDA
Americans ate a record amount of food per person in 1969 and paid about 5 percent
higher prices for it than in 1968. In 1970, despite the slight increase likely in food
supplies per person, retail prices will again rise--perhaps 3 1/2 to 4 percent--reflect-ing
continued strong demand.
MARCH 1970 11
Most of the gain in food consumption in 1969 was in the crop foods. Consumption
per person was nearly the same as in 1968 for meat and fish, larger for poultry,
and smaller for eggs and dairy products. Continuing trends of recent years, per capita
consumption declined for animal fats and increased for vegetable oils. Other notable
increases were in fresh and processed fruits and processed potato products.
Food from Livestock
Red meat production was at a record level in 1969, but supplies did not keep pace
with population growth. Consumption of red meat per person was 182 pounds compared
with the record 183 pounds in 1968. Beef consumption rose about 1 pound in 1969, but
consumption of all other red meats declined. Consumer demand for meat was tmusually
strong because of higher consumer incomes and general inflationary pressures. Retail
meat prices rose sharply, especially in late spring and summer. Although prices have
moderated since, the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of retail prices for meat averaged
9 percent higher for 1969 than 1968.
In the first half of 1970, per capita consumption of red meat will likely be slightly
lower than a year earlier. Increased beef consumption will be more than offset by reduced
consumption of pork and veal. Retail prices in the first few months of 1970 will
probably continue around fall 1969 levels and well above prices in early 1969. Pork
prices will be up substantially.
Egg production in the first half of 1970 likely will be 2 to 3 percent higher than a
year earlier. Egg prices, which in early winter were the highest since the early 1950's,
are expected to ease as production increases. However, they will continue above yearearlier
levels until later in 1970.
Broiler meat production in 1970 is expected to be above 1969. The margin will
likely be narrower during the last 3 quarters than the first quarter. Retail prices for
broilers are expected to ease somewhat, and may average below 1969 levels.
Turkey meat production during 1970 is expected to be up substantially. However,
cold storage holdings of turkeys on January 1 were one-third below those of a year earlier.
January-to-June turkey prices likely will average moderately higher in 1970 than
in 1969.
U.S. milk production may decline again in 1970. Output in 1969 was down 1 percent
from 1968 and carry-in stocks in 1970 were smaller than in 1969. Per capita use
of milk may continue to decline. Consumption of milk per person declined about 2 percent
in 1969 to an estimated 565 pounds. Most of the decrease was in butter, whole
milk, cream, and evaporated milk. Use per person of low-fat fluid milk and cheese
rose sharply.
Food from Crops
Supplies of wheat, rye, and rice are large. Retail prices of cereal and bakery
products will likely continue the gradual upward trend associated with increasing market
costs.
Consumption of wheat flour is likely to change little in 1970 from the 110 pounds
per person used in 1969. Consumption of milled rice is likely to rise above the 8. 3
pounds per person used in the 1968-69 marketing year.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Supplies of fresh vegetables are smaller in winter 1969-70 than a year earlier,
and prices are considerably higher. Production is lower for a number of hardy vegetables,
including cabbage, carrots, and celery. Freezing temperatures in the South
have caused moderate to severe damage to tender crops such as snap beans, green peppers,
cucumbers, sweet corn, and tomatoes. As usual, domestic production of anumber
of vegetables will be supplemented by imports, mainly from Mexico where winter
supplies are reported to be up moderately.
Supplies of canned and frozen vegetables are relatively large, for big carryover
stocks largely offset reduced packs. Prices, though higher than in 1969, are expected
to remain at moderate levels. Consumption in 1970 likely will approximate 1969's record.
Potato supplies are a little larger for winter 1969-70 than the previous winter due
to heavier storage holdings.
Supplies of most fresh and processed fruits are expected to be substantially
higher during the first half of the year in 1970 than 1969. Retail fruit prices during the
first half year are likely to average slightly lower in 1970 than in 1969.
Supplies of dry edible beans are up moderately. Most of the increase is in white
beans, which are lower in retail price than in 1969. Reduced supplies of colored beans
have raised their prices. Dry pea supplies are the largest in several years. Prices of
dry peas have been down but will likely rise somewhat if exports continue high.
COST OF RAISING A CHILD
Jean L. Pennock, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
In 1966, the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division developed estimates
of the cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 on farms in the South and the
North Central regions. The method of making such estimates has since been refined.
Costs have been developed by region for a farm, rural nonfarm, and urban child, each
in a family with not more than five children and with food expenditures at the level of
USDA's low-cost food plan. This food expenditure sets the general economic level of
the family and results in the selection of families at a comparable level of living, for
families can be assumed to apply the same standards to their spending for food and for
other goods and services.
The data used to develop the cost estimates came from the 1960-61 Survey of
Consumer Expenditures, conducted by the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Costs for each of the child's first 18years and for the entire 18-year period were first
estimated in 1960-61 prices, then updated to 1969 prices. These costs at 1969 prices
for an urban child in the type of family descri?ed above and livin~ in the North Ce~tral
region appear in table 1..!/ Tables 2 and 3 g1ve costs at 1969 pnces for all urbamzations
and regions. Costs have also been computed for a child born in 1951 and reaching
age 17 in 1968, to reflect price changes each year during his childhood (table 4).
1/ The paper from which this article was condensed gives costs at 1961 and 1969
prices for farm, rural nonfarm, and urban children in the specified type of family in
each region (except farm children for the West).
13
MARCH 1970
Table 1.--Estimated costs, in 1969 prices, for raising an urban child in the North Central region,
by age of child, first 18 years
(In family of husband, wife, and no more than 5 children, with food expenditures at level of
low-cost food plan]
Aver-
Age of child Total Housing Medical Educa- Trans- All age
(years) cost Food Clothing y care tion porta- other family
tion g) size
Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Persons
-- -- -- --
Under 1 ---- 1 ,130 190 6o 460 60 0 230 130 4.8
1 --------- 1,170 230 60 460 60 0 230 130 4.8
2 --------- 1,080 220 90 390 60 0 200 120 5. 5
3 --------- 1,080 220 90 390 60 0 200 120 5.5
4 --------- 1,140 280 90 390 60 0 200 120 5.5
5 --------- 1,14o 280 90 390 60 0 200 120 5. 5
6 --------- l,l70 280 130 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
7 --------- 1,220 330 l30 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
8 --------- 1,220 330 130 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
9 --------- 1,220 330 130 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
10 --- - ----- 1,270 380 130 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
11 --------- 1 ,270 380 130 360 60 20 190 130 5.8
12 --------- 1,34o 380 180 360 60 20 200 140 5.6
13 --------- 1 , 380 420 180 360 60 20 200 140 5.6
14 --------- 1,380 420 180 360 60 20 200 140 5.6
l5 --------- 1,380 420 180 360 60 20 200 140 5.6
16 --------- 1,550 470 250 380 60 20 220 150 5.3
17 --------- 1,550 470 250 380 6o 20 220 150 5. 3
Total --- 22,690 6,030 2,480 6,840 1,080 240 3, 64o 2,380 -
Note: Data rounded to nearest $10. y Includes shelter; fuel, light, refrigeration, and water; household operations; and furnishings and
equipment.
g) Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenses .
Whether you will want to use cost estimates in constant dollars--that is, costs
for all ages in prices of a single year--or in current dollars--prices varying with the
year--will depend on the use you plan to make of them. Costs in constant dollars are
useful to persons considering allowances for present costs, such as welfare workers
planning allowances for the support of dependent children; lawyers and courts adjudicating
support for children; and research workers considering the present cost of supporting
the youth of the country or a part of it. The lawyer and court considering past costs
met in raising a child will want costs in current dollars, to reflect prices in the years
the child was growing up. So will the research worker interested in past costs for a
cohort of persons.
At the low-cost level being used in this article, estimated costs in 1969 dollars
for the first 18 years of life range from $19,360 for a rural nonfarm child in the North
Central region to $25, 000 for a rural nonfarm child in the West. These costs compare
with costs ranging from $15,800 to $20,190 for a child born in 1951, at prices current
in each year through his childhood. Here, also, the extremes are a rural nonfarm child
in the North Central region and in the West.
Proportion of Family Income Required per Child
Although costs vary considerably according to where the child lives, some generalizations
about the proportion of family income required per child are possible. Over
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 2. --Estimated costs in 1969 r i ces f · ,
[In family of hu~band wi f~ d' or a ch ~ld s first 18 years, by r egion and urbanization
' ' an no more than 5 children, with food expenditures
at l evel of l ow- cost food plan]
Region and Total
urbanizat i on costs All other
Dol.
y
Northeast Dol.
Farm ---------- 19, 770 6,110 2,180 Rural nonfarm - 5, 500 1, 080 23, 070 6, 070
120 3, 020 1 ,760
2, 500 6,880 920 240 3, 920 2, 540 Urban --------- 19, 520 6, 180 2, 200 5,880
South 900 120 2, 460 1,780
Farm ---------- 21, 690 5, 530 2, 600 5, 940 1,080 240 Rural nonfarm - 21,050 5, 510 2, 400 5, 980
3, 94o 2, 36o
Urban --------- 21 , 360 5, 6oo
920 120 3, 900 2, 220
North Central
2, 4oo 6,34o 1 , 080 240 3, 320 2, 38o
Farm ------- - -- 19, 460 5, 220 2,440 5, 400 1, 080 240 3, 060 Rural nonfarm - 19, 360 2,020
5, 380 2, 240 5, 6oo 900 120 3, 280 1, 840
Urban --------- 22 , 690 6, 030 2, 480 6,840 1 , 080
West 'jj 240 3, 640 2, 380
Rural nonfarm - 25 ,000 6, 060 2, 64o 6, 900 1,260 220 4, 780 3,14o
Urban --------- 23, 380 6, 300 2, 340 6, 920 1,280 120 3, 780 2, 64o
Note : Data rounded to nearest $10. Y Y See footr:ote s 1 and 2 to Table 1 .
1/ Data for farm child in West not available .
the first 18 years, costs per child--in constant dollars at the time of the survey in 1960-
61-- took from 14 to 17 percent of family income. The percentage was lowest for the
farm child in the Northeast and North Central regions. Incomes in these areas had to
be spread to cover somewhat more children than elsewhere.
Annual Variations Because of Age of Child
The cost per year for raising a child generally increases as he grows, even without
taking account of the effect ofprice changes over his lifetime. In 1969dollars, costs
in the 18th year are about 30 to 45 percent higher than in the first year.
Price changes over the life of a child may increase the variation in annual costs.
For example, consider the child born in 1951. In 1951 and 1952, the Korean crisis
caused a sharp rise in prices. Food and clothing prices dropped somewhat after that,
but by 1957 average prices for the groups of goods and services shown in tables 1 and 2
were all back to the 1951 levels or higher. Since 1957 the price trend has been generally
upward, and the rate of increase has been rising. As a result, costs for the child's
18th year in 1968 dollars are 75 to 94 percent higher than costs for his first year in 1951
dollars. This is more than double the difference in 1969 dollars.
Costs for the various categories of goods and services in the family budget do
not all rise at the same rate over the life span of the child. Costs rise most sharply for
food and clothing, the categories for which we have the best basis for estimating cost
per person (USDA fo<?d plans for food and data on clothing for individuals from the Survey
of Consumer Expenditures). No data are available on the shares of housing, transportation,
and miscellaneous goods and services used by each family member. Therefore,
the cost assigned the child is his per capita share of these categories. When costs
are assigned in this way and family spending does not vary in relation to family size,
MARCH 1970 15
Table 3.--Estimated costs for a chil d , in 1969 prices, by age of chil d, region, and urbanization
[In family of husband, wife , and no more than 5 children, with food expenditures
at level of low- cost food plan]
Farm y
Age of child
(years) North .I South IN orth- Central east
-Dol-. Dol . Dol .
Under 1 ---- 920 1,040 930
1 --------- 950 l,OBO 970
2 --------- 910 l,04o 920
3 --------- 910 l,04o 920
4 --------- 960 1,100 9BO
5 --------- 960 1,100 9BO
6 --------- 1,000 1,130 1,020
7 --------- l,04o 1,170 1,070
B --------- l , 04o 1,170 1,070
9 --------- 1,040 1,170 1,070
10 --------- 1,090 1,220 1,130
11 --------- 1,090 1,220 1,130
12 --------- 1 , 200 1,300 1,200
13 --------- 1,230 1,330 1,240
14 --------- 1,230 1,330 1,240
15 --------- 1,230 1,330 1,240
16 --------- 1,330 1,460 1, 330
17 --------- 1,330 1,460 1,330
Total --- 19, 460 21, 690 19,770
Note : Data rounded to nearest $10 . y Data for West not availabl e .
Rural nonfarm
North .l South I North-1 West
Central east
-Dol-. Dol. Dol. -Dol-.
970 1,100 1,100 1,250
1,000 l,l4o 1 ,140 1, 300
910 1,000 l,OBO 1,190
910 1,000 1,080 1,190
960 1,060 1,130 1,250
960 1,060 1,130 1,250
990 l,OBO 1 , 200 1,290
1,030 1,120 1,250 1,340
1,030 1,120 1,250 1,340
1,030 1,120 1,250 1,340
l, OBO 1,170 1, 310 1 , 390
l, OBO 1,170 1,310 1,390
1,170 1,250 1,400 1,500
1,200 l,2BO l,44o 1, 540
1, 200 1,280 l , 44o l,54o
1,200 1,280 1 , 440 1,540
1,320 1,410 1,560 l,6Bo
1,320 1 , 410 1,560 1 , 680
19,360 21, 050 23, 070 25 , 000
Urban
North l South 1 North-1
Central east West
Dol . -Do-l. -Dol-. -Dol-.
1,130 l,OBO 930 1,150
1,170 1,120 970 1,190
l,oBo 1 , 030 930 1,110
l,OBO 1, 030 930 1 ,110
l,l4o l,OBO 990 1,170
1,140 l,OBO 990 1,170
1,170 1 , 090 1,000 1,220
1, 220 1,140 1,050 1,270
1,220 1,140 1 , 050 1 , 270
1,220 1,140 1,050 1,270
1,270 1,190 1,110 1,330
1,270 1,190 1,110 1,330
1,340 l,2BO l,lBO l,4oo
l , 3BO 1,310 1,210 1,430
l,3BO 1,310 1,210 1, 430
l,3BO 1,310 1,210 1 , 430
1,550 1,420 1,300 1 , 550
1,550 1 , 420 1,300 1,550
22,690 21,360 19,520 23 , 3BO
Table 4.--Estimated costs , in prices of year specified, for a child born January 1, 1951, by age of child
[In family of husband, wife , and no more than 5 children, with food expenditures
at level of low- cost food plan]
Age of child Farm Y
(years)
Year
North Ll South !North-
Central east
-Dol-. Dol . -Dol-.
Under l ---- 1951 650 730 660
l --------- 1952 690 7BO 710
2 --------- 1953 670 760 6Bo
3 --------- 1954 670 770 6Bo
4 --------- 1955 710 Boo 720
5 --------- 1956 720 B20 730
6 --------- 1957 770 B70 790
7 --------- 195B B30 930 B50
B --------- 1959 B4o 94o B6o
9 --------- 1960 B50 950 B70
10 --------- 1961 B90 1,000 930
11 --------- 1962 910 1,020 940
12 --------- 1963 1,010 1,100 1,010
13 --------- 1964 1,050 1,140 1 , 060
14 --------- 1965 1 , 070 1,160 l,OBO
15 --------- 1966 1, 100 1,190 1,110
16 --------- 1967 1, 210 l,34o 1,230
17 --------- l96B 1,260 1,390 1,270
Total --- 15,900 17,690 l6,1BO
Note: Data rounded to nearest $10 . y Data for West not available .
16
Rural nonfarm Urban
North .I South !North-~ West
Central east
North .l South I North -~ West
Central east
-Dol-. -Dol-. -Dol-. Dol. Dol. -Do-l. Dol . -Do-l.
6Bo 770 7BO B70 790 760 650 Boo
730 B20 B30 930 B4o BlO 700 B6o
670 750 Boo B6o Boo 760 6Bo BlO
670 750 Boo B6o Boo 760 6Bo BlO
700 7BO B4o 910 B30 790 720 B6o
710 790 B50 920 B50 Boo 730 B70
760 B30 920 9BO B90 B4o 770 930
B20 B90 990 1,050 960 900 B4o 1,000
B30 900 1,000 1,060 970 910 B4o 1 , 020
B4o 910 1,010 l,OBO 980 920 B50 1,030
B90 960 1,070 1,130 1,030 970 910 l,OBO
900 970 l ,OBO 1,150 1,040 9BO 920 1 ,100
990 1,050 l,lBO l,26o 1,130 1, 070 1,000 l ,lBO
1,030 1,090 1,220 1,310 l,lBO 1 ,110 l,04o 1,230
1,050 1,110 1 , 240 1,330 1,190 1,120 1,060 1 , 250
l,OBO 1,140 l ,2BO 1 , 370 1,230 1,160 1,090 1, 280
1,200 1 , 300 l , 44o 1,530 1 ,410 l , 2BO 1,200 1,420
l 250 l 350 l 4_20 1,590 l 470 l34o l_,_24o l 480
l5 , BOO 17,160 lB,B20 20,190 18, 390 l7 , 2BO 15, 920 19,010
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
costs per child tend to drop as family size increases and to rise again when the child is
a teenager and has fewer brothers and sisters at home. This pattern is evident for
housing and transportation costs.
Cost per child in constant (1969) dollars increased more for food and clothing
than for other budget categories between the child's 1st and 18th year.
Relative Importance of the Budget Categories
In general, housing takes a larger share of the total annual cost than any other
category over the child's first 18 years--up to 30 percent. Food is a close second, and
for farm and urban children in the Northeast it exceeds housing. Clothing and the miscellaneous
category that includes recreation and personal care usually take 10 to 12 percent
each, and transportation takes somewhat more. Medical care takes 4 to 6 percent
and education about 1 percent. (College expense incurred before age 18 is not included
here.)
Rural-Urban Differences
When levels of living are held constant, costs in the South are about the same for
the farm, rural nonfarm, and urban child. In the North Central region, however, costs
are appreciably higher for the urban child than for the farm or rural nonfarm child. In
the Northeast and West they are higher for the rural nonfarm than either the urban or
farm child. Food and housing costs are generallyhigher and transportation costs lower
for urban than rural children in the same region. These variations are due in part to
differences in choices families make because of their different needs and preferences,
and in part to variations in price levels.
More Information Available
The report upon which this article was based tells how the estimates of the cost
of raising a child were made and includes detailed tables showing costs by region for
farm, rural nonfarm, and urban children in 1961 dollars and 1969 dollars.
FAMILY USE OF CREDIT
Katherine D. Smythe, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Consumer credit is becoming an increasingly important factor in family finance
as more families use it in larger amounts and in a greater number of forms. For some
families credit is a useful tool; for others it becomes a burden and a source of worry.
Which it will be is determined largely by the thought and planning that goes into its use
and the family's understanding of the responsibilities it involves.
Information about how families make decisions on credit use is needed as background
for developing aids to family financial management. In 1969, th.e Consumer and
Food Economics Research Division and the College of Home EconomlCs of Oklahoma
State University conducted a study to obtain this type of information. Enid, Okla., a
MARCH 1970
17
city of about 45, 000 population, was the area surveyed. The sample included only husband-
wife families in which the couplehad been married a year or more and the husband
was under 45 years old. This age group was selected because, according to previous
studies, younger families are more likely to be using credit than older ones.
The majority of the questions in the interview were on decision-making in the
use of credit, since this type of information was the main object of the survey. As background,
some questions were asked about credit transactions made, types of credit used,
and amounts paid on consumer debts between July 1, 1968 and June 30, 1969--the survey
year. This report gives preliminary data from this part of the survey. (Debts for purchase
of a home were excluded from the study.}
The families.--The survey included 365 families. About 20 percent of these had
a husband under 25 years old and 40 percent each a husband 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 years.
About three-fourths of the families had after-tax incomes between $5,000 and $10, 000.
The rest were fairly evenly divided between those with incomes lower and higher than
this. The wives in one-half of the families were employed at full-time or part-time
jobs. Families of 3 or 4 members were about one-half of the total and families of 5 or
more about one-third.
Payments on consumer debts.-- About 4 out of 5 of the 365 families made payments
during the schedule year on consumer debts assumed that year or still unpaid
from an earlier year. The older families (husband 35 to 44 years old} and those with
more income and education were a little less likely than others to be paying on debts.
Families with nonemployed wives were less likely to be making payments than those
with employed wives.
The amounts paid on debt averaged $634 for the families surveyed and $806 for
those making payments. Families with incomes of $10,000 and over paid more than
those with less income, and families with employed wives paid more than those with
wives who were full-time homemakers.
The percentages of income after tax allocated to payments on consumer debts by
the 365 families surveyed were as follows:
Percent of income (after tax}
paid on consumer debts
None (no debts} ------------------Less
than 5 ----------------------
5 to 9 ---------------------------
10 to 14 -------------------------
15 to 19 -------------------------
20 or more ---------------------Not
known------------------------
Percent of
families
21
16
19
18
13
12
1!1
Families with incomes under $5, 000 were more likely than those with larger
amounts to be paying 20 percent of more of income on consumer debts.
!/ Includes 5 families who were making payments but gave no information on income.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
•
Credit transactions. --Of the 365 families surveyed 211 or 58 percent reported
one or more credit transactions of $100 or more during the year. Almost 60 percent
of these made only one credit transaction, 25 percent made two, and 15 percent made
three or more.
Families making only one credit transaction of $100 or more used loans in 56
percent of these transactions, the installment purchase plan in 40 percent, and a charge
account in 4 percent. Families with income under $5, 000 were the only ones who used
the installment plan more than a loan. (In this paper, "installment plan" refers to
credit arranged with the retailer making the sale; "charge account" refers to what is
often called a revolving or budget account--that is, an account to be paid in monthly
payments over a period of time with interest added.)
Families making. two or more credit transactions during the year were more
likely to use two types of credit than one, and none used all three types. Most often used
was a combination of loan and installment purchase plans. Use of charge accounts may
have been limited by the kinds of goods financed--for example, cars--and the amount of
credit involved--$100 or more--per transaction.
More of the loans used were from banks than from all other sources combined.
Loans used by families with income under $5, 000 were an exception, for about as many
of them were from loan companies as from banks.
Like families in many earlier studies, few knew the rate of interest being charged
on the consumer debts they assumed during the year. When asked what the interest rate
was, the answer was "don't know" for 6 7 percent of the credit transactions. Many more
families seemed to know the extra dollar cost of credit than knew the interest rate.
Future Work
These findings are a small part of the information to be obtained from this study.
They will serve as a background for the: data on family decision making which are being
tabulated at Oklahoma State University under the direction of Dr. Florence McKinney,
project leader at OSU .
MARCH 1970
19
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, December 1969, U. S. average ~
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex- age groups gj Low- cost Moderate - Liberal Low- cost Moderate - Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Do .. Llars Dollars Dollars Dollars Q_o_!!_ars ,LJ_o_g_ars
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years 1/---- 18. 20 23 .10 28 . 30 78 . 60 100.20 122. 60
55 to 75 years ]/ ---- 14.80 19. 40 23 .10 64. 50 83.80 100. 40
Family of 4:
Preschool children ~ 26 . 40 33. 60 40 .80 114.40 145.80 177.10
School children 2/--- 30. 60 39.20 47. 90 132 .70 169.80 207 .80
INDIVIDUALS §./
Children, under 1 year 3. 60 4. 50 5. 00 15.50 19.50 21. 90
1 to 3 years -------- 4. 50 5. 70 6.80 19.60 24.70 29. 60
3 to 6 years -- - ----- 5. 40 6 . 90 8. 30 23. 30 30. 00 36. 00
6 to 9 years -------- 6 . 50 8 . 40 10. 40 28 . 30 36. 30 45 . 20
Girls, 9 to 12 years -- 7 . 40 9 . 60 11.20 32 . 20 41.60 48 . 60
12 to 15 years ------ 8 . 20 10.60 12.80 35 . 40 46 . 00 55. 50
15 to 20 years ------ 8 . 40 10. 50 12.50 36 . 20 45 . 60 54. 20
Boys, 9 to 12 years --- 7. 60 9.80 11.80 32 . 90 42 . 40 51.10
12 to 15 years ------ 8 . 90 11.70 13.90 38. 40 50 . 50 60.10
15 to 20 years ------ 10.20 13. 00 15.60 44 .10 56 .10 67 .70
Women, 20 to 35 years - 7 . 70 9.80 11.70 33. 30 42 . 40 50 .80
35 to 55 years ------ 7 . 40 9.40 11.30 31.90 40 . 90 49 . 00
55 to 75 years ------ 6 . 20 8 .10 9 .60 27 .00 35 .10 41.80
75 years and over --- 5. 70 7 . 20 8 .80 24. 60 31. 20 38.20
Pregnant ------------ 9.10 11.40 13.50 39. 50 49 . 40 58 . 40
Nursing ------------- 10. 50 13.10 15.30 45 .70 56 .80 66 . 40
Men, 20 to 35 years --- 8 .80 11. 20 14. 00 38. 20 48 . 70 60.70
35 to 55 years ------ 8. 20 10. 50 12. 80 35 . 50 45 . 30 55 . 30
55 to 75 years ------ 7 . 30 9. 50 11. 40 31.60 41.10 49.50
75 years and over --- 6 .80 9 .10 11.00 29 .60 39 .60 47 . 70
~ Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW, October 1964. Costs of the plans were first estimated by using
average price per pound of each food group paid by urban survey families at
3 income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use
of Retail Food Prices by Cities, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
gj Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age .
~ 10 percent added for family size adjustment .
Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; child to 9; and boy 9 to 12 years .
~?;y Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; childre
6
n l to 3 and 3 to 6 years .
Costs given for persons in families of 4. For other size families, adjust
thus: 1-person, add 20 percent; 2-person, add 10 percent; 3-person, add 5 percent;
5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person, subtract 10 percent .
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 2.--Cost of 1 week ' s food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost
levels, December 1969, for Northeast and North Central Regions ~
Sex-age groups ~
Northeast North Central
Low- cost Moderate- I Liberal Low-cost Moderate -
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of two, 20 to 35 years 1/---- 19. 80 25 .10 29 .60 18. 50 23 . 00
Family of two, 55 to 75 years }/---- 16. 20 21 . 00 24. 40 15. 30 19.10
Family of four, preschool children !2} 28 . 90 36 . 70 42 . 90 26 . 90 . 33. 30
Family of four, school children~-- 33. 50 42.80 50 . 30 31.10 38 .70
INDIVIDUALS §}
Children, under 1 year ------------- 3.90 5. 00 5. 30 3. 60 4.40
1 to 3 years --------------------- 5. 00 6 . 30 7. 20 4. 60 5. 60
3 to 6 years --------------------- 5. 90 7.60 8 .80 5.50 6 . 80
6 to 9 years --------------------- 7.20 9.20 11.00 6 . 60 8 . 20
Girls, 9 to 12 years --------------- 8 .10 10.60 11.80 7.60 9. 40
12 to 15 years ------------------- 9.00 11.70 13.60 8 . 30 10.40
15 to 20 years ------------------- 9 .10 11.60 13.20 8 . 50 10.30
Boys, 9 to 12 years ---------------- 8 . 30 10.80 12.40 7 .70 9.60
12 to 15 years ------------------- 9. 70 12.90 14.60 9. 00 11.50
15 to 20 years ------------------- 11. 20 14.20 16. 40 10.40 12.80
Women, 20 to 35 years -------------- 8 . 40 10.60 12. 30 7.80 9.70
35 to 55 years ------------------- 8.10 10.30 11.90 7.50 9. 30
55 to 75 years ------------------- 6 .80 8 . 80 10.20 6. 40 8. 00
75 years and over ---------------- 6.20 7 .80 9. 30 5.80 7.10
Pregnant ------------------------- 9. 90 12.40 14.10 9. 30 11.30
Nursing -------------------------- 11.50 14.30 16.10 10.80 12.90
Men, 20 to 35 years ---------------- 9. 60 12.20 14.60 9. 00 11.20
35 to 55 years ------------------- 9. 00 11.40 13.40 8 . 40 10.40
55 to 75 years ------------------- 7.90 10.30 12.00 7.50 9.40
75 years and over ---------------- 7.40 9. 90 11.50 7. 00 9.10
See footnotes l to 6 of table 1, p. 20 .
t
Liberal
plan
Dollars
28 . 20
23 . 00
40 .70
47.80
5. 00
6 .80
8 . 30
10.40
11.20
12.80
12.40
11.80
13.90
15.70
11.60
11.20
9. 50
8.70
13.40
15.30
14. 00
12.80
11.40
11.00
~ >
~
~
M
0
0 z
0
~
0
Table 3. - -Cost of l week's food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost level s ,
December 1969, for Southern and Western Regions !/
South West
Sex- age groups ?} Another
Low-cost low- cost Moderate- Liberal Low- cost Moderate-plan
plan 7/ cost plan plan plan cost plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of two , 20 to 35 years }/---- 16.70 16.10 21.40 26 . 00 18. 40 22 . 30
Family of two , 55 to 75 years ]/- - -- 13. 60 12. 90 18. 00 21 . 30 15 . 10 18. 70
Family of four, preschool children '!J} 24. 30 23 . 40 31. 20 37 . 60 26 .80 32 . 50
Family of four, school children~-- 28 .10 27 .10 36 . 20 44 . 00 31.10 37 . 90
INDIVIDUALS §/
Children, under l year ----- -- -- - --- 3. 30 3. 20 4. 20 4.70 3. 60 4. 30
1 to 3 years --------------------- 4. 20 4. 00 5. 30 6. 30 4. 60 5. 50
3 to 6 years --------------------- 4.90 4.80 6.40 7 .70 5. 50 6 .70
6 to 9 years --------------------- 6 . 00 5. 90 7 .70 9. 60 6 . 60 8.10
Girl s , 9 to 12 years --------------- 6 .80 6 . 40 8 . 90 10. 30 7 . 60 9. 30
12 to 15 years ------------------- 7 . 50 7 . 20 9.80 11. 90 8 . 30 10. 30
15 to 20 years ------------------- 7 . 70 7 . 30 9 .90 11.70 8 . 50 10. 20
Boys , 9 to 12 years ---------------- 6.90 6 . 60 9. 06 10.80 7.86 9. 50
12 to 15 years ------------------- 8.10 7 . 90 10. 70 12.70 9 . 00 11.20
15 to 20 years ------------------- 9. 30 8 . 90 11.90 14. 30 10 . 40 12 . 50
35 to 55 years ------------------- 6.80 6 . 50 8 .80 10. 50 7 . 50 9 .10
55 to 75 years ------------------- 5. 70 5. 30 7.60 8 . 90 6. 30 7.80
75 years and over ---------------- 5. 20 4. 90 6 . 80 8 . 20 5. 70 7. 00
Pregnant ------------------------- 8.40 8. 20 10. 60 12. 40 9. 20 11.00
Nursing ----------------------- - -- 9. 70 9. 50 12. 20 14.10 10 . 70 12. 60
Men, 20 to 35 years ---------------- 8 .10 7.80 10. 40 12.80 8 . 90 10.80
35 to 55 years ------------------- 7 . 50 7. 20 9. 70 11.70 8 . 30 10.10
55 to 75 years ------------------- 6.70 6. 40 8 .80 10. 50 7 . 40 9. 20
75 years and over ---------------- 6.30 6. 00 8. 50 10.10 6 . 90 8 .80
Liberal
plan
Dollars
27 . 60
22 . 60
39. 60
46 . 60
4.80
6 . 50
8 . 00
10 .10
10.90
12 . 40
12 .10
il. 40
13.30
15 .10
11.00
9. 40
8 . 60
13.10
14.80
13.60
12 . 40
11.10
10. 70
oo See footnotes l to 6 of table 1, p . 20.
~ 7/ Special adaptation of low- cost plan especially suitable for food habits in the Southeastern States .
;:1
M
~
SOME NEW USDA PUBIJCATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
Single copies of the following are available free from the Office of Information,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250:
MEAT AND POULTRY--WHOLESOME FOR YOU. HG No. 170.
MEAT AND POULTRY--STANDARDS FOR YOU. HG No. 171.
MEAT AND POULTRY--LABELED FOR YOU. HG No. 172.
MEAT AND POULTRY--CLEAN FOR YOU. HG No. 173.
MEAT AND POULTRY--CARE TIPS FOR YOU. HG No. 174.
HOW TO BUY CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES. HG No. 167.
BUYING YOUR HOME SEWING MACHINE. (Revised) HG No. 38.
A single copy of the following is available free from the Consumer and Food
Economics Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Md. 20782:
o CONSUMER AND FOOD ECONOMICS RESEARCH DIVISION--ORGANIZATION
AND PROGRAM
The following is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
DIETARY LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE NORTHEAST, SPRING 1965.
HFCS-7. $1. 00.
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1969 ISSUES
REGULAR FEATURES
Consumer Prices -------------------------------Consumer
Prices -------------------------------Consumer
Prices -------------------------------Consumer
Prices -------------------------------Cost
of Food at Home----------------------------Cost
of Food at Home----------------------------Cost
of Food at Home----------------------------Cost
of Food at Home----------------------------Some
New USDA Publications---------------------Some
New USDA Publications---------------------Some
New USDA Publications---------------------Some
New USDA Publications---------------------Index
of Articles in 1968 Issues--------------------
MARCH 1970
Page
23
24
24
20
25
23
23
19
21
22
22
18
22
Issue
March
June
September
December
March
June
September
December
March
June
September
December
March
23
CLOTillNG AND TEXTILES
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook
for 1969 ---------------------------------------
Gifts and Handed-down Clothing Important in Family
VVardrobes-------------------------------------
FAMILY FINANCE
BudgetGuides -----------------------------------Budgets
for Three Standards of Living for an Urban
Family of Four --------------------------------Issues
in Income Maintenance Design -------------Poverty
Statistics Revised------------------------Saving
by U.S. Households ------------------------Some
Considerations in Family Credit Decisions---The
Changing Income Distribution-----------------"
Truth-in-Lending" Goes into Effect ---------------
FOOD
Changes Since 1964 in the Estimated Cost of Food
for a Family ----------------------------------
Comparing Costs of Fresh Vegetables and Fruits --Diets
of Low-Income Families--------------------Diets
of Men, VVomen, and Children---------------Money
Value and Adequacy of Diets Compared with
the USDA Food Plans -------------------------New
Developments in USDA Food Programs -------Outlook
for Food in 1969-------------------------Salt
Purchases by Families ----------------------The
Cost of Chicken, VVhole and Parts ------------The
Nutritive Content of Type A School Lunches ---Use
of Apples by U.S. Households----------------Use
of Vitamin and Mineral Supplements -----------
HOUSING
Home Mortgage Debt-----------------------------New
Programs in Rural Housing------------------Price
Index Rises for New Houses----------------Second
Homes in the United States----------------Survey
of Occupants of New Housing Units --------The
Cost of Buying a Home ----------------------U.
S. Housing in 1968-----------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Consumer Education Bibliography Available--------Occupations
of VVomen VVorkers -------------------Rural
Change - Perspective for the 1970's---------Time
Spent in Household VVork by Homemakers----U.
S. Families--Recent Census Findings -----------
16
3
12
19
9
16
5
7
13
21
8
9
3
7
6
10
19
12
22
3
9
5
16
13
18
14
18
14
13
22
10
17
5
3
Issue
March
September
September
June
June
December
June
June
June
June
December
December
March
March
September
March
March
December
September
June
September
June
September
March
September
December
September
September
December
June
September
June
September
December
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEVV
I
I CFE Form T-l9
I Budget Bureau No.: 40-S-700l8
I Approval expires: 6-30-70
I
I
I
I
I
TO OUR READERS : Once in a while we need to evaluate the work we are doing, to
find out if it is still meeting a need, and in the best way possible. We would
appreciate your help in evaluating Family Economics Review. Will you please
fill out this questionnaire and mail it to us? Detach along line at left and
follow mailing directions on the reverse. No postage is required.
I (l)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
I
: (2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ( 3)
I
I
I
I
I
I ( 4)
I
I
I (5)
I
I
I
I (6)
I
Listed below are regular features of Family Economics Review. Please indicate
whether you use these by checking the appropriate box.
Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers
Regularly
D
D
Table showing Cost of Food a~ Home D
U. S. average (quarterly)
Regional averages (annually) 0
List of New USDA Publications D
Sometimes
0
0
D
D
D
Seldom
or Never
D
0
0
D
D
Please indicate below how many of the articles listed in the l969 index
(see opposite page) you read. Do NOT count the regular features listed
in (l) above.
Clothing and Textiles ____ _
Family Finance
Food
Housing
Miscellaneous
If you found any article or articles in the l969 issues especially usefUl,
please list:
Do you file Family Economics Review for future reference?
Do you share it with others?
Yes
Yes
No
No
What is your position: Extension worker: State [] County CJ ;
Teacher : College 0 High school 0 ; Social welfare worker 0 ;
Other ----------------------------------------------------
If you have any suggestions for making Family Economics Review more
useful, please write them on other side of page .
25
Thank you for taking time to fill out this questionnaire!
PLEASE FOLD AS INDICATED, SEAL WITH TAPE, AND MAIL THIS BACK TO US.
NO STAMP IS NECESSARY.
First Fold Line
Second Fold Line (Do not write below this line)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
CONSUMER & FOOD ECONOMICS RESEARCH DIVISION
HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20782
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENPLTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
Family Economics Branch
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
United Stoles Deportment of Agriculture
Consumer & Food Economics Research Division, ARS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 339, Federal Center Building
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earner s and Cl erical Worker s
(1957 -59 = 100)
Group Jan. I Nov. Dec.
1969 1969 1969
All items ------------------------------ 124.1 130.5 131.3 Food --------------------------------- 122.0 128.1 129 .9
Food at home ----------------------- 118.3 123.8 125a8
Food away f rom home ---------------- 140.3 149.0 149.9
Housing ------------------------------ 122.7 129.8 130 .5
Shelter ---------------------------- 128.2 137.7 138.5
Rent ----------------------------- 116.9 120.5 121.0
Homeowner ship ---~---------------- 132.7 144.5 145.4
Fuel and utilities ----------------- 111.7 114.2 114.6
Fuel oil and coal ---------------- 116.7 118.9 119.2
Gas and electricity -------------- 110.2 113.2 113.7
Household furnishi ngs and operation 115.2 119.6 120.0
Apparel and upkeep ------------------- 123.4 130.7 130 .8
Men ' s and boys' -------------------- 124.9 132.1 132 .0
Women ' s and girl s' ----------------- 118.7 127.4 127 .2
Footwear --------------------------- 136.3 143.9 144.4
Transportation ----------------------- 120.7 125 .6 126.4
Private ---------------------------- 117.9 122 .7 123.4
Public ----------------------------- 144.8 151.1 153.0
Health and recreation ---------------- 133.3 139.1 139.6
Medical care ----------------------- 150.2 157.4 158.1
Personal care ---------------------- 123.7 127.8 128 .1
Reading and recreation ------------- 128.4 132. 3 132.7
Other goods and services ----------- 125 .6 133.1 133.5
Source : U. S. Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics .
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1957 -59 = 100)
Item
All items ----------------Food
and tobacco --------
Clothing ---------------Household
operation --·--Household
fUrnishings --Building
materials , house
Feb .
1969
120 124
126
141
121
106
122
124 125 l25
127
143
122
107
122
I
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service •
.. U.S. GOVER"'MENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970-394-)80/FES-66•
MARCH 1970
Jan.
1970
131.8
130.7
126 .6
150.6
131.1
139.6
121.3
146.8
114.6
119.7
114.1
120.1
129.3
130 .8
124.2
144.4
127 .3
123.3
165.1
140.1
159.0
128.5
133.1
133 .9
Feb.
1970
127
27
