Family Economics Review [1983, Number 4]

              Family
Economics
Review
Editors
Kathleen K. Scholl
Katherine S. Tippett
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
Family Economics Review is published each
quarter by the Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transaction
of the public business required by law of
this Department. Use of funds for this
periodical has been approved by the
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget through March 31, 1987.
Contents may be reprinted without
permission, but credit to Family Economics
Review would be appreciated.
Use of commercial or trade names does not
imply a pproval or constitute endorsement
by USDA.
Sug gestions or comments concerning this
publication should be addressed to:
Kathleen K. Scholl, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group,' USDA/ ARS, Federal
Building, Room 442A, Hyattsville, Md.
20782.
For subscription information, see p. 33.
NOTE:
Beginning with the next issue,
Kathleen K. Scholl will no longer be
on the editorial staff of the Family
Economics Review. She will remain on
the staff of the Family Economics
Research Group in Hyattsville, Md.,
and will devote more time to research
on farm families and, in particular,
studies about farm women. Dr. Scholl
extends her appreciation to the many
people who have assisted her during
the 3 years she served as an editor
of the Family Economics Review.
For •ale b.\· !be Suf\erintendent of Document,. U.S. Government P ri nting Office Washington. D.C. 20402
Fam ily Eco n omics Review 1 9 83 No.4
Family
Economics
Review
CONTENTS
Textile Fibers in Clothing, Home Furnishings, and Other Consumer Products........... 2
Joan C. Courtless
Classification of Women as Farmers: Economic Implications.............................. 8
Kathleen K. Scholl
Women Farm Opera tors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Judith Z. Kalbacher
Making Food Dollars Count
Betty B. Peterkin
Abstracts
............................................................ 23
Work Experience, Earnings, and Family Income • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Lifetime Earnings Estimates of Men and Women, 1979 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7
Unpaid Family Workers . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
National Social Data Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Update: Alternative Mortgage Instruments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26
Mortgage Money Guide................................................................. 27
Directory of Computerized Data Files, 1982 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 27
Preliminary Data From the 1980-81 Continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey........... 27
Regular Features
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30
Cost of Food at Home •.•••.••.•.•••.•••••.••••••• ·•••···•••••····••••··• • · • • · • · · • · • • • · • 32
Consumer Prices . ...................... · · · · · • · · • · • • • • · • · · · · · · · · · · · · · • · · • · · · • · • · · · · · · • · · 33
Issued October 1983
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review
Textile Fibers in Clothing, Home
Furnishings, and Other
Consumer Products
By Joan C. Courtless
Family economist
U.S. manufacturers used about 11-1/2
billion pounds of cotton, wool, and manmade
fibers in goods for American consumers in
1981 (~). Of this total, 40 percent was used
for apparel, 31 percent for home furnish­ings,
and 29 percent for indus trial and
other consumer-type products. 1 In addition,
1/2 billion pounds of fibers, or 4 percent
of total 1981 end use consumption, were
exported.
About 74 percent of the raw fiber used in
U.S. goods was manmade, 24 percent was
cotton, and 2 percent was wool. Manmade
fibers were evenly divided among apparel,
home furnishings, and industrial or other
consumer-type products. Most of the cotton
and wool fibers were used in apparel, 58
percent and 78 percent respectively. Home
furnishings used 28 percent of the cotton
fibers and 15 percent of the wool fibers.
The relative importance of these fibers
for textile products within the three major
end use categories is shown in the table on
p. 3.
Textile Fiber End Use
Apparel. For the apparel class as a
whole, 35 percent of the fibers used in 1981
were cotton. Exceeding this average were the
percentages of cotton used for the indi­vidual
categories of men's underwear and
night wear; shirts, blouses, and dresses; and
pants, suits, and jackets. About one-sixth
of total cotton mill use is made into denim
(_i_). Shifts in denim production impact
considerably on overall cotton use.
1 Examples of these products are woven
labels, shoelaces, bandages, thread, rope,
seat belts, auto seat upholstery, luggage,
fiberfill, and tents.
2 family Economics Review 1983 No.4
Classes of apparel which used more wool
than the average 3 percent for all apparel
include sweaters; and pants, suits, and
jackets. The popularity of 100 percent wool
and wool blends in sweaters was precipitated
by the "energy crunch" of the seventies and
has since been sustained by acceptance as a
wardrobe basic.
A majority of the fibers (62 percent) used
in apparel were manmade. 2 Kinds of apparel
which used high percentages of manmade
fibers in 1981 included robes and lounge­wear,
sweaters, socks, women's underwear
and nigh twear, and retail piece goods.
Home furnishings. In the manufacture of
home furnishings, heavy use of manmade
fibers occurred in carpets and rugs,
curtains, and blankets. Towels were
predominantly cotton; sheets, table linens,
bedspreads and quilts, and draperies and
upholstery also used more cotton than the
average of 22 percent for all home fur­nishings.
Of the fibers used in blankets,
5 percent were wool; this was the highest
proportion of wool in any home furnishings
category.
Industrial and other consumer products.
Most industrial and other consumer-type
products were made predominantly of manmade
fibers. Items which had substantial propor­tions
of cotton, however, included thread,
medical and sanitary supplies, and coated
and protected fabrics such as awnings and
tents. Wool fibers comprised 40 percent of
felts, virtually the only industrial product
for which wool was used.
2 Distribution of manmade fibers is
reported separately for cellulosic and non­cellulosic
fibers (3). Cellulosic fibers-­rayon
and acetate--were used most often in
fabrics for lining, robes and lounge wear,
draperies and upholstery, and medical and
sanitary items. Noncellulosic fibers, which
include nylon, polyester, acrylic, olefin,
saran, spandex, and textile glass, comprise
over 90 percent of manmade fibers and have
a pattern of use similar to that reported
for all manmade fibers except for those four
items mentioned as major uses of cellulosic
fibers.
"' CD
"'
z
0
~
..,
Ill
3 .....
......
"< ,..,
(')
0
::l
0
3 .....
(')
en
::0
Cll
<.... .
Cll
:0:
....
Quantity and distribution of cotton, wool, and manmade fibers used in selected consumer products manufactured by U.S. mills, 1981
I tern
Total
fiber
used 1 All Cotton
Distribution by kind of fiber
, Wool l\1anrmde
All Cellulosic Noncellulosic
Mi 11 ion
pounds
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent -
Total apparel •••••••....•••.••••.••••••••••••••••
Pants, suits, and jackets .••••.......•....•.••.
Shirts, blouses, and dresses •....•.•••••..•.••
Retail piece goods •••.••••••••••••.••••••.•.•.•
Men's and boys' nightwear and underwear •.••••
Women's, girls', and infants' nightwear
and underwear •••.••.••..••••..••.••••••••.••
Fabrics for lining •..•••••....•.•....•••.......
Socks •.•.•••••...••••.••.•..•••••...••..•••..•
Sweaters •.•....•.••.•••••....•.••.•...•....•..
Robes and loungewear ••.•..•...•..•...•••....•
Total home furnishings •••••••....•••••••••••••••
Carpets and rugs ...••.••••••••••••••••••••••••
Sheets and other bedding •••..••.•••••.........
Drapery and upholstery •••••••••••••••••••••••
Towels •••••.•.••.•..•.......•••.•••...••••...•
Bedspreads and quilts •.•••••••••...••.••••.•••
Blankets •.•.....•....•....•••••• • ••••••••••.•••
Curtains ••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••...•••••.••.•
Table linens and other ••••••.•••.••••.•.•••.•.
Total industrial and other consumer ••••.•••.•.••
Medical, surgical, and sanitary .•••..•...•••.•
Fiberfill ••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••.•..•••..
Coated and protected fabrics 2
•••••••••••••••••
Sewing thread ••..•••••••••••••.•••.•••••.••.••
Narrow fabrics 3 •••••••••••••••••...•..••••.•••
Felts •••••••••••••.•..•••••••••••.••••••..•••••
4,602.9
1,844.4
986.0
310.5
238.3
212.0
192.9
184.0
138.0
126.9
3,539.7
1,818.6
533.4
474.1
326.7
140.9
90.8
81.0
68.1
3,317.3
345.1
293.5
173.3
117.7
90.9
26.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 Detail does not add to totals because some categories were not included.
2 Includes tents, parachutes, awnings, umbrellas, and tarpaulins.
3Includes woven labels, shoelaces , tapes, and seat belts.
Source: Percentages computed from data found in Textile Organ_ on (3).
34.8
39.9
39.3
24.9
63.9
23.0
27.5
17.5
5.9
15.2
21.9
0.7
43.9
29.1
90.0
35.6
8.1
10.9
36.9
11.8
28.0
28.0
37.4
15.1
4.8
3.2
6.0
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.5
1.5
11.7
2.2
0.8
0.6
2.7
5.0
0.4
40.1
62.0 7.1 54.9
54.1 2.9 51.2
60.4 10.2 0.2
73.9 1.4 72.5
35.6 0.4 35.2
76.4 8.6 67.8
71.0 45.8 25.2
81.0 0.4 80.6
82.4 0.4 82.0
82.6 37.1 45.5
77.3 4.4 72.9
98.7 -- 98.7
56.1 3.0 53.1
68.3 24.0 44.3
10.0 0.3 9.7
64.4 5.4 59.0
86.9 1.0 85.9
89.1 13.8 75.3
63.1 5.1 58.0
87.8 6.9 80.9
72.0 35.4 36.6
100.0 3.6 96.4
72.0 6.0 66.0
62.6 6.8 55.8
84.9 3.1 81.8
55.0 14.9 40.1
Trends
The quantity of fibers manufactured into
goods for American consumers reached a high
point in 1979 at 12.4 billion pounds, a
level that was 8 percent higher than 1981
figures. i\lthough the subcategories of home
furnishings, industrial and other consumer­type
products, and exports were at high
levels in 1979, apparel use of fibers peaked
earlier in 1977, when 12 percent more pounds
of fibers were used than in 1981.
Consumer purchases are not believed to
have declined as much as mill use because
textile imports have greatly increased. Net
textile imports (total imports less total
exports) have grown from the equivalent of
136 million pounds of raw fiber in 1980 to
697 million pounds in 1981 (4) (see box
below). Net imports amounted to 6 percent of
total domestic consumption, 3 35 percent of
wool domestic consumption, and 18 percent of
cotton domestic consumption in 1981. Imports
and exports of manmade fibers were equal.
Wool domestic consumption was higher in 1981
than in any year since 1972, and wool
imports were at their highest level in 12
years C!).
3 Domestic consumption (mill consumption
plus net imports of semimanufactured and
manufactured products) differs from end use
in that fiber reported as consumed in 1 year
may not actually be manufactured into a
finished product until the next year. For
example, cotton is regarded as consumed when
the bale is opened at the spinning mill.
Since 1975 the distribution of cotton and
manmade fibers in the various apparel and
home furnishings categories has fluctuated
from 41 percent (table linens) and 22
percent (bedspreads and quilts) to less than
1 percent (carpets). Over this 7-year period
cotton fibers were increasingly used in the
manufacture of top weight 4 items such as
shirts, blouses, and dresses. The popularity
of denim jeans was largely responsible for
the slight rise of cotton use in
bottom weight 4 clothing such as pants, suits,
and jackets between 1975 and 1981. Decreas­ing
amounts of cotton have been used since
1975 for table linens, bedspreads and
quilts, men's underwear and night wear,
sheets, draperies and upholstery, and robes
and lounge wear (see figure on p. 5).
More dramatic changes are apparent when
fiber end use for 1966 (as reported by
Britton [_!_]) is used as the basis for
comparison. U.S. manufacturers used about
7 billion pounds of fiber in 1966, 62 per­cent
of 1981 poundage. About 3-1/2 billion
pounds, or 50 percent, of fiber used was for
apparel 5 and about 2-1/2 billion pounds, or
36 percent, used was for home furnishings in
4 "Topweight" and "bottomweight" are terms
used in the textile industry in describing
fabrics.
5 Data for retail piece goods and apparel
linings were included in "Apparel" for 1981
and in "Other Consumer Products" for 1966.
The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( 5) initiated a
ne_w. data series in 1983 which presents cotton textile import data by counhoy of
or1gm. 1 Used in conjunction with information on foreign mill consumption and U.S. raw
cotton exports to each country, these data provide a basis for estimating how much of
the ra ~ cotton contained in imported foreign textiles is actually U.S. raw cotton
returnmg as processed products. Analysis of 1982 imports showed that approximately 35
to 40 percent of U.S. cotton textile imports came from countries to which only 8 to 10
percent of U.S. raw cotton exports had been shipped.
1 Country-of-origin cotton textile import data will be published annually in the March
issue of Cotton and Wool Outlook and Situation, available from Economics Management
Staff, Information, Room 440-GHI Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C. 20250.
4 Fam i l y Econ om ics Re v ie w 1 98 3 No.4
1966, 77 percent and 72 percent of the 1981
level, respectively. Apparel was more likely
to be made of cotton and wool fibers in 1966
than in 1981 (63 percent and 38 percent,
respectively). One apparel category,
however, used more cotton in 1981 than in
1966--bottomweights, the grouping which
includes denim jeans. In 1966 over one-half
of the fibers used in the manufacture of
home furnishings were natural (50 percent
cotton and 5 percent wool); in 1981 less
than one-quarter of these fibers were
natural. Industrial and other consumer-type
products were not compared because the items
included in this category differed for those
2 years.
Interpretation
The information presented here details the
pounds of fibers used in the manufacture of
various consumer goods, and the percentage
of those fibers which were cotton, wool, or
one of the manmade fibers. These figures
should not be used to describe each fiber's
share of any specific item in finished form
because the number of square yards of fabric
which can be produced from 1 pound of fiber
varies considerably by type of fiber: A
pound of cotton yields 2. 7 square yards of
fabric, a pound of wool averages 2.0 square
yards, and a pound of manmade fibers can
produce 3.9 square yards of fabric (~_).
These average yardages also vary widely
according to the thickness or density of the
fabric. As indicators of fiber dominance in
various end use categories, however, these
data may be useful in identifying and com­paring
over time the relative strength of
natural and manmade fibers in competition
for consumer items.
An awareness of the fibers being used in
the manufacture of various products can aid
the consumer in his/her selection process.
The consumer is more apt to have a choice
among fibers for some products than others.
Pants, for example, are readily available in
Use of Cotton in Apparel and Home Furnishings, 1975-81
Apparel
---------...... ......
Men's Underwear, N.t ghtwear ~' "- ,., ., .,
Pants, Suits. Jackets~ --·--. ........ . ....... .. ..,.,-·~----·-- ·" .,~~ ----- ~-- ,
~ Shirts, Blouses, :s:s /
Robes, Loungewear
Home Furnishings
Percent
80 r-----------------------------------~
//\
70 // \
\
60 .... --......\ ~
' ------ ""'~ ~ ""\. / Sheets ~~ . ._,~ ...... /
50 Table linens. other' --•-" •'\....- ---...._ ...._ '·-·-·, 40 ~ ' Bedspreads, Quilts~- • ~ ~ ........... _._., .......___ .
30 Drapertes, Uphols-te-ry----------~ --
20
10
0
1975 76 77 78 79 80 81 1975 76 77 78 79 80 81
Source: Percentages computed from data found
in Textile Oraannn 1 QA? ""' c;;<~ Nn ~
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 5
fabrics made of 100 percent manmade fiber,
cotton, wool, or blends of two or more
fibers. On the other hand, items which
formerly were often available in wool, such
as socks, robes, blankets, and carpets, may
now be more difficult to locate. Preference
for wool carpets, for instance, must be
worth the additional cost and shopping
effort. Manufacturers are not likely to
produce wool carpets in a range of quality
and styles when less than 1 percent of the
fibers in all carpets are wool. Also, cotton
batting for quilts may not be easy to find
since negligible amounts of cotton were used
for fiberfill in 1981. Vast consumer accept­ance
of manmade fibers for these products
has virtually eliminated natural fiber
com petition.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Britton, Virginia. 1968. Textile fibers
in clothing and home furnishings. Family
Economics Review, December issue.
2. Textile Organon. 1982. Vol. 53, No. 3.
3. • 1982. Vol. 53, No. 11.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. 1982. Cotton and Wool
Outlook and Situation, CWS-33, November
issue.
5. -----• 1983. Cotton and Wool
Outlook and Situation, CWS-34, March
issue.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 1982. Current Industrial
Reports, MC-22T [Supplement]. December
issue.
Work Experience, Earnings,
and Family Income
The number of Americans who were unem­ployed
at some time during 1981 increased to
23.4 million from 21.4 million in 1980, and
accounted for almost 20 percent of all per­sons
in the labor force. The proportion of
blacks experiencing some unemployment was
30.5 percent compared with 18.3 percent for
whites.
6 Fam i l y Economics Re vi e w 1 9 83 No .4
A total of 15.8 million families reported
one or more members had encountered some
unemployment in 1981. Of these, 12 million
were married - couple families, 9 . 5 million of
which had two or more earners.
The proportion of workers who were em­ployed
throughout 1981 at full-time jobs was
56 percent. The percentage of women with
full-time, year-round jobs reached a high of
45 percent; whereas, that for men declined
to 65 percent, approaching the low of 64
percent reached in 1975. A total of 14.6
million persons who desired full-time work
were employed on a part-time basis; nearly
one-half of these persons were also
unemployed sometime during the year.
Workers with some unemployment in 1981
earned only 44 percent as much as those
workers who were employed throughout the
year. Even when working, persons who
suffered some unemployment during the year
earned less than workers with no unemploy­ment.
For weeks worked, the median weekly
earnings of workers with some unemployment
equaled only 72 percent of the median for
workers with no unemployment.
Families with at least one member unem­ployed
had income below the poverty level 1
in 11 percent of married-couple families,
30 percent of families maintained by men,
and 43 percent of families maintained by
women. When affected by unemployment, the
proportion of black families with income
below the poverty level was 36 percent,
compared with 16 percent for white families,
and 25 percent for those of Hispanic origin.
1 In 1981 the poverty level for a family of
four was $9,287.
Source: Terry, Sylvia Lazos, 1983, Work
experience, earnings, and family income in
1981, Monthly Labor Review 106(4):13-20.
Wetime Earnings Estimates of
Men and Women, 1979
Estimates of expected future earnings of
men in the United States at specified ages
and various educational levels have been
revised by the Bureau of the Census. Two
major changes from previous estimates were
incorporated: ( 1) In response to numerous·
requests, estimates of women's expected
lifetime earnings were initiated; and
(2) rather than assume that everyone worked
from the age of 18 through 64 (as was done
previously), yearly rates of employment by
age were included in the calculation. For
example, 97 percent of men and 83 percent of
women 25 years old in 1979 who completed
college can expect to be employed in 1990.
Cross-sectional earnings data collected in
the March Current PopuLation Surveys for
1978, 1979, and 1980 were averaged and used
to predict lifetime earnings (see table).
Use of · these data assumes that current
employment and earnings, as well as the
social, demographic, and economic conditions
which determined them, are representative of
the future. The accuracy of these estimates
depends on how closely past trends reflect
future changes in earnings levels.
Lifetime earnings estimates may be useful
in court settlements involving negligent
death, because in such cases an individual's
work experience and potential earnings are
unknown. These estimates also indicate the
added value of a high school diploma or
college degree.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1983, Lifetime
earnings estimates for men and women in the
United States: 1979, Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 139.
Expected lifetime earnings in 1979 for all persons, by years of school completed, selected
age groups, and sex
[In thousands of 1981 dollars]
College
Age and sex Less than High school
(years) 12 years 4 years 1 to 3 4 5 years
years years or rrore
----
Male:
18 ............ $601 $861 $957 $1,190 $1,301
25 ............ 563 803 918 1,165 1,273
35 ............ 441 624 736 956 1, 065
45 ............ 283 401 483 639 715
55 ............ 121 178 230 298 352
Female:
18 ............ 211 381 460 523 699
25 ............ 188 330 411 474 673
35 ............ 134 235 293 335 512
45 ............ 77 145 175 207 316
55 ............ 30 61 77 93 132
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983, Lifetime earnings for
men and women in the United States: 1979, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income,
Series P-60, No. 139.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 7
Classtlication of Women as
Farmers: Economic
Implications 1
By Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
Although farm women do farm tasks regu­larly
(!, l) and actively participate in
making farm decisions (_!), surveys of the
farm population record very few female
farmers. For example, in the 1978 Census of
Agriculture only 5 percent of the farm
operators were females; in the 1980 National
Farm Women Survey, only 4 percent of the
farm women classified themselves as farmers.
Data collectiop methods and coding of sur­veys
vary. In some surveys, respondents are
classified into occupations based upon the
information they provide; whereas, other
surveys and documents allow an individual to
record his/her occupation. The structure of
some surveys precludes the listing of both
the husband and wife as farmers. Also, in
surveys where the farm woman has a choice
in stating her occupation, she may not iden­tify
herself as a farmer despite heavy farm
involvement. Consequently, the farmwork
effort of many farm women is underestimated
and undercounted. 2
1Although this article is written about
farm women, many generalizations may also be
applied to women in family-owned, nonfarm
businesses.
2Some farm women, of course, work full or
part time in employment off the farm and are
listed by that occupation. For example,
about one-third of the farm women in the
1980 National Farm Women Survey reported
off-farm employment. Also, some farm women
spend the majority of their time in house­hold
production and are therefore appropri­ately
classified as homemakers. (See box on
pp. 10-11 for a comparison of women who
report themselves as homemakers, farm wives,
or farmers on their income tax returns.)
8 Family Economics Review 1983 No.4
Paying the farm woman a portion of the
farm income has economic costs and benefits
that affect the economic well-being of the
farm family. The following is a description
of documents and surveys that record occupa­tions
of farm women, and a discussion of the
economic advantages and disadvantages that
result when a farm woman is classified as a
farmer rather than as a homemaker.
Occupational Classification of Farm Women
The data for the Current Population
Survey (CPS) are collected monthly by the
Bureau of the Census from a representative
sample of the U.S. population. Although the
data collected in this survey are used for
many purposes, the primary purpose is to
determine the rate of unemployment and
collect detailed labor force data. Data are
collected about the household members from a
respondent in the household. The data are
then used to classify the individuals into
categories such as occupations.
The respondents are asked an open-ended
question to determine the major activity of
each household member: "What was ••• doing
most of last week--working, keeping house,
going to school, or something else?" For
responses other than "working," the next
question asks: "Did ••• do any work at all
last week, not counting work around the
house?" (A note to the interviewer on the
questionnaire reminds the interviewer to ask
about unpaid work if a farm or business
operator is in the household.) Farm women
who do unpaid work on the family farm or do
farm chores should be reported as "working"
for the major activity question or "yes" to
the follow-up question. The number of hours
worked at all jobs is also collected for
each household member. CPS respondents are
asked to describe the jobs or businesses of
household members in the labor force. These
descriptions are also obtained through
open-ended questions. If a household member
worked in two jobs, one for pay and the
other without pay in a family business or
farm, information is obtained about the
paying job only.
Based on the responses to the series of
activity questions, every person 16 years or
older is classified as employed, unemployed,
or not in the labor force. To be considered
as employed the person must be paid for a
m1mmum of 1 hour during the survey week
(wage and salary worker), operate one's own
business or farm (self-employed), work
without pay for at least 15 hours during the
survey week in a family business or on a
family farm (unpaid family worker), or have
a job or business from which the person was
temporarily absent during the survey week
(with a job, but not at work).
A minimum of 15 hours must be worked to
be classified as an employ~d unpaid family
worker. Since farmwork varies in hours
worked from week to week, the number of
hours reported may fall below the required
15 hours for the survey week. The farm
. activities of women may therefore be under­reported
and result in an undercount of
unpaid family workers in agriculture.
Information is available from the Bureau of
the Census on those unpaid family workers
who are not classified as employed because
of the 15-hour minimum.
Household members are classified into
occupations based upon a description of
their jobs or businesses. The main agricul­tural
occupational categories are "farm
operators and managers" and "other
agricultural and related occupations." The
occupation of farm operator is assigned to
individuals who do farmwork and are respon­sible
for the operation of a farm as owners
or tenants. The occupation of farm manager
is assigned to individuals who as paid
employees do specific tasks, such as record
keeping, and manage farms for others. The
farm woman who is paid for her work on a
family farm of which she is not an owner
(her husband's or father-in-law's farm, for
instance) will not be classified as a farm
operator. She may be classified as a farm
manager, but is more likely to be classified
in other agricultural and related occupations.
In summary, farm women who are active in
farmwork may be classified in a manner that
does not reflect their input in the farm
sector and the farm economy. To be classi­fied
as employed, the women have to be one
of the owners of the farm (self-employed), a
paid farm manager (wage and salary worker),
be temporarily absent from their job, or
work on the farm at least 15 hours without
pay (unpaid family worker). The 15-hour
minimum, which is not required of self­employed
or wage earners, may cause many
farm women to be classified as "not in the
labor force," even though their work effort
may match their husbands' during the months
that are slow in some farming regions. The
ownership requirement may contribute to farm
women being classified as employed unpaid
family workers rather than as self-employed
farm operators. Since farm men generally are
the owners of farms, farm women lead farm
men among the unpaid family worker class of
worker (see abstract on p. 21). For example,
within the farm population, self-employment
is the leading class of worker among male
farm residents, whereas unpaid family worker
is the leading classification for female
farm residents (6):
Self-employed ••••••••••
Wage and salary ••••••••
Unpaid family worker .••
Male Female
(Percent)
70.7
22.0
7.2
37.4
16.1
46.5
Also, the farm woman's contribution to the
farm sector is underreported when job
descriptions are collected about her
off-farm employment rather than about her
unpaid farmwork.
Changes in the reporting of occupational
data will further obscure farm women in CPS
publications (see Family Economics Review
1983(3): 22-23). The conversion to the 1980
occupational classification system replaces
the "farmworker" category--which was sub­divided
into (1) farmers and farm managers
and (2) farm laborers and supervisors.
Farming occupations are now reported under
"farming, forestry, and fishing," with
subdivisions of (1) farm operators and
managers and ( 2) other farming, forestry,
and fishing occupations. If not classified
as a farm operator or manager, farm women
in farming occupations will be reported with
foresters and fishermen. Information about
those in farming occupations is available
from the Bureau of the Census in unpublished
form, but will be combined with forestry and
fishing occupations in most publications.
1983 No.4 Family Ec o nomic s Re vi e w 9
Data for the census of agriculture is
collected periodically by the Bureau of the
Census to obtain information about the farm
unit, rather than the farm population.
Therefore, information is collected about
the individual who operates that unit--not
a group of persons involved with the
operation. In 1978 data were published by
sex of operator for the first time, thereby
permitting descriptions and analyses of
female farm operators (see pp. 17-21). For
incorporated operations, data are collected
about the person in charge, such as a hired
farm manager. For partnership operations,
respondents are asked to provide information
about the senior partner, the individual who
is mainly responsible for the agricultural
operation of the unit. If each partner
shares equally in the day-to-day management
decisions, the information is recorded for
the oldest partner only. The extent of the
farm involvement of the spouse cannot be
ascertained from the census.
Special topic agricultural censuses and
surveys are conducted to obtain informa-tion
about the farm sector. As with the
census of agriculture, the purposes of these
surveys are for reasons other than recording
occupations of the farm population. Gener­ally,
information is obtained concerning one
operator per farm unit. For example, the
1979 Farm Finance Survey was conducted to
collect information about the financial con­dition
of U.S. farms. Instructions to the
respondents stated that information was to
be reported about the senior partner:
OCCUPATIONS OF FARM WOMEN: SELF-CLASSIFICATION
Information about farm women's occupations as reported on the previous year's income
tax returns was collected in the 1980 National Farm Women Survey. Sixty percent of the
farm women reported themselves as wives, mothers, or housewives (homemakers) ;
5 percent stated they were farm wives; 4 percent listed themselves as farmers or
ranchers; and the remaining farm women reported themselves as off-farm workers or did
not know what was reported.
Analysis of the national survey provides for the first time information on how farm
homemakers, farm wives, and farmers differ from each other. Those who list themselves
as homemakers were found to be involved in family living activities, such as child
care; whereas, farmers tended to be involved with the farm operation. The data imply
that farm wives, a group of women that prior to the availability of this data was asso­ciated
with farm homemakers and yet thought to have a different self-image of their
farm role, have some traits in common with both homemakers and farmers while retaining
distinct characteristics of their own.
The majority of all three groups of farm women were married, with those who listed
themselves as farmers on income tax returns less likely than homemakers or farm wives
to be married (76, 98, and 99 percent, respectively). A greater percentage of the wid­ows
were among the farmer group, accounting for some of this difference. Farmers were
significantly older and had higher levels of education than homemakers or farm wives.
Women who reported themselves as homemakers had more children at home than did
those who stated they were farmers or farm wives. Homemakers, as would be expected,
also looked after children on a regular basis more than farmers or farm wives.
Performing housework or caring for vegetable gardens was similar for all three
groups, as were farm size (measured by number of acres) and number of hired hands on
the farm. Dairy cattle and swine were reported on a greater percentage of farm wives'
farms than on the farms of homemakers or farmers; however, no differences were found
for other types of livestock, including beef cattle, horses, or sheep.
10 Family Economics Review 1983 No .4
"Co-ownership of land by husband and wife
or joint filing of income tax forms does
not constitute a partnership unless an
agreement to share contributions, decision­making,
profits, and liabilities also
exists." Off-farm employment information was
obtained about the spouse, but again the
spouse's farm involvement cannot be
determined from the data.
Individuals determine what to record as
occupations on income tax returns.
Generally, farm women make this decision in
consultation with their spouses and, if
used, farm tax accountants or lawyers. Farm
women report their occupations under a
variety of job titles, but the majority of
farm women report themselves as homemakers,
rather than as farmers or farm wives, or by
their off- farm occupations.
Effects of Paying Farm Women
If farm women report their occupations
more accurately, national surveys will more
precisely reflect farm labor patterns.
Although a change from homemaker or unpaid
family worker status would not greatly
affect unemployment benefits, workmen's
compensation, or inheritance of the farm,
women who change their occupation to farm
operator or farm manager would observe some
economic costs and benefits in the form of
taxes.
Traditionally, men in the farm sector have
collected the income for the labor of the
farm family. In some regions and on some
family farm operations this practice con­tinues
today. A change in the distribution
An analysis of only the married farm women in the survey indicated that farmers were
more involved with the farm operation than were the farm wives or homemakers. When
married farm women were asked if they could operate the farm on their own if something
happened to their husbands, the majority of all three groups answered in a positive
manner; twice as many farmers stated they could definitely run the operation. Farm
wives and farmers are more likely to have their names on land deeds than the homemaker
group . A greater percentage of the farmers reported having their names on farm produce
checks than the other two groups of farm women.
Married farm women generally do not make farm decisions alone, although more married
farmers independently make farm decisions than homemakers or farm wives. On farms
where the woman lists herself as a farm wife, the spouses tend to make farm decisions
jointly . Married farm homemakers report that farm decisions are generally made by the
husbands alone.
Some farm tasks, such as purchasing farm supplies, marketing the farm's products, and
supervising the work of hired farm labor, are not performed by a majority of married
homemakers or farm wives; whereas, the majority of the married farmers do these tasks.
Greater percentages of the farm wives and farmers than homemakers regularly run
errands . The analyses of tasks that require the operation of farm equipment, such as
plowing, harvesting, and applying fertilizers, indicate significant differences among
the groups but with different patterns. Slightly over half of the married farmer and
farm wife groups, but fewer than half of the homemakers, plowed, disked, cultivated,
and planted. A greater percentage of the married farmers applied fertilizers, herbi­cides,
or insecticides than the other two groups of married farm women. About half of
the homemakers and about three-fifths of the farmers and farm wives harvested crops.
No differences were found among the women for the tasks of caring for farm animals or
doing fieldwork without machinery. The majority of the married farm women did the farm
bookkeeping as a regular task; the percentages of the farm wives and farmers doing this
task, however was greater than that for the homemakers.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 11
of income to the various family members will
have economic impact on both the farm and
household units. The following discussion
reviews the economic impact on the household
unit of paying income to a farm woman for
the work she does on the farm. The discus­sion
is limited to a change in status from a
homemaker, not in the labor force, to a self­employed
farmer or employed farm manager-­a
change from an off-farm occupation to a
farm occupation would have different effects
than those described. The economic effects of
a change of the farm women's occupation
depends on whether the farm business is a
sole proprietorship, partnership, or corpo­ration.
3 In some situations the economic
advantages to a household of paying income
to the farm woman may shift additional costs
to the farm unit. Since individual situa-tions
vary, the application of this informa­tion
should be done with caution. 4 Federal
tax laws change frequently, and individual
States differ in their opinions on various
taxes and social insurance coverage of
farmers and their families. In general, the
splitting of income between the spouses must
be based upon the contributions of each;
documentation of time spent in farm produc­tion
may be required if a substantial wage
is paid to a spouse (homemaker) who had been
previously viewed as passive in farmwork.
3Differentiating a sole proprietorship
from a partnership is difficult in some
cases where both spouses are actively
involved in the farm operation. Generally,
the partners in a partnership need to share
net income, share losses, and refer to them­selves
in the public as partners in the farm
operation. For Federal tax purposes, some
sole proprietorship operations probably
could qualify as family farm partnerships.
For example, the farm woman may have inher­ited
farmland, of which she holds title. In
these circumstances the farm operation would
be considered a partnership even if her
services are not substantial, since she has
contributed capital to the operation.
4For detailed information on filing tax
returns for farm operation, see "Farmer's
Tax Guide" (9).
12 F am il y Ec onom ics Rev iew 1983 No.4
Social security was first extended to
self-employed farmers in 1955. Farm land­lords,
tenants, and sharecroppers were
included as self-employed farmers for tax
purposes in 1956. Farmers pay "self­employment
tax" for coverage under the
social security system. The self-employment
tax rate is higher than that for a wage or
salary worker. This rate compensates for the
amount that an employer contributes to the
social security fund for each employee. In
1983 the self-employment rate is 9. 35 per­cent;
whereas, the employee and employer
rates are 6.70 percent, for a combined
contribution of 13.40 percent.
In a sole proprietorship where one spouse
is the owner and operator of the farm opera­tion
and employs the other spouse, self­employment
taxes (social security contnibu­tions)
are paid only on the operator's
income; neither self-employment tax nor
social security employee tax is paid for the
other spouse. This can reduce the total
amount of self-employment tax that is paid
(see table 1).
The payment of social security taxes on
income from a farm partnership is dependent
upon the relationship between the partners.
In a partnership owned by family members
only, social security contributions are not
made on income paid to the spouse. In an
arrangement that includes both spouses
and a non family member as partners, self­employment
taxes are paid on the income paid
to both spouses . In a partnership in which
the husband is a partner with a nonfamily
member and the wife is not a partner, if she
is an employee of the partnership, social
security contributions are withheld from her
pay at the employee rate and the partner­ship,
as the employer, contributes at the
employer rate.
A farm woman who is paid wages from a farm
corporation for her farmwork is considered
an employee of the corporation. Regardless
of who owns stock in the corporation,
including the farm woman, social security
contributions are withheld at the employee
rate from her wages, and the corporation, as
the employer, contributes at the employer
rate.
Assuming that a couple with farm income of
$40,000 could allocate 40 percent to the
wife for her farmwork, calculations in
table 1 indicate the economic differences
that result from the three types of farm
businesses. The amounts paid and totals
shown in table 1, however, do not include
the social security tax paid by the employer
(partnership or corporation). Without con­sidering
the employer tax paid, the total
tax contribution by the couple is the high­est
when the wife is in partnership with her
husband and a partner who is not a member
of the family. Since social security and
self-employment tax rates are applied on the
first $35,700 of income, the highest tax
would be paid by a couple with a farm
partnership, with farm income of $71,400 or
more, and with a 50-50 split of income; each
would pay the maximum tax for a total of
over $6,600.
Farm families need to keep abreast of
social security changes as the maximum earn­ings
base increases and tax rates rise. For
example, in 1984 the self-employment tax
rate increases to 14.0 percent, whereas the
employee and employer rates increase to 7. 0
percent each. For 1984 and later years self­employed
individuals will not have a rate
lower than the combined employee and employer
rates. For 1984 through 1989 self-employed
persons are allowed a credit against the
self-employment tax. For 1984 the credit is
2. 7 percent of self-employment income. For
1985 it is 2.3 percent, and for 1986 through
1989 it is 2.0 percent. After 1989 half of
the self-employment tax will be deductible
for Federal income tax purposes. Employees
receive a 0. 3 percent social security tax
credit that is only applicable for 1984.
Federal personal income tax deductions
and tax credits may change when a farm
woman changes in occupation from a homemaker
to a paid farm operator or farm manager. The
deduction for two-earner married couples
resulting from the Economic Recovery Tax Act
of 1981 (P.L. 97-34) lowers personal income
taxes for farm employed spouses with farm
partnership or corporation operations. For
farm operations in which one spouse is the
Table 1. Social security employee tax or self-employment tax for a farm couple by type of
farm organization, 1983
Wife Husband
Total
Type of fann organization aroount
Tax In cane !mount Tax In cane !mount paid
rate paid rate paid
-Per-ce-nt Dollars Percent Dollars -
Sole proprietorship ••••••••• NA 0 NA 9.35 40,000 1 3,338 3,338
Do •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • NA 16,000 NA 9.35 24,000 2,244 2,244
Partnership, family held •••• NA 16,000 NA 9.35 24,000 2,244 2,244
Partnership with nonfamily
partners:
Wife not a partner •••••••• 26.70 16,000 1,072 9.35 24,000 2,244 3,316
Wife is a partner ••••••••• 9.35 16,000 1,496 9.35 24,000 2,244 3, 740
Corporation ................ 26.70 16,000 1,072 26.70 24,000 1,608 2,680
1 The self-employed pay 9.35 percent on income up to a maximum base of $35,700 for a
maximum tax of $3,337.95.
2 The farm business as employer also contributes 6. 70 percent.
NA = not applicable.
1983 No.4 Family Econom~ cs Rev i ew 13
sole owner, wages paid to the other spouse
are not counted for figuring the deduction
for two-earner married couples. If the wife
is employed off the farm, the deduction for
two-earner married couples is based on her
off-farm income but not on her farm income
from a sole proprietorship.
If a division of income is made between
the spouses on partnership or corporation
farm operations (rather than one spouse
earning the same total income), tax lia­bility
lowers for the couple (table 2). For
example, if one spouse was paid $24,000 and
the second spouse was paid $16,000 of the
farm income (rather than one spouse collect­ing
$40,000) the tax liability for the
couple would be reduced by $589. 5 Generally,
5 When comparing the tax differences in
tables 1 and 2, please note that social
security contributions are based on cash in­come
only. All earnings, including payments
in noncash form, such as commodities, are
considered earned income for the deduction
for two-earner married couples.
as family income increases and the split of
income between the spouses equalizes, the
reduction in income tax liability becomes
greater.
With a change in occupation to a paid farm
opera tor or farm manager, other personal
income tax deductions change for farm women.
For example, individual retirement accounts
and pensions can be established to defer
taxes on income to a later time period.
Another tax consideration is the credit for
child care. When the farm woman is not in
the labor force (homemaker), the credit for
child care cannot be taken. If she is
employed or self-employed and earning an
income, and pays for child care while she
works on the farm, she may be able to take
the credit for child care.
Historically, self-employed persons, un­paid
family workers, domes tic workers, and
other special categories of workers were
excluded from receiving employment benefits
that were available to wage and salary
workers, such as unemployment, disability,
and workmen's compensation. Agricultural
Table 2. Two-earner tax advantages from the deduction for two-earner married couples, 1983 1
Share of caroined incane of lesser earning spouse (percent)
Family in cane
10 20 30 40 50
$0 ............................. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,000 ......................... 7 8 18 25 30
$10,000 ........................ 15 2il 46 61 77
$15,000 ........................ 15 12 39 65 92
$20,000 ........................ 42 82 124 165 206
$25,000 ........................ 68 133 193 253 312
$30,000 ........................ 92 299 256 502 420
$40,000 ........................ 148 295 663 589 736
$50,000 ........................ 181 418 628 838 1,047
$75,000 ........................ 346 692 1,038 1,385 1,385
$100,000 ....................... 504 1,009 1,513 1,513 1,513
1 Difference in tax liability of equal-earning married couples with one earner versus two
earners, by share of combined income of the lesser earning spouse, projected to 1983, based
on 1981 tax reform.
Source: Hefferan, Coli en, 1982, Federal income taxation and the two-earner couple, Family
Economics Review, winter issue, p. 10.
14 Family Economics Review 1983 No .4
laborers were excluded from unemployment
insurance programs. Eligibility for unem­ployment
benefits is crucial to the well­being
of farm families who leave farming and
must seek work for pay. Subsistence farming
is not common today; many farm families are
not self-sufficient, as they were in
previous farming eras.
Under the Unemployment Compensation
Amendments of 1976, unemployment coverage
was extended for most agricultural workers.
The amendments extended coverge to workers
who are employed by an employer of 10 or
more agricultural workers for 20 different
weeks or with a payroll of $20,000 or more
in any quarter of the year. Few States pres­ently
include all agricultural workers (~).
In general, farm workers who work for
relatives are exempt from (not covered
under) unemployment insurance (table 3).
Where coverage is available, unemployment
taxes must be paid before spouses are eligi­ble
for unemployment benefits. California,
Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands have State
disability benefit programs. These programs
are stop-gap measures for workers who do
not qualify for unemployment benefits
because of inability to work, and for workers
who are unable to obtain workmen's compensa­tion
because they have a nonoccupational
related injury or disease. Since the States
with disability benefits generally have the
same exempUons for disability coverage as
those specified for unemployment coverage,
most farm women who are employees of their
s pauses are excluded from this coverage
also .
Federal estate tax law was changed in
recent tax legislation (P.L. 97-34) to
permit the estate of one spouse to pass to
the other without Federal taxation. Prior to
its passage, the farm homemaker had diffi­culty
proving ownership of a portion of the ­farm
operation. Often the entire farm opera­tion
was included in the husband's estate
upon his death, resulting in the payment of
a large estate tax. Farm women were encour­aged
to have their names on real estate and
equipment titles to assist them in proving
ownership in the farm business. The philoso­phy
of protection through co-ownership can
be seen in the 1980 National Farm Women
Survey data, which were collected prior to
P.L. 97-34. Of the women on farms that owned
land, 89 percent had their names on the
deeds; whereas, of the women on farms that
rented land, only 29 percent had their names
on the leases. Ownership was stressed; total
farm financial involvement was not encouraged.
Although it is no longer necessary to
protect one's estate from Federal taxation
if the husband dies first, farm women may
need to prove ownership and involvement in
the operation to avoid State estate taxation.
The economic value of the farm woman's
work can be determined when she is paid
part of the farm income. Although not all
farm women may need to be able to document
the economic value of their work' this
information is needed in court litigations
involving the wrongful death of the farm
woman or a divorce settlement that involves
a farm operation. The economic value of the
work of a woman employed in the marketplace
can be determined since she is paid for her
labor. For example, as reported in the CPS, "
employed female farm workers had annual
median weekly earnings of $174 in 1982 (~). 6
The value of the work of a self-employed
person, a female farm operator, for example,
is more difficult to determine since she
does not generally pay herself a wage or
salary on a regular basis. Compounding the
problem is the fact that becaus·e so few
women report themselves as farm operators
and managers; reliable estimates of inco'me
are difficult to obtain from the CPS. The
following data from the 19.8L CPS demonstrate
the overall problem. Estimates indicate that
an average of ·1, 571 hours were spent in .
farinwork during the year by female farmers
and farm ma~agers ·and that female farm
6 Th~ 1983 median 'weekly earning~ of female
farm workers will _ be . p~plished .·with fore_sters
an{! fisherm~n, thereby makil'}g it lT!_ore diffi­cuit
to determine the .E;!conoJ!lic value of the
work of a farm woman if accurate personal
accounts are not kept.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 15
Table 3. Availability of unemployment insurance for family farm workers, by State and
U.s. territories
States and
U.S. territories
Alabama .............. .
Alaska .. .............. .
Arizona ............... .
Arkansas ••••••••••••••
California ............ .
Colorado ............. .
Connecticut .•••.•.••••
Delaware ............. .
District of Columbia •••
Florida ............... .
Georgia .............. .
Hawaii ............... .
Idaho ........ ........ .
Illinois
Indiana . .............. .
Iowa ................. .
Kansas ••••••••• ... ••.•
Kentucky •• .• .••..• ...•
Louisiana . ............ .
Maine •.••....••...•..•
Maryland ............. .
Massachusetts ••••.••••
Michigan ..... ........ .
Minnesota ..••.........
Mississippi ••••••••••••
Missouri . ............. .
Montana •.••...••.•....
Unemployment
insurance1
No
No
No
No
No
Yes 2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No 3
No
No
No
No
States and
U.S. territories
Nebraska .............. .
Nevada ••.•.• • .•.. .....•
New Hampshire •••••••••
New Jersey •••.... • •...•
New Mexico ...........•
New York .......... . .. .
North Carolina ••••.••••
North Dakota •••••••••••
Ohio ..................•
Oklahoma .............. .
Oregon .......... .. .... .
Pennsylvania •••• • ••••••
Puerto Rico ••••••.•.•••
Rhode Island •••••••.•..
South Carolina •••••.•••
South Dakota •.•••••.• • •
Tennessee ............. .
Texas ................. .
Utah •.••••.•.. .......•.
Vermo·nt •••••••••••••••
Virgin Islands •••••..••
Virginia . .............. .
Washington ............ .
West Virginia ••••••••.• •
Wisconsin ............. .
\Vyotning .••• • .••••••••••
Unemployment
insurance 1
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1 Service performed by an individual in the employ of son, daughter, or spouse, or a child
under a specific age in the employ of parent is exempt (not covered) in most States.
2 Coverage is available except for those persons who are employees of a corporation of which
he I she is the majority or controlling shareholder and an officer.
3 Coverage is available if more than 50 percent of the proprietary interest in the farm is
owned by non family members.
Source: Unem.eloyment Insurance Reporter--Federal and State , Vol. 1B, 1967 [updated leaves
1983], Unemployment Insurance Reports with Social Security [series], Commerce Clearing
House Inc. , Chicago, Ill.
16 Family Economics Review 1983 No.4
laborers and supervisors were paid for 760
hours of farm work C.i). Yet, one-half of the
year-round, full-time female farm workers
reported annual earnings of less than $2, 000
or a loss in earnings CJ_). Considering the
hours female farm workers spend in farm work,
the median annual earnings of $2,030 does not
appear to reflect the dollar value of the
work of a female farmworker.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Jones, Calvin, and Rachel A. Rosenfeld.
1981. American Farm Women: Findings
From a National Survey. NORC Report
No. 130. National Opinion Research
Center, Chicago, Ill.
2. Scholl, Kathleen K. 1982. Household and
farm task participation of women. Fa!!!ilY
Economics Review 1982(3): 3-9.
3. • 1983. Farm women's triad of
roles. Family Economics Review 1983(1):
10-15.
4. Smith, Shirley J. 1983. Estimating
annual hours of labor force activity.
Research Summaries. Man thly Labor
Review 106(2):13-22. U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5. Unemployment Insurance Reporter-­Federal
and State, Vol. lB. 1967
[updated leaves 1983]. Unemployment
Insurance Reports with Social Security
[series] • Commerce Clearing House, Inc.,
Chicago, Ill.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 1982. Farm population of the
United States: 1981. Current Population
Reports. Farm Population, Series P-27,
No. 55.
7. • 1983. Money income of house-holds,
families, and persons in the
United States: 1981. Current Population
Reports. Consumer Income, Series P-6 0,
No. 137.
8. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1983. Employment and
Earnings 30(4):89.
9. U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service. 1982. Farmer's
Tax Guide. Publication 225.
Women Farm Operators
By Judith Z. Kalbacher
Geographer
Economic Development Division
Economic Research Service
The number of U.S. farms peaked in 1935
at 6. 8 million. Today, there are only about
2. 5 million farms. Concurrent with the over­all
decrease in farm numbers has been an
increase in the proportion of farms operated
or managed by women. Decennial censuses
from 1950 to 1970 indicated that women
employed principally as farmers or farm
managers increased from 2. 7 percent to 5. 0
percent of all farmers or farm managers.
According to U.S. Department of Labor esti­mates,
both the proportion and the number of
women in farming occupations have continued
to grow since 1970. About 1 in 10 persons
now employed as a farmer or farm manager is
a woman; about 1 farm in 20 is either solely
or primarily opera ted by a woman.
The increase of women reported in farming
results from their greater participation and
their changing status on the farm. More farm
women are becoming actively involved in farm
tasks and, because of changing attitudes
about women's roles, these women are more
likely to be identified as farmers. In the
1978 Census of Agriculture, comprehensive
data on farm operators by sex were published
for the first time. These data indicate that
just over 128,000 farms, or 5. 2 percent of
the total, are solely or primarily operated
by women. Even though women are more likely
to be counted as farmers today, the number
is still understated in this source. The
agricultural census only provides in forma-tion
on one person per farm, namely the
person doing most of the farm work and/or
making most of the managerial decisions
about the operation. Usually in a husband
and wife type of arrangement, the husband
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 17
is designated the operator--p~rtners and
comanagers are not individually identified •1
Like their male counterparts, women farm
operators own or rent farmland, make most of
the day-to-day decisions about the farming
operation, and provide labor. They farm for
varied reasons, which commonly involve love
of the land, enjoyment of working with
animals, independence of running one's own
business, and need to make a living.
Over half of the farms operated by women
are located in the South, with large numbers
in Texas, Kentucky, and Tennessee (see
figure below). The most likely reasons for
the large southern concentration include:
1 While there is much overlap in coverage,
farm operator, as defined in the Census of
Agriculture, differs in concept from the
occupational category "farmers and farm
managers," in the decennial censuses and
Labor Department estimates. The occupational
category includes all persons who list their
principal occupation as farmer or farm
manager, regardless of operator status; ex­cluded
are many small and part-time. farmers
with primary off-farm employment.
(1) The generally favorable climate; (2) a
greater propensity for older people to
remain in rural settings in the South than
in other regions (nearly half of all women
operating farms are 60 years of age or
older); (3) racial composition (a somewhat
higher percentage of black and other minor­ity
farmers than white farmers are women,
and minority farmers are disproportionately
located in the South); (4) numerous agricul­tural
and cultural factors (especially in
the southern Appalachian area where tradi­tion
and strong ties to the area are charac­teristic);
and (5) the lack of much grain
and dairy farming in the South (types of
farming more likely to be conducted by
men).
The higher percentage of women among
black and other minority farmers (10
percent) than among white farmers
(5 percent) is due in part to differences in
marital status. Black and other minority
women are less likely to be married and
living with their husbands.2 Many of these
2Recent marital data on women farmers are
not available, but related statistics on
farm residents show that in 1979, 45 percent
of black and other minority women were
married with husband present, compared with
68 percent of white women (2).
Women Account for at least 5% of All Farm Operators
In Most Southern, Western, and Eastern States
Number of women farm operators:
18 Family Economics Review 1983 No.4
U.S. total
~-5.2%
Less than 5%
5%-8%
New England
2,303
More
'------' than 8%
women run small farming operations, and
because relatively fewer husbands are
present on these farms, more of the women
are officially designated operators. Also,
the low income of most minority male farmers
lessens the likelihood that their wives will
leave the farm when widowed.
In terms of acreage and sales, most women
run small farms. They operate only about
4 percent of all U.S. farmland --their farms
average 285 acres in size compared with 423
acres for men. About 83 percent of the
female-operated farms reported less than
$20,000 in gross farm sales in 1978; only 63
percent of the male-operated farms are in
this small-farm category.
While the great majority of women farmers
report relatively low income from their
farming activities, this does not necessar-ily
mean that their overall income levels
are low. Off-farm income contributes signi­ficantly
to total income levels. Analysis of
1979 Farm Finance Survey data shows that
off-farm sources are more important to women
than to men farmers; 68 percent of the net
cash income received by women farmers and
members of their families in 1979 came from
off-farm sources, compared with 54 percent
for men (3).
The sources of income are as follows:
Women Men
(Percent)
Total net cash income • • • • • • • 100.0 100.0
Farm ....••..........•..... 32.0 45.9
Off-farm • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 68.0 54.1
Nonfarm jobs or
professions •••••.••••
Retirement and/or
disability ••••••••••••
Interest ............. .
Nonfarm business
or professional
practices ............ .
Dividends, estates,
trusts, nonfarm
property, royalties,
and mineral rights •••
All other sources
55.0
16.2
9.8
7.3
5.8
5.9
65.2
8.4
7.9
8.8
5.6
4.1
Another characteristic of women farmers is
the high proportion (79 percent) who are
full owners of the land they operate (see
table on p. 20). In comparison, only 57
percent of men farmers own all of their
land. Also, women operators are more likely
than men to rent some · of their land to
others (19 compared with 11 percent).
According to the 1979 Farm Finance Survey,
there are nearly 2 million farm landlords,
that is, persons who own or hold land they
lease to others; most do not operate any
farmland themselves. Thirty-five percent of
the farm landlords who reported their sex
are women. Thus, women play a greater role
in agriculture as owners of farmland than as
operators.
The high incidence of full ownership among
women farmers, most of whom are small
farmers, is consistent with overall farm
trends. Full owners tend to run small farms;
they represent 59 percent of all farms, but
account for 71 percent of those with sales
under $20,000 and only 31 percent of all
land in farms. For most farmers, renting or
leasing additional land has become the most
feasible way to enlarge their operations
because of the prohibitive cost of land. As
a result, the part-owner type of land tenure
arrangement has become increasingly common
and accounts for a disproportionately large
share of all farmland (57 percent) and value
of agricultural output ( 49 percent). Tenant
farms are also larger in size and more pro­ductive
in terms of value of output than are
full-owner operations. The proportion of
women farmers in both these arrangements is
low.
Both men and women most often run live­stock,
cash grain, tobacco, and other field
crop enterprises. Women not engaged in these
activities are likely to operate fruit and
nut or animal specialty farms (mostly horse­breeding).
Men, on the other hand, are more
likely to operate dairy farms.
The type of activity in which a farmer
engages depends on soil, climate, and other
factors associated with the production of
different kinds of farm products, operator
experience and preference, and presence of
existing agricultural activity. This last
factor especially pertains to women, many of
whom inherit farms from their husbands or
other family members and may be locked into
1983 No.4 F.amily Economics Review 19
N
0
..,.,
Ql
.3.. .. ....
'< ,.,
n
0
:::l
0
.3... .
n
en
"' (1)
.<... .
(1)
:(
c"c'
"' z
0
.,.
Selected characteristics of U.S. farm operators, by region and sex, 1978
I tern
United States Northeast North Central South
Male Fermle Male Fermle Male Fermle Male Fermle
Number
Total operators 1
• • • • • • • • • • • • • 2, 348, 204 128, 136 140,101 8,849 993,363 33,804 946,227 68,461
Operators by age (years):
Under 35 •••••••.••••.••••••
35 to 44 ••••••.••••••••.•••
45 to 54 •••••••••.•••••••••
55 to 64 ••••••••••••••••••.
65 and over •••••••..•.•••••
Operators by tenure:
Full owners ••••••••••••••••
Part owners •••••••••.••.•••
Tenants ..•.••.•••..••••••••
Operators by type of farm:
Cash grain •.•••••.••..•..•.
Cotton •...•.•••••••••••••••
Tobacco •••••••••••.•••.••••
Other field crops •••••...•••
Vegetable and melon ••••••.•
Fruit and nut •••.••••••••••
Livestock •..•••••••••••••••
Dairy ••••.••••.•.•••••••..•
Poultry •••••••.••••.••..••.
Animal speciality •••••••••••
Horticulture •••••••••••••••
General •.••.•••..•..•.•••..
Operators by value of agri-cultural
products sold:
$40,000 or more ••••.•••.•••
$20,000 to $39,999 •••••.•••
$10,000 to $19,999 ••••••.••
$2,500 to $9,999 ••••.••••••
Less than $2,500 ••••••• ••• .
16.7
20.0
24.3
23.6
15.5
57.5
29.6
12.9
24.5
1.3
5.6
5.5
1.4
3.5
41.7
7.0
2.0
1.9
1.3
4.3
24 .4
12.6
12.6
26 .4
24.0
8.0
11.7
19.5
27 .o
33.8
78.7
13.1
8.2
13.9
.8
8.6
6.0
1.4
5. 5
45.4
3.9
3. 5
4.7
2.4
4.0
9.4
7.7
11.0
33.9
38.0
14.9
21.8
25.4
23.1
14.8
61.8
30.1
8.1
8.3
.4
14.7
4.5
5. 2
25.0
25 .3
3.0
2.8
4.4
6.4
26.7
10 .7
9.5
24.2
28.9
10.8
19.1
22.1
23.4
24.7
78.9
15.5
5.6
6.0
.2
16.4
4.1
6.3
26 .0
12 .7
5.3
10.0
6.2
6.5
10.0
7.2
8.9
28.1
45.8
Percent
19.3
19 .9
24.0
23.4
13.4
52.0
33 . 2
14.9
40.5
.6
4.0
.8
.9
36.8
9.4
.9
1.3
.6
4.3
32 . 0
17.0
14.4
22.0
14.5
8.8
12.4
19.6
27.8
31.4
76.8
14.2
9.0
30.4
1.2
6.6
1.0
1.4
41.2
7.2
1.3
3.8
1.3
4.6
11.2
11.8
15 . 0
34 .9
27.2
14.7
19.5
24 . 0
23.6
18.1
61.0
27.0
12.0
13.7
2. 8
13.2
4.5
1.4
2.2
49.7
2.6
3.2
1.5
1.2
4.0
15.4
8.7
11.6
32.3
32.0
1 Excludes abnormal farms (institutional farms, experimental and research farms, and Indian reservations).
2 -- = 0 or a percentage which rounds to less than 0.1 .
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1978 Census of Agriculture .
6.1
9.5
18.8
27 . 5
38.1
80 . 5
11.7
7.8
8.7
1.3
15.4
4.1
1.0
3.7
51.0
1.6
4.7
2.9
2.0
3.6
7.9
5.6
9.3
35.0
42.3
West
Male
268,513
14.8
21.2
25.4
24.0
14.5
63.0
25.6
11.4
12.2
1.4
10.3
2.4
16.9
40.2
3.8
1.3
4.8
2.3
4.5
26.9
11.2
10.9
22.8
28.3
Fermle
17,022
12 .6
15.8
20.5
25 .4
25.7
74.8
15.5
9.7
6.4
.7
7.4
2.0
20.1
41.2
1.7
1.8
10.9
4.4
3.3
11.7
8.4
11.1
30.5
38.3
activities already established on the opera­tion.
Statistics collected in 1980 on how
farmers acquired their land show that a
significantly greater proportion of women
than men inherited their farmland.
The median age for women farmers is about
9 years higher than that for men (59. 0
compared with 50.5 years) largely because
of the relatively high number of women who
inherit their farms and become operators
when their husbands die. In a recent study
of persons receiving farm self-employment
income--a group basically synonymous with
farm operators--50 percent of the women,
compared with just 2 percent of the men,
were widowed, and these women on the
average were much older than their male
counterparts. 3
Clearly, age is related to some of the
differences in farm characteristics noted
earlier. Older people, regardless of sex,
generally reduce their farming activities
and are not likely to rent additional land.
They are, therefore, more likely to be full
owners, run smaller scale operations, and
receive lower farm income. Whereas some dif­ferences
may be inherent to sex of operator,
many are also a function of age.
When unpublished data from the 1978 agri­cultural
census are examined separately for
women farmers under age 60 and for those
60 years and over, differences in their
farm characteristics are noted. For example,
women over 60 years of age are less likely
than those under 60 to rent additional farm­land
(16 percent compared with 27 percent).
Accordingly, the incidence of full ownership
is somewhat greater among the older group.
3Unpublished data from the March 1976
Current Population Survey of the Bureau of
the Census were examined. For further detail
see Banks and Kalbacher ( 1).
Also, the older women farmers account for
three-fifths of the farmland rented to
others by operating female landlords. Al­though
the vast majority of both groups run
farms with fairly low levels of sales, farms
operated by older women are more concen­trated
in the lowest sales categories.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Banks, Vera J., and Judith Z. Kalbacher.
1981. Farm Income Recipients and Their
Families: A Socioeconomic Profile.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, RDRR
No. 30.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 1980. Marital status and
living arrangements: March 1979. Current
Population Reports. Series P-20,
No. 349.
3. • 1982. 1979 Farm Finance
Survey. Census of Agriculture, 1978.
Vol. 5, Special Reports, Part 6.
Unpaid Family Workers1
The total number of persons working with­out
pay in family businesses decreased from
1.6 million in 1950 to 0.6 million in 1981.
Historically, the vast majority of unpaid
family workers were in the agricultural sec­tor,
but there are now fewer unpaid family
workers in agriculture than in all combined
nonagricultural industries.
In general, the incidence of unpaid family
workers is high in industries with a large
number of self-employed workers. Agricul­tural,
service, and trade industries, for
instance, had high percentages of self­employed
workers and large numbers of
unpaid family workers.
Women are more likely to be unpaid family
workers than men, especially in nonagricul­tural
industries; in 1981, 79 percent of
unpaid family workers were female C.table 1) .
The proportion of female unpaid family
workers increased from 1950 to 1981 because
1Unpaid family workers are those who work
without pay for 15 hours or more per week in
a family business or on a family farm .
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 21
of increases in nonagricultural industries;
the percentage of female unpaid family
workers in these industries increased from
85 to 88 percent during this period, whereas
that in agricuiltural industries remained
constant at 66 percent. The majority of
female unpaid family workers are in the cen­tral
age group of 25 to 54 years (table 2);
most male workers are under 25 years of
age.
Unpaid family workers averaged fewer hours
per week than either wage and salary or
self-employed workers in 1981 (table 3). The
differential, however, was not large; unpaid
family work is not a marginal form of
employment but rather a significant
contribution to family ~usinesses.
Source: Daly, Patricia A., 1982, Unpaid
family workers: Long-term decline continues,
Monthly Labor Review 105(10):3-5.
Table 1. Unpaid family workers for
selected years, by sex
Year
1950 ..............
1960 ..............
1970 ..............
1981 ..............
Percent of all unpaid
family workers who were--
Male Fermle
30 70
26 74
21 79
21 79
Source: Daly, Patricia A., 1982, Unpaid
family workers: Long-term decline con­tinues,
Monthly Labor Review 105(10):3-5.
22 Family Economics Review 1983 No.4
Table 2. Unpaid family workers in agri­culture
and nonagriculture industries,
by age and sex
Age
(years)
Agriculture:
16-24 ........... .
25-54 ••••••...••.
55 and over ••..••
Total . ........... .
Nonagriculture:
16-24 ..•••..•••••
25-54 ........... .
55 and over ••••••
Total . ........... .
Male
81
11
8
100
57
23
19
100
Fermle
-Pe-rc-en-t
13
67
20
100
7
73
20
100
Source: Daly, Patricia A., 1982, Unpaid
family workers: Long-term decline continues,
Monthly Labor Review 105(10): 3-5.
Table 3. Hours of work per week for agri­culture
and nonagriculture workers, 1981
Workers
Wage and salary •••
Self-employed
Unpaid family •••••
Agriculture
Non­agriculture
Hours
40.8
49.3
39.4
37.7
40.5
35.8
Source: Daly, Patricia A., 1982, Unpaid
family workers: long-term decline continues,
Monthly Labor Review 105(10): 3-5.
National Social Data Series
This compilation (reprinted from the
Review of Public Data Use) contains descrip­tions
of 101 data bases with national
samples, a substantial number of social or
political variables, and observations in two
or more time periods. Most of the data bases
were either produced by or funded by agen­cies
of the Federal Government. In addition
to a brief discussion of the substantive
content of each data base, each description
includes information on the sample, the
frequency of data collection, the nature of
the output available, the sponsor of the
study, and an address and phone number for
those seeking further information. Several
indexes aid the use of these descriptions.
There is an alphabetical index, a chronolog­ical
index, and a subject matter index.
There is also a list of panel studies, a
list of studies that include subjective
questions, and a list of data bases generat­ed
from administrative records.
National Social Data Series: A Compendium
of Brief Descriptions (compiled by
Richard C. Tauber and Richard C. Rockwell)
is for sale from the Social Science Research
Council, Center for Coordination of Research
on Social Indicators, 1755 Massachusetts
Avenue, N.W., Room 410, Washington, D.C.
20036, for $2.
Making Food Dollars Count
By Betty B. Peterkin
Deputy director
Consumer Nutrition Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
A family of four can eat nutritiously and
well on $58 a week. This is about the cost
of the thrifty food plan (see page 32) and
the value of the full food stamp allotment.
Isabel Wolf, Administrator of the Human
Nutrition Information Service, U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture, has shopped in super­markets
in cities across the country this
year to demonstrate that the 58-dollar
budget can be met. The shopping trips were
part of seven 2-day workshops on "Making
Food Dollars Count" sponsored by three USDA
agencies: Food and Nutrition Service, Human
Nutrition Information Service, and Extension
Service. 1 Other regional government and pri­vate
groups also participated as organizers
and attendants at the workshops. The work-
""'Y shops are part of a nationwide effort on the
part of USDA to help the public obtain
well-balanced, nutritious diets; to urge
more people to invest in good nutrition for
themselves and their families; and to
encourage community leaders and private
groups, such as supermarkets, to cooperate
in increased efforts to make food shopping
easier.
Making food dollars count at the grocery
store is not a mystery to most people on
tight food budgets. Previous studies have
demonstrated that many people with limited
resources are experts at managing their food
money. 2
At the workshops, participants were given
sample meal plans that illustrate some ways
to combine foods in nutritious and satis­fying
low-cost meals. 3 The meal plans are
menus for 2 weeks, with food lists and
recipes for a four-person family. Foods to
prepare the meals cost about $58 per week.
1 The workshops were conducted in Atlanta,
Dallas, New Brunswick, Chicago, Denver,
Boston, and San Francisco.
2 See "Food shopping skills of the rich and
the poor," Family Economics Review 1983(3):
8-12.
3The sample meal plans are being distri­buted
rimarily through community leac ers
who participated in the seven workshops and
additional workshops. At the time of the
first workshop in Atlanta, Ga., Extension
agents throughout the country were provided
with copies of the sample meal plans for
r eproduction. Single copies can be ordered
for $0.50 from the Consumer Information
Center, Pueblo, Colo. 81009.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review ZJ
The nteal plans are patterned after the
food use of low-income households surveyed
nation wide. Household food use, however, was
changed as necessary to assure that the meal
plans would contain recommended amounts of
nutrients and moderate levels of fat,
cholesterol, sweeteners, and sodium, while
controlling cost. The meal plans were tested
in food laboratories, then tried by low-income
families, and adjusted to allow for
their suggestions.
The Food Dollar
How it was spent by
survey households:
In the national survey, 4 most of the .low­income
households used food that would cost
more than $58 a week. Also, most of them had
diets with some nutritional shortcomings.
The way the survey households budgeted
their food dollars among food groups is com­pared
with the way food dollars are budgeted
in the sample meal plans (see figure).
Larger shares of food dollars are allo­cated
to vegetables, fruits, grain products,
milk, and dry bean groups in the meal plans
4 USDA's Nationwide Survey of Food Con­sumption
in Low-Income Households, 1977-78.
How it might be spent for
better nutritional balance:
18¢ - - -- Vegetables, - -----
fruits 23¢
15¢
Grain products ------------
20¢
15¢
~Milk, milk
by products ------
2¢ 17¢
~Beans
37¢
------ Meat, poultry,
fish ----28¢
24 Family Economics Revie w 1983 No . 4
than in the household diets. These foods are
relatively economical sources of one or more
of the nutrients that were found to be short
in household diets--calcium, iron, magnesi­um,
zinc, and folacin. In addition, most of
these foods help meet nutritional goals for
the meal plans because they contain little
or no fat, cholesterol, and added sweeten­ers.
These substances were found in higher
levels than desired in many household diets.
Meat is a major contributor· of iron, zinc,
and other nutrients in both household diets
and sample meal plans, but amounts in meal
plans are somewhat curtailed because of the
high cost of most meats relative to other
foods. Also curtailed are commercially pre­pared
mixtu;;s,-;uch as fro~en entrees , and
meals, potato chips, and ice cream, that are
relatively expensive sources of nutrients.
The foods listed in the shopper's guide
(see table) summarize the food lists for the
sample meals. Amounts of various types of
foods shown will provide nutritious meals
for most four-person families. The guide
also shows the average price to aim for in
selecting foods. The prices of some foods in
the groups will be higher and others lower
than the average. The cost of various types
of foods at the average prices shown total
less than $58. Occasional purchase of more
expensive foods is allowed for under "extras
and extravagances."
A shopper's guide • • • To make food dollars count
Nutritious meals for 4 for $58 a week
What to buy fuw IIDch to buy Average price Cost
Vegetables, fruit (fresh, canned,
frozen) ............................ . 26 lb $0.50/lb $13.00
Cereal, rice, pasta, flour, meal •••••• 9 lb • 70/lb 6.30
Bread ............................... . 6 lb .80/lb 4.80
Milk, fluid and dry ••••••••••.••••••• 14 qt .55/qt 7.70
Cheese .............................. . 2/3 lb 1.95/lb 1.30
Meat, poultry, fish •••••••••••••••• •• 10 lb 1.45/lb 14.50
Eggs ••.•.•.••.•.•.••••• • • • • • • • • · • • · • · 1 doz .85/doz • 85
Dry beans, peanut butter •••••••••••• 2-1/8 lb 1.20/lb 2.55
Fats, oils ........................... . 1-3/4 lb .85/lb 1.50
Sugar, sweets •••••••••••••••••••••••• 2-1/8 lb .75/lb 1.60
Extras (beverages, seasonings)
and extravagances ......•.••.•....... 3.90
Total .................... • ........ . $58.00
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 25
Update: Alternative Mortgage
Instruments1
Revised Regulations
The Comptroller of the Currency, regulator
of the national b anks, has revised its
adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) regulation.
The revisions increase the flexibility of
national banks to design ARM's that are
consistent with instruments offered by other
lenders and that are purchased in the
secondary market. Therefore, the competitive
position of national banks should be
enhanced, and the flow of bank funds into
home mortgage lending should be increased.
Effective March 7, 1983, the revised
regulation eliminated restrictions on the
frequency of payment and interest rate
adjustments, as well as limits on the magni­tude
of periodic interest rate adjustments.
The limit on the amount of negative amorti­zation
and the requirement that the monthly
payments be reestablished at a fully
amortizing level at least once every 5 years
were also removed. Instead, the revised
regulation requires that monthly payments be
reset at a level sufficient to begin reducing
the outstanding loan principal no later than
during the 21st year and to amortize the
entire principal without a substantial
balloon payment by the end of the 30th year.
The earlier regulation, adopted in March
1981 and amended in April 1982, had been
intended as an interim measure and had
allowed banks to submit nonconforming ARM
plans for review. The Comptroller of the
Currency is providing a 120-day transition
period to allow banks to continue previously
approved programs that do not conform to the
amortization requirement of the revised
regulation. Those banks will be required to
bring their lending programs into conformity
at the expiration of the transition period.
Under the revised regulation, national
banks are no longer restricted to five
indexes as the basis of rate adjustments.
Instead , the lender may use as an index any
interest rate readily available to and
1 See 11 Alternative mortgage instruments, 11 by
Carolyn Summers Edwards, Family Economics
Review 1982(4).
26 Fa mily Eco no mics Rev ie w 1 983 No.4
verifiable by the borrower and beyond the
control of the lender. The revised regula­tion
retains most of the existing disclosure
requirements and adds others to reflect the
increased flexibility provided by the
revisions.
Simplified Plans
The Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA or Fannie Mae) has standardized ARM
plans that it will buy. The three ARM plans
that have been the most popular have been
simplified and replace the eight plans that
FNMA began buying in August 1981.
The three plans feature 1-, 3-, and 5-year
interest rate adjustment periods. Changes to
the interest rate and monthly payments,
which are made simultaneously, are tied to
the 1-, 3-, and 5-year U.S. Treasury
security rates. Each of the plans gives the
borrower the right to limit payment increases
to 7-1/2 percent. If a capped payment is
sufficient to cover the full interest pay-ment
but not all of the principal payment,
the amortization of the mortgage slows. If
the capped payment is insufficient to cover
all of the interest owed, the amount of in­terest
not paid is added to the outstanding
principal balance. In no case may negative
amoritization cause the outstanding balance
to exceed 125 percent of the original loan.
Each of the plans may be combined with an
optional graduated payment feature that
starts monthly payments at a reduced level
and increases them gradually during the
first adjustment period. During the gradu­ated
payment period, monthly payments
increase by 7-1/2 percent a year. The amount
of the normal interest payment not made is
added to the outstanding balance, adding
another source of negative amortization.
Each of the plans may also be combined
with a temporary buy-down. A buy-down is a
lump sum payment made to the lender at the
time the loan is originated. It is used to
pay part of the borrower's interest payments
during the early years of the loan. The buy­down
funds may come from the seller/builder,
the borrower, the borrower's family, or any­one
else. When a buy-down is combined with
a graduated payment option, the buy-down
funds are used to reduce or eliminate the
negative amortization. Permanent buy-downs,
which reduce the actual interest rate on the
mortgage, are also permitted.
Initial interest rates on FNMA ARM's are
lower than those on fixed rate mortgages. In
May 1983, for example, FNMA's rate for a
fixed-rate mortgage was 12.45 percent. The
rates for 1-, 3-, and 5-year ARM's were
10.88, 11.67, and 11.92 percent, respectively.
Mortgage Money Guide
This booklet provides a summary of 15 home
financing techniques. Essential features of
each technique are described. The pattern of
monthly payments and interest rate for many
of the plans are depicted graphically.
Important background information on interest
rate adjustments, special contract provi­sions,
and negative amortization is summar­ized.
Payment tables illustrate how monthly
principal and interest payments vary with
the amount financed, the duration of the
mortgage, and the contract interest rate.
Single copies of The Mortgage Money Guide
are available free from the Federal Trade
Commission, Division of Credit Practices,
6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580.
Directory of Computerized
Data Files, 1982
This directory describes 800 data files
that are available through the National
Technical Information Service of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. Abstracts of the
data files are subdivided into 30 subject
categories under the 3 headings of econom­ics,
social services, and science and tech­nology.
Physical characteristics of the data
tapes and references to related technical
reports are included in the abstracts.
Appendixes include the data files organized
by the originating agency (or contractor),
by accession number, and by subject matter.
Directory of Computerized Data Files 1982
is for sale from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Va. 22161, for $40. Order
No. PB 83-127605.
Preliminary Data From the
1980-81 Continuing Consumer
Expenditure SuiVey
American households spend about a third of
their food budgets on food away from home,
with younger households spending an even
higher share, about two-fifths, according to
new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). Data from the first 2 years, 1980-81,
of the continuing Consumer Expenditure Diary
Survey also show that:
Expenditures for food as a share of
income decline sharply as income rises, from
about 40 percent for the lowest one-fifth of
the income distribution to 10 percent for
the highest.
Food away from home is an important
share of total food for all income groups
but rises with income. In the lowest income
class, expenditures for food away from home
account for about 25 percent of total food
spending, compared with 35 percent in the
highest income class.
For consumer units 1 of more than one
person, food away from home is a larger
share of total food expenditures for a two­earner
consumer unit than for a one-earner
unit, in part because of the higher income
of the two-earner unit.
1The basic reporting unit for the Diary
Survey is the consumer unit, which refers to
either: (1) All members of a particular
household who are related by blood,
marriage, adoption, or other legal
arrangement, such a foster children; (2) a
person living alone, or living as a roomer in
a private home or lodging house, or sharing a
household with others, but who is financially
independent; or (3) two or more persons
living together who pool their income to
make joint expenditure decisions.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 27
Consumer units in the lowest one-fifth
of the income distribution account for 10
percent of total food purchases, while units
in the highest one-fifth account for 30
percent.
Total direct expenditures for energy-­electricity
, natural gas, fuel oils, and
other fuels and gasoline--decline as a pro­portion
of income as income rises; however,
per capita expenditures generally rise as
income rises.
Consumer units in the lowest fifth of
the income distribution account for
8 percent of total gasoline purchases, while
units in the highest fifth account for 32
percent. On a per capita basis, gasoline
expenditures for the highest income group
are more than twice those for the lowest
group.
The over-65-year-old age group spends
a higher proportion of income on food at
home and household energy (gas, electricity,
and fuel oil) than other age groups.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey program
was begun in late 1979. The principal objec­tive
of the survey is to collect data on the
buying habits of American consumers for use
by government, business, labor, and academic
analysts. The data are also necessary for
future revisions of the Consumer Price
Index. In the past, the survey was conducted
about every 10 years. The new survey is
ongoing, with rotating panels of respondents
participating over time. The continuous flow
of data will provide more timely information
on consumption patterns of different kinds
of households.
The survey, which is conducted by the
Bureau of the Census for BLS, consists of
two components: (1) A diary or record­keeping
survey completed by the partici­pating
household for two consecutive 1-week
periods; and (2) an interview panel survey
in which the expenditures of consumer units
are obtained in five interviews conducted
every 3 months. Each component of the survey
includes an independent sample of approxi­mately
5,000 consumer units (per year) that
is representative of the U.S. urban popula­tion.
The data are collected in 85 areas of
the country.
28 Family Economics Review 1983 No.4
The Diary Survey is primarily designed
to obtain data on small, frequently
purchased items which are normally difficult
for respondents to recall. These items
include food and beverages (both at home and
in eating places), tobacco, housekeeping
supplies, nonprescription drugs, personal
care products and services, and fuels and
utilities. Expenditures incurred by members
of the consumer unit while away from home
overnight or longer are excluded.
The Interview Survey is designed to
obtain data on the types of expenditures
which respondents can be expected to recall
for a period of 3 months or longer. In
general, these include relativ_ely large
expenditures, such as those for real
property, automobiles, and major appliances;
or expenditures which occur on a fairly
regular basis, such as rent, utilities, or
insurance premiums. The Interview Survey
also provides data on expenditures incurred
on trips.
Expenditure data from the Diary Survey for
food at home, food away from home, alcoholic
beverages, tobacco, utilities, gasoline,
personal care, housekeeping supplies, and
nonprescription drugs are classified by
level of income in the table on p. 29.
A BLS bulletin containing an extensive
description of the survey and analysis of
results, including comparisons with data
from the 1972-73 survey and more detailed
tables, is in preparation. For information
regarding this bulletin and the 1980-81
microdata public-use tapes, write to the
Office of Prices, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1983, Households spend
a third of food budgets "away from home,"
according to new Consumer Expenditure
Survey, News U SDL: 83-235.
Selected characteristics and weekly expenditures of urban consumer units 1 classified by INCOME BEFORE TAXES,
Consumer Expenditure Diary Survey, 1980-81
Item
Number of consumer units in
universe (thousands) •••••••••••••••
Consumer unit char acteristics:
Income before taxes (dollars) ••••••
Size of consumer unit (persons) •••
Age of householder (years) ••••••••
Number in consumer unit:
Earner s •••••••••.••••••.••••••••
Vehicles •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Children under 18 ••••••••.•••.••
Persons 65 and over •••••••.•••••
Percent homeowner •••••.••••••••••
Average weekly expenditures
(dollars):
Food •••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••
Food at home •••••••••••••.••••••
Cereals and cereal products •••
Bakery products ••••••••••••••
Beef •••••••••••••••••••••••.••
Pork •.••.••••••.•••••••••••.••
Other meats •••••••••.••••.••••
Poultry •••••••••••.••.••••.••••
Fish and seafood ••••••••••••••
Eggs •••••••••••••••.•••.•• ••••
Fresh milk and cream ••••••••••
Other dairy products •.••••••••
Fresh fruits •••••••••••••••.••
Fresh vegetables •••••• • •••••••
Processed fruits ••••••••••••••
Processed vegetables ••••••••••
Sugar and other sweets ••••••.
Fats and oils •••••••••••••••.•
Miscellaneous prepared foods ••
Non-alcoholic beverages •••••••
Food away from home ••••••••• • ••
Alcoholic beverages ••••••.•••••••••
Tobacco products and smoking
supplies •••••••.•••••••••••••••.•
Personal care products and
services •••••••••••••••••••••••.••
Non-prescription drugs and
supplies ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housekeeping supplies ••••.••.•••••
Energy ••••.•••••••••••.•••••••••••
Electricity and natural gas ••••••
Fuel oil and other fuels •••••••••
Gasoline, motor oil and
additives •••.•••..•••••••••••.••
All
consumer
units
70,040
15,219
2.6
45.7
1.3
1.4
.7
• 3
61
50.50
34.15
1.38
2.96
4.48
2.34
1.58
1.52
1.04
.66
2.38
2.16
1.59
1.57
1.22
.96
1.24
. 96
3.08
3.05
16.35
5 . 20
2 .80
3.95
1.62
4.16
32 . 22
12.01
3.06
17.15
Oamplete reporting of income
--------------------------------------------------------------- Incomplete
Total
C0!11llete
reporting
54,266
19,188
2. 6
44.4
1.4
1.4
.8
.3
59
53 . 24
35.97
1.48
3.11
4.74
2.48
1.64
1.60
1.08
.69
2. 51
2 . 26
1.63
1.62
1. 27
1.01
1.33
1.01
3. 31
3.19
17.27
5. 65
2. 97
4.14
1.68
4.46
34 . 02
12.84
3.05
18.13
Less
than
$5,000
7,600
2,609
1.6
49.8
.6
.6
.4
.4
33
26.68
19.60
.95
1. 71
2. 26
1. 31
. 82
1.02
.57
.45
1.43
1. 06
1. 06
.88
.79
.54
.79
. 57
1.68
1.71
7.08
2.27
1.53
1.96
.90
1.97
14.41
7 . 11
1. 69
5.62
$5,000
to
$9,999
9,670
7,344
2. 1
48.4
.8
.9
.6
.5
43
34 . 69
26 . 26
1.16
2. 28
2.97
1. 78
1. 26
1. 28
. 71
. 60
2.00
1. 55
1. 23
1. 26
1.01
• 73
. 92
.81
2.26
2.43
3.43
3.15
2. 24
2.40
1.39
2. 75
24.06
10.12
3.03
10.91
$10,000
to
$14,999
8, 057
12,351
2.4
43.0
1.2
1.3
.7
.3
47
44.39
30.47
1. 30
2.47
3.56
2.19
1.30
1.46
.90
.64
2. 20
1.87
1. 39
1.59
1. 04
. 86
1.13
.83
2.86
2.84
13.93
4.40
3. 31
3. 21
1.87
3.57
30.93
11.89
2.78
16.25
$15,000
to
$19,999
6,907
17.294
2. 9
41.1
1.5
1.5
1.0
.2
62
54.60
37.39
1.59
3.25
5.03
2.43
1. 79
1. 58
1.05
. 69
2.62
2.23
1.58
1. 56
1.27
1. 15
1.44
1.04
3. 66
3.42
17.21
5.66
3.48
4.38
1. 51
4.16
34.93
12.04
3.90
18.98
$20,000
to
$29,999
11,672
24,344
3.1
41.2
1.7
1.8
1.0
.1
70
66.01
44.42
1. 79
3.84
6.30
3.32
2. 02
1.84
1.32
.81
3.04
2.75
1.83
1.89
1.48
1.25
1.64
1. 22
4.13
3.96
21.58
6.96
3.57
5.13
1.85
5.72
41.40
14.76
3.29
23.35
reporting
$30, 000 of
and
over
10.360
43,17 5
3.3
43.6
2.1
2.2
1.0
.1
86
81.61
50.83
1.86
4.49
7.19
3.30
2. 31
2.15
1.69
.87
3.35
3.58
2.39
2.27
1.83
1.35
1.82
1.42
4.70
4.25
30.78
9.96
3.44
6.83
2.28
7.35
51.18
18.67
3.45
29.06
income
15,774
1,567
2.5
50.3
1.3
1.3
.6
.4
67
41.06
27.89
1.05
2.43
3.58
1.85
1.38
1.25
.91
.54
1.91
1.81
1.47
1.39
1.03
• 78
.94
• 77
2.26
2.55
13.17
3.66
2. 20
3.30
1.43
3.15
26.05
9.19
3.11
13.76
1The basic reporting unit for the Diary Survey is the consumer unit, which refers to either : (1) All members of a particular
household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangement, such as foster children; (2) a pe rson living
alone, or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house, or sharing a household with others, but who is financially inde ­pendent;
or (3) two or more persons living together who pool their income to make joint expenditure decisions.
Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983, Households spend a third of food budgets "away from
home," according to new Consumer Expenditure Survey, News USDL :83-235.
1983 No .4 Family Economics Review 29
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of r aising urb an child r en: June 19831
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 • ••••••• •
1 .... .. ...... .. ..
2-3 •• •• •••• • ••• • •
4-5 •.•••• • ••••• ••
6 .. ............ ..
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 ...... .. .. ..
12 • •••• • •• • ••• . ••
13-15 •••• •• •••• ••
16-17 • • ••• • ••• •••
Total •• •• • • ••• •
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 •• •••• •••
1 ........ .... .. ..
2-3 .• ••• • •••• • • ••
4-5 ••••••• •• • • • • •
6 .. .. .......... ..
7-9 •••••••••• • • . •
10-11 .......... ..
12 ••••••••• • ••• • •
13-15 ........ .. ..
16-17 ... .. . . . . . . .
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 • •. ••••••
1 .. .. ...... .. .. ..
2-3 •• • ••••• • • • •••
4-5 •••• • •••• • • • • •
6 .. ............ ..
7-9 ••••••••• •• • • •
10-11 • •••• • ••••••
12 •••• • •••• • •••• •
13-15 •••• • • • •••••
16-17 •••••• • •• • • •
Total
WEST:
Under 1 .. ...... .
1 .... .. ........ ..
2-3 •• •• • • ••••• • • •
4-5 ••••••• • • • • • ••
6 .... .. ........ ..
7-9 .... .. .... .. ..
10-11 • • •• • ••• • • ••
12 •• • •• ••• •• • • • • •
13-15 •• ••• •••••• •
16-17 ••••••• • ••••
Total. •••••• •• ••
Total
$4,101
4,225
3,934
4,168
4,340
4,514
4,688
5,005
5,130
5, 632
83,447
4,069
4,218
4,105
4,339
4,645
4,819
5,042
5,352
5,501
5,900
88,016
4,463
4,587
4, 298
4,507
4,762
4, 91).
5,109
5,445
5,594
6,012
90,624
4,395
4,544
4,307
4,568
4,892
5,066
5, 289
5, 583
5,707
6,264
92,589
$546
670
670
769
744
918
1,092
1,116
l, 241
1,389
17.393
645
794
769
868
868
1, 042
1,265
1,265
1,414
1, 563
19,870
595
719
695
769
769
918
1,116
1,116
1,265
1,389
17,686
595
744
719
819
794
968
1, 191
1, 191
1,315
1,489
18.609
Food
away
frcm
heme
$0
0
0
135
135
135
135
161
161
161
2,046
0
0
0
135
161
161
161
161
161
188
2, 256
0
0
0
135
161
161
161
188
188
188
2,364
0
0
0
161
188
188
188
188
188
215
2,632
Clothing Houging3 Medical
care
$134
134
218
218
302
302
302
436
436
604
5,904
134
134
235
235
319
319
319
470
470
587
6,176
151
151
235
235
319
319
319
470
470
604
6,244
134
134
218
218
319
319
319
453
453
570
6,006
$1,789
1, 789
1, 572
1, 572
1, 491
1, 491
1, 491
1, 545
1, 545
1, 599
28,190
1,816
1,816
1,654
1,654
1, 627
1,627
1, 627
1, 681
1, 681
1,708
30,150
1,925
1, 925
1,708
1, 708
1, 627
1, 627
1, 627
1, 681
1,681
1,735
30 , 638
1,871
1,871
1, 681
1, 681
1,654
1,654
1,654
1,708
1,708
1,789
30,800
$264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
4, 752
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
4,752
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
5, 274
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
322
5,796
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
116
116
116
116
116
116
1, 392
0
0
0
145
145
145
145
145
145
1,740
0
0
174
174
174
174
174
174
2,088
0
0
0
0
145
145
145
145
145
145
1, 740
Transpor- All
tation other'
$824
824
718
718
718
718
718
771
771
851
13 . 614
718
718
665
665
665
665
665
744
744
797
12,656
877
877
771
771
771
771
771
824
824
904
14. 568
877
877
771
771
797
797
797
877
877
957
15,042
$544
544
492
492
570
570
570
596
596
648
10,156
492
492
518
518
596
596
596
622
622
648
10.416
622
622
596
596
648
648
648
699
699
725
11 , 762
t 596
596
596
596
673
673
673
699
699
777
11,964
1Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No . 1411, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation," by Carolyn s. Edwal'ds. This
publication is for sale by the U.S. Govel'nment Pl'inting Office, Washington, 0. c. 20402 .
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches .
3Jncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household opel'ations, furnishings, and equipment.
'Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
JO Family Economics Review 1983 No . 4
The cost of raising rural nonfarm children : June 19831
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 ••••• • •••
1 .. ............ ..
2~3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 • • •••••••••• • •
6 .......... .. .. ..
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 •• • •••••• • • •
12 •••• • ••••••• •• •
13-15 ••••••••.•••
16-17 •••••••••• • •
Total •• • •••••• •
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 • ••••••.•
1 .......... .. .. ..
2-3 ••• •• •••••••• •
4-5 •••••••• • •••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10 - 11 .......... ..
12 •••• • • ••.••••• •
13-15 .......... ..
16-17 .......... ..
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 • ••••••••
1 ...... .. ...... ..
2-3 •••••••••• • •••
4-5 ••••• • ••••••••
6 .. .. ........ .. ..
7- 9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 .. .. ...... ..
12 .. ............ .
13-15 ••• •• •••.• ••
16-17 • ••••••.••••
Total
WEST:
Under 1 ........ .
1 .............. ..
2-3 • ••• •• •• ••••••
4-5 •••••.•• • •••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 .. ...... .. ..
12 .............. .
13-15 ••••••• • •••.
16-17 •••• • •••••••
Total • • •.• •• •••
Total
$3,874
3,998
3,555
3,763
4, 058
4,207
4,405
4,742
4,866
5,226
77,789
4,496
4,620
4, 412
4,672
4,998
5,147
5,370
5,696
5,845
6,357
94,408
4,649
4, 749
4,299
4, 559
4,734
4,883
5, 082
5, 461
5, 585
6,069
91,015
4,817
4,941
4,464
4 . 724
5, 070
5, 244
5,442
5, 822
5,971
6,549
96,653
Food
at
horne 2
$496
620
595
695
695
844
1,042
1,042
1,166
1, 290
16. 127
595
719
695
794
794
943
1.166
1,166
1, 315
1, 464
18,286
595
695
670
769
744
893
1,092
1, 092
1, 216
1,365
17 . 245
595
719
695
794
769
943
1, 141
1,141
1,290
1,464
18. 111
Food
away
fran
horne
$0
0
0
108
135
135
135
135
135
161
1,888
0
0
0
161
188
188
188
188
188
215
2,632
0
0
0
161
161
161
161
188
188
215
2,470
0
0
0
161
161
161
161
188
188
215
2,470
Clothing Housing 3 Medical
care
$117
117
184
184
285
285
285
436
436
537
5,498
134
134
218
218
319
319
319
486
486
637
6, 272
151
151
235
235
319
319
319
486
486
688
6,476
134
134
218
218
335
335
335
503
503
587
6,336
$1,708
1, 708
1, 437
1, 437
1,410
1,410
1,410
1,464
1,464
1, 491
26,462
1, 925
1, 925
1,762
1, 762
1,735
1,735
1,735
1,789
1,789
1,843
32,150
1,925
1, 925
1,654
1, 654
1,599
1, 599
1,599
1,654
1,654
1,681
30,038
1, 952
1,952
1, 681
1,681
1,654
1,654
1,654
1,708
1, 708
1,816
31,016
$264
264
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
264
4,332
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
4,752
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
293
5,274
322
322
293
293
322
322
322
322
322
322
5,680
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
116
116
116
116
116
116
1, 392
0
0
0
0
174
174
174
174
174
174
2,088
0
0
0
0
145
145
145
145
145
145
1, 740
0
0
0
0
174
174
174
174
17 4
174
2,088
Transpor- All
tation other"
$797
797
665
665
691
691
691
771
771
797
13,078
930
930
851
851
851
851
851
904
904
983
15,952
1,063
1, 063
877
877
851
851
851
930
930
983
16,426
1, 063
1, 063
904
904
904
904
904
983
983
1,116
17,330
$492
492
440
440
492
492
492
544
544
570
9,012
648
648
622
622
673
673
673
725
725
777
12, 276
622
622
570
570
622
622
622
673
673
699
11,346
751
751
673
673
751
751
751
803
803
855
13,622
1Annual cos t of ra1smg a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a h u sband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For mor e information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No . 1411, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation," by Carolyn S. Edwards . This
publication is for sale by the U. S . Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 .
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
• Includes personal care, recreation, r eading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
1983 No.4 Family Economics Review 31
"" N
-.,
Ill
.3... . ,_.
'<
I'Tl
()
a
::l
a
.3.. ..
()
CJ)
::0
(!)
<.... .
(!)
:1:
..,
CX>
"'
z
a .,.
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, July 1983, U.S. average1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group
Thrifty Low-cost !Vbderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan 2 plan cost plan plan plan 2 plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 3
20-50 years •.............•.....•••. $35.30 $44.40 $54.80 $67.30 $153.20 $192.70 $237.10 $291.90
51 years and over .•..•.....•.•••.•• 33.50 42.60 52.30 62.10 145.80 184.50 226. 20 269.30
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ••..•...••...... 51.40 63.90 77.90 94.90 222.90 277 .10 337.40 411.50
6-8 and 9-11 years •.••........... 59.00 75.10 93.80 112.50 255 .50 325.50 406.40 487.60
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
1-2 years ••.•.••...••.•.••••..••••. 9.30 11.20 13.00 15.60 40.20 48.60 56.30 67.60
3-5 years •..•..•••.....•...•.•••••. 10.00 12.30 15.10 18.10 43.40 53.30 65.60 78.50
6-8 years ••..........•.....•...•••• 12.30 16.20 20.30 23.80 53.10 70.30 88.10 103.00
9-11 years •.....•....••..•.••••••.. 14.60 18.50 23.70 27.50 63.10 80.00 102.80 119.20
Male:
12-14 years •...•....••.....•••.•.•• 15.30 21.00 26.20 30.70 66.20 90.80 113.40 132.90
15-19 years .••••..•••........••.... 15.90 21.80 26.90 31.20 69.00 94.50 116.70 135.20
20-50 years ...••.......•.••.•••.•.. 16.90 21.50 26.90 32.20 73.20 93.20 116.50 139.70
51 years and over .•.....•.....•.•.• 15.40 20.40 25.00 29.80 66.90 88.20 108.10 129.10
Female:
12-19 years .•....•..........•....•. 15.30 18.20 22.00 26.50 66.10 78.90 95.20 114.70
20-50 years .....•........•.•....... 15.20 18.90 22.90 29.00 66.10 82.00 99.00 125.70
51 years and over ••••..•..•••.••.• 15.10 18.30 22.50 26.70 65.60 79.50 97.50 115.70
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in The Thrifty Food Plan, 1983, CND(Adm.)365. Estimates for the other
were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983 No. 2. The costs of the food plans are
estimated by updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey.
USDA updates these survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Detailed Report, table 3) to
estimate the costs for the food plans.
2 Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
3 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
4The 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.
()
0
~
9.
t-rj
0
0
0.
8.
::X::
0 s <D
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [ 1967 = 100]
Group
All i terns •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food at home •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food away from home •••••••••••••••••••
Housing ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Shelter ••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•.••.••
Rent, residential •••••••••.••.••••••••
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••.•••.
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ••.••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••••••••••.
Household furnishings and operation •.••
Apparel and upkeep •••••••••••••••..•••..
Men's and boys' •.•.••.•.•.••••.••••••••
Women's and girls' ••••••••••••.•••••••••
Footwear ••.•.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
Transportation ••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••
Private •.••••.••.••••••••.••••.•••.•••••
Public ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Medical care ••••••••••••••...•••.•••••.•••
Entertainment •••••••.••.•.••..•.•••••••••
Other goods and services •••••••••••••••••
Personal care •.••••••••..•••.•••••••••••
July
1983
299.3
292.0
282.8
319.8
324.5
345.3
237.1
375.5
619.3
440.5
238.9
195.0
188.2
158.8
203.8
300.4
296.0
363.2
357.7
246.0
287.5
261.3
June
1983
298.1
292.0
283.0
319.3
323.1
343.6
235.9
373.6
620.0
437.4
238.6
195.6
189.1
159.7
206.8
298.3
293.8
361.2
355.4
245.4
284.5
260.9
Source: U.S. De@artment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
May
1983
297.1
292.4
283.8
318.6
321.8
342.7
235.1
369.3
621.0
429.1
238.4
196.1
189.5
160.1
208.0
296.2
291.7
359.2
354.3
244.8
283.6
259.4
July
1982
292.2
288.5
282.8
307.6
319.2
342.8
224.8
354.7
659.9
402.1
234.1
189.7
182.4
154.6
206.4
296.1
292.3
347.2
330.0
236.6
257.2
249.4
ORDER FOAM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit Card Orders Only
Enclosed is $ 0 check, • Total charges s Fill in the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my .
Deposit Account No. g~~~i~o. ~I ~~ -~1 ~~-~~ -rl-.--1 -rl--,lr---rl-.1---rl-rl--.-1 -.1--.-[ -.1---,1
t t I I I I I 1-D !ff~i]~ Expiration Date I I
Order No. Month/Year _ . ·I
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
at $8.50 per year. (Add $2.15 for other than U.S. mailing).
Company or personal name
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional address/ attention line
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
treat address bit! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L.(e I k,PI ctel I I
tllti!IIIIIIIIIII!IIIWI!Itll
(or Country)
t I I t t I I I I I I I I I t I I I t t I I t I I I t I I I
PLEASE PAINT OR TYPE
1983 No.4
For Office Use Only
Quantity Charges
.... Enclosed
............ To be ma1led
......... Subscriptions ..
Postage ...................... .
Fore1gn handling ..
MMOB ........................... .
OPNR ....................... .
...... UPNS
.................. D1scount
Refund
Family Economics Review 33