Family Economics Review [1976, Number 1]

              I For Building
HIGHLIGHTS/VVINTER 1976
ANNUAL OUTLOOK ISSUE
GENERAL ECONOMIC OUTWOK
THE OUTLOOK FOR FOOD, CLOTHING, AND HOUSING
DIETARY GUIDANCE FOR FOOD STAMP FAMILIES
CONVENIENCE FOODS
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
JAN 2 1 1977
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
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
CURRENT SITUATION AND GENERAL ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK FOR THE FAMILY
by Helen F. McHugh, Dean
College of Home Economics, University of Delaware
In analyzing the general economic situation
of American families, it seems appropriate to
mention some general population character­istics
that may affect the general economic out­look
in the years to come. The working popula­tion
is a smaller part of the total population
today than it was in 1960, and it must support
increasing percentages of young and old. If per
capita earnings are to be maintained, increased
productivity from the working population will
be required. A greater number of women than
men are found in most population segments,
and one in 10 families is headed by a woman.
The amount of education is becoming more
uniform throughout the country; the median
years of school completed was 12.3 in 1974
compared with 9.3 in 1950. The numbers of
people living in nonmetropolitan areas are
increasing and while the population is highly
mobile, moves are occuring at a decreasing rate.
The South leads other regions in the rate at
which new households are being formed.
Current Situation
The number of employed persons increased
by 1.8 million persons between August 1974
and August 1975, yet it is noteworthy that the
larger number represents only one-tenth of one
percent more of the population now in the
workforce. The impact of unemployment falls
with uneven force on different classes of the
population. Young people have borne the
heaviest burden of all. While almost 13 percent
of 16- to 19-year-olds were unemployed in
August 1974, that percentage was nearly 18 a
year later. For nonwhites in this age group the
rate of unemployment was 31 percent in
August 197 5. Classified by occupational cate­gories,
the lowest rates of unemployment in
1 Tables on population characteristics and family
expenditures were contained in this Outlook paper but
are eliminated here because of space. These tables may
be obtained from the Consumer and Food Economics
Institute, Agricultural Research Service. See the
address on page 2.
WINTER 1976
August 1975 were found among the manager­administrator
class (2.7 percent), while the
highest percentage was among construction
workers (21.2 percent). The rates of unemploy­ment
among women 20 years and older are
greater than for their male counterparts in all
categories. The true unemployment rates may
be even higher, as the data do not take into
account those who have become so discouraged
that they no longer are actively seeking work.
The sheer trauma of repeated disappointments
makes this understandable.
Unemployment insurance has reduced the
magnitude of income disruptions for many
workers, but such insurance is far from univer­sal
or fully offsets lost earnings. In 1974, about
55 percent of those unemployed did not re­ceive
insured benefits. In 1975, both the num­ber
of unemployed and the number of insured
increased markedly, and while the number of
unemployed not receiving benefits was higher
in 1975 than in 1974 (by 100,000 people), the
percentage of the unemployed not covered by
benefits dropped to 36 percent. In 1975 there
was a substantial increase in the number of
initial claimants simultaneous with a doubling
of the number who had exhausted their bene­fits.
The average weekly benefits during the last
12 months of record ranged from $62.50 to
$69.00, while the average weekly earnings for
those employed ranged from $157 to $165.
Industrial production of all sorts dropped
sharply in the final quarter of 1974. T.he
decline continued for the most part through
the second quarter of 1975. Preliminary data
have been released for subsequent months
which indicate a reversal back to an upward
trend; yet, leading indicators announced in late
October 1975 show that September 1975
activity was off in several areas. The statistical
practice is that similar directional movement
for 3 months in succession is necessary before
it can be labeled a trend. Simultaneous with
the downtrend in production was the decline in
sales activity coupled with a working off of
inventories in both the retail and wholesale
3
sectors. The unavoidable impact of such direc­tional
shifts in two major areas of activity was
the reduction in employment. Data available at
this time a year ago showed little, if any, of
these directional shifts. Numerical data and
graphs through the second quarter of 1974
showed business and industrial activities con­tinuing
to increase or at least holding constant.
About the only signal of an impending down­turn
was the mood of the people.
Per capita disposable income for the second
quarter of 1975 was $5,055, up $490 from the
preceding year. In 1958 dollars, the equivalents
would be $2,907 and $2,850, respectively,
meaning that if all the personal income were
evenly distributed among the population of the
United States, each person would have had $57
more real purchasing power this year than last
in 1958 terms.
Using 1967 (the base point of the Consumer
Price Index) as a base, the average wage earner
in the United States received in July 1975 the
equivalent of $115.74 (1967 dollars) weekly,
whereas his earnings a year earlier would have
measured $119.16 (1967 dollars)-a slight drop
in the wage earner's purchasing power.
Incomes, however, are not evenly spread.
Median family incomes in the South in 1973
were approximately $1,400 below the national
figure, while in the other regions the medians
were up to $800 above. Nonwhite families
experienced still greater variances, with the
median for that group $7,596 in 1973, almost
$4,500 below the figure for the United States
as a whole. Another important consideration is
the number of families whose income is sub­standard.
Using $6,000 as the breakpoint and
making no allowance for family size, nearly
one-fifth (19.2 percent) of the families in the
United States would have been classed as sub­standard
incomewise in 1973. Almost 25 per­cent
of the families in the South have incomes
of $6,000 or less, while only 17 percent of the
families in the Northeast had such limited
resources. Almost 42 percent of Negro families
have incomes in the $6,000 or less category,
and the percentage increases to 52 percent for
Negro families living outside metropolitan
areas.
Despite the high levels of unemployment
and the irregular earnings in some occupations,
the levels of personal consumption have risen.
4
Personal consumption expenditures by the end
of the second quarter of this year were at an
annual rate $70 billion higher than a year earli­er.
This increased rate was almost equally
divided between the purchase of nondurables
and services. The dollar purchases for durables
remained, in essence, unchanged.
The recently released report of the 1973
survey of Farm-Operator Family Living
Expenditures provides more specialized infor­mation
for rural families. Data from that study
reflect the changing allocations among expendi­ture
categories. One of the more notable
changes was an almost 50 percent reduction in
the percentage spent for clothing (from 13.0 to
7.0 percent between 1955 and 1973). A per­centage
increase of similar magnitude for trans­portation
shifted that expenditure category to
the third largest for the average farm family.
While the higher prices for vehicles would
explain part of the percentage increase for
transportation, some may be attributable to
upgrading types of vehicles or through the
addition of more vehicles per family. The high­er
allocations for maintenance and operating
costs were recorded before any impact from
the 1973 oil embargo. The amount of travel
may have changed from the previous survey
period (1955).
Data on spending for food by farm families
in the 1973 survey are consistent with Engel's
Law that families with higher incomes spend
more dollars for food but a smaller percent
than the lower income families. Food was the
only major expenditure category where
expenditures varied much among the farm
classes.
Shelter was a relatively constant share
among the income classes, with the least vari­ation
in dollar amounts spent by families for
household operations. Relatively small num­bers
of families had purchased major appliances
during the survey period.
Expenditures for clothing are puzzling from
the standpoint of the dollar allocations among
the different age groups. The modest dollar
outlays for the younger family members may
reflect the ability of the household members to
adapt items for younger members of the fami­lies.
Another related element may be the
source of over 50 percent of the family's
income. Since so much is earned off the farm,
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
clothing expenditures for older family mem­bers
may relate directly to the generation of
that income. Another factor may be that
because of the rapid growth among children
below 16 years lower priced garments are pur­chased.
That seems to me the weakest explana­tion
since no readymade garments are inexpen­sive
nowadays.
In comparing the expenditures for all farms
between the two survey periods, outlays for
medical care declined about 0.6 percent, while
the costs for personal insurance increased by a
bit more. Is it possible that personal insurance
now covers a greater share of the medical costs
so that, in essence, only a shift among cate­gories
has occurred? The percentage outlays for
the different farm classes suggest this even
more strongly in that the relationship between
the two categories appears to be inverse.
Expenditures for education appear to have a
positive correlation with income levels. The
nature of the increased expenditure may reflect
differences in the sources of education.
General Economic Outlook
You have heard about all that can be said
about what is; now comes the tough part of
trying to suggest what may be.
Unemployment poses as a persistent prob­lem
that may have only gradual improvement.
Large numbers of those without jobs at this
time last year are still unemployed. For many,
the condition of unemployment appears to
feed upon itself and to almost defy remedy.
This state of affairs is particularly grim for that
group of young people who have been unable
to obtain any work experience. When recovery
begins and jobs become available, the well­known
tendency of the employer is to choose
those with experience. The emotional impact
for some may be more difficult to handle than
the monetary. It is possible that "retraining"
may have to occur for some before they have
ever utilized their previous skills. It must be
recognized, too, that new jobs will not neces­sarily
become available where the potential
workers are located. This can add both expense
and trauma and sometimes the costs are seen as
greater than the benefit of being employed.
The magnitude of the unemployment benefits
in a few instances defer job acceptance. Many
jobs vacated in the last several months have
WINTER 1976
disappeared and will not be revived. As job
prospects brighten, some who currently are not
searching will again become a part of the sta­tistics.
One of the biggest culprits to a resurgence of
business activity at the moment is uncertainty:
What are the oil producers going to charge?
How efficient and safe will the new cars be?
How long will the search for new energy re­sources
be top priority? Will Government truly
institute efficiencies? All these questions come
to bear directly or indirectly on prices, and the
fear of refueling inflation weighs heavily in
many decisions that affect the number of jobs.
It appears that businessmen at last recognize
that some goods and services may be price-elas­tic.
Consumer confidence appears to be on the
way back but, at the moment, is not sufficient­ly
visible to those making the decisions about
cranking up the machinery of production.
Some administration proposals for fiscal
restraint would likely protract the unemploy­ment
problem.
Income changes during the past 12 months
were relatively modest. While average earnings
improved slightly overall, for some it was a
time of regression. States heavily dependent
upon agriculture fared less well. The high levels
of unemployment moderated the demands of
several unions in contract negotiations. It is
doubtful that the same degree of temperance
will prevail for another round of negotiations.
Signs are that 1976 and beyond will see
increased earning levels on the average.
Important to this prediction is the fact that
some 66 million income recipients (not all
employed) receive automatic adjustments in
income with increases in the cost of living. The
pervasiveness of such adjustments has implica­tions
for future income levels that are not clear
to me. Such an approach to income changes
(costs of production when interpreted from
another vantage point) is an added force in the
cost-price spiral. Current prices, at least in
some instances, neither reflect the representa­tive
costs of production nor the worth of the
goods to the potential consumer: Furthermore,
many items included in the so-called cost-of­living
index can hardly be considered essential
to one's survival. The arguments for adjusting
salaries and wages according to changes in some
partly related apparatus are no more logical
than a faculty member or executive asking for
5
a salary adjustment because he wants to send
his children to a private school. Yet, this
approach already is deeply. engrained in our
economy. The point of this digression is that
income changes cannot be totally separated
from the price structure.
Many questions have been asked in recent
weeks about the probable magnitude of price
changes in the offing. Unfortunately, very few
answers have been forthcoming. A most
important element to future price changes is,
of course, the price of oil. So many of our
products are petroleum-based that changes in
the price of gasoline at the pump is almost
insignificant except that such changes reflect
the magnitude of accompanying changes that
will occur in other segments of the economy.
In short, an increase in the price of crude oil
will have a manifold effect on the overall com­modity
price level.
Any number of stories could be related
about families who greatly reduced their fuel
consumption only to have the total fuel costs
increase. A contributor to the drastic change in
utility prices is the automatic fuel adjustment
which allows utility companies to pass on to
the consumer the increased cost for fuels to
furnish the power. The hazard of this auto­matic
arrangement is the removal of any inc en­tive
for the producer to negotiate for cost
savings in this major factor of production cate­gory.
Since negotiations require time which has
its own costs, the utility company finds it
easier to pass the buck on. This reflects the
absence of competitive forces with the usual
result of higher consumer prices.
Food and fuel prices will hold the key for
consumers. Much has been written about the
increasing prices for food; yet, one seldom sees
mention of the fact that only a small, small
portion of the increase represents increases in
the prices paid to farmers for the raw
commodities (only $1 out of $104 increase in
the average 1974 food bill went to the farmer).
Decisions about the control of prices of both
natural gas and domestic oil will influence the
magnitude of price changes for a broad range
of products in addition to gasoline and heating
fuels. If prices are decontrolled, double digit
inflation is assured. The most recent available
data show an 0.5 point decline in the wholesale
price index for farm products, while processed
6
foods and feeds increased nearly two index
points. The largest increase in any category
comprising the index was for fuels and related
products which advanced almost 6 points
(about 2 percent).
Earlier discussions referred to regional issues,
and one of growing concern is the fact that the
South which has the lowest average income is
now confronted with the highest index of
prices . The economic challenger for individuals
and families in that r egion will be especially
acute. However, no region will find it easy to
keep income and expenditures in balance.
Perhaps the most positive indicator found
among all the statistics reviewed is that the
level of saving as a percentage of disposable
income increased to 10.5 by the end of the
second quarter of 197 5 from 7.4 percent just
12 months earlier .
The attitudes of consumers can affect the
level of economic activity. In September 1975,
the NEW YORK TIMES undertook a survey of
how consumers see their current situation and
what they expect for the future. In the main,
attitudes expressed remained positive but more
modest than previously. The highest level of
optimism was among young nonwhites,
especially those well educated . Young women
and professionals generally see the future as
still better than the present. The older people,
especially those who have had irregular work
experience, drew negative conclusions about
the future. While the American dream seems a
bit tarnished for some, it remains bright for
others. Other reports of increasing confidence
have appeared from time to time. No doubt,
some positive value can result from this
optimism.
Sources: Council of Economic Advisers, Economic
Indicators, 1975. The New York Times, October 30
and 31, 1975 (two-part series). U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Family Economics Reuiew, Summer 1975. u.s:
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Ser ­vice,
Social and Economic Characteristics of the Popu·
lation in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970, AER
No. 272, 1975; The Reuiual of the Popula t ion Growth
in Nonmetropolitan America, ERS 605, 1975. U.S.
~epartment of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Ser­VIce,
Farm-Operator Family Liuing Expenditures for
1973, 1975. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the Census, Some Recent Changes in American Fami­lies,
Current Population Reports, Special Studies,
Series P-23, No. 52; Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1974, (95th edition), 1974. U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and
Earnings, vol. 22,. No.3, 1975. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Bulle­tin,
October 1975. United States Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, The Economic and Social
Condition of Non metropolitan America in the 1970's,
94th Congress, First Session, 197 5.
POPULATION GROWTH IN NONMETROPOLITAN AREAS
The population grew faster in nonmetro­politan
areas than in metropolitan areas be­tween
April 1970 and July 1973, reversing a
long-term population trend of rural to urban
migration. During this 3-year period, popula­tion
in nonmetropolitan areas grew 4.2 percent
compared with 2.9 percent in metropolitan
areas. Among the reasons for population
growth in rural areas and small towns are
decentralization of manufacturing and other
industry; increased settlement of retired
people; expansion of State colleges; more
recreation activity; and a higher birthrate in
nonmetropolitan areas. Also, urban areas have
lost their appeal for many people.
The highest population growth rates in
nonmetropolitan areas were for counties adja­cent
to metropolitan areas ( 4. 7 percent),
although the population in counties not adja­cent
to metropolitan areas grew at a rate of 3.7
percent, still well above the metropolitan
growth rate of 2.9 percent. Counties in non­metropolitan
areas that included a city of over
25,000 people had a higher growth rate than
completely rural counties ( 4.2 and 3.0 percent,
respectively).
Increased retention of population in non­metroplitan
areas is characteristic of almost
every part of the United States. Although there
were still nearly 600 nonmetropolitan counties
declining in population in the 1970-73 period,
this was less than half as many (1,300) as
declined in the 1960's.
The decentralization of manufacturing has
been an important factor in transforming the
rural and small town economy, especially in
the South. During the 1960's about half of the
job growth in nonmetropolitan areas was in
manufacturing. Since 1969, however, jobs in
trade and nongoods production have grown
faster than those in manufacturing.
WINTER 1976
Another important factor in nonmetropoli­tan
development has been the growth of recre­ation
and retirement activities, often occurring
together in the same localities. The most rapi­dly
growing class of nonmetropolitan counties
in the 1970's are those in which there was a net
inmigration of 15 percent or more from 1960
to 1970 of white residents who were 60 and
over in 1970. Although a number ofthese
counties are in Florida and the Southwestern
belts, the spread of retirement settlements to
other regions (upper Great Lakes, the Ozarks,
Central Texas, the Sierra Nevada foothills, and
the east Texas coastal plain) is characteristic of
recent years. Many of these areas have also
attracted younger families because of the cli­mate
or employment opportunities.
The expansion of State colleges and univer­sities
in nonmetropolitan areas has also contrib­uted
to the growth of the nonmetropolitan
population by increasing the availability and
quality of higher education in those areas and
making the towns with schools more attractive
for development.
The declining birthrate has influenced the
reversal in the population trend. The birthrate
has declined since 197 0 primarily in the most
metropolitan parts of the country. Births in the
heavily populated Northeast, North Central',
and Pacific States decreased by 5.2 percent,
·while births in the South and Mountain West,
areas with twice as many nonmetropolitan resi­dents,
increased by 3.5 percent.
Source : Beale, C.L. The Revival of Population
Growth in Nonmetropolitan America. Economic
Development Division, Economic Research Service,
USDA. imS-605, June 1975.
7
THE OUTLOOK FOR FOOD SUPPLIES AND PRICES
by Kenneth R. Farrell
Deputy Administrator
Economic Research Service
In no period in recent history has the U.S.
food industry undergone such economic stress
as in the period 1972-75. Caught in the conflu­ence
of erratic domestic and foreign produc­tion,
rising consumer demand, the energy crisis,
and pervasive inflationary pressures throughout
the world, food prices, marketing costs, and
consumer expenditures soared at rates which
most of us would have thought inconceivable
just a few years ago. In September 1975 the
Consumer Price Index for all food stood at
177 .8-an increase of 42 percent in 3 years. In
1972 the farm food marketing bill totaled $75
billion. We expect the bill to approximate $100
billion in 1975, an increase of one-third. In
1972 consumers spent about $123 billion for
food. We expect them to spend about $181
billion in 1975, an increase of 47 percent in
3 years.
For all of 197 5, food prices will average
close to 9 ~rcent above 1974. This compares
with annual rates of increases of about 14%
percent in each of the preceding 2 years.
Among major food groups, cereal and bakery
products will average about 12 percent above
1974. Meat and poultry prices will average
8 percent, dairy products and fruits and vegeta­bles,
about 4 percent, and sugar and sweets,
about one-fourth above their respective 1974
averages.
Higher farm prices, likely for meat animals,
·poultry and eggs, and dairy products, likely
will account for about one-half ot the 1975
food price rise. Wider marketing spreads,
primarily associated with crop-related foods,
will account for the other half.
Farm-retail spreads reached record levels in
the first quarter of 1975. For the year as a
whole we expect the spread on our food mar­ket
basket to widen about 8 percent, compared
with 20 percent in 197 4. During the past
2 years, large increases have occurred in costs
of packaging, transportation, energy, labor, and
most other inputs used by food marketing
firms. However, price increases for some inputs
have slowed in 1975 as inflationary forces in
~he economy eased.
8
Prices of intermediate goods and services
purchased by food marketing firms rose about
5 percent from the fourth quarter of 197 4 to
the second quarter of 1975, compared with
almost 11 percent for the same period a year
earlier. Prices of packaging materials, which
account for one-eighth of total marketing
costs, held almost steady following the substan­tial
boost last year. Energy costs continued to
go up, but the rate slowed markedly. Interest
rates on short-term loans declined during the
first half of the year and currently are substan­tially
lower than a year ago, thus lowering the
cost of financing inventories and other capital
outlays.
The largest expense of food marketing firms
is direct labor costs. Increases in hourly earn­ings
of food processing, wholesaling, and retail­ing
employees the past year have been about
9 percent, compared with an average annual
rate of a little over 6 percent since 1970. The
rate of increase in hourly earnings slowed
slightly in the first half of this year compared
with a year earlier, but rising labor costs con­tinued
to exert upward pressure on farm-retail
spreads.
Personal consumption expenditures for food
likely will total around $181 billion in 1975,
up about one-tenth from last year reflecting
mostly price increases and population growth.
This compares with increases of 14.6 percent in
1974, 16.4 percent in 1973, and annual
increases of 2 to 8 percent in the late sixties
and early seventies.
Away-from-home expenditures are increas­ing
more rapidly than those for food-at­home-
a reversal from the situation of the last
2 years and a return to the typical pattern of
the decade ending in 1972. Away-from-home
expenditures will account for about 21 percent
of total food expenditures, only marginally dif­ferent
from the situation of the last 8 years.
USDA expenditures for domestic food
programs now represent 4 percent of personal
consumption expenditures for food. In the
1974-75 recession, they demonstrated how
they help to maintain demand for food.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Prospects for 1976
With harvesting of the very large 1975 crop
essentially complete, the outlook for food sup­plies
and priGeS through mid-1976 will be
heavily influenced by the manner in which
these crops are utilized and their offset on live­stock
production. Of particular importance is
the extent to which livestock and poultry pro­ducers
decide to increase output utilizing this
year's larger feed crops. These decisions, in
turn, will depend partly on the level of foreign
demand for U.S. grain and soybeans. With
record crops now assured, total supplies of
these commodities are sufficiently large to per­mit
both increased livestock feeding and an
expanded level of exports, including reported
and anticipated sales to the Soviet Union. How­ever,
the uncertainty surrounding the relative
growth in these two outlets must be recog­nized.
Under the conditions which now seem
most likely, food prices are expected to rise
at an annual rate of 4 to 5 percent during the
first half of 1976, or an average rate of a
little over 1 percent per quarter. First quarter
prices may rise at a slightly faster pace as
output of meat and poultry declines in the
face of strengthening domestic demand and
increasing processing and marketing costs.
However, the rate of increase is likely to slow
from the first to the second quarters as output
of fed beef, pork, and poultry expands.
Seasonal price increases for fruits and
vegetables, as well as higher marketing and
transportation costs, likely will account for
most of the small average price advance
expected for the second quarter.
Marketing spreads, which have increased in
all but 2 of the past 20 years, can be expected
to continue to advance in the first half of
1976, but probably at a slower pace than in
1975 and certainly slower than in 1974. The
rate of increase may slow to around 5 percent
from year-earlier levels. This compares with
year-to-year rise of about 11 percent for the
first half of 1975.
Despite general economic recovery antici­pated
in the first half of 1976, several major
inflationary pressures may impact on the cost
of marketing food . The marketing bill for U.S.
farm foods may average 6 percent higher in
WINTER 1976
1976 than in 1975. Major contributors to this
rise will be increased costs of:
• Labor-up 6 to 8 percent.
• Packaging materials-up about 5 percent.
• Other costs-up about 7 percent due
chiefly to energy and transportation.
Productivity should improve slightly due to
greater volumes of food marketed and help
restrain increases in these cost elements.
About one-fifth of the workers in the food
marketing industry are covered by major col­lective
bargaining agreements. Between now
and June 1976, agreements covering about a
quarter million of these workers will expire.
Renegotiated agreements, prior wage settle­ment
terms, and cost-of-living adjustments will
continue strong upward wage trends in the
food industry. Settlement terms of collective
bargaining agreements have a far-reaching
effect on the wage structure of the entire sec­tor.
Wages of nonunion and management
employees generally follow changes in collec­tive
bargaining agreements.
Some Longer-Run Issues
Finally, I want to back off from the events
of 1975 and those foretold for 1976 and look
at some current and evolving characteristics of
the food industry that may affect its perform­ance
in the years ahead. I will touch only on a
few highlights. Many others also deserve con-sideration.
·
The year 1975 demonstrates that double­digit
inflation in food prices has not become
inevitable and 1976 offers the hope of an even
lower rate of food price inflation than in 1975.
The events of the last few years emphasize
what we have tended to forget-that a major
source of price instability is natural disaster­droughts,
floods, too much rain, early frosts,
and insects and diseases. This emphasizes one
of the major characteristics of the next
decade-instability-much of it tied to weather
both here and abroad.
A second characteristic obvious from the
events of the past 3 years and much of the
preceding discussion at this Outlook Confer­ence
is the close ties of the entire world in food
supplies and prices. The Commodity Credit
9·
Corporation stocks and similar stocks in Can­ada
and Australia of the fifties and sixties,
which provided the cushion between events
abroad and domestic food prices, have gone
and appear unlikely to reappear as a continu­ous
feature. The emergence of the USSR as a
participant in the world market means that the
tremendous instabilities of grain production in
that part of the world have become a part of
_our uncertainties.
A significant element in instability is infla­tionary
psychology as applied to commodity
prices. With the kind of commodity markets
we have around the world, there is a very
strong tendency for rapid price increases,
which are initiated by natural disaster, or
actions, such as the oil embargo, to be trans­lated
into a much greater runup of prices than
any economist can find a basis for in the under­lying
supply and demand relationships.
Whether it is possible to change markets in a
way that will reduce the effects of such actions
is another question.
Instability cannot be abolished by decree. It
will be with us for some time, perhaps perma­nently,
although hopefully not in the degree
observed in 1973 and 1974. A marketing
system that must cope with instability is very
different from one that must deal only with
small changes, most of which are relatively pre­dictable.
It is a more expensive system, since it
must provide the means of adjustment to insta­bilities
arising from many sources.
What of the long-run trends underlying this
instability? The consensus of prominent agri­cultural
economists seems to be that the long­run
supply price of agricultural products is
moving upward and this is to be expected to
continue. This view was undoubtedly heavily
conditioned by the flattening out of the pro­ductivity
curve for agricultural production
from the mid-sixties to the late sixties. The
more recent increases in productivity would
tend to modify this view if they are continued.
Other important elements in this conclusion
are the energy-intensive nature of agricultural
production and the expectation of fairly steady
rises in energy costs in the foreseeable future.
Another principal element is the virtual com­pletion
of the off-farm migration and the dis­appearance
of the large labor reserves in the
countryside which could lead to more rapid
increases in farm wage rates.
10
Once food products leave the farm, the
elements of instability are less and largely man­made.
The long-term story of marketing
spreads is that they increase at almost the same
rate as consumer prices in the rest of the econ­omy.
The view of the operators of several
large-scale econometric models seems tci be for
about 5 to 6 percent annual increases in the
Consumer Price Index for goods and services
other than food-barring another oil embargo
or similar shocks over the next 5 to 10 years.
Further changes are in prospect in food pro­cessing
and retailing. The supermarket building
boon ended in the early sixties. Marketing
strategy shifted to trading stamps and other
merchandising devices which added to costs. A
boom in convenience stores began which has
now run its course. The next few years will see
a continued movement into larger stores-a
number of these will be "hypermarkets,"
which combine a grocery supermarket with a
department store. This addition of more non­food
items will provide much of the growth
which supermarket firms are looking for with­out
putting as much pressure for expansion on
the food end of the business. To what extent
this will moderate the pressure for price com­petition
remains to be seen.
Productivity is the offsetting factor to higher
input prices. Unfortunately, we have not had
much in the way of productivity to offset the
staggering increases in the input prices for fuel,
packaging, interest and labor, and other inter­mediate
products. Consequently, unit costs
have risen rapidly maintaining the upward pres­sure
on retail prices even as we ~ee farm prices
decline for some commodities. Retail store
capacity has expanded faster than volume.
Consequently, overhead expenses for depreci­ation,
rent, and so forth are raising unit costs as
a result of excess capacity.
These are but a few of the changing charac­teristics
of our food marketing system. Others
might be cited concerning structure, economic
concentration, and the myriad of local, State,
and Federal Government regulations which
overlay the system. We understand only very
poorly the impacts of the changing characteris­tics
upon performance of the food industry.
Certainly such issues deserve high priority on
the agricultural economic research and exten­sion
agendas of the immediate future.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1976
by Virginia Britton
Agricultural Research Service
Clothing Expen~itures and Prices
Annual spending by consumers for clothing
and shoes is estimated to be about $369 per
person in 1975, according to preliminary
figures for the first three quarters of the year
(see table). Although this amount is $19 higher
than in 197 4, about three-fifths of the increase
is accounted for by higher prices rather than by
increased buying.
The price level for apparel and upkeep as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
averaged 5.2 percent higher during the first
9 months of 197 5 than in the same period in
197 4. Among the three apparel subgroups,
men's and boys' clothing averaged 5.2 percent
higher than in 197 4; footwear, 5.1 percent
higher; and women's and girls' clothing, 2.8
percent higher.
Trade reports indicate that retailers and
manufacturers of clothing and textiles recog­nize
the effect on their sales of higher costs to
families of the basic necessities, chiefly food
and fuel, in the past 2 years. 1 For example,
from September 1973 to September 1975,
while apparel and upkeep price levels increased
12 percent, consumers had to adapt their bud­gets
to price increases such as 19 percent for
food at home, 25 percent for medical care, 50
percent for gasoline and motor oil, 38 percent
for gas and electricity, and 79 percent for fuel
oil and coal, as shown by the CPI. While these
price increases affect all consumers, especially
those with restricted or inflexible income, they
affect some more than others: Large families
are particularly hurt by increases in food
prices, older persons by increases in medical
1 Discussion of business trends is based on review
and assessment over several months of news items in
trade sources such as the Daily News Record, Textile
Organon, America's Textiles, American Fabrics and
Fashions, Chemical and Engineering News, and the
Wall Street Journal, as well as trade reports in the New
York Times and Business Week and other publications
of general circulation.
Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes
I
Percent of Aggregate
Per capita expenditures
Years I expenditures for personal
expenditures
consumption Billions Billions
1958 Current 1958 I Current of 1958 of current
I I I
dollars ! dollars dollars dollars j dollars dollars
1966 a o o o o o o o o I 185 204 8.7 8.6 36.4 40.3
1967 0. 0 •••••• 184 213 8.5 8.6 36.6 42.3
1968 • 0 ••••••• 188 231 8.3 8.6 37.8 46.3
1969 •••••••.• I 191 248 8.3 8.7 38.8 50.2
1970 0 0. 0 ...... 191 258 8.2 8.6 39.1 52.8
1971 • • • •• • • •• I 197 277 8.2 8.6 40.8 57.3
1972 • 0 ••••••• 209 302 8.3 8.6 43.6 63.0
1973 •••• 0 0 ••• 220 334 8.4 8.7 46.3 70.2
1974 • 0. 0 •• 0. 0 212 350 8.3 8.5 45.0 74.1
1975 1 ........ 217 369 8.6 8.4 46.3 78.8
1 Preliminary figures--average of estimates for first 3 quarters of 1975
(that is, seasonally adjusted quarterly totals at annual rates).
Source: Department of Commerce.
WINTER 1976 11
care prices, rural families by increases in gaso­line
and motor oil for transportation, and fami­lies
in colder climates by increases in prices for
heating fuel.
Trade papers summarize the retailer's cur­rent
goal as to trim costs and raise profits
rather than simply build sales. To this end, par­ticular
emphasis is given to inventory control
and rapid turnover. Inventories have been
worked down by special sales and clearance
sales and are said to be lower and more bal­anced
than a year ago. Retailers are striving to
hold down inventories by buying closer to the
season and re-ordering more often. Retailers
seek "sure-sellers" or "hot movers," but fewer
big ticket, low-turnover goods or fringe items,
which may mean a smaller variety than in the
past and fewer clearance markdowns. They
want fashion and promotion goods with fresh
inventories and fast turnover, even reducing
quickly the prices of fashion goods. There is
stepped-up merchandising of men's wear that
emphasizes fashion, multiple seasons (at least
four a year), and more flexibility in color,
style, and fabric.
Chain retailers reported good fall1975 sales
in children's apparel and shoes but continued
strong price resistance except in items such as
prewashed denims, corduroy sportswear, and
men's leisure suits. For next spring and
summer, featured items are expected to include
separates and coordinates; color-coordinated
goods in a range of weights; women's scarves,
stoles, shawls, and other items that can be
coordinated; and men's print sport shirts and
casual pants. Leisure suits will vary from casual
to moderately tailored, and sportswear­oriented
clothing is expected to be important
even for tailored clothing.
Retailers purchased about 9 percent fewer
shoes (nonrubber) in the first 7 months of
1975 than a year earlier, according to estimates
from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Pur­chases
from U.S. producers declined, while
imports remained about the same. In August
the U.S. nonrubber shoe industry claimed that
imports caused it "serious injury" and asked
the International Trade Commission to put
mandatory quotas on footwear from some
foreign countries. In the first 7 months of
1975, retailers purchased about 56 percent of
their shoes from U.S. producers-27 percent
with uppers of leather (all or part), 17 percent
12
with vinyl, and 12 percent with other materials
(such as fabric and straw). About 44 percent of
retailers' purchases were imported, including
21 percent with leather uppers, 16 percent
with vinyl, and 7 percent with other materials.
In total, about one-half the shoes had non­leather
uppers, compared with about one-third
in 1970; and most shoes had nonleather soles.
During 1976, price levels for apparel will
probably continue to rise as the economy
revives and as increased costs are passed along.
However, continued pressures on consumer
income, limiting amounts for discretionary
spending, may prevent any large rise in average
spending on clothing in terms of dollars of con­stant
value.
Supplies of Raw Materials2
Prospective supplies of raw materials appear
adequate for the year ahead, and production
capacity is available unless hampered by a
development of shortages of natural gas this
winter. Since August, however, industrial users
of natural gas have been permitted by the
Federal Power Commission to search out their
own supplies.
U.S. mill use of fibers in calendar year 1975
will drop below 50 pound~ on a per capita
basis. This compares with 197 4 use of 52
pounds, including about 16 pounds of cotton,
36 ppunds of manmade fibers, and less than
1 pound of wool. Before the recent recession,
fiber use hit a record of nearly 60 pounds per
capita in 1972.
Although U.S. mills are using less cotton this
year, mill use has been increasing since the low
point reached early in 1975. With general eco­nomic
activity improving in 1976, mill use of
fibers will probably increase from the 1975
level. With the sharply smaller cotton crop
expected for 1975, smaller U.S. cotton supplies
are expected for the current crop year,
August 1, 1975, to July 31, 1976, despite
much larger cotton stocks at the beginning.
However, somewhat smaller exports during the
current crop year will mean adequate supplies
for domestic mills. Prices for most qualities of
2Except where specifically noted, estimates of
supplies were provided by the Economic Research Ser­vice
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
.::otton have risen from the January 1975 bot­tom,
primarily reflecting reduced 1975 crop
prospects, improving demand, and producer
resistance to selling at the previous low prices.
Although current prices are a little above prices
for competitive· rayon and polyester staple,
increasing manmade fiber production cost may
soon narrow the gap.
Shipments of manmade fibers by U.S.
producers have generally been rising in 1975.
Figures for August were approximately 9
percent higher than for July, according to
TEXTILE ORGANON (September 1975).
However, total shipments during the first 8
months of 1975 were about 19 percent lower
than in the same period in 1974. Trade papers
report that several major producers of
polyester filament yarns plan a new round of
price increases effective with November 1975
shipments. Price increases were also scheduled
for rayon staple and for triacetate filament
yarns. Some fiber producers talk of prices
equal to or higher than the 1973-74 highs
because of increasing costs of raw material and
production and of meeting requirements under
new environmental regulations.
U.S. wool production (apparel class) for
1975 is estimated at 10 percent below 1974
and 18 percent below 1973, and the outlook
for 1976 is for continued decline. U.S. farm
prices of shorn wool in 197 5 are running well
below prices in the previous 2 years. There are,
however, very large foreign stocks of raw wool
available, though foreign prices are higher than
U.S. prices. U.S. mill use of raw apparel wool
in 1975 has been running ahead of 1974.
Further increase in wool use by U.S. mills will
depend largely on the level of economic
recovery and the competition of manmade
fibers.
U.S. production of cattle hides in 1975 was
about 10 percent higher than in 1974, accord­ing
to preliminary estimates. The projection for
1976 is for a further 3 percent increase. In
1975 these hides may have been smaller than in
the past because of lower slaughter weights of
range animals than of those finished in feed­lots.
Slaughter weights are expected to be
increasing again in 197 6 as fed cattle slaughter
increases. An increase in the supply of leather
on the market may result from the develop­ment
of techniques for skinning hogs presently
used by some packers and being considered by
others. New techniques for tanning pigskins to
eliminate grease should result in greater use of
this material for leather. Growing fashion for
leather with the individual scratches and mark­ings
of the original hide and for leathers and
suedes of varied colors for garments is seen by
the Tanners' Council.
WARDROBE REPLACEMENT PLANNING AID FOR FAMILIES
A new computer program "Wardrobe
Replacement Planning Aid for Families" has
been developed by the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute. The computer program is
available to Extension workers and others who
work with families to help them schedule
clothing purchases to meet wardrobe needs at a
given budget level. The aid is to be used with
families on low or moderate budgets.
The program takes into consideration the
specific characteristics of the family members
and the amount available to spend for clothing
and constructs, for each family member, a plan
for replacing garments in the wardrobe. The
plan shows the garments to be replaced each
spring and fall for 4 years, the approximate
price that may be paid, and the number of
years each garment is expected to last before
WINTER 1976
replacement. A clothing inventory for e~ch
6-month period shows the number of garments
that will be available for use.
The user of the program analyzes the ward­robe
plan against the needs of each family
member to determine adequacy and makes
adjustments that are necessary to provide a sat­isfactory
plan.
The program is available in interactive mode
on the Computerized Management Network
(CMN). Information about costs and pro­cedures
may be obtained from the Computer­ized
Management Network, Cooperative Exten­sion
Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Va. 24061.
Information on obtaining a program deck to
use on your own system in interactive or batch
mode may be obtained from Mary Lou Cooper,
13
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
(CFEI), Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Md.
20782.
The computer programs "Budgeting for ·
Retirement" and "Can We Afford It?" are still
available in interactive mode on the Computer­ized
Management Network under the program
names "RETIR" and "AFFRD," respectively.
Both programs are also available in batch
mode. The program decks and instructions for
entering the data are available from CFEI.
SITUATION IN HOUSING AND TRENDS AFFECTING THE FAMILY
by Robert J. Sheehan
National Association of Home Builders
Private housing starts for the year 197 5 are
expected to total only 1.15 million units. The
1975 production level will be the lowest since
1946, and it will be 52 percent below the
record production year 1972 when 2.4 million
units were started. In spite of this very low
level, a modest recovery has already begun. Pri­vate
housing starts have moved from an
880,000 unit seasonally adjusted annual rate in
December 197 4 to a 1.25 million unit in the
third quarter of 1975. National Association of
Home Builders' (NAHB) 1976 forecast shows a
continuation of this moderate recovery, with
starts expected to total 1.45 million units.
Why was the housing downturn so sharp and
the recovery so modest? The exceptionally
strong housing production years 1971, 1972,
and 1973 were supported with a very high level
of Federally subsidized units. Total starts
reached over 2.0 million units during each of
these years, and more than 500,000 starts were
subsidized in the 3-year period. U.S. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD) Section 235 and Section 236 programs
for low- and moderate-income families pro­vided
a major share of these subsidized starts.
This high level of subsidies resulted from hous­ing
legislation passed in the late 1960's, when a
housing goal was established, specifying 26 mil­lion
units over a 10-year period. But in late
197 3, the Administration withdrew its support
from the Sections 235 and 236 programs.
The Federal Government's withdrawal of
support to the housing industry was coupled
with an economic downturn and rising infla­tion
through 1974. Interest rates increased, and
savings left thrift institutions for higher yield­ing
government securities. In 197 4, private
14
housing starts dropped to 1.34 million units
from 2.05 million units in 1973. By the end of
197 4, families experienced a significant drop in
personal income in real terms, the threat of
unemployment loomed, and high mortgage
interest rates were connected with the purchase
of a new home. The costs of other housing
expenses, transportation, and food also were
increasing rapidly. The energy crisis and the
jump in oil prices now rested on consumers,
who were faced with much higher utility and
gasoline bills. These factors forced major shifts
in family budgets.
In early 1975, the economy began to turn
around. Savings began to flow back into thrift
institutions at record rates. During 197 4,
Administration programs were funded, and
new legislation was developed, passed, and
funded by Congress-thus, providing some sup­port
to new homes sales.
Administration programs included $10 bil­lion
through the Government National Mort­gage
Association (Ginnie Mae) Tandem Plan,
and a $3 billion special assistance program
through the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Cor­poration
(Freddy Mac). The Tandem Plan pro­vides
below market interest rates for mortgages
insured under FHA and VA homeownership
programs. The Federal Home Loan Bank was
permitted to extend $4 billion in special
advances to member savings and loan associ­ations.
The new legislation was a conventional
mortgage support program, known as the
Brooke-Cranston Bill. It provided $7.5 billion
in funding. The total potential of these pro­grams
was support for over 650,000 single
family sales units. By the end of second quarter
1975, about 175,000 new units had been
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
assisted. Many problems exist with some of
these programs, which probably will never
reach full potential. However, they may have
prevented a total collapse of the new home
sales market.
The 1975 .sales market also received a big
boost from new legislation that allowed a tax
credit of up to $2,000 for the purchase of new
units which were in the inventory no later than
March 26, 1975.
All of this support to the housing market
helped the sales of new one-family homes
climb from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
411,000 units in February 1975 to 463,000
units in March, and to 570,000 units in April.
These programs directed toward new home
sales most certainly have helped the recovery in
single family construction. The seasonally
adjusted annual rate of starts in this sector
climbed 29 percent between the first and third
quarters of 1975, or from 740,000 units to
967,000. The third quarter rate was 85 percent
of the 1.1 million unit single family rate for the
same period in 1973, and it represents a
reasonable level of production at this point in
time.
Mortgage interest rates should soften during
most of 1976, and thus provide further help to
the single family sector. The strong savings
flows in the first half of 1975 were a sign that
mortgage rates would drop in the second half.
Savings and Loan outstanding advances, which
had climbed from $15.1 billion in December
197 3 to $21.8 billion at the end of 197 4, were
decreasing; and Savings and Loans were
rebuilding liquidity. Then at midyear, the
Federal Reserve Board, concerned about
growth in the money supply, turned to restric­tive
monetary policies--and short-term interest
rates began to rise again. This increase in short­term
rates brought the threat of another dis­intermediation
period for thrift institutions
and kept mortgage interest rates at high levels.
The Federal Reserve Board's recent return to
an easier monetary policy should translate into
lower mortgage interest rates in the first half of
1976. They should drop from the present 9 to
9.25 percent levels to an 8.50 to 8.75 percent
range.
Fears of renewed significant inflation and a
stronger demand in the money markets for
capital expenditures and consumer debt will
prevent a sharper drop in mortgage rates. The
WINTER 1976
second half of 1976 should see a stabilization
of these rates and a slight downturn in single
family starts.
The multifamily sector is faced with severe
problems and its recovery is likely to be
restricted. In third quarter 1975, multifamily
starts were at a 292,000 unit seasonally adjust­ed
annual rate, or 68 percent below the 197 3
level of 913,000. This sector has been plagued
by overbuilding of condominium units and
restrictions that have made rental unit con­struction
unfeasible.
Approximately 75 percent of the condo­minium
construction in the United States
occurred in Florida and California in the early
1970's, and Florida alone accounted for more
than 40 percent of the total. A large unsold
inventory, especially in Florida, has resulted. In
Dade County, Fl., (the Miami area) the unsold
inventory is estimated to be 30,000 to 35,000
units. Florida's total new unsold condominium
inventory approaches 90,000 to 100,000 units,
and the level for the entire country is about
17 5,000 to 200,000 units. In 197 3, probably
the peak year for condominium production,
their total starts numbered about 225,000
units. At present sales rates, many Florida areas
have at least a 3-year supply of units. Any sig­nificant
upturn in condominium starts in multi­family
structures will have to result from
penetration of different markets.
Rental units also were overbuilt in most
areas of the country at one time or the other
over the past 10 years. A general statement
that this situation still exists is not true. In
third quarter 197 5, the vacancy rate of all
rental units was 6.2 percent. This represents a
continuation of stability in the rate that has
occurred in the past year. The current rate,
while above the 5.1 to 5.8 percent range of the
1969-73 period, is well below the 8 percent
plus levels of the early 1960's. It is also below
Federal Home Administration's (FHA) 7.5 per­cent
benchmark for underwriting purposes in
which a market can be considered viable.
To a large extent, the lower rental vacancy
rates in the 1969-73 period resulted from
strong growth in primary individual households
among persons who were born during the post
World War II baby boom. The increased rental
vacancy rate in the 197 4-7 5 period has evolved
from inflation and the general economic down­turn,
which led to shrinking real incomes, and
15
then to delays in household formations, or to
doubling up. The economic upturn should
reverse this pattern in 1976. This reversal in
turn is expected to lead to a tightening in the
available rental supply.
A strong upturn in apartment rental units
will have to be accompanied with solutions to a
myriad of problems that confront developers
and builders in this sector. Through zoning and
regulation procedures, environmental and no­growth
groups are putting increasing pressure
on local governments to curtail multifamily
construction. Frequently, rental projects take
18 to 24 months before a spade of dirt is
turned. Fees are also rising rapidly. In Fairfax
County, Va., the water and sewer tap fee for a
single family home increased from $27 5 in
November 1969 to $1,625 by April1975.
The economics of rental construction is not
favorable. Financing charges are quite high.
Cash flows are not keeping pace with mainte­nance
and operating costs. The consumer price
rent index rose 38.4 percent in the 8-year
period September 1967 to September 1975, or
an average annual increase of 4.1 percent. In
comparison, the total Consumer Price Index
rose 63.6 percent, or an average anual increase
of 6.4 percent. Thus rents have increased at a
rate only 60 percent of that of all consumer
expenses .
It is unlikely that 1976 will bring a generally
favorable economic climate for new rental con­struction.
Production will be up but only mar­ginally.
What are some of the longer term effects of
high construction costs, land prices, and energy
costs?
Present demographic trends point toward
increased single family demand at the end of
this decade and into the 1980's. The propor­tion
of persons 25 to 34 years of age will
increase rapidly during this period. Persons in
this age group are prime homebuyers. They will
form families and, although they will not have
as many children as their parents had, they will
probably still demand three bedroom homes.
Costs may push these families toward town­houses
(generally a component of the single
family sector) and away from detached units.
The great American dream will still be a home
rather than a unit in a garden apartment or
high-rise apartment building. The single family
16
market will be helped by increases in family
incomes as more women enter the l~bor force.
At this point in time it might be helpful to
discuss in more detail whether families will be
able to afford new homes. We recently com­pleted
a study which shows that the proportion
of families able to afford a new home in 197 5,
at 22.4 percent, is close to the 22.9 percent
proportion in 1955. Incomes have increased as
rapidly as housing costs.
Rising energy, food, transportation, and
other expenses threaten to force more families
out of the market. How are builders reacting to
this? Their initial reaction has been to reduce
the amenities offered in both new for sale and
new rental units. For example, the proportion
of new homes that had ranges included in the
sales price is expected to drop to 77 percent in
1975 from 96 percent in 1974. This change
was reported in an NAHB survey of builders
last spring. They also reported fewer refriger­ators,
dishwashers, disposals, trash compactors,
washers, and dryers. In the spring survey, these
builders did not report a decline in size of the
homes. Since new units must compete with the
existing inventory, changes will tend to be mar­ginal
and slow. A growing number of builders
are exploring basic homes~units of 1,000 to
1,200 square feet that can be easily added to in
the future. These homes are intended to attract
more moderate income families into the mar­ket.
A combination of basic homes and more
townhouses will tend to lower the median
square feet of floor area in single family homes
in the next few years.
Multifamily construction should have an
increasing condominium component. The tax
advantages of ownership and the restricted eco­nomics
of rental construction will be the
principal causes of this shift.
In fact, the rental sector may be in short
supply by 1977. The present level of vacant
units will decline significantly as the low level
of new construction and completions fails to
keep up with renewed demand as the economy
expands again.
Finally, housing families in the United States
will continue to be a function of our general
economy as it has been in the past. This coun­try's
economic system has many problems
which must be solved to provide stability and
growth on a continuing basis.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SOME NEW USDA CHARTS 1
FAMILY INCOME AND HOUSE PRICES
$THO US.
~970 1971 1972 1973
MEDIAN OA TA • NEW SIIYGLE-r:AMtL Y HOMES SOLD
SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING WIVES
TO FAMILY INCOME
Wife's earnings
1974
MEAN ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME (THOUS.I
OC(:I)PATIQN OF W,£ ffllCtOF HU$8AN0 FIIM/UES1t1TH 60THHUSBAN()Ar.-o Wlff fA!fN/NG 1':.113
S(}IJRC( 8/JR(ItUOFCtNSUS
25
NEG AR$ 6066- 15191;
1 Black and white photographic prints or colored
slides of charts may be ordered from Photography
Division, Office of Communication, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 20250. Slides are 30
HOME MORTGAGE RATE AND MONTHLY PAYMENTS
%INTEREST- ,----
81>
8
7 '12 .I~
1970 '71 '72 '73 '74 • '75 '76
MONTHLY PAYMENTS PER $10,000 BORROWED"
9% $84 10
9 $80 50
81> $76 .90
8 $73.40
570 00
566 60
INCOME BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, 1974
$17.188
MEN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANNUAL MEDIAN INC0YE 1914 FUti.-TIME WORJ>:EifS :J'i Y[MJS AND OVER
SOURCf OEPAAHIENT OF COM«ERCE
cents each and prints are $2.70 (8" X 10" or less).
When ordering, please give negative number, title of
chart, and, if a print , the size desired .
CHARTBOOK ON WORKING WOMEN
"U.S. Working Women: A Chartbook,"
issued by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, presents a wide
array of data on the characteristics of Ameri­can
working women and their changing status
over the past quarter of a century. The chart­book
provides information on women's
WINTER 1976
employment and unemployment, marital and
family status, and income and education.
The chartbook, Bulletin 1880, is for sale for
$1.75 by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 20402. (Stock No. 029-001-01780-4)
17
DIETARY GUIDANCE FOR FOOD STAMP FAMILIES
by Betty Peterkin
Agricultural Research Service
Three of the four revised USDA family food
plans-low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal­were
presented at the Annual Agricultural Out­look
Conference in December 197 4. 1 The
thrifty food plan (table 1), which replaces the
economy plan (the least expensive of the
plans), was released in September 1975.2 The
thrifty plan will be used in the preparation of
guidance materials for the many consumers and
leaders who request information from the
Department on how to economize on food.
The estimated cost for this plan is given in
table 2 and will appear regularly in FAMILY
ECONOMICS REVIEW.
Most families will find the cost for one of
the four USDA plans for a family of their size
and composition similar to the amount they
spend for food at home. For example, in
October 197 5 a family of four with two ele­mentary
school children spent about $38 a
week for the thrifty plan, $50 for the low-cost
plan, $62 for the moderate-cost plan, and $7 5
for the liberal plan.
The phms allow for the number of persons
and the sex and age of persons in the family.
To do this, each plan specifies amounts of
foods of different types (food groups) that
together will provide nutritious diets for men,
women, and children of different ages and for
pregnant and nursing women. These amounts
of food groups can be totaled for persons of
the sex and age of family members to deter­mine
the plan for any family.
Families following the plans may choose
from the food groups those foods that they can
afford, that they can store properly, that they
1 Peterkin, B. USDA Family Food Plans, 1974,
USDA, ARS-NE-36, Family Economics Reuiew, Winter
1975; Peterkin, B., The Food Plans and Family Budget ­ing,
USDA, ARS-NE-36, Family Economics Review,
Spring 1975.
2 Peterkin, B., Chassy, J., and Kerr, R., The Thrifty
Food Plan, USDA, ARS, CFE(Adm.)326, September
1975.
18
know how to prepare, and that they enjoy eat­ing.
Foods within a food group are generally
similar to each other in nutritive value. In some
groups-meat, poultry and fish, for example­one
food in the group may be used to replace
another in a meal. Each group is of special
importance for one or more nutrients or as a
source of food energy. While several food
groups may provide appreciable amounts of the
same nutrient, the cost of providing the nutri­ent
may differ considerably among groups. For
example, foods in both the meat and bread
groups provide iron; but a milligram of iron
from the meat group costs much more than a
milligram of iron from the bread group.
The 1974-75 food plans replace plans
developed in 1964. They take into account
new information about nutritional needs, nutri­tive
values of foods, food prices, and food con­sumption
of families. The thrifty food plan was
developed using the same nutritional goals and
the same procedures as the · three more costly
plans. It differs only in cost level and in the
group of survey households used as the basis
for food consumption patterns in its develop­ment.
For a discussion of the reasons for
revising the food plans, see the Winter 1975
issue of FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW.
Food Consumption Patterns and the RDA
The food consumption patterns used in
developing the thrifty food plan were based on
survey data for persons in households with rela­tively
low food costs. Foods in these patterns
provided the Recommended Dietary Allow­ances
(RDA) plus 5 percent for some nutrients,
but not for others. (The RDA were increased
by 5 percent in evaluating food patterns to
allow for nutrient loss associated with the dis­card
of a small amount of edible food as plate
waste or because of spoilage and the like.)
Patterns for all sex-age categories provided the
RDA plus 5 percent for protein, vitamin A
value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B1 2 ,
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
.~....
:z ...:
~ .....
<C
-.J
0:
.....
<0
Table 1. Thrifty food plan -- Amounts of food for a 'lfeek.:!)
Milk,
Family member I cheese,
ice cream 2
~
Child:
7 months to 1 year 4.95 0.39 1.2 0.15 o.41 o.55 0.09 2.49 §/1.02 0.02 o.o8 o.o4
1-2 years 3.30 .83 3.3 .17 .22 .89 .65 2.26 §/1.02 .31 .78 .24
3-5 years 3.54 .95 2.5 .28 .20 .92 .88 2.28 1.03 .37 .94 .53
6-8 years 4.22 1.27 2.4 .49 .22 1.10 1.23 2. 50 1.12 .62 1.42 .79
9-11 years 4.92 1.61 3.4 .53 .28 1.52 1.48 3.38 1. 34 .81 1.82 1.10
Male:
12-14 years 5.18 1. 79 3.6 .67 .33 1.45 1.59 3.30 1.22 .81 2.07 1.13
15-19 years 5.08 2.35 4.0 .43 .32 1. 70 2.10 3.43 .98 .99 2.36 1.46
20-54 years 2.57 3.03 4.0 .44 .39 1.80 2.02 3.69 .89 .92 2.29 1.33
55 years and over 2.37 2.45 4.0 .25 .51 1.85 1. 75 3.77 1.09 .80 1.90 1.12
Female:
12-19 years 5.35 1.80 3.8 .28 .42 1. 74 1.22 3.61 . 72 .76 1.49 .84
20-54 years 2.81 2.41 4.0 .27 .52 1.86 1.51 3.39 .90 .67 1.41 .67
55 years and over 2.85 1.84 4.0 .19 .60 2.02 1.26 3.73 1.12 .68 1.30 .58
Pregnant ~/5 .2 5 2.69 4.0 .42 .56 2.17 1.89 4.03 1.13 .58 1.41 .66
Nursing V5. 25 3.00 4.0 .38 .57 2.36 1.92 4.27 .98 .63 1.56 .82
1/ Amounts are for food as purchased or brought into the kitchen from garden or farm to prepare all meals and snacks for the 'lfeek.
Amounts allow for a discard of about 5 percent of the ~food as plate 'lfaste, spoilage, etc.
o.o4
.11
.38
.51
.60
.77
1.00
.95
.79
.51
.57
.37
.59
.80
0.19
.30
.74
.94
1.20
1.21
1.05
.86
.94
.74
.57
.45
.58
.75
0.05
.37
.59
.84
1.10
1.45
1. 73
1.24
.73
1.36
1.18
.66
1.48
1.54
g) Fluid milk and beverage made from dry or evaporated milk. Cheese and ice cream may replace some milk. Count as equivalent to a quart of fluid milk:
Natural or processed Cheddar-type cheese, 6 oz; cottage cheese, 2-l/2 lb; ice cream or ice milk, l-l/2 qt; unflavored yoghurt, 4 cups.
11 Bacon and salt pork should not exceed 1/3 lb for each 5 lb of this group.
!!/ Weight in terms of dry beans and peas, shelled nuts, and peanut butter. Count 1 lb of canned dry beans--pork and beans, kidney beans, a;tc.-.,
as • 33 pound.
2/ Includes coffee, tea, cocoa, soft drinks, punches, ades, leavenings, and seasonings.
§! Cereal fortified 'lfith iron is recommended.
~ For pregnant and nursing teenagers, 7 qt are recommended .
~
0
-~ t""
><
?5
0 z
0 :::
@
~
;:i
~
Table 2. Cost of food at home estimated foP food pZans at four aost ZeveZs, OatobeP 1975, u.s. avePagell
Sex-age groups
FAf.!ILIES
Family of 2: 21
20-54 years-:-.•.•.••.......
55 years and over ••....••.
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children--
1-2 and 3-5 years •......
6-8 and 9-11 years •....•
INDIVIDUALS ~
Child:
7 months to 1 year .•......
1-2 years ................ .
3-5 years ....•.•..•....•..
6-8 years ..............•..
9-11 years ............... .
Hale:
12-14 years ........•.•....
15-19 years •..•..•......•.
20-54 years ..•.....•...•..
55 years and over •.......•
Female:
12-19 years •...•..........
20-54 years .............. .
55 years and over .•.......
Pregnant ..•..............•
Nursing ..........•........
22.40
19.90
31.70
38.20
4.40
5.10
6.20
7.90
9.90
10.60
11.70
11.30
9.90
9.40
9.10
8.20
11.30
12.10
Cost for 1 week
29.30
25.70
41.10
49.60
5.40
6.60
7.90
10.20
12.80
13.70
15.10
14.80
12.90
12.20
11.80
10.50
14.60
15.50
36.80
32.10
51.40
62.40
6.70
8.10
9.80
12.80
16.10
17.10
19.00
18.70
16.10
15.10
14.80
13.10
18.00
19.30
44.30
38.50
61.80
75.00
7.90
9.70
11.80
15.40
19.30
20.60
22.90
22.60
19.40
18.10
17.70
15.60
21.50
23.10
97.00
86.50
137.10
165.50
19.10
22.10
26.80
34.30
43 . 00
45.90
50.70
48.70
43.10
40.80
39.50
35 . 50
48.90
52.20
Cost for 1 month
126.80
111.90
177.80
215.00
23.60
28.40
34.10
44.30
55.40
59.30
65.60
64.10
56.00
52.70
51.20
45.70
63.10
67.20
159.50
139.30
222.40
270.30
28.90
35.10
42.30
55.60
69.70
74.30
82.30
81.00
69.90
65.40
64.00
56.70
78.00
83.60
192.10
167.00
267.60
325.30
34.20
42.00
51.00
66.90
83.80
89.30
99.30
97.90
84.30
78.30
76.70
67.50
93.20
100.00
1/ Assumes that food for all meals and snacks· is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for
eaCh plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975
(low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans) issues of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were
first estimated using prices paid in 1965-66 by households from USDA's Household Food Consumption Survey with
food costs at four selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities"
released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2/ 10 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- or 6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7- or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
and ascorbic acid, but patterns for the follow­ing
categories were short in certain nutrients:
Nutrient
Calcium
Iron
Vi tam in s6 1
Magnesium 1
Sex-age category
Teenage girls; women;
men, 55 years and older.
Infants; children, 1 to 2 years;
teenage girls;
women, 20 to 54 years.
Teenage girls; women;
men, 55 years and older.
All, 12 years and older.
1 Evaluation based on rough estimate of content of
food making up food consumption patterns. Content of
this nutrient in many foods in the patterns is not
known.
Fat in consumption patterns of older teen­age
boys, of men, and of women 20 to 54 years
of age provided more than 40 percent of food
energy-the upper limit for fat allowed in the
plans.
To meet nutritional goals within cost limita­tions
for the thrifty plan, adjustments to con­sumption
patterns were required. These adjust­ments
involved the use of less meat, poultry,
fish, and eggs and more dry beans, dry peas,
and grain products. Food consumption pat­terns
for the three more expensive plans also
had nutritional shortcomings, for which adjust­ments
to patterns were required in developing
the plans.
Nutritional Quality of the Thrifty Plan
The thrifty plan provides the RDA plus 5 to
10 percent for food energy and the RDA plus
5 percent or more for protein, calcium, iron,
vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
and ascorbic acid (table 3). Fat provides 30 to
39 percent of the food energy. Nutritive values
for average selections of foods within food
groups, as made by survey households with
relatively low food costs, were assumed in eval­uating
the plan.
The higher iron enrichment level for bread
and flour proposed by the Food and Drug
Administration in 197 3 was assumed in the
development of the thrifty plan (and the three
more expensive plans). If that enrichment level
is not adopted, the nutritional goal for iron will
not be met by the thrifty plan (or the three
more expensive plans) for young children, teen-
WINTER 1976
age girls, and women of childbearing age, when
average selections within food groups are made.
However, the goal can be met through the fre­quent
selection of foods providing important
amounts of iron, such as liver, heart, kidney,
lean meats, shellfish, dry beans, dry peas, dark­green
vegetables, dried fruit, cereals with iron
added, and molasses. Plans for all sex-age cate­gories
provide iron in excess of the amount
specified by the National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council (NAS­NRC)
as likely to be furnished by a balanced
and varied diet---6 mg of iron/1000 kcal-when
current enrichment levels are assumed and aver­age
selections within food groups are made.
Iron-fortified cereal is recommended for
infants and children 1 to 2 years of age.
The vitamin B6 , vitamin B1 2 , and magnesi­um
content of many foods in the plan is not
known. Nevertheless, a rough estimate was
made of levels provided by the plan. Foods in
the thrifty plan (and the three more expensive
plans) furnish more than the RDA for vitamin
B1 2 but do not meet the RDA for vitamin B6
and magnesium for several sex-age categories.
Plans that meet the nutritional goals for vita­min
B6 and magnesium can be developed by
using the food composition data available, but
such plans contain large amounts of vegetables,
fruit, and cereal-two to three times as much as
consumed by some sex-age categories in
1965-66. Such distortion of food consumption
patterns is not justified on this basis. There­fore,
80 percent of the RDA for vitamin B6
and magnesium was used as the basis for goals
in developing all of the USDA food plans.
Phosphorus levels of foods in the plans were
not calculated but are believed to be well above
the RDA. The use of iodized salt is recom­mended
as an efficient way to supplement di~­tary
iodine.
The requirement for vitamin D for normal
persons can be met by exposure to sunlight.
However, for infants and elderly persons whose
activities limit their exposure to sunlight, the
allowance should be provided in the diet by
such foods as eggs, liver, butter, and milk forti­fied
with vitamin D or by supplementation.
Insufficient reliable information is available
on the content in foods of the three other
nutrients for which RDA are set-vitamin E,
folacin, and zinc-to make reliable estimates of
levels provided by the plans.
21
~
~
~ ......
t"'
><
~
0 z
~
@
~
<
~
Under
l year
l-2
years
Food energy I 100 100
Protein I 223 204
Calcium I 166 100
Iron ]_/ 100+ 11 100+
Vitamin A valuel 173 140
Ascorbic acid I 100 100
Niacin 1/ I 194 218
Riboflavin I 271 219
Thiamin I 157 175
Vitamin B6 330 285
Vitamin B12 !!._/ 100+ '!!/ 100+
Magnesium 313 174
Table 3, Nut ritive value for thrifty food plan!! as percentage of the nutritional goal~/
Child
3-5
years
100
182
100
115
134
105
204
166
146
195
286
146
6-8
__Lears
100
200
125
185
120
126
210
171
137
172
244
148
9-ll
years
100
208
126
179
117
157
213
192
144
165
223
143
I 12-14
years
100
198
106
135
100
149
215
172
139
148
184
126
Male
15-19 20-54
years years
100
170
106
152
109
167
204
147
134
118
193
111
100
150
110
257
108
164
224
133
135
115
172
114
55 years I 12-19
or more years
100
130
100
233
110
163
221
133
146
110
159
103
100
159
100
104
131
160
227
164
138
100
170
118
20-54
years
100
147
100
109
132
160
248
156
150
100
157
111
Female
55 years
or more
100
135
100
192
134
167
249
171
151
100
148
108
Pregnant
100
111
101
121
125
146
250
150
125
100
156
100
Nursing
100
132
103
125
ill
116
229
136
127
100
159
100
1) Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for vitamin losses in cooking. Discard of meat drippings and one-half of
the separable fat from meat is assumed. For bread and flour, enrichment levels for iron proposed in 1973 are assumed. Values for niacin for all foods
include niacin in the food and an estimate of the niacin formed in the body from the protein substance, tryptophan. Values for vitamin B6, vitamin B12,
and magnesium are estimated for many foods in the plans because of insufficient information on content of foods.
1/ Nutritional goals are based on the Recommended Dietary Allowances, 1974, for all nutrients except vitamin B6 and magnesium, for which 80 percent of the
RDA is used. The goals, the RDA base plus 5 percent, allows for some discard of edible food. Therefore, the amounts of foods in the plan provide
5 percent more than the percentage shown, if no edible food is discarded. A range of 105 to 110 percent of the RDA for food energy is allowed. Fat ill
limited to provide no more than 40 percent of food energy.
1f Assumes that cereal fortified with iron is used. Percentage varies depending on the level of fortification of cereals used.
!{ Percentage varies depending on level of fortification of cereals used.
Food plans developed to meet the RDA
would be expected to provide generous
amounts of nutrients for most persons. The
NAS-NRC states that the basis for the RDA is
such that "even if a person habitually con­sumes
less than the recommended amounts of
some nutrients, his diet is not necessarily inade­quate
for those nutrients. " 3
Allowances are not specified by the NAS­NRC
for some dietary factors of adequate
diets. An example is linoleic acid, an essential
fatty acid found in large concentrations in
many oils that come from plants. Also, dietary
fiber is necessary for the normal functioning of
the intestinal tract. Good sources of fiber
include whole-grain cereals, fruits, vegetables,
and legumes, such as dried peas and beans.
Planning Meals Based on the Thrifty Plan
Meals based on the thrifty plan will not be
elaborate. They rely heavily on cereal and
bread, and contain less meat, poultry, and fish
and less vegetables and fruit than most families
customarily eat. However, food managers with
interest and skill in buying and preparing food
can serve varied and appetizing_ meals based on
the plan.
The week's menus in table 4 illustrate how
foods in the plan can be combined into appe­tizing
and nutritious meals and snacks. These
meals are prepared from foods in the thrifty
·food plan for four-person families with the av­erage
sex-age composition of those receiving
food stamps.4 Sample meals for a month, with
recipes and lists of food used in their prepara­tion
for a family of four following the plan,
have been prepared and tried by several
families receiving food stamps. These sample
3 Recommended Dietary Allowances 1974, Eighth
Edition. National Academy of Sciences-National
Research Council, 1974.
4The meals presented here are slightly less costly
than the sample meals presented in the Fall 1975 issue
of Family Economics Reuiew, which illustrated the
kinds of meals four-person households receiving food
stamps might be able to afford using the total coupon
allotment for a four-person household in the Food
Stamp Program. The value of the coupon allotment,
based on the cost of the thrifty plan for a household
consisting of husband, wife, and two elementary sch_ool
children, is slightly higher than the cost of the th_n~ty
plan for the average four-person household receiVIng
food stamps because the last plan has proportionately
more young children and women.
WINTER 1976
_meal plans are available upon request from the
Consumer and Food Economics Institute, Agri:
cultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Additional
economical meal plans, allowing for preference
of individual families for foods within food
groups, can be prepared based on the thrifty
plan.
In estimating costs for the thrifty plan, food
selections within food groups are based on
selections of the survey households used in
deriving food consumption patterns for the
plan. Such selections are used, recognizing that
some families following the plan might not
have either the skill or the opportunity to con­sistently
select foods within food groups that
are more economical than those made on the
average by these survey households. Many
families on limited food budgets will have to
change the amounts of food groups they ordi­narily
use to follow the plan. Nutrition edu­cators
can use the plan and materials based on
the plan to encourage families to make these
changes to achieve nutritious diets.
Other Economical Food Plans
The thrifty plan is only one of many nutri­tious
combinations of food groups at
extremely low cost. Amounts of food groups in
consumption patterns could be changed in
other ways to provide nutritious diets. While
such combinations would deviate further than
the thrifty plan from food consumption pat­terns,
they might be acceptable to some house­holds.
Other food plans at the same or lower cost
than the thrifty plan could be developed if
selections of foods within food groups were
limited to only those foods which are the le~st
expensive, rather than selections typical of
those of survey households. For example, the
thrifty plan contains some fluid milk, as was
typical of the consumption of the survey
households. Nonfat dry milk costs only about
half as much as fluid milk, yet provides as
much or more of most nutrients supplied by
fluid milk. Therefore, a plan that assumes the
use of nonfat dry milk exclusively might be
developed at a cost lower than the cost of the
thrifty plan. Or a plan at the same cost as the
thrifty plan might be developed with only non­fat
dry milk and more meat, poultry, and fish
23
t>:l
""'
"%j
~
r
><
~
0 z
-a0: en
~
:5
t%j
~
SUNDAY
B Orange juice
R French toast
E Sirup
A Beverage
K
F
A
s
T
L
u
N
0
H
D
I
N
N
E
R
s
N
A
c
Beef pot roast
Gravy
Mashed potatoes
Mixed vegetables
Bread
Ice milk
Beverage
Beans in tomato
sauce
Macaroni salad
Pear halves
Cornbread
Gelatin
Beverage
Doughnut
MONDAY
Orange juice
Ready-to-eat cereal
Doughnut
Beverage
Grilled cheese
sandwiches
Macaroni salad
Baked apples
Beverage
Beef stew with
vegetables
Cornbread
Ice milk
Beverage
Bread and j elly
sandwiches
Table 4. A week's menus based on the thrifty food plan
TUESDAY
Peaches, sliced
Grits
Cinnamon toast
Beverage
Frankfurters
Sauerkraut
Bread
Oatmeal cookies
Beverage
Beef pie with
vegetables
Refrigerator
biscuits
Lettuce wedges with
dressing
Peanut butter cake
Beverage
Cheese and
saltine crackers
WEDNESDAY
Orange juice
Eggs
Pan-fried potatoes
·Toast
Beverage
Beef macaroni soup
Saltine crackers
Plums
Beverage
Fried chicken
Rice
Gravy
Corn
Bread
Peanut butter cake
Beverage
Doughnut
THURSDAY
Peaches, sliced
Ready-to-eat cereal
Toast
Beverage
Noodle soup
Peanut butter and
jelly sandwiches
Carrot sticks
Graham crackers
Beverage
Beef patties
Baked potatoes
Stewed tomatoes
Muffins
Ice milk
Beverage
Peanut butter cake
FRIDAY
Apple juice
Farina
Toast
Beverage
Frankfurter bean
soup
Saltine crackers
Oatmeal cookies
Beverage
Cheese rarebit on
toast
French-fried
potatoes
Collards
Meringue pie
Beverage
Graham crackers
SATURDAY
Apples, quartered
Pancakes
Sirup
Beverage
Cheese sandwiches
Gelatin (with
apple juice and
celery)
Meringue pie
Beverage
Spaghetti with meat
sauce
Tossed salad
(lettuce, carrots,
dressing)
Bread sticks
Ice milk
Beverage
Ready-to-eat
cereal
K L---------------~----------------~--------------~--------------~--------------~----------------~--------------~
Note : Milk for everyone at least once daily, and for children, teenagers, and pregnant and nursing women, more often .
Spreads for bread and sugar for cereal, coffee , and tea may be added, if desired.
and less dry beans and grain products than the
thrifty plan.
Through guidance materials and nutrition
education programs, families using food stamps
and other families wishing to economize on
food are encouraged to, and may alter their
consumption to, include only the economical
foods within the food groups.5 However, for
purposes of estimating the nutritive value and
the cost of a plan for use nationwide, selections
of foods based on those made on the average
by survey families with relatively low food
costs are believed to be more reasonable.
5 One USDA publication that provides information
on food shopping for consumers interested in econo·
mizing on food is "Your Money's Worth in Foods "
USDA, HG-183. Single copies are available free fro:n
the Office of Communication, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
THE THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND THE FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT
The thrifty food plan has replaced the
economy plan as the basis for the coupon allot­ment
in the Food Stamp Program in the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
The coupon allotment (based on the cost of
the thrifty plan for the family of four with two
elementary school children), eligibility stand­ards,
and purchase requirements for the pro­gram,
effective January 1, 1976, were released
in the FEDERAL REGISTER, December 1,
1975.
AGRICULTURAL HANDBOOK 102 REVISED
A major revision of Agriculture Hand­book
102 "Food Yields Summarized by Differ­ent
Stages of Preparation" by Ruth H. Mat­thews
and Young J. Garrison was published in
September 1975. This handbook updates the
data in the first edition published in 1956 and
provides new data that take into account the
many technological developments that have
occurred in the production, processing, and
preparation of food, as well as changes in
equipment and cooking procedures.
Data in this publication are intended for
reference purposes or to be applied to various
practical problems, such as developing food
plans, estimating food costs, requisitioning
food supplies, establishing food allotments for
needy families, and preparing food-buying
guides for such groups as schools, camps, and
nursing homes. In addition, the data in this
publication are to serve as the principal basis
for values on refuse in the next edition of
griculture Handbook No.8, "Composition of
Foods ... Raw, Processed, Prepared."
Since publication of the first edition of this
handbook there have been a number of changes
that hav affected food yields. For example,
new cultivars have been developed to meet the
WINTER 1976
needs of mechanical harvesting or to improve
economic benefits through greater crop yields
or increased resistance to disease. Leaner type
hogs have been developed in response to the
demand for leaner meat. Numerous freeze­dried
foods, meat analogs, imitation products,
new forms of pasta, precooked cereals, and
various other kinds of manufactured
convenience foods are now marketed that were
no more than ideas a few years ago. The use of
microwave ovens may affect the yield of foods
cooked or reheated in this equipment. "The
internal temperature recommended for cooking
pork (77° C, 170° F) has been lowered,
shortening the cooking time and increasing the
yield of cooked pork. New data reflecting the
effects of these developments on food yields
are given in the revised Handbook 102.
To obtain copies send check or money
order (no cash) for $2.00 per copy to the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern­ment
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
For information on machine-readable tapes of
the data, write: USDA, ARS, Consumer and
Food Economics Institute, Survey Statistics
Group, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, Md.
20782.
25
CONVENIENCE FOODS-1975 COST UPDATE 1
by Larry G. Traub, Economic Research Service
and
Dianne Odland, Agricultural Research Service
With food prices increasing, with real
incomes not improving appreciably, with rising
awareness of good nutrition, with more social
and work demands on the housewife, and with
food processing firms continually introducing
new products, the homemaker's decision on
what foods to buy for her family has become
very complex. Information on the cost differ­ential
between selected convenience or pro­cessed
food forms and their home-prepared or
fresh counterparts can aid the homemaker in
these decisions.
An extensive cooperative study on con­venience
foods was undertaken in the late
1950's by the Economic Research Service
(ERS) and the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The study included foods in fresh , canned,
dried, and frozen forms, representing several
food categories including baked goods, pasta,
and rice; dairy products; meat, poultry, and
fish; vegetables and fruits; and baby food, des­serts,
candy and soups. A total of 247 items
was studied. Cost, comparative yield, nutritive
value, quality, and preparation time of con­venience
foods and their home-prepared coun­terparts
were studied and the results reported
in a series of publications2 that appeared in the
1960's. Average cost per serving figures showed
that 116 out of the 158 convenience foods
studied were more expensive than their home­prepared
counterpart.
1 Convenience foods are defined here as "any fully
or partially prepared food in which significant prepara­tion
time, culinary skills, or energy inputs have been
transferred from the homemaker's kitchen to the food
processor and distributor." Products introduced before
1960 will be referred to as "established" convenience
foods, while those introduced since 1960 will be refer·
red to as "new generation" convenience foods .
2 Chapman, V. J., Sweeney, J . P.,Martin, M. E., and
Dawson, E. H., Fruits: Consumer Quality Characteris­tics,
Yield, and Preparation Time of Various Market
Forms, U.S. Dept. Agr., Home Econ. Res. Rpt. No. 29,
1965. Gilpin, G. L., Murphy, E. W., Marsh, A. C., Daw·
son, E. H., Bowman, F ., Kerr, R . G., and Snyder,
D. G., Meat , Fish, Poultry, and Cheese: Home Prepara­tion
Time, Yield, and Composition of Various Market
26
Food and fuel prices have risen substantially,
the value of homemakers' time has increased,
and a number of "new generation" con­venience
products have been introduced to the
market since the previous study. Therefore,
ERS and ARS conducted a study in 1974 and
197 5 to evaluate cost, volume of sales, home
preparation time and use of fuel, and eating
quality of selected convenience foods and their
home-prepared counterparts. Only ingredient
cost information will be presented in this
paper.
Costs were computed for 295 foods-107
were either home-prepared or fresh foods and
188 were convenience foods of which 162 have
a home-prepared or fresh counterpart. Forty­three
"new generation" convenience foods,
which were not on the market in 1960, were
included in the study.
Laboratory Procedures
Fifty-one food items tested in 1960 were
retested in the laboratory to determine differ­ences
in total yield and proportion of major
ingredients since the previous study. In addi­tion,
laboratory tests were made for 36 "new
generation" convenience foods and for several
other products not previously tested. Most of
the home-prepared counterparts were also
studied. Three tests were conducted for each
product.
Forms, U.S. Dept. Agr., Home Econ. Res. Rpt. No. 30,
1965. Harp, H. H., and Dunham, D. F., Comparatiue
Costs to Consumers of Convenience Foods and Home·
Prepared Foods, U.S. Dept. Agr., Market. Res. Rpt.
No. 609, 1963. King, P. L., Gilpin, G. L., and Dawson,
E. H., Comparison of Several Market Forms of Potato
Products, Jour . Home Econ. 54 (10), 1962. Matthews,
R. H., Murphy, E. W., March, A. C., and Dawson,
E. H., Baked Products: Consumer Quality, Compo­sition,
Yield, and Preparation Time of Vartous Mar/let
Forms, U.S . Dept. Agr., Home Econ Res. Rpt. No. 22,
1963. Sweeney, J . P. , Chapman, V. J ., Martin, M. E.,
King, P. L., and Dawson, E. II. , Vegetables . Con.sumer
Quality, Yield, and Preparation Time o{ Varwus Mar­ket
Forms, U.S. Dept. Agr., Homt' Econ. Res. Rpt.
No. 17, 1962.
FAMILY ECONOMl REVIEW
Convenience products were prepared accord­ing
to package directions, and each home­prepared
item according to a recipe which,
whenever possible, was formulated to contain
the same types of ingredients as the corre­sponding
convenience item. For example, if the
ingredient label of convenience food specified
that it contained butter rather than margarine,
then butter was used in the home-prepared
food. Home-prepared items initially tested in
1960 were prepared using the same recipe as in
the earlier study.
One market brand and container size of each
convenience food available at a retail food
store in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area were tested. Where more than one brand
or size was available, a nationally advertised
brand of medium price and container size was
selected for study. Food containers for the
selected brand were chosen randomly from the
grocery shelves. All foods requiring refrig­eration
were stored at 38° F, frozen items at
0° F, and canned goods at room temperature.
Finished products were weighed t6 the
nearest gram and then grams converted to
ounces. The number of servings per recipe for
the home-prepared product or per market unit
for the corresponding convenience item was
calculated on the basis of equal weight servings.
Individual components of the prepared con­venience
products were weighed, except where
small particle size or consistency of the food
did not permit separation of ingredients. For
example, in the testing of pizza, tomato sauce
and cheese could be separated from the crust
but could not be separated accurately from
each other. Components in the products were
weighed to permit comparison between the
quantity of the most costly ingredients, such as
the amount of shrimp in shrimp newburg.
The cost of each ingredient used in home­prepared
products was based on the actual
amount of food required. For example, in a
recipe which required two cups of cooked
diced chicken, the weight of raw chicken which
must be cooked to obtain this amount was
used for costing purposes. Vegetables that must
be trimmed or pared or canned ingredients that
must be drained before use are other examples
of foods for which yield must be considered.
To allow for differences due to such factors as
variety, ~eographic location, season, container
size, and brand of ingredients consumers com-
WINTER 1976
monly use in recipes, current data on food
yields3 were used in reporting the amount of
food ingredients required for purchase. Because
these data are average figures based on many
samples, it is believed that this manner of
reporting the "as purchased" weights of ingre­dients
gives a more accurate representation
than could be calculated using figures obtained
in only three tests.
Cost Procedures
ERS collected price data for national and
regional volume brand movers and nonbrands
(store brands, private labels, and contract
labels) over 12 months (July 1974 through
June 197 5) from leading food retail chains to res
in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Oakland, and New
Orleans.
The first step in computing costs was to
weight each monthly price per ounce for brand
and chainstore effects. The brand effect is the
ratio of brand food and nonbrand food sales to
their total sales. To compute the brand effect
when both a brand and nonbrand food product
were sold by a given chain in a given city for a
given month, the price of the volume brand
mover was weighted (multiplied) by 0.82; the
price of the nonbrand was weighted by 0.18;
and the two prices summed. These weights
were provided by the National Association of
Food Chains. The weights assume no difference
in brand-effect ratios among products.
Although brand-effect ratios differ among pro­ducts,
unfortunately, no data were available to
compute unique brand-effect ratios for each
product.
The chainstore effect is the ratio of food
sales of an individual chainstore relative to sales
of all participating chainstores that sold the
product in the market. To compute the chain­store
effect for each city during a given month,
the price of a product at each chainstore was
weighted by its respective chainstore ratio. The
weighted prices for each chainstore were then
summed. The sales data for computing chain­store
ratios were from the 1975 GROCERY
DISTRIBUTION GUIDE, Metro Market
Studies, Inc.
3 Matthews, R. H., and Garrison, Y. J. Food Yields
Summarized by Different Stages of Preparation. U.S.
Dept. Agr., Agr. Handb. No. 102, 1975.
27
The second step in computing costs was to
multiply the weighted price per ounce by the
number of ounces of the convenience form, or
by the number of ounces of the ingredients in
the home-prepared formulation for the months
in the given city that all ingredients were availa­ble
to prepare the food. Whenever possible, the
most costly ingredient(s) was(were) held in the
same proportion to all ingredients in the
home-prepared recipe as was found in the con­venience
counterpart. Finally, costs were total­ed
and were divided by the number of servings
of the food product. The result was a compara­tive
cost for equivalent weight servings.
Cost Comparisons
The table presents information on the
comparative cost of selected convenience foods
and their home-prepared or fresh counterparts.
Unless otherwise indicated, the results are aver­age
cost per serving figures computed from
prices collected in four cities for 12 months.
Of the 162 convenience foods studied, only
36 percent had a cost per serving lower than
their home-prepared or fresh counterpart. Only
8 of 43 "new generation" convenience foods
were less expensive than similar products pre­pared
from home recipes. A summary of the
results of the study follows:
• Nearly all of the frozen, chilled, or
ready-to-serve baked goods were more expen­sive
than preparing them from recipes or mixes.
Better than one-half the products made from a
complete mix were less expensive than their
home-prepared counterpart.
• Frozen and chilled cheese pizzas were
about 60 percent more expensive than both
home-prepared and packaged combination
cheese pizzas.
• All forms of margarine were less expen­sive
than butter in bulk or quarters, but mar­garine
in a tub or in a squeeze bottle was higher
in price than stick margarine. Scrambled eggs
prepared from a frozen "cholesterol-free" egg
product were almost twice as expensive as
scrambled fresh eggs.
• All frozen beef entrees and dinners and
two of three skillet main dishes made from
mixes were more expensive than their respec-
28
tive home-prepared counterpart. For con­sumers
desiring to save money by the addition
of soy protein to ground beef patties, soy pro­tein
added to ground beef at the grocery store
was found to render the most savings.
• Eight of nine chicken convenience pro­ducts
were more costly than similar products
prepared from fresh chicken. The cost of
home-prepared, batter-dipped chicken and
chicken meat from whole fryers was less than
one-third that of the convenience products.
Both chicken a-la-king frozen in a pouch and
canned chicken salad spread, two "new genera­tion"
convenience foods, were about 60 per­cent
more expensive per serving than their
respective counterpart. Consumers paid
approximately 40 cents more per serving for
frozen turkey dinner or tetrazzini than for the
separate ingredients to prepare these dishes at
home.
• Frozen fish sticks and crabcakes were less
expensive, but frozen haddock dinner, tuna
noodle casserole, and shrimp newburg in a
pouch were considerably more expensive than
these products prepared at home.
• Of the 37 vegetable convenience products
studied, 16 single ingredient items in the
canned or frozen form were cheaper than their
fresh or home-prepared counterpart. Still, 6 of
these 16 processed vegetables were more
expensive than their fresh form during the
fresh vegetable's growing season.
• Products prepared from dehydrated pota­toes
and frozen vegetable side dishes ~ere more
expensive than similar products prepared from
scratch. But frozen french-fried potatoes were
less expensive than french fries prepared from
fresh potatoes.
• Over 60 percent of the convenience fruit
and berry products had a higher cost than their
fresh counterpart. Frozen orange juice concen­trate
was the best orange juice buy.
The cost of convenience is often a factor in
the consumer's decision to buy a convenience
food or to prepare the product from scratch.
Consumers, however, may also want to con­sider
factors such as nutritive value, family
preferences, culinary skills, and time and equip­ment
available for food preparation.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
~ Cost comparison per serving of seZected home-prepared foods with convenience counterparts, 4-city average, JuZy 1974 to June 1975
z
~
~ ....
<t>
-J m
Product
BAKED GOODS, PASTA, AND RICE
Ba~e?_goods .. . .
Bundt, fudge .......... 1
Devils food ........ . .. I Pound ................ .
Ye~low ............... .
Cook1es, sugar .......... •
Muffins, corn ........... i
Pancakes ... .. ... ........ I
Pie: Apple . .. . .......... \
Cherry ...... . ........ .
Coconut cream ........ .
Rolls, ye,ast ........... .
Waffles .. .. . ........... .
Pasta and Pizza
Pizza: Cheese .......... .
A
ppet.H er ............. i 1 Spaghetti. .. .... . ....... '
Rice
----cooked ... .......... .... .
Parboiled .............. .
Precooked .............. .
Spanish ................ .
Fried .......... . ....... .
DAIRY PRODUCTS
American cheese: Loaf .... .
Sliced . .. .............. .
Individually wrapped ... .
American cheese food: Loaf
Aerosol can ... . ........ .
Butter: Quartered ........ .
Bulk . ... .. .. ..... . .. ... .
Serving
Fresh
I
or home Frozen Canned Ready to Complete Incomplete Other
mix.!./ mixY
0
size prepared
4.10 ...... 15.28
1. 70 ...... 7.92
1.10 ...... 4.09
1. 20 ...... 4.91
0. so ... ... 2.20
1. so ...... 3.82
s. 30 ...... 11.15
4. 70 ...... 12.52
4. so ...... 16.63
5. 00 ...... 13.42
1. 30 ...... 2. 39
3.30 .. .... 6.62
8. 30 ...... 37.31
serve
. .. ........ .... . ....... .... . . ....... .. . ... ..... .. .. . . .. !!.115.76
13.09 ................ .. 12.19 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 5.45
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 55 ............... . ......... . .. .
34.40
20.46
22.42
21.07
3.28
18.47
61.89
24.01
24 . 24
24.40
6.22
7.31
17.70
18.63
19.13
3.55
4.03
3.37
13.13
16.68
. .. ~ 14.04
7.06
3/ 2. 86
~ 6.93
7/ 37.81
I! 58.38
8.30 ................ !!I 126.91
8.87 .. .. .. 22.23 ................ .. 15.89 ........................ . ............... . !} 15.87
3. 35
3.35
3.35
4.46
2.85
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2.00
0.33
0.33
2.89
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.08
12.43 . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. 10.94 .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. If 10.30
13.19 ..... 25.33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 16.53
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .. ~ i~: ~~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ~ ;~:~~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 94
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.86
~ See footnotes at end of table, p. 33.
Co)
0
"'l
-~ r
><
~
0 z
0 ::
fi to
~
-< tSj
~
Cost aomparison per serving of selected home-prepared food with aonvenienae counterparts,
4-city average, July 1974 to June 1975--aontinued
Froduct:
DAIRY PRODUCTS--cont:inued
Cheese, fondue ........... .
Cream, whipping .......... .
Eggs, scrambled .......... .
~1argarine: Quartered ..... .
Soft tub ............... .
Liquid squeeze bottle .. .
Milk, nonfat ............. .
MEAT, POULTRY, AND FISH
Beef
--chili-macaroni,
skillet main dish .... .
Dinner ................. .
Lasagne ................ .
Lasagne, skillet
main dish ........... ..
Meat loaf dinner ....... .
Patties ................ .
Patties, soy protein
added to ground beef--
At home ............ .
At store ........... .
Pie ............... ······
Sloppy Joe sandwich
sauce ................ .
Stew ............ . ...... .
Stroganoff, skillet
main dish ............ .
Pork ---.ram ............. ....... .
Sweet and sour ........ . .
Sausage: Bulk .......... .
Linked ............... .
Chicken
A-la-king .............. .
Batter dipped,
deep fat fried ....... .
Braised whole .......... .
Serving
size
Ounces
2. 72
1.00
4.10
0.33
0.33
0.33
8.47
9.21
11.00
9.80
8.69
9.07
2.67
Fresh
or home
prepared
Cents
Frozen
Cents
Canned
Cents
Ready to
serve
Cents
Complete
mix.U
Cents
Incomplete
mixY
Cents
Other
Cents
2 ~:~~ :::::: ........................................................... l.h! 3 55
14.67 ... ~/26:o7 ........ · .............. · · · .. · .... · · · .. · ................. J'8:6o
...... ....................... · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 14;1/ 111 ..466158 ~ 5:83
9.13 ............................................................. . .... . .
5271..7391 .... .... .. ..7..8..8.8. ........................ . ........................... ~~ 30.41
52.42 ... ~ 84.07
35.33
41.32
21.11
70.16
28.08
':Y ~ 26.20
2.67 .... !!.117 .18
82..0607 .. .. .. .. .. .. ...2.0..7.0.. ........ .... 39:63' ............... .......................... ............. !!./14.99
2.76
8.60
7.96
11.11 ................ ~ 17.02
21.34 .................. 33.70
45.90 '!J~ 47.41
2.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.60 ...................................... . . ~ 28 . 92
5.98 .. .. .. 31.94 ... ~ 52.27 .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . '!../'!./ 58.99
2.00 ...... 29.52 ..... 28.31 ..... 30.91
2.00 ...... 38.44
5. 73 .. .. .. 21.86 ... !!.136.43
2.00
2.00
12.43
24.74
39.30
25.75
See footnotes at end of table, p. 33.
~ z
@
::c
......
(I)
-.J
(!)
~ .......
Cost comparison per serving of selected home-prepared food with convenience counterparts,
4-city average, July 1974 to June 1975--continued
Product
MEAT, POULTRY, AND FISH-­continued
Chicken--continued
Chow mein .............. .
Fried: Cut-up fryers ... .
Whole fryers ......... .
Fried, dinner .... ...... .
Meat ................... .
Pie ............. . ...... ·
Salad, sandwich spread ..
Turkey
Dinner ................. .
Tetrazzini ............. .
Fish and shellfish
Haddock dinner ......... .
Pollock fish sticks .... .
Serving
size
Ounces
6.60 ......
2. 00 ......
2.00 ......
10.07 ......
1.50 ......
7. 70 ......
2.52 ......
12. so ......
8.07 ..... .
11.54 .. ' ...
2.60 .. . ...
Fresh
or home
prepared
Cents
39.13 .....
22.62
25.12
39.94 . ....
Frozen
Cents
54.32 .....
62.70
10.37 ..................
29.28 ..... 35 . 63
Canned
Cents
32.80
31.39
18.75 ............... !!..! 32.89
29. 53 . .. .. 71. 26
41.50 ... '!I 78.57
55.53 ..... 99.96
Ready to
serve
Cents
Complete
mix..!./
Cents
Incomplete
mix'V
Cents
Other
Cents
Tuna noodle casserole .. . 7. 78 ......
34.02 . .. .. 22.43
26.17 ... '!I 67.37 . ............... ...... . ..... ....... .. . ........ . ... . '!I l.Q/ 23.16
Crabcakes .............. .
Crab-deviled ........... .
Shrimp cooked .......... .
Shrimp fried .... ....... .
Partly prepared,cooked
Partly prepared,breaded
Prefried ............. .
Diced and extruded,
breaded ............ .
Shrimp, newburg ........ .
~h;·imp, creole ......... .
IEGETABLES AND FRUITS
Vegetables
Asparagus spears ....... .
Beets: Plain ........... .
Harvard style
Broccoli spears: Plain ..
In butter sauce ...... .
Hollandaise sauce .... .
Au gratin ........... ..
Brussels sprouts ....... .
2.80 ...... 60.36 ..... 52.25
3.11 ...... 29.45 ..... 39.57
2.14 ...... 61.20 ..... 50.39
2.56 ...... 39.74
2.56 ........ . .......... 44.74
2.56 ....... ............ 41.65
2.56 ................... 44.10
2.56
4.20
7.46
2.10
3.20
3.20
3.30
4.23
4.03
5.07
2.70
68.88
38.48
4/ 35.94
ifu2.77
.... ... 59.79
23.07 .. .. . 20.35 ... ..
12.56 ................. .
.. .. .. 13.30 .. .. . 16.02
........ .. ....... ~ 22.08
. .. . .. 18.00 ... !!.../ 25.38
...... 25.50 ... !!... 36.14
. .. . .. 13.79 .. .. . 11.83
5ee footnotes at end of table, 'p. 33 .
50.07
19.52
8.93
7.55
-w
~~
t
':rj
-~ r
><
~
0 z
0
E::
~
~
<
~
Cost comparison per serving of seZected home-prepared food with convenience counterparts,
4-city average, JuZy 1974 to June 1975--continued
Product
VEGETABLES AND FRUITS--Con.
Vegetables--continued
Butter beans ........... .
Carrots: Sliced ........ .
Diced ...... . ......... .
Corn, cut .............. .
Corn-on-the-cob ........ .
Green beans: Plain ..... .
Bulk bag ............. .
Casserole ............ .
Green peas ......... . ... .
Hawaiian-style ......... .
Lima beans ............. .
Pork and beans ......... .
Potatoes: Au gratin . ... .
Boiled, whole ........ .
French fried ......... .
Hash browned ....... . . .
Mashed .... . ....... .. . .
Patties .............. .
Puffs ...... . ..... _ ... .
Scalloped ............ .
Stuffed, sour cream
and chives ......... .
Spinach ........ . .. . .... .
Fruits
Cherrie~red sour,pitted
Coconut ................ .
Cranberry sauce: Strained
Whole ................ .
Grapefruit sections .... .
Lemon juice ............ .
Orange juice ........... .
Orange drink ........... .
Peaches ................ .
Peaches, aseptic can ... .
Pineapple .............. .
Raspberries ............ .
Serving
size
Fresh
or home
prepared I Frozen Canned Ready to I serve
Complete
mixY
Incomplete
mix.Y
Other
Ounces
3.83
2.80
2.80
2.90
6.10
2.30
2.30
4.30
2.80
3.81
2.90
6.86
4.50
4.00
2.00
3 .90
3.50
3 . 10
2.50
4 . 30
5 . 64
3.40
D.! 3.90
0.30
2.40
2.40
3.40
1. 10
4.40
Cents Cents
4.11 ........ . ........ .
6. 76 .. .. ............. .
12.04 . . . . . 11.10
13.24 . . . . . 13.37
.. .. .. .. .. ....8..1..1. ... .. .. . . y 8 . 64 7.94
. . . . . . 20. 98 . . . ~ 25. 09
26.77 . . . . . 11.01
14.70 ... !!.! 20.53
Cents
11.35
9. 74
7.10
11.59
9.58
11.15
28.67 ..... 11.24 ..... 14.40
12.76 · ·· ··· · · · ········· 13.96
Cents Cents Cents Cents
8.46 . .... 25.17 ...... . ... . .. . ... . ... . .. . ... . .. .. ... .. . . ... ... ..... . . .!..Y' 11. 93
3.31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.69
10.01 .. . . . 6.86
4.86 ....... . ..... .. .. . ... . .... .. .... . . . ... . ........................ . .. . d 12.46
3 . 30 . . ...... . ... . ... . ..................... .. ............. . .. ... . ... ... .. ill 4.85
4.04 .... . 11.51
8.29 ..... 6.88
5.06 ........... . . .. . . .... . . . .. . ....... .. ......... . . . .. .... . . . . . ..... . . ]3} 10.74
11 . 52 . . . !!.! 21.84
24 . 75 . . . . . 10.66 13.02
21.78
1.71
7.29
5.54
12.17
7.96
11.90
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.73
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 03
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 88
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.83
... . .......... . .. . 14;.4.06
· · · · · · : · · · · · · · · 1 s/ ~: ~~
4. 29 . . . . . I 6. 60
~ 6.93
4.40
3.70
3.70
3.20
2.60
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !!.! 3. 34 ........ . . . .... . .... .. ........ . . ... .... . . . . . ... ... . . !!.I!:Y 3 . 94
14.59 ..... 26.67 . .... 17.01
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !!./24.07
11.57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .53
23. 34 . . . . . 34. 32 . . . . . 24 . OS
See footnotes at end of table, p. 33.
~ Cost comparison per serving of selected home-prepared food with convenience counterparts,
~ 4-city average, July 1974 to June 1975--continued
:[!:j Product Ser_v.l ng oFr rehosmh e Frozen Canned Ready to Com~lefj Inco~plije I Other I I I I I ~ s1ze prepared serve m1x- m1x _
CT> Ounces Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents
to)
to)
VEGETABLES AND FRUITS--Con.
Fruits--continued
Strawberries: Sweetened
Whole ............... .
Sliced .............. .
Thaw-and-serve pouch.
Unsweetened, bulk bag,
sugar added at home ..
O'IHER
Baby food
Liver, beef ........... .
Peaches ............... .
Peas .................. .
Soups
Split pea ............. .
Condensed ........... .
Ready-to-heat ....... .
Dried, individually
packaged servings ..
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
4. 75
4.75
.. . .. . 20.51 .. 17 ~ 33.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l!../ 33.16
.. ............... !±. 27.47
. . . . . . 29.29
...... /18.76
ll 21.86
...... I 45.33
ll 19.04
~ 21.78
8.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ':!._/ 38.39
44.62
34.03
15.27
16.16
8.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .92
8.48 ............................. !!./27.59
8.48
1
2
3
Requires only milk or water and sometimes additional flavoring ingredient(s) such as vanilla.
Requires eggs and/or other ingredients in addition to the water or milk needed for every dry mix.
Chilled.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Introduced after 1960.
Based on the cost of egg whites only.
Brown and serve.
Packaged combination.
Aerosol can.
Dry.
Skillet main dish mix.
Fully cooked.
Dehydrated.
'!.! 15.81
13
14
15
Weight of serving reported in ounces for drained solids except for cranberry sauces, lemon juice, orange juice, and orange drink.
In plastic container.
Bottled.
16
17
Crystals.
Carton.
18 Prepared from canned goods.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
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 indic~ted.
From Office of Communication:
• HOME CANNING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. G 8. Slightly revised March 1975.
• HOME CARE OF PURCHASED FROZEN FOODS. G 69. Slightly revised May 1975.
• TREES FOR SHADE & BEAUTY: THEIR SELECTION AND CARE. G 117. Slightly
revised April 197 5.
• KEEPING FOOD SAFE TO EAT: A GUIDE FOR HOMEMAKERS. Revised July 1975.
• CONTROL OF INSECTS ON DECIDUOUS FRUITS AND TREE NUTS IN THE HOME
ORCHARD-WITHOUT INSECTICIDES. G 211. July 1975.
• HOME FREEZING OF POULTRY AND POULTRY MAIN DISHES. AB 371. Revised
September 1975.
From Information Division, Agricultural Marketing Service:
• HOW TO BUY CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES. G 167. Revised January
1975.
From Economic Research Service, Division of Information:
• AMERICAN INDIANS IN TRANSITION. AER 283. April1975.
• 1975 HANDBOOK OF AGRICULTURAL CHARTS. AH 491. October 1975.
• VACANT HOUSING-IS IT ADEQUATE AND IN THE RIGHT PLACES? SB 536.
February 197 5.
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE LABOR FORCE
The educational level of the labor force
continues to rise. In March 1975, 7 of every 10
workers were at least high school graduates.
Three of every ten workers had attended col­lege,
and half of these had completed 4 years
of college or more.
Unemployment rates were lowest for col­lege
graduates and highest for high school drop­outs-
3 and 15 percent, respectively-in March
1975. Although unemployment rates increased
for workers at all educational levels between
March 1974 and March 1975, the rise was
34
sharpest among workers who had not com­pleted
8 years of schooling.
As in the past, a greater proportion of work­ing
women than working men were high school
graduates, and black workers lagged behind
white workers in years of schooling completed.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Educational Attainment of Workers, March
1975. Special Labor Force Report, July 1975.
F AMlL Y ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Conswnel' pPiae index fol' zaoban !J.'Jage ea1'ne1's and alePiaa~ !J.'Jol'kel's
(1967 = 100)
Group
All items .•......•..........•
Food ..••.•.•.....•.•...•.••
Food at home •.•..•.......
Food away from home •...•.
Housing .......•....•....••.
Shelter ......•••••..••..•
Rent ..... •..•..••..... •
Homeownership .....•....
Fuel and utilities ..•..• .
Fuel oil and coal •...•.
Gas and electricity ..•.
Household furnishings
and operation .•.•......
Apparel and upkeep ...•....•
~1en 's and boys ' .....•...•
Women's and girls' .....•.
Footwear .......•.•.....•.
Transportation •........•.•.
Private .........•...•....
Public ...•.•.•...........
Health and recreation •.....
~ledical care ...•...•.....
Personal care .•.•••.....•
Reading and recreation •.•
Other goods and services.
Oct. 1975
164.6
179.0
179.3
178.0
169.8
172.5
139.3
184.8
172.0
243.3
174.2
160.9
144.6
143.7
141.6
154.4
156.1
154.8
168.8
156.3
173.5
152.9
146.6
148 .5
Sept. 1975
163.6
177.8
178.2
176.5
168.9
171.6
138.4
183.9
170.9
238.7
174.0
160.1
143.5
142.8
139.9
144.6
155.4
153.9
169.5
155.4
172.2
152.1
146.0
148.0
Aug. 1975
162.8
178.1
179.0
175.3
167.7
170.7
138.0
182.8
168.9
235.7
171.2
158.8
142.3
141.1
138.7
143.9
153.6
153 .4
155.0
154.6
170.9
151.4
144.7
148.1
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of pPiaes paid by fa1'7ne1'8 fo1' fami~y Uving items
(1967 = 100)
Nov. Oct. Sept. Nov. Oct.
Item 1975 1975 1975 1974 1974
All i terns ..........•....•.... 182 180 180 171 167
Food and tobacco ..•••••.... - -- --- 182 --- ---
Clothing •...•......•.•.... · 189 --- --- --- ---
Household operation ..•..... --- 180 -- - --- ---
llousehold furnishings ...... --- 159 --- --- ---
Ruilding materials, house .• --- --- 189 --- ---
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
WINTER 1976
Oct. 1974
153.2
166.1
166.5
164.7
156.7
159.9
132.2
170.1
155.2
225.5
151 .5
149.0
141.1
141.4
140.2
141.7
145.1
144.6
148.8
145.2
156.3
143.0
137.8
141.4
Sept.
1974
166
167
176
161
146
181
35
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
WINTER 1976
CONTENTS
Current Situation and General Economic Outlook for the Family
Helen F. McHugh
Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan Areas ............................ .
The Outlook for Food Supplies and Prices ............................. . ....... ·
Kenneth R. Farrell
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1976 ...................... .
Virginia Britton
Wardrobe Replacement Planning Aid for Families ............................... .
Situation in Housing and Trends Affecting the Family .................. .... .. . ... .
Robert J. Sheehan
Page
3
7
8
11
13
14
Some New USDA Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chartbook on Working Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Dietary Guidance for Food Stamp Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Betty Peterkin
The Thrifty Food Plan and the Food Stamp Allotment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Agriculture Handbook 102 Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Convenience Foods-1975 Cost Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Larry Traub and Dianne Odland
Educational Level of the Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications ................................ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Cost of Food at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
36
This issue is made up, for the most part, of condensations of papers prepared
for the National Agricultural Outlook Conference, held in Washington, D.C.,
November 17-20, 1975. For a free copy of the complete text, send your
request-giving title and author of the Article-to the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Building, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Please give your ZIP
code with your return address.
Issued February 1976.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW