View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

) 570~
7

city worker’s family budget




FOR A
LIVING

MODERATE
STANDARD

A u t u m n 1 9 6 6 - B u lle tin N o . 1 5 7 0 -1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

city worker’s family budget




FOR A
LIVING

MODERATE
STANDARD

A u tu m n 1 9 6 6 -B u I let in N o . 1570-1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Will ardWi rtz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Arthur M. Ross, Com missioner

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 30 cents




Contents
Page
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Costs in urban areas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A moderate standard: Present and past ------------------------------------------------------------Intercity differences---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Data sources and estimating methods
-------------------------------------------------------------Food------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shelter c o s ts----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Medical care ---------Other goods and services -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Other c o s ts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v
1
2
8
16
17
18
19
19
20
21

T able s :
1. Annual costs of the city worker’ s family budget by major
components urban United States, 39 metropolitan areas,
and nonmetropolitan areas byregions, autumn 1966 ----------------------------2. Indexes of comparative living costs based on the city
worker's family budget, autumn 1966 ---------------------------------------------------

13

Appendix contents ------------------- — --------------------------------------------------------------------------

23




iii

9




Introduction
The City Worker’ s Family Budget
described in this bulletin provides one
answer to the question, "How much does
it cost to live? " The question, however,
is deceptively simple. The answers are
multiple and complex, depending pri­
marily on: (1) the age, size, and type
of family; and (Z) the standard of living
to which the family aspires.
All benchmark estimates of living
costs are based on specific family situ­
ations. The cost estimates of the City
Worker! s Family Budget are for a fam­
ily of 4 persons: an employed husband,
age 38; a wife not employed outside the
home; and two children, a girl age 8
and a boy 13. This type represents a
middle stage in the typical family life
cycle. The man is presumed to be an
experienced worker and well-advanced
in his trade or profession. He has been
married for 15 years or more.
The
family group is well established and has
average inventories of clothing, housefurnishings, major durables, and other
equipment. Three-fourths of such fam ­
ilies are homeowners with mortgages
they contracted for 7 years earlier.
Benchmark l i v i n g cost estimates for
larger f a m i l i e s or those with older
children will be higher, and estimates
for smaller or younger families or re­
tired couples will be lower, than those
for the type of 4-person family used in
the City Worker1s Family Budget.
In
short, there is no single answer to the
question
"How much does it cost to
live? ", since family size, age, and type
have a significant effect on spending
patterns, manner of living, and family
needs.
The other major consideration in
developing family budgets is the stand­
ard of living for which cost estimates
are made. "Standards of living" refer
to the goals we set for ourselves as
consumers of goods and services and
as users of leisure time.




The l i v i n g standard represented
by the current City Workerfs Family
Budget is described as moderate.
It
provides for the maintenance of health
and social well-being, the nurture of
children, and participation in commu­
nity activities.
This generalized con­
cept of a moderate standard has been
translated into a list of commodities
and services which can be priced. (See
appendix A. )
The content of the new budget for
a moderate standard is based on the
manner of living and consumer choices
in the 1960’ s. Two kinds of data were
used to derive the list of goods and
services included in the budget. First,
nutritional and health standards, as de­
termined by scientists and technicians,
were used for the food-at-home and the
h o u s i n g components.
The selection
among the various kinds of food and
housing a r r a n g e m e n t s meeting the
standards was based on actual choices
made by families as revealed by sur­
veys of consumer expenditures.
Sec­
ond, where scientific standards have
not been formulated, analyses of the
data reported in the Bureau’ s Survey
of Consumer Expenditures and related
consumption studies were used to de­
termine the s p e c i f i c items, and the
quantitatives and qualities thereof, to
be included in the budget.
These analytical procedures result
in basing some parts of the budget upon
the collective judgment of consumers as
to the kinds and amounts of consumption
required, rather than upon scientific
standards.
In such a n a l y s e s , some
e x e r c i s e of the budget-maker’ s own
judgment is involved; however, in this
budget, such judgment has been confined
to selection of the basic data and de­
termination of the procedures to be fo l­
lowed in deriving the items and quanti­
ties making up these parts of the budget.

The specific decisions that were made
with respect to each component of the
new City Worker's Family Budget are
documented in this bulletin.

Both of these earlier budgets were
for a family of the same size, age, and
type as that in the new budget. Simi­
larly, the living standard in all 3 stud­
ies p r o v i d e s for the maintenance of
health and social well-being, the nurture
of children, and participation in com­
munity activities.
For the most part,
the procedures used to translate this
generalized concept of the living stand­
ard into a list of goods and services
were also the same, but the kinds and
quantities of items c o m p r i s i n g the
standard differ, because the budget re­
flect the conditions of living in 3 dif­
ferent decades. Changes in educational
levels, cultural developments growing
out of travel and migration, and growth
in purchasing power affect the level of
living of American families and their
ideas about what constitutes a moderate
living standard.

The moderate living standard does
not show how an "average” family ac­
tually spends its money, nor does it
show how a family s h o u l d spend its
money. Individual families may spend
more on one item and less on others
than the amounts indicated in the budget.
Furthermore, many families can and
do spend less than the total amount
specified in this budget without feeling
deprived and without impairing t h e i r
health or their ability to contribute con­
structively to our society. In general,
h o w e v e r , the representative list of
goods and services c o m p r i s i n g the
standard reflects the collective judg­
ment of families as to what is nec­
essary and desirable to meet the con­
ventional and social as well as the phys­
ical needs of families of the budget type
in the present decade.

Technological advances also influ­
ence the composition of the standard.
New types of consumer goods and serv­
ices are developed, mass production
increases their availability, and mass
communication and advertising stimu­
late the d e m a n d for them.
As real
income rise, certain aspects of living,
once considered attainable only by a
few, come within the reach of many
and are accepted as part of the Amer­
ican way of life. In a dynamic society,
therefore, the r e l a t i v e position of a
moderate living standard on a scale of
all living standards may remain fixed,
but the description of what constitutes
that standard will be ever-changing.

The new City Worker's F a m i l y
Budget is the third study published by
BLSwhich translates a generalized con­
cept of a moderate standard of living
into a list of commodities and services
that can be priced.
The original City
Worker's Family Budget was issused in
1947.
The quantities and qualities of
goods and services i n c l u d e d in that
budget were based on the manner of
living and standards prevailing in the
early 1940's. The pricing of the orig­
inal budget in 34 large cities was dis­
continued after October 1951 because
the budget was outmoded.
In I960, the Bureau issued The In­
terim City Worker's Family Budget.
It was based on a new list of goods and
s e r v i c e s representing "modest-butadequate" living in a c c o r d a n c e with
standards prevailing in the 1950’s. Be­
cause the basic data used in the analysis
related to the early 1950's, and because
of the limited scope of this revision,
it was considered "interim, " pending a
more complete review of the procedures
and the availability of data from the
Bureau's Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures in 1960—
61.
The interim budget
was priced only once, in autumn 1959,
in 20 large cities.




The present study differs from the
earlier budgets in two major respects.
These differences have a f f e c t e d the
level of the 1966 costs and comparative
living cost indexes, particularly in re­
lation to the costs and indexes of the
1959 interim budget.
1. For the first time, the budget
has been priced in a sample of medium­
sized and small cities.
Thus, it is
possible to estimate the average U. S.
urban budget cost and to compare met­
ropolitan and nonmetropolitan a r e a
costs.
(See appendix B. )
vi

higher standard for the 4-person family
and for the retired couple. The lower standard budget will represent a mini­
mum of adequacy.
Substantial down­
ward adjustments will be made in the
content and/or manner of living of the
moderate standard, where this is pos­
sible without compromising the family's
physical health or self-respect as m em ­
bers of their community.

2. Costs of maintaining an owned
home have been included in the mod­
erate standard.
Shelter costs in the
earlier budgets were limited to rental
housing.
Use of rental housing only
was appropriate for l a r g e cities in
terms of the 1940 modest standard of
the original budget, but it was recog­
nized as a limitation in the 1959 interim
budget in terms of the standard of the
1950's.
The a d d i t i o n of homeowner
costs provides, for the first time, com­
parative budget costs for renter and
owner families and intercity indexes of
homeowner m a i n t e n a n c e
costs for
equivalent housing.

In contrast with the moderate budg­
ets, the lower-standard budgets will not
conform in certain respects to prevail­
ing customs and buying practices— that
is, to the collective judgments of fami­
lies of these types concerning what is
necessary for a satisfactory standard
of living. The lower standard budgets
are expected to be more appropriate
than the moderate budgets for use in
establishing goals for public assistance
and income maintenance programs in
the current decade.

The effects of these and other changes
on the moderate standard are discussed
in detail in this bulletin.
A list of the Bureau's p r e v i o u s
budgets and related references, is pro­
vided in appendix C, including the Re­
port of the Advisory C o m m i t t e e on
Standard Budget Research, June 19&3.
This r e p o r t summarizes the recom­
mendations of a special committee of
experts, representing users of standard
budgets in State and local welfare ad­
ministration, academic research, labor
unions, and b u s i n e s s organizations.
The committee advised the Bureau on
the direction that its research on stand­
ard budgets should take, and its recom­
mendations formed guidelines for the
Bureau in the development of the cur­
rent budget.

The higher standard budget will re­
flect a more c o m f o r t a b l e level and
manner of living sometimes known as
the "American standard of living. " It
will be useful in determining the ability
of self-supporting families to pay for
fee services, or their eligibility for
scholarships, e tc ., and in certain gen­
eral economic analysis.
In the future, estimates of the cost
of the three standard budgets for the
4-person family and for a retired couple
will be made as of the spring of the
year and published periodically for the
same metropolitan areas and regional
classes of smaller cities as those in­
cluded in the present study.

Subsequent bulletins in the current
series will report r e s u l t s of other
phases of the standard budget research
programs.
Bulletin 1570-2 will describe the
Revised Equivalence Scale for estimat­
ing budget costs for families of differ­
ent size, age, and type.

This bulletin was p r e p a r e d by
Jean C. Brackett under the supervision
of Helen H. Lamale, Chief of the Divi­
sion of Living Conditions Studies and the
general direction of Arnold E. Chase,
A s s i s t a n t Commissioner. Elizabeth
Ruiz supervised the research for all
budget c o m p o n e n t s except food and
medical care, for which Mary H. Hawes
was responsible. Other staff members
whose work contributed substantially to
the project were Miriam A. Solomon,
Roseann C. Cogan, Alice B. Curry,
and M. Louise McCraw.

Bulletin 1570-3 will report the au­
tumn 1966 Budget Pricing Procedures,
Specifications, and Average P rices.
Bulletin 1570-4 will give the autumn
1966 costs for a Retired Couple's Budget
for a moderate standard of living.
Subsequently, there will be bulletins
on the spring 1957 costs for the mod­
erate standard, and for a lower and a




vii




City Worker’s Family Budget for a Moderate
Standard of Living, Autumn 1966
Costs in Urban Areas
The annual cost of living at a moder­
ate standard for a family of four per­
sons (husband 38, wife not employed
outside the home, boy 13, and girl 8)
averaged $ 9, 191 in autumn of 1966 in
urban areas of the United States. The
cost averaged $9, 376 in metropolitan
areas and $8, 366 in smaller cities. 1
About 80 percent of the total cost of the
budget is allocated to family consump­
tion items— food, housing, transpor­
tation, clothing, personal care, medical
care, and other items used in family
living.
Such costs averaged $ 7 ,3 2 9 ,
about $795 higher in metropolitan areas
than in smaller cities.
In a d d i t i o n
to consumption items, the total budget
includes a l l o w a n c e s for gifts and
contributions, basic life i n s u r a n c e ,

p e r s o n a l income and social security
taxes, and occupational expenses. D is­
tributions of costs, by m a j o r com­
ponents of the budget, are shown in the
tabulation below.
B u d g e t costs were a b o u t $800
higher for homeowner than for renter
families. 2 However, this figure in­
cludes an a v e r a g e of about $450 in
1 Table 1 shows annual costs of the budget for
urban United States, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas, 39 individual metropolitan areas, and 4 nonmetro­
politan regions.
(See p. 9 .)
^ Since the majority of families of the budget type
are homeowners, their costs constitute 75 percent, and
costs for renter families 25 percent, of the weighted aver­
age cost of shelter for urban United States and each
individual area.

Distribution of costs by major components, autumn 1966
_________ Total cost of budget____________

Component

_____ Cost of family consumption_______

Total
urban

Total
urban

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Total cost------------------------------------ $9, 191

$9, 376

$ 8 ,3 6 6

100.0

100.0

7 9 .7
2 3 .3
24. 1
8 .9

7 9 .9
2 4 .0

5. 1
7 .8

7 9 .7
2 3 .2
2 4 .4
8 .7
10. 5
5. 1
7 .8

Other costs---------------------------------------Gifts and contributions-------------Personal life insurance---------------

4 .5

4 .5

2 .8
1 .7

.9

.9

3. 1

3. 1

1 0 0 .0

29. 1
3 0 .6
1 0 .9
13. 2
6 .4
9 .8

3 0 .0
2 8.3

3 .3

1 1 .9

100.0

2 9 .3
3 0 .2

1 .0

Social security and disability
p ay m en ts--------------------------------------

1 0 0 .0

1 .9

Occupational exp en ses------------------

$ 6 , 681

2 .8

1 .7

$ 7 ,4 7 4

4 .7

2 .8

$ 7 ,3 2 9

100.0

Total fam ily consumption--------------F o o d -------------------------------------------Housing*-------------------------------------Transportation----------------------------Clothing and personal c a r e ------Medical ca re -----------------------------Other family consumption---------

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
areas
areas

11. 1

Percent distribution------------------------------

Personal taxes 1 --------------------------------

10.6

11.8

2 2.6
9 .7

11.1

10.8

1 3 .2
6 .4
9 .8

4 .9
7 .8

1 Weighted average cost for homeowner (75 percent) and renter (25 percent) families.

278-870 0

-

67-2




1

12.2
1 3 .5

6.2
9 .8

2
payments on m o r t g a g e principal, an
element of "savings" not included in the
budget for renter families. The addi­
tional income required to cover these
payments also results in higher per­
sonal t a x e s for homeowner families,
d e s p i t e the fact that their mortgage
interest payments are tax deductible.
Few families of the type represented by
this budget claim contributions, inter­
est, and o t h e r eligible deductions in
excess of the standard deduction.
Total budget costs were highest for
homeowner f a m i l i e s in metropolitan
areas and lowest for renter families
in smaller cities, averaging $9, 588 and

$7, 946, respectively. (See the following
tabulation. ) This difference reflects not
only the variation in the costs and man­
ner of living associated with renting or
owning a home but also the difference in
transportation requirements and spend­
ing patterns for clothing, personal care,
recreation, m e a l s away from home,
etc. , between metropolitan areas and
smaller cities. 3
^ See appendix A for separate quantity lists for
families residing in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas. These lists were developed for all budget com ­
ponents that were derived by analysis of the choices of
goods and services m a d e by consumers in successive
income groups.

Differences in total budget costs by type of area and tenure
Nonmetropolitan
areas

Cost difference
by type of area

Urban
United States

Metropolitan
areas

Total budget c o s t ----------------

$9, 191

$9, 376

$ 8 ,3 6 6

$ 1 ,0 1 0

Homeowner fam ilies---------------------Renter fa m ilie s ------------------------------

9, 390
8 ,5 9 4

9, 588
8, 739

8 ,5 0 6
7 ,9 4 6

1,082
793

Cost difference by tenure-----

796

849

560

XXX

Tenure

A Moderate Standard: Present and Past
Defining the Standard
"Standards of living" refer to the
goals we set for ourselves as consum­
ers of goods and services and as users
of leisure time and to our norms for
conditions of living.
Standard budgets
measure the total costs of maintaining
the levels and manners of living repre­
sented by these goals. "Level of living"
is defined as a c t u a l consumption of
goods and services; "manner of living"
as the way or style of life (city or
country, homeowner or renter, etc.)—
in other w o r d s , how the goods and
services are consumed.
In a standard budget, the "goals
of consumers" are translated into a list
of goods and services which describe a
specific standard that can be priced.
To provide meaningful estimates of its
costs, the budget s t a n d a r d must be
related to a specific size and type of



family, and specific assumptions must
be made with respect to the family's
manner of living. If these assumptions
are reasonable and factually based, and
if the list of goods and services has
been determined by objective methods,
then the standard budget provides an
independently derived cost estimate for
measuring income adequacy and eval­
uating the actual levels of living of fam ­
ilies as revealed by consumer expendi­
tures and other consumption data.

The 1966 budget continues to rep­
resent, as did the original and interim
budgets, a moderate standard of living
for an urban family of four, consisting
of an employed husband, age 38, a
h o u s e w i f e not employed outside the
home, and two children— a girl age 8
and a boy age 13. The concept of this
standard budget was described in the
original budget as follows:

3
"The budget was designed to repre­
sent the estimated dollar cost required
to maintain this family at a level of
adequate liv in g -— to satisfy prevailing
standards of what is n e c e s s a r y for
health, efficiency, the nurture of chil­
dren, and for participation in commu­
nity activities. This is not a 'subsist­
ence* b u d g e t ,
nor is it a 'luxury*
budget; it is an attempt to describe and
measure a modest but adequate standard
of living. " 4
Two k i n d s of data were used to
arrive at the component parts of the
budget: "One, those derived from labo­
ratory experiments or from scientific
observation; the other, those showing
the spending practices of representative
samples of urban families of the same
type as that for which the budget was to
be constructed. * Since budgetary re­
'
quirements vary with climate and other
local conditions, the quantities and types
of goods and services required to pro­
vide the moderate standard must be ad­
justed to describe an equivalent stand­
ard of living from place to place.
In defining the s t a n d a r d for the
original b u d g e t , the Technical Advi­
sory Committee recognized that "such
a budget is not an absolute and unchang­
ing thing.
The prevailing judgment of
the necessary will vary with the chang­
ing values of the community, with the
advance of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge of
human needs, with the productive power
of the community, and therefore with
what people commonly enjoy and see
others enjoy. " 5
Income and Budget Costs
The City Worker’ s Family Budget
provides a measure of income adequacy
for a self-supporting family of a specific
size, age, composition, residence, and
employment status. Thus, the total cost
of the budget should be compared di­
rectly only with the total annual income
of four-person families of similar type
living in urban areas. The budget total
should not be compared directly with
general levels of industrial wages and
wage rates or with average income of



all urban families.
Estimates of the
costs of consumption for other family
types can be derived from the revised
scale of equivalent income or budget
costs noted in the Introduction.
These
scale values cannot be used, however,
to estimate total budget costs including
taxes, life insurance, etc. , or costs for
the components of consumption, such
as housing or food.
The level of living represented by
the budget is not " m i n i m u m " in the
sense in which that term is used in re­
lation to standards or goals for public
assistance or welfare programs.
On
the other hand, the standard of living
represented by the items and quantities
included in the moderate budget is below
that enjoyed by a majority of American
families of this specific type.
Most
such families, comparing in detail the
items and quantities with their own con­
sumption, may regard them as inade­
quate in some respects.
In urban United States in the BLS
survey for 1960—
61, average income be­
fore taxes was $9, 095 for families of
the general type specified for the budget
(hereafter called a budget-type family).
This was composed of husband and wife,
and two children ages 6—17 years; it
contained o n l y one full-time earner.
Increases in median incomes from 1959
to 1965 (the latest data available), as
reported in the Current Population Sur­
veys of the B u r e a u of the Census,
ranged from 20 percent for all urban
families of two persons or more, to
27 percent for urban families with two
children.
These trend data applied to
the 1960— 1 average income for budget6
type families suggest that their 1966
average income before taxes amounted
to at least $ 11,000.
A l t h o u g h this
method of estimating 1966 income of
budget-type families is not precise, it
provides a reasonable approximation.

4 Techncial Reference 10, p. 40, appendix C.
5 The City Worker’ s Family Budget, Monthly Labor
Review, February 1948, p. 137.

4

The level of the moderate standard,
therefore, is at least 16 and more likely
20 percent below the average level of
living for f a m i l i e s of this type.
A
s i m i l a r analysis of the level of the
interim budget in 1959 indicated that it
was "about 15—
20 percent below the es­
timated average 1959 income of budgettype families. " 6 Thus, the standard of
the new budget is at approximately the
same relative position on the current
scale of consumption as were the stand­
ards of the original and interim budgets.
The new budget continues to represent
the necessary conventional and social
as well as biological requirements of a
self-supporting family.
Comparison with Earlier Budgets
The original budget was defined as,
"modest but a d e q u a t e " in terms of
standards prevailing in the years imme­
diately preceding and following World
War II. For goods and services other
than food and shelter, the quantities
and pricing lists were derived primar­
ily from analyses of expenditure stud­
ies made in 1934—
36 and 1941.
The
nutritional standard for food was based
on the 1945 allowances recommended
by the National Research Council, but
the selection of foods to meet these
standards was made from the 1941 and
earlier food survey data. Specifications
for healthful housing, formulated by the
American Public Health Association in
the mid—1940’ s , were used as guides in
defining the s h e l t e r standard.
This
budget was priced in 34 large cities in
March 1946, June 1947, and a u t u m n
1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951.
Pricing
was discontinued, because the modest
standard of the 1940’ s was no longer
appropriate for measuring budget costs
in the 1950’ s.
The modest standard of the interim
budget for the food, shelter, and med­
ical care c o m p o n e n t s was based on
standards and purchasing practices of
the mid—1950 fs.
For other goods and
services, the budget q u a n t i t i e s and
p r i c i n g lists were derived primarily
from the Bureau's Survey of Consumer
Expenditures in 1950.
The i n t e r i m
budget was priced only in Autumn 1959,
in 20 large cities.



The current budget is based on the
standards of the 1960fs.
The pricing
date is a u t u m n 1966. T h e s e three
studies provide the basis for approxi­
mating the change in the standard over
the past two decades.
For 18 of the
39 metropolitan areas in the current
budget study, cost estimates are also
available from the two previous studies.
The estimates for 1951 and 1959 are
for renter families only; those for 1966
are for renters and for renters and
owners combined.
Changes in Total Costs
In the 18 cities priced in all three
studies, the t o t a l cost of a moderate
standard of living for the four-person
family averaged about $4, 200 in 1951.
In 1959 the total cost of the interim
budget for the same 18 was $6, 100, or
45 percent higher than in 1951.
The
cost of the current moderate standard in
the same cities in 1966 averaged $8,700
for renter families and $9,283 for rent­
er and owner families combined. These
levels were 43 percent and 52 percent
higher than in 1959.
These increases
in the level of total budget costs reflect
increases in Federal, State, and local
income taxes and social security taxes
as well as the rise in prices and in the
standard of living represented in these
budgets.
Personal income taxes, which ac­
counted for 7 percent of the total budget
cost in 1951, made up 11 percent of the
budget in 1959, and 12 percent of the
combined renter-owner budget in 1966.
Social s e c u r i t y taxes amounted to 1
percent of the 1951 budget, 2 percent
in 1959, and 3 percent in 1966.
The
cost of family consumption items aver­
aged 87 percent of the total budget cost
in 1951, 83 percent in 1959, 80 percent
in 1966 reflecting the relatively larger
increases in personal income and social
security taxes than in the cost of the
family consumption items.

^ Subsequent analysis indicated that both the esti­
mated average 1959 income of budget-type families and
the level of the interim budget costs were understated.
See discussion, p. 39 of Technical Reference 5, appendixC.

5
Changes in the Consumption Standard
In 1951, the cost of family con­
sumption items in the modest standard
for a family of f o u r averaged about
$3, 750 in the 18 cities represented in
the budgets for all three periods.
By
1959, the cost of the interim budget
was about $5,180, or 38 percent higher.
The 1966 moderate standard for these
cities averaged $7, 189 for commodities
and services purchased by renter fam ­
ilies, and $7, 655 for renter and owner
families combined.
These costs were
39 and 48 percent above the 1959 level,
respectively, and about double that of
1951.
The advance in costs reflects
both the rise in the standard of living
represented in the budgets and the in­
crease in prices over this period.
A precise measure of the change
in living costs attributable to changes
in the standard or manner of living, as
distinguished from that caused by in­
creased prices, is almost impossible
to achieve, because many of the com­
modities and services constituting the
standard for an earlier period cannot
be priced in current markets.
How­
ever, the Consumer Price Index can be
used to provide a very rough approx­
imation of the effects of price change.
The procedure followed was to update
the costs of the earlier standards to
1966 by changes in the Consumer Price
Index at the subgroup level for each of
the 18 cities.
Then, the differences
between the costs of the 1966 standard
in these cities and the updated estimates
of the 1951 and 1959 standards were
deflated by the change in the CPI over
the appropriate period to adjust for the
higher price l e v e l s prevailing at the
later date. The residual differences in
costs between the new and the previous
budgets in these 18 cities can be attrib­
uted to the upgrading of the standard.
The average difference has been used
hereafter in this report as a reasonable
approximation of the change in the mod­
erate standard for all urban U.S. budgettype families.
About 15 of the total 39 percent in­
crease in the budget costs from 1959 to



1966 for renter families can be iden­
tified as resulting f r o m advances in
prices, leaving about 24 percent to rep­
resent the upgrading of the standard.
For owner and renter families com­
bined, the new standard reflects a 32
percent increase in the standard and
manner of living after factoring out a 16
percent advance in prices.
Compared
with 1951, the new standard reflects
approximately a 40 p e r c e n t rise in
prices, plus increases in the standard
amounting to about 50 p e r c e n t for
renter families only and 60 percent for
owner and r e n t e r families combined.
Hence, over this 15-year period, the
rise in the moderate standard (after ad­
justment for price changes) would aver­
age about 3. 5 to 4 percent a year.
Over approximately the same pe­
riod (1950 to 1965), the increase in real
after-tax income (also a d j u s t e d for
price c h a n g e ) has been estimated at
about 66 percent for families of the
budget type, or approximately 4. 5 per­
cent a year. Average after-tax income
for budget-type families was $4, 515 in
1950 and $7, 969 in 1960—
61, based on
the BLS Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures for these dates.
Current Pop­
ulation Surveys by the Bureau of the
Census for 1959 and 1965 indicate an
increase of 27 percent in median in­
comes of urban families with two chil­
dren. Applying this trend to the 1960—61
reported average results in an esti­
mated income of $10, 120 in 1965 for
budget-type families. In 1950 dollars,
the averages are $ 4 ,5 1 5 , $ 6 ,4 4 2 , and
$7,497 in 1950, 1960-61 and 1965, re­
spectively.
The estimated increase in
real income between 1960—
61 and 1965,
amounting to 16 percent, is confirmed
by the Department of Commerce, Office
of B u s i n e s s Economics data on per
capita personal income, per capita dis­
posable income, and per capita per­
sonal consumption expenditures.
Therefore, almost all of the im ­
provement in the real level of living of
the average budget-type family has been
reflected in the standard, which con­
tinues to represent the same relative
position on the s c a l e of consumption
over the two decades.

6
U p gradin g the F oo d Standard

The cost of the food standard in the
1966 budget reflects both the choice of
the specific Department of Agriculture
(USDA) food plan used to meet the nu­
tritional standard and changes in the
regional preference patterns since 1955.
(Preference patterns are regional var­
iations in the choice of foods which pro­
vide the nutritional s t a n d a r d . )
The
1959 interim budget food standard was
based on 1955 regional preference pat­
terns; the 1966 budget, on 1965 patterns.
One of the major sources of up­
grading in the 1966 standard was in the
food component, which was based on the
USDA moderate-cost food plan. In the
1959 budget, food costs were calcu­
lated from an average of the low- and
moderate-cost plans. The cost of food
at home in the 1966 standard is about
12 percent higher than it would have
been if an average of the low- and
moderate-cost plans b a s e d on 1965
p r e f e r e n c e patterns had been used.
Since food at home represents 25 per­
cent of the total cost of consumption in
the 1966 budget, the use of the higher
food standard accounts for about 3 of the
24 percent i n c r e a s e in the overall
standard.
Although families can achieve nu­
tritional adequacy from the low-cost
food plan, it has been estimated that
only 23 percent of those who spend
amounts equivalent to the cost of this
plan actually have nutritionally adequate
diets.
The foods included in the plan
require a considerable amount of home
preparation and skill in cooking. Many
of the families existing on low-cost food
budgets have neither the time nor the
technical knowledge to produce inter­
esting, varied, and nutritionally ade­
quate meals at this cost level.
The 1959 budget used 1955 data on
regional variations in the choices of
foods to determine the costs of the food
standard.
In the 1959 budget, foodat-home costs were lowest in Atlanta
and Houston and highest in Boston and



Pittsburgh, with a 24 percentage point
spread among the 18 cities common to
the interim and current budget studies.7
These differences resulted primarily
from variation in food choices.
When
only price differences were allowed to
affect the costs of the food plans, cities
in the South were not among the least
expensive.
The new standard is based on 1965
data on regional v a r i a t i o n s in food
choices.
The change in food pref­
erence patterns over the decade has re­
sulted in relatively lower food costs,
in all except the Southern cities, than
would have been obtained if the 1955
preference patterns had been continued
in the new budget.
In Detroit and Pittsburgh, for ex­
ample, autumn 1966 moderate-plan food
costs, based on the 1965 preference
patterns, were 4 and 6 percent lower,
respectively, than autumn 1966 costs of
the 1955 preference patterns in these
cities.
In Houston and Atlanta, how­
ever, they were 2 and 4 percent higher.
As a result, the range in food costs
was reduced from 24 to 16 percentage
points among these 18 cities. Between
1955 and 1965, regional differences in
food patterns lessened.
Thus, food
buying habits in the South have moved
closer to the patterns in other parts of
the country.
The new food standard also reflects
the increase in the number of meals
bought and eaten away from home by
families of this type. The 1966 allow­
ance provides for 261 and 310 meals
away from home in metropolitan areas
and small cities, respectively, com­
pared with 212 in the 195 9 budget and
189 in the original budget. The number
of times the family group might eat out
in a restaurant increased from five
visits a year (20 meals) to a visit ap­
proximately once a month (42 meals).
7
See Technical Reference 1, appendix C for
complete explanation of the extent to which regional
variations in food choices, as opposed to variations in
prices, contributed to this overall difference in the cost
of the food standard in the interim budget.
A similar
analysis is planned for the 1966 budget.

a

7
Effect of Changes in Housing
In the housing component of the new
standard, rental costs were based on a
narrower range of dwelling unit quality
(i. e. , the average of the middle third of
the distribution of autumn 1966 contract
rents for units that met the budget
criteria of adequacy) than was used for
the 1959 budget, in which costs were
based on average rents for all units
meeting the adequacy criteria.
As a
result, the published costs for rental
housing in Atlanta, C i n c i n n a t i , and
Pittsburgh were lower in 1966 than the
estimates published in 1959, despite the
increase in fuel and utility costs over
this period to the tenants who pay sep­
arately for them.
The narrower quality range used
for the 1966 budget provides a more
precise basis for measuring the cost of
the moderate standard, but the 1966 esti­
mates understate the change in rental
housing costs in comparison with 1959.
This has relatively little effect on the
overall cost level of the new budget,
however, since only 25 percent of the
budget-type families were assumed to
live in rental housing. The more signi­
ficant change in the new standard is the
previously discussed inclusion of homeowner costs for three-fourths of the
fam ilies.
Increase in Auto Ownership
Accompanying the c h a n g e in the
housing pattern is a revision of the pro­
portions of automobile owners. In the
1959 budget, New York, Philadelphia,
and Boston were specified as low (48
percent) ownership cities.
In the new
budget for these cities, and also for
Chicago, auto ownership is specified
for 80 percent of the families. 8 For
other areas in the 1959 budget, 76 per­
cent of the f a m i l i e s were assumed
to own cars, but auto ownership is
specified for 95 to 100 percent of the
families in these areas in 1966. These
upward revisions in the proportions of
auto owners were based on trend infor­
mation from the 1950 and 1960—
61 Sur­
veys of Consumer Expenditures and




from transportation surveys of the Bu­
reau of the Census. Increased owner­
ship and use of automobiles accom­
panied the trend to homeowner ship and
the extension of suburbs in large met­
ropolitan areas to areas not served by
public transportation.
Better Health Care
Since the m id -1 9 5 0 's, there has
been a substantial extension of hospital
and surgical insurance coverage under
provisions of wage and salary contracts
to families of the budget type.
The
medical care budget includes the fam ­
ily's share of the premium for a group
hospitalization plan and out-of-pocket
expenses for other medical services
and supplies.
In accordance with the
trend in prevailing practices, the new
budget provides fewer visits to physi­
cians than the 195 9 budget. Quantities
for both budgets were based on utili­
zation rates derived from U. S. Public
Health Service data, which reported a
decline in home and office visits, from
15. 7 to 13. 7 annually, for the age-sex
groups in the budget-type family. The
number of physician's visits to family
members in the hospital i n c r e a s e d
during this same period.
There are
two reasons for the change in the budg­
et costs for physician's visits, (1) the
extension of insurance to include sur­
gical services in the new budget pro­
vides an alternative method of payment
for physician's in-hospital services,
and (2) the 1966 budget specifies some
partial or complete payment of health
insurance premiums by employers. 9
As a result, the cost of the family's
direct payments for physician's visits
was lower in the new than in the interim
standard, despite the increase in physi­
cian's fees between 1959 and 1966. The
new budget provides for a substantially
higher standard for dental care than the
previous budget, particularly for peri­
odic e x a m i n a t i o n s , straightening of
teeth, gum treatment, and denture work.

8 For a detailed description, see p. 19.
9 For description, see p. 19.

8
Different Kinds of Clothing
For all of the components derived
by the quantity- or emenditure-income
elasticity technique, 1 the new budget
(*
allowances reflect changes in the stand­
ard of living which accompany changes
in the level of real income. For exam­
ple, the quantity of the women's casual
shoes tripled, reflecting an increasingly
i n f o r m a l way of life and the wider
choice of such shoes in stores today;
but the quantity of dress shoes declined.
The husband’ s clothing budget includes
fewer topcoats, heavy wool suits, and
dress shirts but more wool jackets,
l i g h t w e i g h t suits, sports coats and
slacks, and casual shoes— a reflection
of the fact that men also are wearing

less formal apparel. Improved heating
of homes, automobiles, and places of
work requires less protection from cold
weather and a l s o contributes to the
change of men's apparel.
In personal c a r e , the quantities
of haircuts declined for the boy but in­
creased for the man, woman, and girl.
Individual preferences play a large part
in the way families spend their money,
however, and the allowances provided
for these items are not suggested as a
spending plan for an individual family.

10 This technique is described on p. 20.

Intercity Differences
The new budget provides a wide va­
riety of comparative living cost indexes,
not only for total budget costs but for
the major categories of consumer goods
and services (table 2).
For the first
time in the Bureau’ s program of stand­
ard budget research, separate budget
cost estimates and comparative indexes
are provided f o r individual medium­
sized metropolitan areas and for broad
regional groupings of nonmetropolitan
areas. The average costs for the items
which make up the budget in each area
are shown in table 1.
Also, for the
first time, comparative housing cost
data for renter and owner families are
included separately.
The intercity indexes reflect not
only the difference among areas in price
levels but also climatic or regional dif­
ferences in the quantities and types of
items required to provide the specified
standard of living, and differences in
State and local taxes.
They are com­
parative l i v i n g cost indexes and not
comparative price indexes.

the small southern cities to $11, 190 in
Honolulu.
(New York had the highest
cost of the m a i n l a n d cities.) Since
Honolulu costs were also significantly
higher than those in the mainland cities
for most categories of the budget, 1 the
1
following discussion will be limited to
the 42 mainland areas.
Indexes of relative costs for the
total budget (U.S. urban average cost=
100) ranged from 85 in smaller cities
in the South to 111 in New York— a
spread of 26 percentage points (table 2).
The allowances for life insurance and
occupational expenses were $160 and
$80, r e s p e c t i v e l y , the same in all
cities.
The social security deduction,
$277, was also the same, since in all
cities the total budget e x c e e d e d the
maximum level of earnings for with­
holding tax for Federal old-age and sur­
vivor’ s insurance, i. e. , $ 6 ,6 0 0 . P ro­
vision for gifts and c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,
estimated as 3. 2 percent of total family

Variations in Total Costs
The total annual cost of the budget
in autumn 1966 ranged from $7, 855 in




11
A ll major categories except homeowner shelter,
clothing, personal care, and medical care.

278-870 0 - 6 7

Table 1. Annual Costs of the City Worker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,
39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966
Urban United States
Item
Total

M etropolitan
areas 2

Northeast

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

Lan­
c a s te r ,
Pa.

New Y o r k North­
eastern
New J erse y

P h ila ­
delphia,
Pa. — J.
N.

P itts ­
burgh ,
P a.

Portland,
Maine

Nonm etro­
politan
areas 3

Boston,
M ass.

B uffalo,
N. Y .

$ 2 , 209
1 ,8 8 3
326
2, 378
1 ,7 6 5
2, 581
1,8 91
1 ,2 7 9
2 ,0 9 5
272
215
878
878
202
791
171
202
169
179
70
218
461
233
88
273
722
73
291
60
134
73
91

$ 2 , 377
2 ,0 1 5
362
2, 538
1 ,9 4 9
2 ,7 3 4
2 ,0 8 3
1 ,4 9 4
2, 279
260
195
909
909
204
783
175
186
171
170
80
224
481
203
109
285
774
73
340
60
129
76
96

$ 2 , 286
1,9 51
335
1 ,9 4 5
1,6 5 1
2 ,0 4 3
1 ,5 0 3
1 ,2 0 9
1 ,6 0 1
247
195
773
773
186
755
166
184
159
170
75
201
413
167
68
273
730
63
319
60
129
75
84

$ 2 , 380
1 ,9 9 6
384
2, 655
1 ,7 8 0
2 ,9 4 5
2, 181
1 ,3 0 7
2, 472
266
207
731
874
159
789
176
197
174
175
68
217
497
210
119
288
763
73
308
60
154
73
95

$ 2 , 289
1 ,9 5 7
332
2 ,1 3 0
1 ,5 3 4
2, 329
1 ,6 5 5
1 ,0 5 9
1 ,8 5 4
270
205
739
873
203
766
169
186
171
169
71
213
449
229
81
270
732
73
299
60
138
75
87

$ 2 , 225
1 ,8 8 7
338
1 ,9 6 6
1,5 6 1
2, 100
1 ,5 0 7
1 ,1 0 2
1,6 4 1
253
207
790
820
229
758
167
190
162
164
75
214
433
208
78
266
729
76
306
60
128
75
84

$ 2 , 264
1 ,9 7 0
294
2 ,1 9 7
1 ,6 5 9
2, 377
1 ,7 0 4
1 ,1 6 6
1 ,8 8 4
266
227
819
819
194
815
180
202
164
191
78
203
466
268
94
256
727
80
291
60
131
76
89

$ 2 ,1 7 9
1 ,9 0 4
275
2, 131
1,5 11
2, 338
1 ,6 5 3
1 ,0 3 3
1 ,8 6 0
256
222
820
820

H artford,
Conn.

Food at home ---------------------------------------Food away from h o m e -----------------------Housing: T o t a l-----------------------------------------------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s -------------------------------Shelter: Total 4 ----------------------------------Rental costs 5 ---------------------------------Hom eow ner costs 6 -----------------------Housefurnishings --------------------------------Household o p e r a tio n s-------------------------Transportation: T o t a l7 --------------------------------Autom obile o w n e r s ----------------------------------Nonowners of autom obiles --------------------Clothing -----------------------------------------------------------Husband ------------------------------------------------W ife -------------------------------------------------------B oy----------------------------------------------------------G i r l ---------------------------------------------------------Clothing m a teria ls and s e r v ic e s -----P erso n a l care ------------------------------------------------M edical care: T o t a l-------------------------------------Insurance 8 --------------------------------------------P h y sic ia n 's v isits ------------------------------Other m e d ic a l care ---------------------------Other fam ily consu m p tion ---------------------------R e ad in g--------------------------------------------------R e c re a tio n --------------------------------------------Education-----------------------------------------------Tobacco ------------------------------------------------A lcoh olic b everages --------------------------M iscellan eou s ex p e n se s---------------------

$ 2 , 143
1 ,8 2 4
319
2, 214
1 ,7 3 6
2, 374
1 ,7 3 3
1 ,2 5 5
1 ,8 9 3
265
216
815
860
151
756
174
187
168
154
72
214
468
219
89
284
719
65
306
55
134
72
87

$ 2 , 173
1 ,8 4 0
333
2 ,2 8 6
1 ,7 7 6
2 ,4 5 7
1 ,8 0 8
1 ,2 9 8
1 ,9 7 8
266
212
815
870
184
767
174
191
169
159
74
218
481
225
94
290
734
70
310
60
133
72
89

$ 2 ,0 0 5
1 ,7 5 4
251
1 ,8 9 4
1 ,5 5 7
2 ,0 0 6
1 ,4 0 2
1 ,0 6 5
1 ,5 1 4
258
234
813
813
709
179
169
164
132
66
194
411
191
69
259
654
41
291
35
139
69
79

$ 2 , 317
2 ,0 1 0
307
2, 732
1 ,8 7 5
3 ,0 1 8
2, 245
1 ,3 8 8
2, 531
260
227
812
964
206
756
174
191
153
169
69
210
471
259
91
269
746
73
297
60
143
78
95

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l9 --------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s ---------------------------------

7 ,3 2 9
6, 850
7 ,4 8 8

7 ,4 7 4
6 ,9 6 4
7 ,6 4 3

6, 681
6, 343
6 ,7 9 3

8 ,0 4 5
7 ,1 8 8
8, 331

7 ,6 5 7
7 ,0 4 5
7 ,8 6 1

8 ,0 8 6
7 ,4 9 7
8 ,2 8 2

7 ,1 0 4
6 ,8 0 9
7, 202

8 ,0 3 1
7 , 157
8, 322

7 ,3 1 9
6 ,7 2 2
7 ,5 1 8

7 ,1 1 7
6, 712
7 ,2 5 1

7 ,4 9 1
6 ,9 5 3
7 ,6 7 0

7 ,1 6 6
6, 546
7 ,3 7 3

Other c o s t s ------------------------------------------------------Gifts and contributions-----------------------Life insurance ------------------------------------Occupational expenses ---------------------------------S ocial secu rity and disab ility payments —
P erso n a l taxes: T o ta l9 --------------------------------Renter fam ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s ---------------------------------

413
253
160
80
289
1 ,0 8 0
961
1 ,1 1 9

419
259
160
80
291
1 ,1 1 2
985
1 ,1 5 5

391
231
160
80
280
935
852
962

438
278
160
80
277
1 ,3 0 0
1 ,0 6 5
1, 379

425
265
160
80
293
1 ,2 6 9
1 ,1 01
1 ,3 2 6

440
280
160
80
277
1 ,1 1 7
992
1 ,1 5 9

406
246
160
80
277
1 ,0 2 3
958
1 ,0 4 5

438
278
160
80
295
1, 351
1 ,1 0 5
1 ,4 3 3

413
253
160
80
277
1 ,1 0 4
969
1 ,1 4 9

406
246
160
80
277
1 ,0 3 9
949
1 ,0 6 9

419
259
160
80
277
990
879
1 ,0 2 7

408
248
160
80
290
1,0 41
891
1,0 91

Cost of budget: T o ta l9 ---------------------------------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s --------------------------------

9, 191
8, 594
9 ,3 9 0

9, 376
8 ,7 3 9
9 ,5 8 8

8, 366
7 ,9 4 6
8, 506

10 ,141
9 ,0 4 9
1 0 ,5 0 5

9 ,7 2 4
8 ,9 4 3
9 ,9 8 5

1 0 ,0 0 0
9 ,2 8 6
1 0 ,2 3 9

8, 890
8 , 530
9 ,0 1 0

1 0 ,1 9 5
9 ,0 7 5
1 0 ,5 6 8

9 , 193
8 ,4 6 2
9 ,4 3 7

8 ,9 1 9
8 ,4 2 4
9 ,0 8 4

9 ,2 5 7
8 ,6 0 8
9 ,4 7 3

8 ,9 8 5
8 ,2 1 4
9 ,2 4 2

-

_

7 30
175
173
176
140
65
193
440
226
79
264
672
42
304
35
142
64
85

See footnotes at end of table.




CD

Table 1. Annual Costs of the City Worker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,
39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued

O

North Central
Cedar
Rapids ,
Iowa

Cham p aignUrbana,
111.

Chicago,
111- — Cincinnati,
North - O h io -K y .western
Ind.
Ind.

F o o d ------------------------------------------------------------------Food at home --------------------------------------Food away from h o m e -----------------------Housing: T o t a l-----------------------------------------------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s --------------------------------Shelter: T o t a l4 ----------------------------------Rental cost 5 ----------------------------------Homeowner costs 6 -----------------------H ousefurnishings --------------------------------Household o p e r a tio n s-------------------------Transportation: T o t a l7 --------------------------------Autom obile o w n e r s ----------------------------------Nonowners of autom obiles ---------------------Clothing -----------------------------------------------------------Husband ------------------------------------------------W ife -------------------------------------------------------B oy----------------------------------------------------------G i r l --------------------------------------------------------Clothing m a teria ls and s e r v ic e s -----P erson al care ------------------------------------------------M edical care: T o t a l-------------------------------------Insurance 8 --------------------------------------------P h y sic ia n 's v isits ------------------------------Other m e d ical care ---------------------------Other fam ily consu m p tion ---------------------------R e a d in g --------------------------------------------------R e c re a tio n --------------------------------------------Education ---------------------------------------------Tobacco ------------------------------------------------A lcoholic b e v e r a g e s---------------------------M iscellan e ou s e x p e n se s---------------------

$ 2 ,0 7 8
1 ,7 7 3
305
2, 337
1 ,9 4 1
2, 469
1 ,8 2 4
1 ,4 2 8
1 ,9 5 6
277
237
842
842
193
777
178
189
171
162
77
227
435
212
73
271
748
65
331
60
137
67
88

$ 2 ,1 1 3
1 ,8 1 2
302
2 ,4 8 0
2 ,2 1 8
2, 567
2 ,0 0 2
1 ,7 4 0
2 ,0 8 9
268
211
794
794
193
764
175
196
155
164
74
211
480
255
85
286
726
56
324
60
128
68
90

$ 2 ,1 5 3
1 ,8 3 5
318
2, 549
1,9 61
2 ,7 4 4
2 ,0 7 5
1 ,4 8 8
2, 271
258
215
770
913
201
770
183
189
164
156
77
229
484
255
86
289
729
71
307
60
133
67
91

$ 2 ,0 9 8
1 ,7 8 2
316
2, 170
1 ,6 1 6
2, 355
1,7 01
1 ,1 4 7
1 ,8 8 6
261
208
832
832
222
758
171
191
168
156
72
193
401
170
76
252
721
76
310
60
117
73
85

$ 2 ,0 9 1
1 ,7 51
340
2 ,4 6 6
1,7 31
2 ,7 1 3
1 ,9 8 8
1 ,2 5 2
2 ,2 3 4
256
222
822
854
209
781
174
194
172
165
76
215
429
257
86
233
719
76
309
60
117
68
89

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l9---------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Hom eow ner f a m i l i e s ---------------------------------

7 ,4 4 6
7 ,0 5 0
7 ,5 7 7

7 ,5 6 8
7 ,3 0 6
7 ,6 5 5

7 ,6 8 5
7 ,0 9 8
7 ,8 8 1

7 ,1 7 3
6 ,6 1 9
7 ,3 5 7

Other costs ------------------------------------------------------Gifts and con tribu tion s----------------------L ife in su r a n c e -------------------------------------Occupational expenses ---------------------------------S ocial secu rity and d isab ility paym ents —
P e r so n a l taxes: T o ta l9 --------------------------------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeowner f a m i l i e s ---------------------------------

418
258
160
80
277
1 ,2 0 1
1, 101
1 ,2 3 4

422
262
160
80
277
1 ,0 0 3
949
1,0 2 1

426
266
160
80
277
1 ,0 38
916
1 ,0 7 9

C ost of budget: T o ta l9 ---------------------------------Renter fa m ilies ----------------------------------------Homeow ner f a m i l i e s ---------------------------------

9 ,4 2 1
8 ,9 2 6
9 ,5 8 6

9 ,3 5 0
9 ,0 3 4
9 ,4 5 5

9 ,5 0 6
8, 797
9 ,7 4 3

Item

See footnotes at end of table.




Kansas
City,
M o .K a n s.

M il­
waukee ,
W is.

M inne­
apolis—
St. Paul.
Minn.

$ 2 ,0 9 9
1 ,7 9 6
304
2, 336
1 ,8 1 9
2, 509
1 ,8 4 4
1 ,3 2 6
2 ,0 1 6
272
221
887
887
196
784
181
192
177
155
79
219
431
241
84
244
747
74
318
60
129
77
89

$ 2 ,1 3 9
1 ,8 2 7
313
2 ,0 8 3
1 ,7 3 8
2, 199
1 ,5 8 3
1 ,2 3 6
1 ,6 9 8
277
225
871
871
198
762
175
190
173
155
69
234
441
207
80
272
741
67
319
60
142
67
86

$ 2 ,0 6 4
1 ,7 2 8
336
2 ,5 0 8
1 ,7 8 7
2 ,7 4 8
2 ,0 3 9
1 ,3 1 8
2, 279
243
226
829
829
186
758
170
184
161
165
78
213
443
238
79
262
732
74
303
60
142
64
89

$ 2 , 058
1 ,7 6 4
294
2, 286
1 ,8 1 3
2, 444
1 ,8 2 8
1 ,3 5 4
1 ,9 8 5
248
211
834
834
199
759
175
187
160
157
81
226
446
291
76
244
720
71
293
60
136
73
87

$ 2 , 199
1 ,8 6 5
334
2 ,2 0 2
1 ,7 1 9
2, 363
1 ,7 0 9
1 ,2 2 6
1 ,8 7 0
265
228
839
872
225
760
170
189
165
162
74
222
443
217
85
264
710
67
30 3
60
131
62
87

$ 2 , 123
1 ,8 3 8
285
2 ,0 7 4
1 ,7 4 5
2, 183
1 ,5 8 6
1 ,2 5 7
1 ,6 9 5
270
218
848
848
191
747
175
186
164
151
71
208
445
248
85
253
745
66
330
60
135
69
85

$ 1 ,9 9 4
1 ,7 6 7
227
2 ,0 6 4
1,7 21
2, 179
1 ,5 6 5
1 ,2 2 2
1 ,6 8 0
260
239
790
790
731
193
174
155
137
71
199
398
204
66
245
642
40
289
35
129
68
81

7 ,0 5 7
6 ,5 0 2
7 ,2 4 3

7 ,5 0 3
6 ,9 8 5
7 ,6 7 6

7 ,2 7 2
6 ,9 2 6
7, 387

7 ,5 4 7
6 ,8 2 7
7 ,7 8 7

7, 329
6 ,8 5 6
7 ,4 8 7

7 ,3 7 6
6 ,8 9 4
7 ,5 3 7

7, 189
6 ,8 6 1
7 ,2 9 8

6, 819
6 ,4 7 5
6 ,9 3 3

410
250
160
80
277
972
868
1 ,0 0 7

404
244
160
80
277
1 ,2 6 2
1 ,0 9 8
1 ,3 1 6

419
259
160
80
277
1 ,1 1 4
992
1 ,1 5 5

412
252
160
80
277
1 ,1 4 8
1 ,0 0 8
1, 195

421
261
160
80
277
1 ,4 1 5
1 , 198
1 ,4 8 7

413
253
160
80
277
1, 395
1 ,2 4 7
1 ,4 4 4

415
255
160
80
277
1 ,0 9 2
979
1 ,1 3 0

409
249
160
80
277
1 ,0 9 7
1 ,0 1 5
1, 125

396
236
160
80
277
963
881
991

8 ,9 8 1
8, 388
9 , 178

9 ,0 8 0
8, 361
9 ,3 2 0

9 ,3 9 4
8 ,7 5 4
9 ,6 0 8

9 ,1 8 9
8 ,7 0 3
9 ,3 5 1

9 ,7 4 0
8 ,8 0 3
1 0 ,0 5 2

9 ,4 9 5
8 ,8 7 4
9 ,7 0 2

9 ,2 4 1
8 ,6 4 5
9 ,4 4 0

9 ,0 5 2
8 ,6 4 2
9, 189

8 ,5 3 5
8 ,1 0 9
8 ,6 7 7

D etroit,
M ich.

Green
B ay,
W is.

$ 2 ,0 6 3
1 ,7 7 8
286
2 ,0 4 5
1 ,7 9 8
2 ,1 2 7
1 ,5 8 5
1 ,3 3 8
1 ,6 6 7
259
201
819
819
186
764
177
194
173
149
70
198
402
170
77
251
726
70
325
60
119
69
83

$ 2 , 149
1 ,7 9 6
353
2 ,0 7 6
1 ,5 8 8
2, 239
1 ,6 0 5
1 ,1 1 6
1 ,7 6 7
262
210
817
850
199
776
177
194
171
157
78
223
465
278
87
258
735
76
311
60
131
71
86

$ 1 ,9 9 7
1 ,7 2 2
276
2, 101
1 ,5 4 5
2, 286
1 ,6 3 0
1 ,0 7 4
1 ,8 1 5
260
211
826
826
172
765
177
198
159
151
80
198
427
199
69
272
744
70
328
60
138
64
84

7 ,5 2 5
6 ,7 8 9
7 ,7 7 1

7 ,0 1 6
6 ,7 6 9
7 ,0 9 8

7 ,2 4 1
6 ,7 5 3
7 ,4 0 4

408
248
160
80
277
1 ,0 3 8
912
1 ,0 8 0

420
260
160
80
277
994
842
1 ,0 4 4

40 3
243
160
80
277
935
883
953

8 ,9 7 6
8 ,2 9 5
9 ,2 0 3

9 ,2 9 7
8 ,4 0 9
9 ,5 9 3

C leve­
land,
Ohio

Dayton,
Ohio

8 ,7 1 1
8 ,4 1 1
8 ,8 1 1

Indian­
apolis ,
Ind.

St. Louis , W ichita,
Kans.
M o.-111.

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

Table 1. Annual Costs of the City Worker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,
39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966---- Continued
South
Item

Washington,
D. C . - M d . V a.

Nonm etro­
politan
a r e a s3

Atlanta,
Ga.

Austin,
T ex.

B altim ore,
Md.

Baton Rouge,
La.

D allas,
Tex.

Durham,
N. C.

Houston,
Tex.

N ash ville,
Tenn.

Orlando,
F la.

Food ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------Food at h o m e -----------------------------------------Food away fro m h o m e --------------------------Housing: Total ------------------------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------Hom eow ner fa m ilie s ---------------------------------Shelter: T o t a l4 -------------------------------------Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------H om eow ner costs 6 --------------------------Housefurnishings ----------------------------------Household operations --------------------------Tran sportation: T o t a l7----------------------------------A utom obile o w n e r s -------------------------------------Nonowners of autom obiles -----------------------Clothing --------------------------------------------------------------Husband ---------------------------------------------------Wife ............................................................ ...........
B o y -----------------------------------------------------------G i r l -----------------------------------------------------------Clothing m a teria ls and se r v ic e s — —
P erson al care ---------------------------------------------------M edical c a re: ^ otal --------------------------------------In su r a n c e ------------------------------------------------P h y sic ia n 's v isits ---------------------------------Other m edical care ------------------------------Other fam ily consu m ption ------------------------------R eading----------------------------------------------------R e c re a tio n -----------------------------------------------E d u c a tio n ------------------------------------------------Tobacco ---------------------------------------------------A lcoholic b everages ___________________
M iscellan e ou s e x p e n s e s -----------------------

$ 2 , 016
1,7 17
299
1,8 08
1,5 9 6
1,8 78
1,3 1 2
1, 100
1, 382
267
229
826
826
213
714
170
185
161
137
62
227
437
174
87
275
746
70
299
60
144
93
80

$ 1 ,9 9 5
1 ,7 0 0
295
1 ,6 7 6
1,4 6 2
1,7 4 8
1, 205
991
1,2 77
249
222
806
806
167
703
158
178
164
133
71
195
420
135
84
278
710
64
301
60
143
65
77

$ 2 , 026
1 ,7 0 2
324
1,9 97
1 ,8 5 9
2, 043
1,4 91
1, 353
1,5 3 7
262
244
810
842
204
722
173
181
168
137
63
211
450
222
87
267
7 09
70
297
60
127
72
82

$ 2 , 028
1 ,7 2 4
305
1 ,8 8 2
1 ,4 9 0
2, 013
1 ,4 31
1 ,0 3 8
1,5 6 1
258
194
896
896
189
686
161
176
154
130
65
221
426
172
89
263
723
70
302
60
139
71
81

$ 2 , 021
1 ,7 0 0
321
1 ,8 91
1 ,7 1 4
1 ,9 51
1 ,4 2 1
1 ,2 4 3
1 ,4 8 0
254
217
821
821
187
702
162
180
162
131
67
214
478
190
88
309
734
66
304
60
150
73
81

$ 1,9 61
1 ,6 87
275
2, 016
1 ,6 2 8
2, 145
1, 549
1, 161
1 ,6 7 8
267
200
804
804
162
715
169
181
165
133
68
207
444
213
89
263
690
66
314
60
97
72
81

$ 2 , 039
1 ,7 1 0
329
1 ,7 9 4
1 ,5 3 5
1 ,8 8 0
1 ,3 1 0
1 ,0 5 1
1, 397
263
221
860
860
199
686
157
176
161
128
64
216
466
166
89
306
733
69
306
60
149
68
81

$ 1 ,9 6 4
1 ,6 7 7
287
2, 021
1 ,6 0 4
2, 160
1, 529
1, 112
1 ,6 6 8
263
229
832
832
183
741
171
192
166
147
66
207
427
173
78
274
736
68
299
60
142
85
82

$ 1 ,9 8 8
1 ,6 8 7
302
1 ,9 61
1 ,6 9 6
2, 050
1,4 7 7
1, 212
1 ,5 6 6
269
215
827
827
198
696
165
178
155
131
68
199
433
165
94
269
716
68
300
60
134
73
81

$ 2 , 135
1 ,8 1 9
316
2, 325
1 ,8 41
2 ,4 8 7
1 ,8 3 3
1, 349
1 ,9 9 5
255
237
823
856
204
733
170
186
163
142
71
221
464
204
93
283
718
70
321
60
113
66
88

$ 1,9 2 5
1,6 7 5
250
1 ,6 7 6
1 ,4 5 2
1, 751
1, 188
964
1 ,2 6 3
254
234
810
810
_

C ost of fam ily consum ption: T o t a l9 -----------Renter fa m ilies -------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m il ie s -----------------------------------

6 ,7 7 4
6, 563
6, 845

6, 505
6, 291
6, 577

6, 924
6, 785
6, 970

6 ,8 6 3
6 ,4 7 0
6 ,9 9 4

6, 861
6, 683
6, 921

6 ,8 3 8
6 ,4 5 0
6, 967

6 , 794
6, 534
6 ,8 8 0

6, 928
6, 511
7, 067

6, 820
6, 555
6 ,9 0 8

7 ,4 1 9
6, 935
7, 581

6, 310
6, 086
6, 385

Other costs -------------------------------------------------------Gifts and contribu tions-------------------------Life insurance --------------------------------------Occupational expenses ------------------------------------Social secu rity and disability p a y m e n ts-----P erson al ta x es: T o t a l9 ---------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------Hom eow ner fa m ilies ----------------------------------

394
234
160
80
277
908
856
925

385
225
160
80
277
780
736
795

399
239
160
80
277
1, 118
1 ,0 8 2
1, 130

397
237
160
80
277
920
831
950

397
237
160
80
277
856
819
868

396
236
160
80
277
1, 115
1, 005
1, 152

395
235
160
80
277
841
788
859

400
240
160
80
277
867
781
896

396
236
160
80
277
843
789
861

417
257
160
80
277
1, 188
1 ,0 61
1,2 31

378
218
160
80
277
810
757
827

Cost of budget: T o t a l9 ----------------------------------Renter fa m ilies -------------------------------------------Hom eow ner f a m ilie s -----------------------------------

8 ,4 3 4
8, 170
8, 522

8 , 028
7, 769
8, 114

8, 798
8, 624
8 ,8 5 6

8, 538
8, 056
8 ,6 9 9

8 ,4 7 2
8, 257
8, 544

8, 707
8, 209
8, 873

8, 387
8, 074
8 ,4 9 1

8, 552
8, 049
8, 719

8 ,4 1 6
8, 097
8, 523

9, 381
8 ,7 7 0
9, 585

7 ,8 5 5
7, 578
7, 947

See footnotes at end of table.




671
169
162
156
123
60
187
394
169
65
256
648
40
282
35
143
73
75

Table 1. Annual Costs of the City W orker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,
39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued

1
0

W est
Item

B ak ersfield ,
C alif.

Denver,
Colo.

Honolulu,
Hawaii

Los A n g e le s Long Beach,
Calif.

San Diego,
C alif.

San F ran cisco—
Oakland,
C alif.

Seattle—
E verett,
W ash.

Nonmetro politan
areas 1
3
2
4

F o o d __________________________________________
Food at home ..
Food away from h o m e ______________
Housing: T o t a l______________________________
Renter fa m ilies _________________________
Homeowner f a m il ie s ___________________
S h elter: Total 1______________________
Rental costs 5_____________________
Homeowner costs 6_______________
H ousefurnishings____________________
Household o p e r a tio n s_______________
____________________
T ran sportation: Total 7
Autom obile o w n e r s _____________________
Nonowners of autom obiles ____________
C lo th in g ______________________________________
H u sb an d _______________________________
W ife ___________________________________
B o y ____________________________________
G i r l ____________________________________
Clothing m a teria ls and s e r v ic e s ...
P erson al care _______________________________
M edical c a re: T o t a l_______________________
Insurance 8
____________________________
P h y sic ia n 's v isits ___________________
Other m e d ical care _________________
Other fam ily consu m p tion _________________
R ead ing________________________________
R e c re a tio n ____________________________
E d u c a tio n _____________________________
Tobacco _______________________________
A lcoholic b everages ________________
M iscellan eou s expenses ___________

$ 2 , 07 3
1,7 6 1
312
1, 916
1 ,5 2 5
2, 046
1 ,4 3 0
1, 039
1, 560
293
193
894
894
193
769
173
189
178
155
75
218
542
262
91
338
691
61
305
60
107
74
84

$ 2 , 111
1,7 9 7
314
2, 208
1,7 75
2, 352
1,7 09
1,2 76
1 ,8 5 3
267
2 32
860
860
204
787
183
191
180
156
77
220
476
247
84
286
701
64
297
60
125
69
87

$ 2 , 551
2, 216
335
2, 848
2, 376
3, 005
2, 256
1 ,7 8 4
2, 413
314
278
993
993
170
7 37
171
190
169
134
73
222
469
224
90
282
806
70
354
60
137
83
102

$ 2 , 100
1 ,7 39
361
2, 164
1 ,8 6 2
2, 265
1 ,6 9 8
1, 396
1 ,7 9 9
280
186
873
910
172
794
172
198
179
159
86
231
626
262
118
395
725
72
324
60
107
73
89

$ 2 ,0 3 2
1,6 8 6
346
2 ,2 1 1
1 ,7 1 5
2, 377
1 ,7 36
1 ,2 4 0
1, 902
289
186
900
900
238
766
164
191
180
158
72
215
579
262
100
367
702
73
301
60
107
73
88

$ 2 , 188
1 ,8 2 4
364
2 ,4 0 8
2, 092
2, 513
1 ,9 1 9
1 ,6 0 3
2, 024
286
203
896
936
148
819
177
201
180
168
93
253
550
207
110
351
745
72
333
60
114
73
93

$ 2 , 268
1 ,9 0 0
367
2, 314
1 ,9 9 3
2 ,4 2 0
1,8 1 1
1 ,4 9 1
1 ,9 1 8
266
2 36
923
923
205
827
183
195
188
173
89
236
495
203
96
312
758
69
304
60
157
76
93

$ 2 , 037
1 ,7 8 6
251
2, 023
1 ,6 9 8
2, 132
1 ,5 0 8
1, 182
1 ,6 1 6
274
242
847
847
782
193
178
192
142
77
209
441
205
72
281
669
46
307
35
134
64
83

C ost of fam ily consum ption: T o t a l9-------Renter fa m ilie s _________________________
Homeowner f a m il ie s ___________________

7, 103
6 ,7 1 2
7, 233

7, 36 3
6 ,9 3 0
7, 507

8 ,6 2 6
8, 155
8, 783

7 ,5 1 4
7 ,2 1 2
7 ,6 1 5

7 ,4 0 5
6 ,9 0 9
7, 571

7, 860
7, 544
7, 965

7, 821
7, 501
7, 928

7, 008
6 ,6 8 3
7, 117

Other c o s t s __________________________________
Gifts and con tribu tion s_____________
Life in su r a n c e _______________________
Occupational expenses ------------------------------S ocial secu rity and disab ility payments —
P erson al taxes: T o t a l9-----------------------------Renter fa m ilies -------------------------------------Hom eow ner f a m il ie s ------------------------------

406
246
160
80
351
981
890
1 ,0 1 1

415
255
160
80
277
1, 100
990
1, 137

458
298
160
80
277
1 ,7 4 8
1 ,5 7 8
1 ,8 0 5

420
260
160
80
351
1, 080
1 ,0 1 0
1, 104

416
256
160
80
351
1, 054
938
1 ,0 9 2

432
272
160
80
351
1, 164
1 ,0 9 0
1, 188

430
270
160
80
277
1 ,0 5 7
991
1 ,0 7 9

402
242
160
80
277
1, 158
1,0 6 6
1, 188

C ost of budget: T o t a l9 ------------------------------Renter fa m ilies _________________________
Homeowner f a m il ie s ------------------------------

8, 921
8 ,4 3 9
9, 082

9, 235
8 ,6 9 2
9, 416

11, 190
1 0 ,5 4 8
1 1 ,4 0 4

9 ,4 4 5
9, 072
9, 569

9, 307
8 ,6 9 4
9, 511

9, 886
9 ,4 9 6
1 0 ,0 1 7

9, 665
9 ,2 7 9
9, 794

8, 925
8, 508
9, 065

1 The fam ily con sists of an em ployed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the hom e, an 8 -y e a r -o ld g ir l, and a 1 3 -y e a r -o ld boy.
2 For a detailed d escription , see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A r e a s , prepared by the Bureau of the Budget.
3 P la c es with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
4 The average costs of sh elter w ere weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for fam ilies living in rented dw ellings, 75 percent for fam ilies living in owned h om es.
5 A verage contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, elec tric ity , w ater, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents.
6 In terest and principal payments plus ta x es; insurance on house and contents; w ater, refuse d isposa l, heating fuel, ga s, ele c tr ic ity , and sp ecified equipment; and home repair
and maintenance c o sts.
7 The average costs of automobile ow ners and nonowners were weighted by the following proportions of fa m ilie s:
B oston, Chicago, New Y ork , and Philadelphia, 80 percent for
autom obile ow n ers, 20 p ercen t for nonow ners; B altim ore, C leveland, Detroit, Los A n geles, Pittsburgh, San F r a n cisc o , St. L ou is, and Washington, D. C. , with 1 .4 m illion of population
or m ore in I9 60 , 95 percent for autom obile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile ow ners.
8 The average costs of
h ospitalization and su rgical insurance (as a part of total m edical care) were weighted by the following proportions:
30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost
of in suran ce; 26 percent for
fa m ilies paying half c o st; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid for by em ployer).
9 The total rep resen ts
the weighted average costs of renter fam ilies (25 percent) and owner fam ilies (75 percent).
N O T E : See appendix A for item s
may not equal totals.




and quantities included in each component,

and appendix B for thepopulation weights for each city.

B ecause

of rounding, sums

of individual item s

Table 2. Indexes of Comparative Living Costs Based on the City Worker’s Family Budget,1 Autumn 1966
___________ _____________

A r ea

Urban United S ta t e s -------------------------------------------------M etropolitan areas 7-------------------------------------------Nonm etropolitan areas 8-------------------------------------N ortheast:
B oston, M a s s ------------------------------------------------B uffalo, N . Y -------------------------------------------------H artford, C on n ---------------------------------------------L a n ca ste r, P a ----------------------------------------------New York— ortheastern New J e r s e y ------N
Philadelphia, P a .—N. J -------------------------------P ittsburgh, Pa ---------------------------------------------P ortland, Maine ------------------------------------------N onm etropolitan areas 8------------------------------North C entral:
Cedar Rapids, Io w a -------------------------------------Champaign—Urbana, 111 ------------------------------C hicago, 111.—
Northw estern Indiana--------Cincinnati, Ohio—K y .—Ind --------------------------C leveland, O h io --------------------------------------------Dayton, C h io -----'--------------------------------------------D etroit, M ic h ------------------------------------------------Green B ay, W i s --------------------------------------------Indianapolis, In d ------------------------------------------Kansas C ity, M o .—K ans------------------------------M ilw aukee, W i s --------------------------------------------M inneapolis—St. P aul, M in n ---------------------St. L ou is, M o .—Ill --------------------------------------W ichita, K a n s------------------------------------------------N onm etropolitan areas 8------------------------------South:
A tlanta, G a ----------------------------------------------------A ustin, Tex ---------------------------------------------------B a ltim o re, Md ---------------------------------------------Baton Rouge, L a ------------------------------------------D allas , T e x ---------------------------------------------------Durham , N. C ------------------------------------------------Houston, Tex ------------------------------------------------N ash ville , T e n n --------------------------------------------O rlan d o, F l a -------------------------------------------------Washington, D . C . —M d .—V a -----------------------Nonm etropolitan areas 8------------------------------W est:
B ak ersfield , C a lif ---------------------------------------D enver, Colo ------------------------------------------------Honolulu, H aw aii------------------------------------------Los A ngeles—Long B each, C a lif ---------------San D iego, C a l i f ------------------------------------------San Fran cis co-O ak lan d , C a l i f -----------------Seattle—E verett, Wash -------------------------------N onm etropolitan areas 8-------------------------------

(U. S. Urban A verage Cost = 100)______________________________________________________
Cost of fam ily consumption
Housing (sh e lter , housefurnishing,
household operations)
T ra n sp o rShelter
tation 5
Total
Renter
Homeowner
Combined2
costs 3
costs 4

Total
budget

Total

Food

100
102
91

100
102
91

100
101
94

100
103
86

100
104
81

100
103
85

100
104
80

110
106
109
97
111
100
97
101
98

110
104
110
97
110
100
97
102
98

108
103
111
107
111
107
104
106
102

123
107
115
88
120
96
89
99
96

130
109
120
87
126
96
87
98
95

111
102
119
96
104
84
88
93
83

103
102
103
98
101
95
98
99
102
100
106
103
101
98
93

102
103
105
98
103
96
99
96
102
99
103
100
101
98
93

97
99
100
98
98
96
100
93
98
100
96
96
103
99
93

106
112
115
98
111
92
94
95
106
94
113
103
99
94
76

105
116
120
98
115
92
93
94
106
91
118
105
99
92
90

92
87
96
93
92
95
91
93
92
102
85

92
89
94
94
94
93
93
95
93
101
86

94
93
95
95
94
92
95
92
93
100
90

82
76
90
85
85
91
81
91
89
105
76

97
100
122
103
101
108
105
97

97
100
118
103
101
107
107
96

97
99
119
98
95
102
106
95

87
100
129
98
100
109
104
91

Clothing and
person al
care

M edical
care 6

100
100
100

100
102
93

100
103
88

100
102
91

134
111
120
85
131
98
87
100
98

100
108
112
95
90
91
97
101
101

100
104
104
99
104
101
100
105
95

101
99
103
88
106
96
93
100
94

104
100
108
102
106
102
102
101
93

114
139
119
91
100
107
89
86
106
99
105
108
98
100
97

103
110
120
100
118
88
93
96
107
90
120
105
99
90
89

103
97
95
102
101
101
100
101
109
107
102
102
103
104
97

104
101
103
98
103
99
103
99
103
103
100
102
101
98
96

93
103
103
86
92
86
99
91
92
94
95
95
95
95
85

104
101
102
100
100
101
102
103
104
103
102
100
99
104
89

76
70
86
83
82
89
76
88
85
106
69

88
79
108
83
99
93
84
89
97
108
77

73
68
81
83
78
89
74
88
83
105
67

101
99
99
110
101
99
106
102
102
101
99

97
93
96
94
94
95
93
98
92
98
88

93
90
96
91
102
95
100
91
93
99
84

104
99
98
101
102
96
102
102
100
100
90

83
99
130
98
100
111
105
87

83
102
142
111
99
128
119
94

82
98
128
95
101
107
101
85

110
106
122
107
110
110
113
104

102
104
99
106
101
111
110
102

116
102
100
134
124
118
106
94

96
97
112
101
98
104
105
93

Other
fam ily
consumption

1
2

The fam ily con sists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the hom e, an 8 -y e a r -o ld g ir l, and a 1 3 -y e a r -o ld boy.
The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions:
25 percent for fam ilies living in rented d w ellin gs, 75 percent for fam ilies living in owned hom es.
A verage contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, elec tric ity , w ater, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents.
Interest and p rincipal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; w ater, refuse d isp osa l, heating fuel, gas, elec tric ity , and specified equipment;and home repair
and
m aintenance c o sts.
5 The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners w ere weighted by the following proportions of fa m ilie s: B oston, Chicago, New Y ork, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for auto­
m obile ow n ers, 20 percent for nonowners; B altim ore, Cleveland, D etroit, Los A n g e le s, P ittsburgh, San F ra n cisc o , St. L ou is, and Washington, D. C. , with 1 .4 m illion of population or
m ore ^in I9 6 0 , 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; a ll other a rea s, 100 percent for automobile ow ners.
The average costs of hospitalization and surgical insurance (as a part of total m edical care) were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying
full cost
of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid for by em ployer).
J F or a detailed d escription , see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A r e a s , prepared by the Bureau of the Budget.
P laces with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
"
N O T E : See appendix A for item s and quantities included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city.
not equal totals.




B ecause of rounding,

sum s of individual item s may

14
consumption less miscellaneous expen­
ses, varies from city to city, as do the
allowances for Federal, State, and local
income and personal taxes, which de­
pend on the level of the total budget and
the provisions of the specific State and
local laws. Personal taxes ranged from
$780 in Austin to $1, 415 in Milwaukee,
or from 10 to 15 percent of the total
cost of the budget.
Variations in Consumption Costs
The total cost of family consumption
ranged by 24 percentage points around
the U.S. urban average of $7,329. Met­
ropolitan areas as widely dispersed as
Philadelphia, Minneapolis—
St. Paul, and
Denver equaled the U.S. urban average.
The 17 metropolitan areas that ranged
above the average in costs of family
consumption all w e r e located in the
North or West, except for Washing­
ton D. C.
The five areas which ex­
ceeded the average by more than 5 per­
cent were Hartford, Boston, New YorkNortheastern New Jersey, San Fran­
cisco—
Oakland, and Seattle.
Below-average family consumption
costs were represented by the smaller
cities throughout the country, and all
metropolitan a r e a s (except Washing­
ton, D. C. ) in the South. Such northern
metropolitan areas as Detroit, Kansas
City, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, also
fell within this category.

The new budgets, like those which
have preceded them, show that wide dif­
ferentials in housing costs are the most
important factor causing variations in
total family consumption costs among
areas.
Differentials in food costs are
next in importance. The three highest
cost areas, Hartford, New York-North­
eastern New Jersey, and Boston, had
housing costs which ranged 15 to 23
percent above the average, and food
costs 8 to 11 percent above the average.
Housing costs were higher than average
for all but 3 of the 17 areas which
ranged above the average in total con­
sumption costs. Food costs were higher
than average for nine of the same areas.



On the other hand, housing costs
ranged downward from the average for
all of the s m a l l e r (nonmetropolitan)
cities throughout the country; for all
metropolitan areas in the South, except
Washington, D. C. ; and for about onethird of the metropolitan areas in the
North and West. The same pattern was
evident in food costs, except that they
were above average in all cities of the
Northeast. Transportation costs aver­
aged the same in small cities as in
metropolitan a r e a s on a countrywide
basis. Differentials in costs other than
for housing, food, and transportation
did not follow a consistent regional pat­
tern. Medical care showed the widest
differentials, except for shelter.
F ood
The U. S. urban a v e r a g e
an­
nual cost of food12 for the budget-type
family was $2,1 4 3 .
Total annual food
costs were highest in the New York area,
where they averaged $2,380. In smaller
cities in the South, a nutritionally com­
parable d i e t could be purchased for
$1,925. The diffe rence in cost, amount­
ing to $455, reflects not only variation
in prices but also regional food prefer­
ence patterns used to calculate the cost
of the nutritional standard for cities
within regions.
A special analysis of
the food budget data will be made later
to determine what part of these cost
differentials was due to price and what
part to regional preference patterns.
Budget food costs were almost $200
higher, on the average, in cities in the
Northeast than in the North Central and
the West, and hosts in the last two re­
gions were about $100 above costs for a
nutritionally comparable food plan in
the South. Variations in food costs with­
in each region, which reflect price dif­
ferences only,were nonetheless sizable.
In the North Central region they ranged
from $1, 994 in small cities to $2, 199
in the St. Louis area. The annual cost
of food in Washington, D. C. , where the
U.S. preference pattern was used in
the calculation, was $2 ,1 3 5 .

12
See p. 17 for a detailed description of sources
and methods used to derive budget quantities for food.

15
Housing
The U.S. urban average outlay for
maintaining an owned home amounted to
$1, 893, or half again as much as the
average cost ( $1, 255) for equivalent
rental housing. Shelter costs for homeo w n e r s , however, include r e g u l a r
monthly p a y m e n t s on the mortgage
p r i n c i p a l , in addition to i n t e r e s t
charges, insurance, taxes, repair and
replacement expenses, fuel, and utili­
ties. When principal payments are ex­
cluded, homeowner costs were 15 per­
cent a b o v e
rental h o u s i n g
costs
(including fuel, utilities, and insurance
where these are not part of the contract
rent).
The differential was largest in
metropolitan areas with over 1 million
population, where owner costs (includ­
ing principal payments) averaged 57
percent above renter costs. In smaller
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas ,
owner-renter cost differentials were
38 and 42 percent, respectively.
The
budget allowance for the housing com­
ponent covers shelter, household opera­
tion costs, and an amount for replace­
ment of hous efurnishings, assuming the
family had average inventories of these
items at the beginning of the year. 1
3
Shelter costs for owners (75 per­
cent) and renters (25 percent) combined,
averaged $1, 733 for urban U . S . , but
varied from $ 2, 245 in Boston to $1, 188
in the smaller cities of the South. Com­
pared with the U. S. urban a v e r a g e
($1, 255) equal to 100, shelter costs for
renter families were 139 in Champaign—
Urbana, 111., and 77 in the s m a l l e r
southern cities.
The range in homeowner shelter costs was wider, from
134 in Boston to 67 in small cities in
the South.
Transportation 14
These costs are based on automo­
bile ownership and operation for all
fam ilies, e x c e p t in Boston, Chicago,
New York, and Philadelphia where 1 in
5 families was assumed to use public
transportation exclusively.
A l s o , in
Baltimore, C l e v e l a n d , Detroit, Los
A n g e l e s , Pittsburgh, San Francisco,
St. Louis, and Washington, D. C. , the
same assumption was made with re­
spect to 1 in 20 families. The varia­



tion in the pattern of automobile owner­
ship reflects the greater availability of
public transportation in some areas than
in others and, together with price dif­
ferences, is a factor in the intercity
cost differential for this component.
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs ranged from
$923 in Seattle to $731 in New York.
Seattle's costs were 13 percent above,
and New York’ s costs 10 percent below,
the U.S. urban average cost ($815).
Clothing and Personal Care 1
5
Since these costs reflect both dif­
ferentials in prices and variation in the
kinds and quantities of clothing required
by the climate, they were lowest in the
South. However, costs differed by al­
most $100 (10 percentage points) be­
tween Nashville, which had the highest
of the southern metropolitan areas, and
the small cities in the South. Clothing
and personal care costs were highest
in three large west coast cities— San
Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles---mostly because prices averaged higher
than elsewhere in the country.
Medical Care 1
6
The medical care budget includes
the family’ s share of the premium for
a group hospitalization and surgical in­
surance plan and out-of-pocket expenses
for other medical services and supplies.
Costs were highest in the four Cali­
fornia cities and lowest in D a y t o n ,
Cincinnati, and small cities in the North
Central and South. Compared with the
U. S. urban average cost ($468) equal
to 100, costs were 134 in Los Angeles
and averaged downward by 50 percent­
age p o i n t s to 84 in nonmetropolitan
areas of the South.
Since the same
medical care standard was used in all
cities, the intercity differences in cost
are the result of price differences.
Stable Differentials
C o m p a r a t i v e costs indexes for
1931, 1959, and 1966, with a few notable

13 For
14 For
see p. 19.
15 For
^ For

a detailed description, see p. 18.
data sources and a detailed description,
a detailed description, see p. 20.
a detailed description, see p. 19.

16
exceptions, indicate considerable sta­
bility of intercity differentials.
Among
the 18 large cities included in all three
studies, the range from high to low was
11 percentage points in 1951, and 20
points in both 1959 and 1966.
Among
all 34 large cities c o v e r e d in 1951,
the range was 14 points; for the 20 large
cities covered in 1959, 20 points; and
for 38 metropolitan areas (excluding
Honolulu) and four regional groupings
of nonmetropolitan a r e a s covered in
1966, the range was 26 points. Inclu­
sion of smaller areas and homeowner
maintenance costs in 1966 might have
been expected to cause a wider range
of variation than that actually observed.
The 18 metropolitan areas covered
in both the 1959 and the 1966 budgets
were arrayed in three groups based on
their relative standing in 1959 with re­
spect to total budget costs.
Four of

the six areas in the upper third of the
distribution in 1959 remained in that
b r a c k e t in 1966 (Chicago, Seattle,
Boston, and San F r a n c i s c o ) .
Los
Angeles and St. Louis fell to the middle
third in 1966. Among the middle third
in 1959, two were in the same group
in 1966 (Washington, D. C. , and Cleve­
land); Minneapolis moved into the top
third; and the other three (Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, and Detroit) dropped to the
lowest group. Of the six cities ranking
lowest in 1959, the New York—
NorthEastern New Jersey area jumped from
13th to 1st place, primarily because of
the inclusion of homeowner costs and
the expansion of geographical coverage
to additional suburban a r e a s in both
New York and New Jersey. Two cities
(Kansas City and Philadelphia) moved
into the m i d d l e bracket, and three
(Baltimore, Atlanta, and Houston) re­
mained 16th, 17th, and 18th, respec­
tively, in the ranking.

Data Sources and Estimating Methods
The theoretical basis for the pro­
cedures used to d e v e l o p the budget
quantities and pricing lists is summar­
ized in the following quotation from the
report on the original budget:
” . . . In the actual experience of
families there is a scale which ranks
various consumption patterns in an a s­
cending order from mere subsistence
to plenitude in every respect . . . This
consumption s c a l e is established by
society.
It can be d i s c o v e r e d only
through observation of the expressions
of society*s ratings of the various ex­
isting levels of living.
These ratings
of the various levels of living are ex­
pressed in the judgments of scientists,
such as medical and public health au­
thorities; and secondly, in the behav­
ior of individual consumers. Scientific
judgments are based primarily on the
studies of the relation between family
consumption and individual and com­
munity health. The expressions of con­
sumer judgment appear in the choices
made by consumers as economic bar­
riers are progressively removed. ” 1
7



In 1963, the Bureau's S t a n d a r d
Budget Research Advisory Committee,
in reviewing the procedures used in the
original and interim budgets, affirmed
"the previous decision to use standards
of adequacy based on the judgment of
scientists and experts to the extent that
such standards are available, supple­
mented by the analysis of statistical
data on consumer practices. " 1
8
Budget quantities and pricing spec­
ifications which describe the 1966 mod­
erate standard were derived in a variety
of ways. For food-at-home and shelter,
which constitute 48 percent of the total
cost of family consumption, allowances
were based on scientific findings or ex­
pert technical judgments concerning re­
quirements for p h y s i c a l health and
social well-being.
For transportation
and medical c a r e , accounting for 18
percent of family consumption, the pre­
vailing practices of budget-type families

17 Technical Reference 10, p. 40, in appendix C.
1® Technical Reference 9, p. 40, in appendix C .

17

were used as a guide indeveloping budg­
et allowances.
Quantities for the re­
maining third of the consumption total
were based on analytical studies of the
Bureau's 1960—
61 Survey of Consumer
Expenditures. 1
9 These studies deter­
mined by objective p r o c e d u r e s the
choices of goods and services made
by consumers in successive i n c o m e
classes.

were taken from the USDA 1965 House­
h o l d Food Consumption S t u d y . The
pattern for the region in which the city
is located was used in the budget for
all c i t i e s except Washington, D. C. ,
where the U. S. pattern was used.
The
U. S. weights were used for Washington
because its population comes from all
parts of the United States and cannot
be considered typically southern.

The c o m p l e t e list of items and
quantities per year is shown in appen­
dix A.
Pricing procedures and spec­
ifications for the majority of items in
the budget will be described in Bulle­
tin 157 0—
3. A few items, which are
purchased infrequently or represent an
insignificant proportion of the total budg­
et, were not priced. Values for these
items were estimated as described in
appendix A. Procedures for estimating
food, s h e l t e r , and health insurance
costs are described in the text.
Ex­
planatory notes on the tables describe
variations in the basic budget quantities
as required for use in individual cities.
The following is a general description of
the major sources of data and methods
of estimating quantities for the major
components of the moderate budget.

The u ni t costs w i t h i n the food
groups in the mode rate - cost food plan
were estimated by applying a set of
weights to the prices of the individual
food items included in each major food
group. The weighting factors take into
consideration the regional patterns for
individual items. The spring 1965 level
of prices in each region was determined
from the average prices paid for indi­
vidual items by urban families in the
$ 5, 000— 5, 999 i n c o m e class in the
$
USDA survey.
Individual city average
prices were estimated from the re­
gional survey averages by applying the
s p r i n g 1965 city-to-region ratios of
prices collected by BLS for the same
or comparable items. The spring 1965
estimated average prices in each city
were adjusted to October 1966 by a
special c a l c u l a t i o n of item price
changes. Prices used for food at home
were those collected regularly for the
Consumer Price Index from a repre­
sentative sample of food chain stores
and independent stores of various types
(e. g. , groceries and m e a t markets),
stores at d i f f e r e n t levels of annual
sales volume, and stores in different
l o c a t i o n s within the city.
Average
prices for each food were obtained by
averaging independent and chain store
prices separately and then combining
them with w e i g h t s representing the
relative volume of food sales by all
food stores of each type in the city.

F ood
The Food and Nutrition Board of
the National Research Council has de­
veloped scientific standards for what
constitutes adequate diets for various
sex-age g r o u p s .
The U. S. Depart­
ment of A g r i c u l t u r e has translated
these standards into food plans at dif­
ferent cost levels.
The food-at-home
component of the budget was based on
the "m oderate-cost" food plan consid­
ered suitable for the a v e r a g e U. S.
family. 2
0 The plan contains 11 food
categories which group foods according
to similarity of nutritive value and uses
in meals.
T h e quantities suggested
furnish the NRC's recommended allow­
ances for nutrients when average food
selections within each group are used.
Regional consumption patterns for
specific foods within the food groups
in the income class containing the m e­
dian i n c o m e ($5, 800) of the middle
third of the income distribution were
used in estimating costs.
The data



19 For a description of this survey, see Handbook
of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458,
1966), pp. 54—
64.
20 Family Food Plans, 1964, CA 62—19, November
1964, Agriculture Research Service, United States D e­
partment of Agriculture.
In this revision of the food
plans the National Research Council's 1963 recommended
dietary allowances, 1963 USDA nutritive values, and the
USDA's most recent estimates of food consumption pat­
terns were used.

18
The Department of Agriculture food
plans provide for 21 meals per person
per week to be eaten at home or carried
from home.
In the budget for metro­
politan areas, the food-at-home com­
ponent was adjusted to provide 4, 107
meals a year at home and 261 meals
away from home.
In nonmetropolitan
areas, these quantities were 4, 058 and
310, respectively, mainly reflecting the
purchase of more s c h o o l lunches in
small cities.
The costs of lunches at
work and other meals away from home
were calculated by using luncheon and
dinner prices collected for the Con­
sumer Price Index. School lunch costs
were supplied by the public school sys­
tems in each budget area.
Shelter Costs
Standards for the shelter component
of the budget were those established by
the American Public Health Association
and the U. S. Public Housing Adminis­
tration. They relate to sleeping space
r e q u i r e m e n t s , essential household
equipment (including plumbing), ade­
quate utilities and heat, structural con­
dition, and neighborhood location.
For r e n t e r families, the shelter
standard called for an unfurnished fiveroom unit (house or apartment) in sound
condition and with a complete private
bath, a fully equipped kitchen, hot and
cold running water, electricity, central
or other installed heating, access to
public transportation, schools, grocery
stores, play space for children, and
location in residential neighborhoods
free from hazards or nuisances.
Rates for dwellings which met this
standard were obtained f r o m tenants
during the regular rent surveys for the
Consumer Price Index between August
1966 and January 1967.
The cost of
the rental shelter standard was calcu­
lated from the average rent in the mid­
dle third of the distribution of autumn
1966 rents.
S i n c e monthly contract
rents in apartment structures usually
include water, heat, light, c o o k i n g
fuel, refrigerator, etc. , the cost for
these items was added to the contract




rent for dwellings whose tenants paid
s e p a r a t e l y for them.
Insurance on
household contents and against injury
to persons on the property, comparable
with the coverage provided for homeowner families, also was included in
rental housing costs.
For homeowner families, the cost
of maintaining the shelter standard was
calculated for a five- or six-room , 1or lV2 -t>ath house that met the same
dwelling unit and neighborhood specifi­
cations as described above for rental
units.
Cost included mortgage princi­
pal and interest payments, the assump­
tion being that the family purchased the
home 7 years ago with a 15-year first
mortgage which represented 75 percent
of the purchase price.
Terms of the
mortgage and the ratio of mortgage to
purchase price were based on practices
of all urban families reporting the pur­
chase of homes of the budget type in the
1960—
61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures. Purchase price was determined
separately for each metropolitan area
(and within areas for the city proper
and the suburbs) and for each small
city. It represented the average price
in the middle third of the distribution
of market values for dwellings which
met the housing standard in the BLS
1959“ 60 Comprehensive Housing Un i t
Survey.
The average U.S. urban purchase
price for such dwellings was $14,480
in 1960—
61.
Principal and i n t e r e s t
costs w e r e estimated separately for
conventional mortgages and mortgages
insured by the Federal Housing Admin­
istration or by the Veterans Adminis­
tration.
T h e y were c o m b i n e d by
weights representing th e distribution
of type of mortgage reported by U.S.
urban buyers in t h i s purchase-price
class.
In addition, the cost included
appropriate taxes,
reflecting varying
assessment practices and rates in indi­
vidual cities.
On insurance, the most
economical comprehensive homeowner's
policy was used which would provide in­
surance up to 80 percent of the 1960—
61
market value of the house, in addition
to some coverage on its contents and

19
for injury to persons on the property.
An allowance for repairs and replace­
ment costs was included, based on an
analysis of the 1960—61 Consumer Ex­
penditure Survey data for budget-type
fam ilies.
Costs of fuel and utilities also were
included.
The housing specifications
required central heating equipment in
cities where the average January tem­
perature is 40° F. or colder, except
in five c i t i e s where o t h e r installed
heating e q u i p m e n t was accepted as
more typical of the manner of living.
Central or other installed heating equip­
ment (base burner, pipeless furnace,
or stove, with flue) was required for
cities with warmer climates, except for
Honolulu, and McAllen, Tex. , where
average J a n u a r y temperatures were
72° and 61° , respectively.
A space
heater also was included for each of
the s e c o n d group of c i t i e s except
Honolulu.
To adjust for climatic differences,
fuel requirements f o r maintaining an
indoor w i n t e r temperature of 70° F.
were estimated.
The basis for these
estimates was the amount of fuel used
to heat h o m e s of approximately the
budget specification, as reported in a
1962 trade association s u r v e y of 62
cities (supplemented by data from in­
dividual utility companies). These data
were related to annual degree days in
these cities, as recorded by the U. S.
Weather Bureau. In the BLS analysis,
the quantities of fuel were expressed
in s t a n d a r d B T U ' s converted, f o r
pricing purposes, to the predominant
type of heating fuel used in each city.
Estimates of electricity and other utili­
ties for the appliances specified for the
budget were obtained from utility com­
panies and associations.
Transportation
The s t a n d a r d for transportation
reflects the high l e v e l of automobile
o w n e r s h i p reported in the 1960—
61
Survey of Consumer E x p e n d i t u r e s ,
for budget type families at all income
levels.
Only a small f r a c t i o n did
not own an a u t o m o b i l e , and most



commonly these families lived in the
central cities of the l a r g e s t metro­
politan areas where public transporta­
tion is readily accessible.
Automobile
ownership was specified, therefore, for
80 percent of the budget f a m i l i e s in
Boston, Chicago, New York, and Phila­
delphia; 95 percent of the families in
other metropolitan areas with 1 .4 m il­
lion population or more in I960; and
100 percent of the families in all other
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
In the tables showing budget costs
and indexes, the cost of transportation
for nonowners was estimated and pub­
lished for all areas as a convenience to
budget users.
In areas in which 100
percent auto ownership was specified,
the estimates for nonowners were not
used in calculating the t o t a l cost of
transportation for the budget.
The standard provides for the pur­
chase of a used car e v e r y 4 years,
based on the customary purchases of
families of the budget-type.
Data on
home-to-work travel were o b t a i n e d
from the 1963 Passenger Transporta­
tion Survey of the Bureau of the Census.
These were used to adjust the average
number of miles driven by automobile
owners in New York, Boston, Phila­
delphia, and Chicago, since the pro­
portions of workers reporting use of a
private automobile or c a r p o o l to get
to work were lower in these than in
other metropolitan a r e a s .
A corre­
sponding increase in the allowance for
p u b l i c transportation in t h e s e four
areas also was made.
Medical Care
The m e d i c a l care allowance in­
cludes a family group insurance con­
tract (or contracts) obtained through the
husband’ s place of employment.
This
was consistent with the prevailing prac­
tices of budget-type families, as re­
ported in the I960—
61 Survey of Con­
sumer Expenditures and confirmed by
data from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. It covered the
cost of hospitalization and s u r g i c a l
services.
First q u a r t e r 1967 costs
of a s t a n d a r d i z e d contract in the

20
areas priced for the budget were esti­
mated for the commercial carriers by
the Health I n s u r a n c e Association of
America.
The contract provides full
coverage for 70 days1 care in a room
of two beds or more for each hospital
confinement, all supplies and ancillary
services normally provided, and surgi­
cal benefits. 2
1 Costs were also ob­
tained for Blue C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d
contracts m o s t nearly comparable to
the commercial insurance provisions.
Budget costs were based on the lower
of the two p r e m i u m s (either for the
commercial or the Blue C r o s s con­
tracts) in each area.
A majority of families of the budget
type do not bear the full cost of their
health insurance, since part or all of
the premium is paid by the employer.
The cost of the plan selected for each
area, therefore, was weighted by the
following p r o p o r t i o n s of families:
30 percent paying the full cost of their
insurance; 26 p e r c e n t paying half of
the cost; and 44 percent making no con­
tributions (the entire cost being paid
by the employer).
Quantities of medical care services
not covered by i n s u r a n c e — visits to
physicians and dental care— were de­
rived from 1963-64 utilization data from
the National Health Survey. Allowances
for eye c a r e , prescription and non­
prescription drugs, and other m iscel­
laneous medical care were developed
from the 1960-61 Consumer Expendi­
ture Survey data.
Average fees and prices for medi­
cal services and supplies were those
collected for the Consumer Price Index,
supplemented by prices obtained spe­
cifically for budget use.
Other Goods and Services
Food at home, shelter, transporta­
tion, and medical care, as specified for
the budget, account for two-thirds of
family consumption.
T he remaining
third includes housefurnishings, house­
hold operation, clothing, personal care,
education, reading, recreation, meals




away from home, alcoholic beverages,
and tobacco.
For these components,
budget allowances were developed by
examining the quantities of, or expendi­
tures for, various items purchased at
successive income levels by budget-type
families found in the Bureaus 1960-61
Survey of Consumer Expenditures. The
purpose of the analysis was to deter­
mine the income level at which the rate
of increase in quantities purchased, or
expenditures, begins to decline in rela­
tion to the rate of change in income,
i. e. , the point of maximum elasticity.
The average number and kinds of items
purchased at these income levels are
the quantities and qualities specified for
the budget.
Thus, t h e y represent a
composite of individual choices.
This
technique uses the consumers1 collec­
tive judgment as to what is adequate
and is b a s e d on the assumption that
increasing elasticity indicates increas­
ing urgency of demand, and decreasing
elasticity indicates decreasing urgency.
The point of maximum elasticity has
been described as the point on the in­
come scale where families stop buying
"more and m o r e " and s t a r t buying
either "better and better" or something
else less essential to them. 22
For a majority of the items in the
housefurnishings, c l o t h i n g , personal
care, and recreation components, the
quantities c o u l d be standardized for
quality (by use of a c o n s t a n t price)
across i n c o m e classes; for the re ­
mainder of the components, only ex­
penditure-income elasticities could be
calculated.
The point of maximum
elasticity for the majority of subgroups
in the clothing component was located

21

See Wage and Related Benefits. Part II: Metro­
politan Areas, United States and Regional Summaries,
1964-65 (BLS Bulletin 1430-83, 1966), pp. 97 and 106;
Walter W. Kolodrubetz, "Growth in Employer-Benefit
Plans, 1950-65, " Social Security Bulletin, 1967, p. 18.
22
This technique was developed for the original
City Worker's Family Budget and is described in detail
in Technical Reference 10, appendix C .
It was also
used, with some refinements, in deriving quantities for
The Interim City Worker's Family Budget in 1959 (T ech­
nical Reference 5).
A mimeographed report providing
a more detailed description of its use in the current
budget will be available on request.

21
in the initial (after tax) income class
($ 3, 000— 4, 000) for this family type.
$
(There were no budget-type families,
with a full-time earner, whose 1960—
61
after-tax income was below $ 3, 000. )
In the housefurnishings component, the
characteristic pattern, in which quanti­
ties at first increase relatively more
rapidly than income and then increase
at a relatively slower rate than income,
was found.
The inflection, i. e. , the
point of maximum elasticity, was most
commonly in the $ 5, 000— 6, 000 class.
$
For reading, recreation, personal
c a r e , household operations, and to­
bacco, the inflection point o c c u r r e d
most f r e q u e n t l y in the next highest
c l a s s ($ 6, 000-$ 7, 500).
Elasticities
for food away from home and alcoholic
beverages w e r e ever-increasing, and
quantities for t h e s e components also
were derived from the $ 6, 000— 7, 500
$
class.
In the main, t h e r e f o r e , the
budget allowances for these other goods




and services reflect the collective judg­
ment of families in the income class
containing the median 1960— after-tax
61
income ($7,277).
Other Costs
The allowance for gifts and contri­
butions was based on an upward ad­
justment of the ratio estimate used
in the interim b u d g e t ; this adjust­
ment reflected both the change in the
level of living and the i n c r e a s e in
prices b e t w e e n 1959 and 1966. The
average outlay for life insurance in the
interim budget was revised in a similar
manner.
Occupational expenses in the
new budget represent the average outlay
in the median income class for budgettype families, as reported in the I960—
61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures.
Social security and Federal, State, and
local income taxes were calculated from
rates applicable in 1966, as required
by the level of the total budget.




Appends-----Contents
Page
Appendix A.

Annual quantities of items provided in the components of
the City W orker’ s Family Budget, autumn 1966 -------------------------------------------

23

T ables:
A - 1. Food budget quantities--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Food at home ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Food away from home ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 2. Housing budget quantities---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Shelter: Renter fa m ilie s -----------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Shelter: Homeowner families --------------------------------------------------------------------C. Housefurnishings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D. Household operations-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 3. Transportation budget quantities --------------------------------------------------------------------------A . Automobile ow n ers---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Nonowners of automobiles --------------------------------------------------------------------------A -4 . Clothing budget quantities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Husband-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Boy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. Wife ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D. Girl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E. Clothing materials and services ----------------------------------------------------------------A - 5. Personal c a r e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 6. Medical care -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 7 . Other family consumption -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Reading m a te r ia ls -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Recreation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. Education -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D. Tobacco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E. Alcoholic beverages--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------F. Miscellaneous expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 8. Other costs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A . Gifts and contributions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Life insurance-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 9 • Occupational expenses and taxes --------------------------------------------------------------------------A . Occupational expenses----------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Taxes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24
24
24
25
25
25
26
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
31
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
35

Appendix B.
Appendix C.

Index of population weights used in the City W orker's Family Budget--------Technical references ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37
39

NOTE: The tables which follow list, for each component of the City W orker's Family
Budget, the annual average quantities of items for which autumn 1966 prices were obtained
or estimated to determine the annual costs of the budget. The quantities describe a modest
living standard for a family of four— an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed
outside the home, and two children, a girl age 8 and a boy 13.
The methods and
sources used to derive the budget quantities are described in the text of this bulletin.
The codes in the tables identify the specifications used in pricing the commodities and
services for the budget.
For some budget items for which no code is shown, only an
estimated cost in 1966 for all cities is indicated.
These estimates were obtained by:
(1) Updating the cost of the item , as reported in the 1960—61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures, to 1966 by change in the appropriate subgroup, group, or "a ll ite m s" Consumer Price
Index; (2) updating the level of consumption, using data reported in trade journals, U .S.
Department of Com m erce's industry reports, and other sources; or (3) calculating the current
cost of the item as a ratio of the cost of other items based on comparable ratios reported
in the 1960—61 CES. For further information on priced items see Bulletin 1570—3, Pricing
Procedures, Specifications, and Average P ric e s, Autumn 1966 (to be published at a later
date),"which covers all priced items in the budget, other than food and shelter, for urban
United States and five metropolitan areas (Chicago, D allas, New York, San Francisco, and
Washington, D .C .) .




23

Appendix A
Table A-l.

Food Budget Quantities
A.

Food at home 1
Metropolitan areas i

Nonmetropolitan areas :
Quantity

Item
Per week
Milk and milk products 4 ---Meat, poultry, and fis h -----E g g s -------------------------------------Dry beans, peas, and nuts -■
Grain products 5 ------------------Citrus fruit and tomatoes---P otatoes-------------------------------Other vegetables and fruits Fats and oil ------------------------Sugar and sweets ---------------A cce sso rie s:
C offee-----------------------------Tea ---------------------------------Soft drinks Other 7 ------

—
quartpound —
dozenpound — do---— do---— do---— do---— do---— do------------- do-------------- do----- 72 ounces —

B.

Per year

Per week

19.00
17. 50
2. 25
. 88
12. 25
9 .00
8. 50
25. 00
2. 75
3. 38

929. 1
855. 8
110. 0
43. 0
599.0
440. 1
415. 6
1 ,2 2 2 .5
134. 5
165. 3

19-00
17. 50
2. 25
. 88
12. 25
9. 00
8. 50
25. 00
2. 75
3. 38

Per y e a r “
917. 7
845. 2
108. 7
42. 5
591.7
434. 7
410. 6
1 ,2 0 7 .5
132. 8
163. 2

(6)

(6)
M

n

1.96
$0. 27

1 .96
$0. 27

Food away from home
Pricing code

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Quantity per year
Meals - — ---- —
-------------------------------- ------ — -------- —
Lunches at work -----------------------------------------------------Lunches at scho01 --------- ------—
-------------------— —
Othe r - O i\.D
IlclL
.
......

261
82
137
42
$75. 34

5 4 -5 1 0 X ---------------------54 590v
5 4 -5 3 0 X ----------------------

3 310
57
3 211
42
$42. 67

1 Quantities from the m oderate-cost food plan published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
(See
footnote 20, p. 17. )
2 The quantity allowances in metropolitan areas provide 84 meals weekly, and 4,107 meals annually after
adjustment for 261 meals away from home.
3 The quantity allowances in the nonmetropolitan areas provide 84 meals weekly, and from 4,139 to 4,267 meals
annually because of variation in the number of school lunches in different cities. Quantities shown are for a non­
metropolitan U .S. average of 4,05 8 meals at home and 310 meals away from home.
4 Includes fluid whole milk and milk products; quantities are converted to units containing the same calcium
content as milk, by using the following equivalents: 1 cup of milk equals 3 pound of cottage cheese (creamed),
U
1 pound of cream cheese, IV3 ounces of cheddar cheese, or 1 scant pint of ice cream.
5 Weight in terms of flour and cereal. IV2 pounds of bread or baked goods are counted as 1 pound of flour.
6 The coffee and tea quantities shown below are for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas within a
region and reflect regional preference patterns:
Quantity per week
(in pounds)
Region

Coffee

Tea

Northeast ----------------------------North C entral---------------------South-----------------------------------W e s t--------------------------------------

0 .43 8
.5 62
. 370
.3 8 4

0 .04 8
.0 34
. 058
.028

7 Estimated cost in 1966 in all cities.
Explanatory notes: The annual allowance for food at home used in the calculation of the City W orker's Family
Budget is the estimated cost of the m oderate-cost food plan after adjustment for meals eaten away from home. The
selection of specific foods which meet the nutritional standard and reflect regional preference patterns also affects
the food budget cost.
In estimating the unit cost of each of the major food groups for individual cities, regional
preference patterns were taken into account for all cities except Washington, D. C. , where the U .S. pattern was
used. (See explanation, p. 17.) Specifications for pricing individual food items are available upon request.




24

25
Table A-2.
A.

Housing Budget Quantities

Shelter:

Item

R e n te r fam ilies1

Pricing code

Quantity per year,
all cities

Contract rent:
Unfurnished 5 -room dwelling unit containing
— 21-010X
specified installed equipment ---------------- month
Heating fuel:
Most common type heating fuel used in
each c ity ---------------------------------------------------------------22-748
Water ------------------------------------------------------- cubic foot —
Electricity:
Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical
22-500X
appliances ---------------------------------- kilowatt-hour —
Power for heating equipment------------------------- do---G as:4
22-370X
Cooking------------------------------------------------------- therm —
22-380X
Hot water heating-------------------------------------------- do---22-390X
Furnace pilot -------------------------------------------------do-----Refuse disposal:
Trash and garbage removal —
Equipment:
23-387 ----------------Refrigerator -------------------------23-399, 23-399A, 2 3-399C ---Range -------------------------------------23-970X -------------Insurance on household contents
B.

12

( 2 )

14, 560
1,800
(3 )

120
300

120

(5 )
. 06
. 06
1 . 00

Shelter: Homeowner families
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Shelter (5- or 6 -room dwelling):
Mortage interest, principal payment -------------------Property tax -----------------------------------------------------------Homeowner insurance prem ium ----------------------------Repairs and maintenance:
Repairs contracted out:
Painting and redecoration----------------------------Repair of roof -----------------------------------------------O ther--------------------------------------------------------------Repair materials:
Painting and redecoration------------- gallons —
O ther--------------------------------------------------------------Heating fuel:
Most common type heating fuel used in
each city ---------------------------------------------------------------Water -------------------------------------------------------- cubic foot —
Electricity:
Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical
appliances ---------------------------------- kilowatt-hour —
Power for heating equipment-----------------------do-----Gas :4
Cooking------------------------------------------------------- therm —
Hot water heating------------------------------------------ do-----Furnace pilot -------------------------------------------------do-----Refuse disposal:
Trash and garbage removal ----------------------------------Equipment:
Refrigerator ________________________________________
Range _______________________________________________
See footnotes at end of table.




21-11 OX ----------------------------------21-120X ----------------------------------21-140X -----------------------------------

Metropolitan
areas
1. 00
1.00
1.00

Nonmetropolitan
areas

1. 00
1.00
1.00

21-527 ------------------------------------21-437 -------------------------------------

. 09
. 03
(6)

. 14
. 05
(6)

21-181 -------------------------------------

3 .82
(7)

2. 35
(7)

(2)
14, 560

(2)
14, 560

1,800
(3)

1,800
(3)

22-748 -------------------------------------2 2 - 5 0 0 X ------------

------------------

22-370X ----------------------------------22-380X ----------------------------------22-390X -----------------------------------

120
300
120

120
300
120

23-984FB --------------------------------

1. 00

1. 00

23-387 _________________________
23-399, 23-399A , 23-399C ___

. 06
. 06

. 06
. 06

26
Table A-2.

Housing Budget Quantities--- Continued
C.

Housefurnishings
Quantity per year

Item

Pricing code

Household textiles:
Bedding:
Sheets --------------------Pillow cases --------Pillows -----------------Blankets and quilts
Bedspreads-----------Tow els:
B a th ----------------O ther---------------Window coverings:
Curtains----------D rap eries-------O ther--------------------Floor coverings:
R oom -size rug ----O ther--------------------F urniture:
Living room:
Living room suite --------Chair, fully upholstered
T a b le ------------------------------S ofa--------------------------------O ther------------------------------Bedroom:
Bedroom su ite-------------Bed -------------------------------Mattress and bedspring
D resser and ch e st-------Dining room:
Dining room suite --------------------Dining room table --------------------Dining room chairs -----------------Dinette s e t --------------------------------Porch and garden--------------------------O ther----------------------------------------------Electrical equipment and appliances:
Vacuum cleaner----------------------------Washing machine --------------------------T o a ste r-------------------------------------------F ryer, food mixer, e t c ----------------Iro n -------------------------------------------------Sewing machine ----------------------------Air conditioner------------------------------Fan -------------------------------------------------Housewares, tableware, miscellaneous
equipment:
Heater, r o o m -s iz e -------------------Carpet sweeper -------------------------Dishes, s e t --------------------------------Other serving pieces ----------------Light bulbs --------------------------------L am p ------------------------------------------Miscellaneous equipment---------Other:
Servicing, repairs, and rentals
Lawn mower ------------------------------Tools, paint brush, e t c -------------

1. 44
.81
. 16
. 27
. 40

1. 30
1. 08
. 13
. 64
. 34

23-050FB

1.23

1.41
(8 )

23-085, 23-085A
23-091FB -----------




.8 3
. 25

(9 )
23-335, 23-335A, 23-336, 23-377FB —

. 06

.9 0
. 13

(9)
. 06

(10)

23-228,
23-230X
23-240X
23-220X
23-250X

. 04
. 09
. 08
. 04
(“ )

. 03

23-211, 23-211 A, 23-211B
23-200X -----------------------------23-204X , 2 3 -2 0 4 ---------------23-210X ------------------------------

(10)

. 04
.09
. 08
. 04
(U )

23-132, 23-133, 23-133A
23-130X ---------------------------23-169FB ------------------------23-192 ------------------------------

. 03

. 02

. 02

. 36

. 36

. 01

. 01

. 04
. 05
. 03
. 30
(12)

. 04
. 05
. 03
. 30
(12)

. 07
. 15
. 03

23-411 ------23-423 ------23-465 AUX
2 3 - 4 7 0 X ----23-471 AUX
23-460X ----23-440X ----23-450X -----

. 01

. 01

23-228A
-------------------------------------------------

. 07
. 15
. 03

. 10

. 09
. 04

(1 )
3

. 06

.

10

. 09
. 04
(13)
. 06

. 02

. 02
. 04
. 09
(14)
15. 00
. 24
(15)

H -954
23-608

23-680X
17

. 04
. 09
(14)
15. 00
. 24
(15)

(1 )
6

23-480X --------------------------23-591 -----------------------------23-531, 23-531C , 23-533

(1 )
6

. 04
$ 8 . 20

$ 8 . 20

4. 22

5. 08

. 04

Household Operations

13 ounces —

H -802 ---------------------------------------------------

20 ounces —
15 ounces —
14 ounces —
llz gallon —

H -804 ---------------------------------------------------H-807 ---------------------------------------------------H -952FB ----------------------------------------------H -950FB -----------------------------------------------

See footnotes at end of table.

Nonmetropolitan
areas

23-001, 23-001A
23-008FB ----------23-013 ---------------23-022FB ----------23-031 ----------------

D.
Laundry and cleaning supplies:
Laundry soap:
Soap flakes, ch ip s---------Detergent powder,
granules -----------------------Detergent, liquid -----------Starch, spray ----------------------Bleach, liquid ----------------------

Metropolitan
areas

56.
25.
3.
13.

70
28
98
46

74. 36
31.0 3
4. 65
16. 14

Table A-2.
D.

Housing Budget Quantities--- Continued
Household Operations— Continued
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Laundry and cleaning supplies— Continued
Floor w ax------------------------------------- 27 ounces-Scouring powder ---------------------- 14 ounces -Scouring pad s-------------------------- box of 10 —
Air deodorizer ------------------------ 7 ounces —
O ther------------------------------------------------------------Paper supplies:
Paper napkins -------------------------- box of 80 —
Toilet tissue --------------------650-sheet roll —
Paper towels, shelf, wax paper,
foil, etc ----------------------------------------------------Services and miscellaneous supplies:
Launderettes----------------------------------pound —
Miscellaneous supplies -----------------------------Communications:
Residential telephone service:
Basic charge------------------------------------------Long distance----------------------------------------Postag<
Stationery, greeting cards, etc

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

H -951FB
H -953FB
H-901 ----H-906 — -

3. 88
17. 41
5. 56
3. 76
(18)

5. 03
22. 59
7. 22
4. 70
(18)

H -764
H-799

13. 97
95. 34

20. 82
95. 34

(19)

(19)

34-754 •

139.30

139.30

22-624

12. 00
(21)
$15. 56
$ 12. 93

12. 00
(21)
17 $18. 28
17 $ 10. 81

(Z °)

(2 °)

1 Allowances specified for fuel, utilities, and equipment do not apply when the cost of these items is
included in the monthly rent.
2 Heating fuel requirements vary with the length and severity of the cold season, type of structure, and
type of heating equipment. The variation caused by climate is measured in standard British thermal units ( B .t.u . )
(convertible to equivalent quantities of fuel oil, gas, etc.) and the normal number of annual degree days in a
given city, derived from annual data published by the U .S. Weather Bureau. (A degree day is a unit, based upon
temperature difference and time, which measures the difference between the average temperature for the day and
65° F. when the mean temperature is less than 65° F. ; the number of degree days for any one day is equal to
the number of Fahrenheit degrees difference between the average and 65° F. ) The average number of B .t .u .'s
required in a given city may be computed as follows:
Million of B .t. u. 's= -3 0 2 . 817962 -+ 110. 285800 times the logarithm of the
*
normal number of annual degree days.
The quantity of any type of heating fuel used in a given city can be determined by converting the required number
of B .t .u .'s into quantities of the type of fuel used.
In the determination of the total amount of fuel required,
both the average B .t .u . content and an assumed efficiency factor must be taken into consideration for each
specified fuel.
3 The k w .-h rs. of electricity required to operate gas or oil heating equipment vary according to the amount
of fuel used.
The average required number of kw .-hrs. assumed here is 0. 25 per therm of gas and 0. 44 per
gallon of fuel oil.
4 In cities where either electricity or oil was the predominant fuel used for cooking and/or hot
water heating, it was substituted for gas.
The annual allowances for electricity are as follows:
Cook­
ing, 1800 kw. -h rs. ; hot water heating, 5220 kw. -h rs.
For oil, the annual requirement of hot water heating
is 2 32 gallons.
5 Cost is included in the rent.
6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 120. 1 percent of cost of contracting for itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 122.6 percent.
7 In metropolitan areas, cost is 6 4 .6 percent of cost of paint and redecorating m aterials; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 128.3 percent.
8 In metropolitan areas, cost is 19. 5 percent of cost of bath towels; in nonmetropolitan areas, 24. 5 percent.
9 In metropolitan areas, cost is 63. 3 percent of total cost of itemized textiles; in nonmetropolitan areas,
13.9 percent.
'l0 Cost is 6 6.9 percent of cost of room -size rug in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
1 Cost is 5. 0 percent of cost of itemized living room furniture in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
1
12 Cost is 7. 2 percent of cost of itemized furniture.
13 An annual allowance of 0. 04 air conditioners is limited to cities with an average July-Aug. temperature
of 85° and over, and a relative humidity of at least 85 percent; cities with an average July-Aug. temperature
of 90° or over, regardless of relative humidity; and Los Angeles, with average July-Aug. temperatures close
to 85° and relative humidity nearly 85 percent, as reported by U .S. Weather Bureau.
14 Cost is 9 6 .0 percent of cost of sets of dishes.
15 Cost is 9 .7 percent of total cost of furniture, equipment, and housewares.
16 Cost is 11.6 percent of total cost of furniture and equipment.
17 Estimated cost for all cities.
18 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.7 percent of cost of itemized laundry and cleaning supplies; in non­
metropolitan areas, 22.0 percent.
*9 Cost is 150.0 percent of cost of itemized paper products.
2 In metropolitan areas, cost is 2 1.6 percent of total cost of laundry, cleaning, and paper supplies; in
0
nonmetropolitan areas, 1 7 .4 percent.
2 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.9 percent of cost of basic telephone service; in nonmetropolitan areas,
1
43. 6 percent.




28
Table A-3.

Transportation Budget Quantities1
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Item
A.
Private transportation:
Replacement of automobile-----------------------------------Automobile operating expenses:
Gasoline------------------------------------------------ gallon —
Motor o il----------------------------------------------- quart —
Lubrication---------------------------------------------------------A n tifreeze-------------------------------------------- gallon —
T ires, tubeless -------------------------------------------------B a tte ry ---------------------------------------------------------------Repairs and parts:
Motor tuneup-------------------------------------------------Front-end alignment-------------------------------------Brakes relin ed ---------------------------------------------Other rep airs------------------------------------------------Other operating expenses ---------------------------------Insurance:
Public lia b ility ---------------------------------------------Comprehensive---------------------------------------------Registration fees:
State---------------------------------------------------------------L ocal--------------------------------------------------------------In sp* r ti
3>
fo**
Personal property tax --------------------------------------Operator's p erm it-----------------------------renewal —
Tolls, parking, fines, etc ------------------------------Public transportation:
Local:
,9r}innl
rpfi
rirlp
A 1 nfb ^ r faT
.1
'f>s
H
n
O 'f
-Q
city
....... __
B.
Public transportation:
Local:
5 rh << 1
> ""
>>
All other fares
Oy|f nf r"ify

-

.... -

.........
_

_ _

_

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Automobile owners

4 1-030X --------------------

0. 243

41-065 _______________
41-097 ---------------------41-355 _______________
41-11 O X -------------------41-161 _______________
4 1 -2 2 6 F B -----------------

(1
2)
(2 )
2. 00
(3 4
)
1. 22
. 33

661. 20
26. 08
2. 00
(3 )
1. 56
. 33

41-483 _______________
41-675 ---------------------4 1 -6 4 3 F B -----------------

1. 00
. 23
. 29
(?)
(5 )

1. 00
. 30
. 27
(?)
(5 )

41-807 _______________
41-81 O X --------------------

1. 00
. 50

1. 00
. 50

4 1-870 ---------------------4 1 -8 7 1 F B ___________
41 - 88nT R
T

1. 00
1.00
(6 )
(7 )
2. 00
(8 )

1. 00
1. 00
(6 )
(7 )
2. 00
(8 )

(9 )
(101
)
1 $9. 48
1

53. 00
56. 00
1 $ 2. 19
1

41-902 ----------------------

4?_n in v
4?_n?nv

0. 296

Nonowners of automobiles

d
H
n
__ _

4 ? .m n x
4 ?-n ?n v

___

....

148.00
442. 00
1 $60. 11
1

1 The mode of transportation within cities and metropolitan areas is related to location, size, and character­
istics of the community.
The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners were weighted by the following
proportions of fam ilies: For 4 cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago), 80 percent for automobile own­
ers, 20 percent for nonowners; for 8 cities (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. ,
San Francisco, and Los Angeles), 95 percent for automobile owners, 5 percent for nonowners; for 27 other m etro­
politan areas, and all nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners.
2 The annual allowances for gasoline and motor oil vary by the extent that automobile owners drive to work.
In New York, the allowance is 553.0 gallons of gasoline, 2 1.8 quarts of motor oil; in Boston, Philadelphia, and
Chicago, 598.8 gallons of gasoline, 2 3.6 quarts of motor oil; in 35 other metropolitan areas, 644.6 gallons of
gasoline, and 25. 4 quarts of motor oil.
3 The annual allowance is 1. 25 gallons for all cities with an average minimum temperature of 32° —15° during
January.
For cities with below 15° January minimum temperatures, the allowance is 2. 00.
No antifreeze is
provided for mild climate cities.
4 In metropolitan areas, cost is 56. 9 percent of cost of itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 36.2 percent.
5 In metropolitan areas, cost is 4 .7 percent of cost of itemized operating expenses; in nonmetropolitan areas,
8 . 0 percent.
6 The number of inspections required by law in each city.
7 Cost required by law in each city.
8 In metropolitan areas, cost is 4. 6 percent of annual allowance for itemized operating expenses; in nonmetro­
politan areas, 1. 0 percent.
9 The annual allowance is 183 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 51 in all other m etro­
politan areas.
10 The annual allowance is 220 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 97 in all other m etro­
politan areas.
1 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.
1




29
Table A-4.

Clothing Budget Quantities
A.

Husband
Pricing code

Outerwear:
Topcoats*---------------------Jackets, sport coats* —
Sw eaters----------------------Raincoats*--------------------Suits:
Year-round weight*
Tropical weight* ---Slacks:
Dress ----------------------W o rk ------------------------Shorts, walking* --------Shirts:
D r e s s ----------------------W o rk ------------------------Sports Other outerwear* —
Underwear, nightwear:
Undershorts, briefs .
Undershirts -------------Other underwear* .
P ajam as---------------Bathrobes-------------H osiery----------------------F ootwear:
Shoes:
S tr e e t--------------W o rk ---------------L oa fers------------Houseslippers
Rubbers, galoshes, boots*.
Other footwear*------------------Hats, gloves, accessories:
Hats:
Felt* --------------------------S tra w *------------------------Gloves:
D ress* Work* Ties, handkerchiefs .
Jewelry, watches----Other accessories* -

0. 13
.51
. 24
. 12

0. 08
.61
. 22
. 07

. 27
. 08

. 30
•09

31-086, 31-087 se rie s.
31-171 --------------------------31-080X ------------------------

1. 22
2. 02
. 10

1. 33
2. 49
. 13

31-273, 31-273A —
31-222, 31-222A —
31-292 --------------------

1. 49
1. 18
1.79

1. 57
1.42
2. 03
(*)

31-342FB .
31-324 -----

4. 84
3. 89
(2)
. 38
. 05
9 .96

4. 43
4. 17
(2)
. 34
10. 14

1. 01
. 60
. 27
. 13
. 18
(3)

. 72
. 64
. 28
. 15
. 19
(3)

. 17
. 05

. 26
. 16

. 14
1. 77
$2. 93
! $3. 62
(5 )

. 20
3. 54
4 $3. 96
4 $ 5„ 27
(5 )

31-018 series 31-010X ______
31-154 ________
31-020X ______
31-052, 3 1 -0 5 3 31-050X ------------

3 1 -3 7 6 F B -----------31-37 O X --------------31-409, 31-409A
-do—
-do—
-do—
-do—
_do—

33-002, 33-002A
33-046 ----------------33-01 O X --------------33-050X --------------3 3 -2 2 6 F B ------------

3 1-427FB .
31-420X ...
-p air—
— do—

31-430X .
31-440X .

B.
Outerwear:
Coats, all purpose* —
Jackets, sports coats*
Sw eaters*-------------------Raincoats -------------------Suits----------------------------Slacks--------------------------Dungarees
Shorts------Bathing trunks --------Shirts:
Dress ------------------S p o rt-------------------Other outerwear* —
Underwear, nightwear:
Undershorts ------------Undershirts -------------Pajamas Bathrobes--------Hosiery:
Socks---------------Other hosiery* .
Footwear:
Shoes, street —
Sneakers ---------H ouseslippers----------------------------Rubbers, galoshes, boots* -------Hats, gloves, accessories:
Gloves* --------------------------------------Other accessories* .
See footnotes at end of table.




Quantity per year
Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
ireas
areas

n

-

Boy

31-57 O X --------------------------------------------31-662 -----------------------------------------------31-714F B -------------------------------------------31-577________________________________
31 - 660X— —— —— — — —— — — —
31-646F B ___ ________________________
. 31-732FB .....................................................
31-640X ______________________________
3 1 -6 5 0 X ----------- -------------------------------

0. 26
. 98
. 78
. 09
. 26
3. 57
2. 23
. 25
. 45

0.
1.
.
.
.
3.
2.
.
.

08
26
56
19
26
26
93
17
55

31-81 O X --------------------------------------------3 1 -8 1 7 F B -------------------------------------------

1.72
4. 56

1. 53
4. 81

i1 )

i1 )

31-832, 31-832A -----------------------------31-830X --------------------------------------------31-840X --------------------------------------------3 1 -8 5 0 X ---------------------------------------------

5. 25
4. 01
.61
. 12

4. 87
4. 03
. 50
-

31-883FB -------------------------------------------

12. 24
(6 )

10. 31

- pair.
— do— do-d o—

3 3 -5 4 2 F B ------------------------------------------33-586 _______________________________
33-550X --------------------------------------------33-560X ---------------------------------------------

2.
1.
.
.

75
36
19
23

2. 47
1. 04
. 11
. 22

-d o—

31-860X ---------------------------------------------

. 78
(5 )

. 82
(S)

30
Table A-4.

Clothing Budget Quantities--- Continued
C.

Wife
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Item

Outerwear:
Coats:
Heavyweight * -------------------------Lightweight ----------------------------Carcoats, jackets -----------------Sweaters --------------------------------------Suits----------------------------------------------D resses:
Street --------------------------------------H o u se --------------------------------------Skirts, jumpers, culottes----------Blouses, shirts --------------------------Slacks-------------------------------------------Dungarees, blue j e a n s ---------------Shorts, pedal pushers* --------------Other outerwear*------------------------Underwear, nightwear:
Slips, petticoats -------------------------Girdles ----------------------------------------B rassieres ----------------------------------Panties, b r ie fs ----------------------------Nightgowns ----------------------------------P ajam as---------------------------------------Robes, housecoats ---------------------Other underwear and nightwear*
Hoisery:
Stockings--------------------------------------___Anklets -----------------------------------------F ootwear:
Shoes:
Street --------------------------------------C a su al------------------------------------Houseslippers ------------------------Rubbers, galoshes, b o o ts * -------Other footwear* -------------------------Hats, gloves, accessories:
Hats*---------------------------------------------G loves*----------------------------------------P urses, handbags ----------------------Jewelry, watches ----------------------Other accessories* ---------------------

32-001, 32-002 series
32-010X ----------------------32-105 ------------------------32- 118, 32- 118A ------32-120X ----------------------32-222, 32-223, 32-226, 3 2 - 2 2 6 A 32-248 ------------------------------------------------

See footnotes at end of table.




0 . 22

. 15

. 11

. 80
. 16

0. 16
. 15

10
. 10

.

. 73

1. 56
. 60
4 $ 3. 31
1. 33
. 63
. 09
. 72

32-287----------------32-378, 32-378B
32-391 ---------------32-313 ---------------3 2 -3 2 7 F B ----------3 2 -3 3 9 F B ----------32-340X -------------

1. 36
. 57
2. 69
4. 65
.5 9
. 38
22

1. 57
. 46
2. 73
5. 05
. 55
. 35
. 25
(7 )

32-405, 32-405A

12. 79
4 $0. 84

4 $0. 51

1. 36
1. 39
.4 3
. 14

1.41
1.48
. 38
. 11

32-144, 32-144A
32-172 ---------------32-170X ------------32-180X -------------

1.
.
4 $3.
1.
.
.
.

Nonmetropolitan
areas

67
56
55
67
83
06
87

(M

pair
- dodo---do---do---do----

33-271, 33-272
33-361 ------------33-406 ------------33-410X -----------

.
(7)

(3)
32-432FB
32-443 —
32-450X -

. 66
.6 3

( M

1 1 . 10

(3)

$4. 95
(5)
D.

Outerwear:
Coats:
Heavyweight* ---------Lightweight* ----------Raincoats* ------------------Jackets ------------------------Sweaters ----------------------Dresses -----------------------Skirts----------------------------Blouse --------------------------Tee shirts, polo shirts
Slacks---------------------------Overalls, blue jeans —
Shorts---------------------------P laysuits----------------------Other outerwear* -------

Metropolitan
areas

. 56
.4 7
. 97
5. 35
(5 )

0. 35
. 15
. 23
. 37
. 98
2. 69
. 85
1. 34
4 $ 1. 23
1. 30
. 28
1. 50
.6 9
(1 /
\ )

0. 31
. 12
. 11
. 19
1. 27
3. 19
. 62
1. 16
4 $ 1. 22
1. 25
. 19
1. 24
. 38
f1 /
V)

1 . 01

Girl

3 2 -5 5 4 F B ------------------------------------------32-550X --------------------------------------------32-579, 32-579A -----------------------------32-580X --------------------------------------------32-631FB ------------------------------------------32-744, 32-744A -----------------------------32-644, 32-644A -----------------------------3 2 -6 5 7 F B ------------------------------------------32-71 O X --------------------------------------------32-720X --------------------------------------------32-730X --------------------------------------------32-740X ---------------------------------------------

31
Table A -4.

Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued
D.

Girl— Continued
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Item

Underwear, nightwear:
Slips, petticoats------Panties , b r ie fs -------Undershirts--------------Pajam as, nightgownsBathrobes------------------Other underwear and nightwear* Hosiery:
-p a ir—
Anklets, socks------------------------------Other hosiery* ----------------------------Footwear:
Shoes:
-p a ir —
Street ---------------------------------------C a s u a l--------------------------------------— do —
Houses lippers— do —
Boots, rubbers* — do —
Other footwear* —
Hats, gloves, accessories:
H a ts *-------------------------------— pair—
Gloves* -------------------Other accessories* E.

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

2. 07
6. 73
l $ l . 11
1. 16
.1 6
(1 )
7
*
5
4
3
2

2. 13
7. 12
4 $0. 51
1 .0 4
. 08
(7 )

32-891F B -

9. 33
(6 )

8. 46
(6 )

33-541 A , 3 3-54 1 B , 33-766
33-760X -------------------------------33-770X ------------------------------3 3-901F B ------------------------------

2. 38
1.69
. 35
. 38
(3)

1. 86
1. 86
. 25
. 30
(3)

. 61
. 80

. 45
. 66

3 2 -80 1 -----3 2-827F B 32-860X
3 2 -86 6 —

32-870X
32-880X

(5 )

n

34 4">
0V’
- .
34-438, 34-438A , 3 4 -4 4 9 A U X ----------34 460v ...................
- —
34..AAqp-R

0. 58
8 . 69
. 25
. 10
/8\
i J
/9 )

0. 75
11. 37

3-1 1UO 3/1 ( \ O X
J l" 70ft , JT* 70RA ——
J -T
—---7*± f
'X (
A
A
JA- 7 JX , JT" 7 21 A ......-

8 . 84
6. 12
(10)

15. 54
8. 26
(10)

1 .05
3. 25

.09
2. 63

Clothing materials and services

M aterials:
Wool, wool blends-------------------------------- yards—
Cotton, cotton blends---------------------------------do—
Rayon, acetate ---------------------------------------do —
Nylon, orlon, dacron---------------------------------do—
Other yard goods ------------------------------------------Notions (yarn, pins, e t c .) ----------------------------Services:
Cleaning and pressing:
Men's s u its ---------------------------------- garment—
Women's d r e s s e s ------------------------------ do —

Shoe repair:
Men's and boys' half soles
3a A3q f J
D
and h e e ls -------------------------------------number— Jt -UJ7T r
Women's and girls' h eels--------------------- do— 24 AA7 24 AA7 A
Shoe shines, polish, laces, etc ------------------Other clothing s e r v ic e s ---------------------------------

—
-k
-1

—

- --

M

(n )

(“ )
(1 )
2

1 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized outerwear, adjusted for intercity variations due
to climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 5 .7 ; boy, 5 .2 ; wife, 1 9 .6 ; and girl,
27. 6. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 7. 4; boy, 4. 3; wife, 16. 7 and girl, 15. 0.
2 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear, adjusted for intercity variations due
to climatic differences. The percentage in metropolitan area is husband, 5 .8 . In nonmetropolitan areas the p er­
centages are husband, 1 5.4 ; wife, 4 .4 ; and girl, 3 .7 .
3 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized footwear, adjusted for intercity variations due to
climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 1 .9 ; wife, 1 .4 ; and girl, 2 .0 . In non­
metropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 5 .7 ; and girl, 3. 3.
4 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.
5 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of clothing, adjusted for intercity variations due to climatic
differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 0 .7 ; boy, 3 .8 ; wife, 1 .3 ; and girl, 3 .1 . In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 0 . 9; boy, 5. 6 ; wife, 0. 9; and girl, 2. 2.
* Cost is a specified percentage of cost of socks, adjusted for intercity variations, due to climatic differences.
The percentages in metropolitan areas are boy, 2 .1 ; and girl, 8 .5 .
In nonmetropolitan areas, the percentage
is girl, 11.9.
7 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear and nightwear, adjusted for intercity
variations due to climatic differences.
The percentages in metropolitan areas are wife, 2 .4 ; and girl, 3 .0 .
In
nonmetropolitan areas the percentage is wife, 4 .4 .
8 In metropolitan areas the cost is 8 .0 percent of cost of itemized yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,
3. 6 percent.
9 In metropolitan areas the cost is 114.9 percent of cost of all yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,
32. 5 percent.
1 In metropolitan areas the cost is 28. 3 percent of cost of itemized cleaning and pressing; in nonmetro­
0
politan areas, 9 .0 percent.
1 In metropolitan areas the cost is 35.5 percent of cost of shoe repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 74.9 percent.
1
12 In metropolitan areas the cost is 1 3.3 percent of cost of itemized clothing services; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 1 3 .4 percent.
* See explanatory note, p. 32.




32
Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities--- Continued
Explanatory note: Quantities of starred items vary from city to city. The basic clothing budget is the U .S.
average quantity, both for metropolitan areas and for nonmetropolitan areas. For each city or metropolitan area,
the quantities of clothing articles specified in the following tabulation are adjusted upward or downward in accordance
with local climatic conditions, on the basis of the normal number of annual degree days as published by the U .S.
Weather Bureau. The tabulation shows the quantities of specified items of clothing required in metropolitan areas
when the normal number of annual degree days average 0 and 8 ,3 9 2 ; and in nonmetropolitan areas when the average
is 489 and 10,864.
(For definition of degree days, see footnote 2, table A -Z . ) The quantities required for spe­
cific cities were determined by straight-line interpolation.




Normal number annual degree days
Item

Metropolitan areas
8 , 392

0

Nonmetropolitan areas
10,864

489

Husband
Topcoats -------------------------------------------------------------Jackets, sport co a ts------------------------------------------Raincoats -----------------------------------------------------------Suits:
Year-round weight ---------------------------------------Tropical weight --------------------------------------------Shorts, walking -------------------------------------------------Other outerwear ------------------------------------------------Other underwear------------------------------------------------Footwear:
Rubbers, galoshes, b o ots----------------------------Other footwear ----------------------------------------------Hats:
F e lt-----------------------------------------------------------------Straw --------------------------------------------------------------Gloves:
Dress -------------------------------------------------------------Other accessories -----------------------------------------------

0 . 19
. 58
. 18

0
0. 42
. 05

. 29
. 05
.0 3
1 5. 1
28 . 8

. 24
. 11
. 19
1 10. 7
2.5

. 27
3 2. 7
. 20
0
. 27
3. 63
4 .8

0. 18
. 73
. 16
33
05
01
9
4

. 27
. 12
. 21
1 5. 5
2 4. 0

. 07
3 1. 6

. 33
3 8. 1

. 08
31 . 0

. 13
. 13

. 33
. 05

. 20
. 24

. 34
6. 46
4 1.0

. 07
1. 33
4 .8

. 10
1.45
. 61
1 6. 6
0
. 58
2. 30
49. 1

.0 6
1. 12
. 50
1 2. 1
0
0
0
4 3. 7

0
0
4. 5

.
.
.
1 12.
2 38.

0
0. 51
0

Boy
All-purpose coats ----------------------------------------------Jackets, sport co a ts------------------------------------------Sweaters -------------------------------------------------------------Other outerwear-------------------------------------------------Rubbers, galoshes, b o ots---------------------------------Other accessories -----------------------------------------------

. 30
1 .06
. 84
1 4. 8
0
.4 6
1.80
4 3. 8

.
.
.
1 7.
5 2.
0
0
4 3.

22
88
71
7
4

4

Wife
Coats, heavyweight ----------------Shorts , pedal p u sh ers--------------Other outerwear -----------------------Other underwear and nightwear
Rubbers, galoshes, b o ots--------Other footwear -------------------------Hats -------------------------------------------Gloves ---------------------------------------Other accessories ---------------------

. 33
. 41
21.6
6 1. 3
. 26
3. 5
.9 6
. 88
4 1.9

. 08
1 .42
1 21. 8
6 3. 3
0
3 2.1
. 30
. 32
4. 7

. 53
. 21
. 16
27. 1
6 2. 6
5 3. 3
. 88
3 2. 9
. 88
1.41
4 2. 9

. 14
. 08
. 31
1 26. 9
6 1. 8
0
0
3 3. 7
. 28
. 03
4 4. 9

. 33

. 03

19. 5
61.9
• 29

1 . 29
1 12. 5
65. 9
0

1.03
. 86
4 1.4

. 21
. 18
4 .8

0

Girl
Coats:
Heavyweight-------------------------Lightweight--------------------------Raincoats ----------------------------------Other outerwear -----------------------Other underwear and nightwear
Other hosiery ----------------------------Boots, ru bbers-------------------------Other footwear -------------------------Hats -------------------------------------------Gloves ---------------------------------------Other accessories --------------------- 1
6
5
4
3
2
1 The
2 The
3 The
4 The
5 The
6 The
nightwear.

allowances
allowances
allowances
allowances
allowances
allowances

are stated as
are stated as
are stated as
are stated as
are stated as
are stated

, 58
. 21
0
19.7
6 2. 5
5 5. 0
1.08
39. 0
. 87
1. 64
4 3. 6

. 10
.0 5
. 19
1 17. 0
64. 9
5 23. 8
0
3 1.0
. 13
0
4 2. 2

percentages of total cost of itemized outerwear.
percentages of total cost of itemized underwear.
percentages of total cost of itemized footwear.
percentages of total cost of itemized clothing.
percentages of total cost of socks.
as percentages of total cost of itemized underwear and

33
Table A-5.

Personal Care
Quantity per year

Item

Services:
Husband:
H a ircu t-------------------Wife:
H a ircu t-------------------Permanent wave-----Shampoo and s e t ----Tinting and coloringBoy: H a ircu t--------------Girl: Haircut--------------Family: O th er------- -—
Supplies:
Toilet soap-------------------Toothpaste-------------------Shaving crea m -------------Cleansing tissue----------Shampoo-----------------------Face powder-----------------Home permanent kit----Sanitary supplies---------O ther-----------------------------

Pricing code

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

52-697-

22. 7

25. 7

52-75352-82552-849-

3. 3
.9
4. 1

6. 9

(M

15. 2
.4

12. 3
1. 5
(2 )

(2)

110 . 2

5 2 -0 0 1 ---------5 2 -0 2 5 ---------5 2 -07 3 ---------5 2 -62 5 ---------5 2 -1 93AUX—

-------r e f il lbox of 12—

11
.

(M

52-729FB
5 2 -7 3 0 X —
— medium bar-----------------ounce—
--------------- ou n cebox 200 double—
--------------- ounce—

1. 9

64.
23.
27.
50.
3 $ 2.

143. 8
62. 6

8
2
4
9
12

11. 6

27. 0
31. 8
3 $ 1. 36
.4
13. 0
(4 )

.6

5 2 -5 2 9 ------52-649AU X

20. 7
(4)

1 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 3. 1 percent of total cost of itemized services for the wife; in nonmet­
ropolitan areas, 1.8 percent.
2 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 1 .4 percent of annual allowance for itemized personal services; in
nonmetropolitan areas, 0 .2 percent.
3 Estimated cost in 1966 for all areas.
4 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 110.4 percent of annual allowance for itemized supplies; in nonmet­
ropolitan areas, 9 6.6 percent.

Table A-6.

Medical Care1
6
5
4
3
2
Quantity per year

Item

Pricing code
All cities

Prepaid care:
Hospital surgical insurance c ^ n t r ^
Medical care not covered by insurance:
Physicians' visits:
Uiiice visits ———
— —
—
_
— “
Hospital visits (nonsurgical) ————— ————— —
— —
— —— —
—
Other medical care ———*—— ---- — — ------------------—
——
Dental care:
F illin g s-----------------------------------------------------------------Ext ractions —— —— —
— —
—
— ____
___
— —
Cleaning and cxaHiination"*”-- —
— —
~
Other dental care ———— —— ——---- ----------- — -----— —
Eye care:
Examination for glasses ———— ————— — — —
——————— —————
—
E yeglasses-------------------------------------------------------------

51 940v

1. 00

t; i og-?
51 901
51 8 3 8FR
— - o jo r ------>i

— — —— ———— ——— —
——————— ——

.6
13. 1
1. 4
(2 \

51 465
51 466

£ 1 A AOT T
DA^*±0/1?T 3
ID

————— — ————
———
— —
——

——————— —
—
———

51-518 5 1 5 1 9 - ......
5 1 -5 1 8 i 5 1-51 9 , 51-520, 51-521FB —

3.
1.
5.
v

55
07
01
)

. 44
. 70
(4 )
\ 1

Drugs:
Prescription— —
----------------------- —
------------------------- —
Nonpres c ription:
"Vi tam ms — — ———————— ———— ——— ———
"
—
———— —————
—

51 061 flirmirVi 51 151
51-001

- -

15. 9
-............................

........

.

4 3
(h

A ___ 1:

j

_______

Appliances and supplies -------------- - ---------- —------------------------- -------------- —

(6)
1 )

1 The budget includes group hospital and surgical insurance for all family m em bers.
This insurance pro­
vides full coverage for 70 days' care in a room of 2 beds or more for each hospital confinement, all supplies
and ancillary services which are normally provided, and surgical benefits.
2 Cost is 16. 5 percent of cost of physicians' office visits.
3 Cost is 91. 1 percent of total cost of itemized dental procedures.
4 Co st is 4. 6 percent of total cost of eyeglasses and examination.
5 Cost is 268. 0 percent of cost of vitamins.
6 Cost is 8. 5 percent of total cost of prescription and nonprescription drugs.




34
Table A-7.

Other Family Consumption
Quantity per year

Item

Pricing code
A.

Newspapers (subscription) —
Books (not school)-----------------M agazines-------------------------------Other expenses-----------------------

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Reading materials

53-806 through 5 3 -8 1 9 -------

1 . 00
$ 18.75
$ 15. 10
(1 )
2

B.

1. 15
1 $ 7. 20
1 $ 8. 40

Recreation

Radios, musical instruments, etc. :
53-03 3 , 53-033A , 5 3 - 0 3 4 5 3-00 1 , 5 3 -0 1 8 ------------------53-08 2 F B -----------------------------

Television s e t s -----------------------------------------------Phonographs----------------------------------------------------Musical instruments--------------------------------------Repairs, including parts--------------------------------Phonograph records---------------------------------------Admissions:
Movies:
A du lts---------------------------------------------------------Children-----------------------------------------------------Other ad m ission s-------------------------------------------Other recreation:
Participant sp orts------------------------------------------Toys and play equipment ------------------------------Club dues, m em berships------------------------------Hobbies-----------------------------------------------------------Pets, pet supplies, and other recreation
expenses---------------------------------------------------------

53-56 5 F B -------------------------53-17 7 --------------------------------------------------------------53-612
5 3 -6 1 3 ----------------------------------

.
.
.
v
1.
5.

41
12
10

. 22
. 03
. 10

)

(3 4
)

21
26

1. 50
3. 59

9. 90
26. 50
1 $ 10. 16

5. 27
23. 78
1 $ 10. 06

\ )
v )
(4\

/4\
1 )
/4\
4
4
V)

1 $29. 57

1 $60. 00

C.

Cigarettes------------------------------------------------carton—
Cigars---------------------------------------------------------- each—
Pipe tobacco--------------------------------------------- ounce —

Tobacco

5 4-002, 5 4 -0 0 6 -----------------5 4 -07 7 ---------------------------------54-15 3 F B -----------------------------

P ip e and s m o k e r s s u p p lie s

E.
At home:
Beer and ale----------------------------------72 ounces —
Liquors (whiskey, e tc .)---------------V5 gallon—
W ine---------------------------------------------- V5 gallon—
Aws.y from h om e----------— — —— —— —
------F.

1 $35. 00

Education

School and college:
Books, supplies, tuition, fees, etc ------------D.

1 $32. 22

40. 9
86. 6
20. 9
(5)

40. 9
86. 6
20. 9
(5)

26. 5
4. 7
5. 3
(6 )

24. 7
3. 1
2. 2
(6)

Alcoholic beverages

5 4 -30 9 ---------------------------------54-384, 54-399 -----------------5 4-429, 54-431 ------------------

Miscellaneous expenses

Miscellaneous expenses:
Lodging away from home, bank service charges, legal expenses, allow­
ances to children, music and dancing lessons for children, and other
expenses that cannot be allocated elsewhere.

. 2 percent of all other
costs of family consumption.

1 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.
2 Cost is 2. 1 percent of total cost of itemized reading materials.
3 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.1 percent of total cost of radios, television sets, and phonographs; in
nonmetropolitan areas, 68.9 percent.
4 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of radios, musical instruments, e tc ., and admissions.
The
percentages in metropolitan areas are as follows: Participant sports, 3 6 .8 ; toys and play equipment, 2 3 .1 ; club
dues, 7 .1 ; hobbies, 2 1 .3 .
In nonmetropolitan areas, the percentages are participant sports, 4 2 .8 ; toys and play
equipment, 2 8 .4 ; club dues, 13.6 ; hobbies, 2 8 .5 .
5 Cost is 1.5 percent of annual allowance for itemized tobacco products.
6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 18.7 percent of total cost of itemized alcoholic beverages; in nonmetro­
politan areas, 3 4 .7 percent.




35
Table A-8.

Other Costs
Quantity per year
all cities

Item
A.

Gifts and contributions

Gifts and contributions:
Christmas, birthday, and other presents to persons outside the
immediate family; and contributions to religious, welfare, medical,
educational, and other organizations.
B.

Life insurance

Life insurance policy:
A policy to provide for the family during a period of adjustment in
event of the death of the breadwinner.
The premium should be
determined for individual situations by taking into account any
group insurance in effect, as well as the type of protection
provided.

Table A-9.

Insurance is included in the e sti­
mated total cost of the budget
at an average outlay of $ 160.

Occupational Expenses and Taxes
Quantity per year,
all cities

Item
A.

Occupational expenses

Occupational expenses:
Dues to unions, business and professional associations; licenses, tools,
and special equipment other than clothing required for the job; non­
reimbursed costs for travel or for use of the fam ily's car for
business.

B.

These item s, which are included in
the estimated total cost of the
budget as an average outlay of $ 80,
should be determined for each in­
dividual situation.

Taxes

T axe s :
Employee contributions for Federal old-age, survivors' , disability in­
surance, and Medicare (OASDHI); for temporary disability and un­
employment taxes where required by State law.
Personal income taxes (Federal, State, and local); and capitation
taxe s .




3. 5 percent of total cost of family
consumption, less miscellaneous
expenses.

As required by the level of the
total budget.
Rates applicable in 1966 in each
city; in metropolitan areas, the
applicable rates in each urban
part were used.




Appendix B
Table B-l.

Index of Populations Weights Used in the City Worker’s Family Budget1
Population
weights

Area
United States urban population -----------------Metropolitan areas 2 -----------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 -------------------------

100. 00
81. 70
18. 30

Northeast 4 ---------------------------------------------Boston, M a s s ------------------------------------Buffalo, N. Y --------------------------------------Hartford, Conn----------------------------------Lancaster, P a ----------------------------------New York—
Northeastern New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pa.— J----------------------N.
Pittsburgh, Pa — ------------------------------Portland, M a in e -------------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 --------------------

30. 66
2. 54
2. 45
68
1. 76
13. 10
4. 35
1. 65
68
3. 45

North Central4 -.-------------------------------------Cedar Rapids, Iowa -------------------------Champaign—
Urbana, 111--------------------Chicago, 111.—
Northwestern Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio—
Ky.—
Ind-----------------Cleveland, Ohio---------------------------------Dayton, Ohio--------------------------------------Detroit, M ich-------------------------------------Green Bay, W is ---------------------------------Indianapolis, Ind-------------------------------Kansas City, Mo.—
Kans -------------------Milwaukee, W is ---------------------------------Minneapolis—
St. Paul, M in n ------------St. Louis, Mo.—
Ill ----------------------------Wichita, Kans -----------------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------

28.
1.
2.
6.

Population
weights

1.
1.
3.

1.
1.
1.
3.

United States urban population— Continued
South 4 -----------------------------------------------------Atlanta, Ga ---------------------------------------Austin, T e x ---------------------------------------Baltimore, M d ----------------------------------Baton Rouge, La -------------------------Dallas, T e x ---------------------- ----------------Durham, N. C -------------------------------------Houston, T e x -------------------------------------Nashville, Tenn---------------------------------Orlando, F la --------------------------------------Washington, D. C.—Md.—V a --------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 --------------------

38
26
26
98
63
85
70
13
57
86
77
26
91
33
14
73

22. 72
1. 64

(5)

1.
1.
2.
1.
.
1.
2.
1.

59
32
64
17
76
34
30
28

8 . 68

W e st4 ---------------------------------------------Bakersfield, Calif --------------------Denver, C o lo -----------------------------Los Angeles- Long Beach, Calif
San Diego, C a lif------------------------San Francisco—
Oakland, Calif —
Seattle—
Everett, W a sh --------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------

17.
2.
1.
5.
2.
2.
1.
2.

75
26
31
20
37
26
99
36

Honolulu, Hawaii 6 --------------------------

.41

Anchorage, A laska6 -----------------------

. 08

1 The weight in each urban area is the total population of 4-person, husband-wife families having children
aged 6 through 17 years, 1 full-tim e earner in the family; i. e. , the family type in the 1960—
61 Survey of Consumer
Expenditures most closely approximating the family for which the budget was constructed.
For an explanation of
the sample selection, see "Technical Note— the Revised City Sample for the Consumer Price Index, " Monthly Labor
Review, October I960, pp. 1078—1083.
(Also issued as BLS Reprint 2352. )
2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A reas, prepared by
the Bureau of the Budget.
3 Places having population of 2, 500 to 50, 000.
4 Regions as defined by the Bureau of the Census: Northeast-— Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; North Central— Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, M issouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South—
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, M ississippi,
N o rth

C a r o lin a ,

O k la h o m a ,

South

C a r o lin a ,

T en n essee,

T exas,

V i r g i n ia ,

and

W est

V i r g i n ia ;

and

W est

A la s k a ,

Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
5 A population weight for Austin is not shown separately because the sample which represented this type of
city worker family was not statistically significant. Therefore, the weight was imputed to other cities of the same
size (50, 000—
250, 000 population) in the South.
6 Honolulu and Anchorage were separate sampling strata in the BLS 1960—
61 Consumer Expenditure Survey,
and, therefore, are not included in the total weight for the West.
Honolulu's weight is in the United States and
metropolitan area totals; Anchorage's weight is in the United States and nonmetropolitan area totals.




37




Appendix C

Technical References
1.

Brackett, Jean C. , "Intercity Differences in Family Food Budget C o s t s ," Monthly Labor
Review, October 1963, pp. 1189—1194.
An analysis of the effects on food budget cost estimates of using for all cities a
single set of weights representing urban U. S. food patterns, or different weights for
each city reflecting the food preferences of the region in which the city is located.
Also presents a discussion of the conceptual implications of varying the weights in a
p lace-to-place comparison of family living costs.

2.

Clorety, Joseph A . , "Consumption Statistics:
Buying Habits Change, chapter X , 1959, pp.

A Technical C om m en t," How American
217—242.

Includes a section on "Standard Budgets as Indicators of P ro g re ss" (pp. 232—242).
Also presents in summary form a representative cross-section of budgets compiled in
this country during the 20th century, showing average dollar cost figures for the total
and for the major components of each budget.
3.

Lamale, Helen H. , "Changes in Concepts of Income Adequacy Over the Last Century,"
Journal of the American Economic Association, May 1958, pp. 291—299.
An analysis of the relationship over time between actual levels of living in the
United States and the goals or standards of living which have been accepted in different
historical periods and for different purposes; and a discussion of the implications in
this relationship for present-day concepts of income adequacy.

4.

_______________________ "P overty:
July 1965, pp. 822-827.

The Word and the

R eality",

Monthly

Labor

Review,

Discusses the role of standard budgets in providing an intelligible definition of
poverty, for use in evaluating income adequacy for different family types and in differ­
ent geographical locations and for estimating the extent of poverty in the United States.
5.

_____________________ and Stotz, Margaret S. , "The Interim City W orker's Family Budget,"
Monthly Labor Review, August I960, pp. 785—808.
Estimates of the cost of a "m odest but adequate" standard of living for a husband,
wife, and two children (living in rented housing), at autumn 1959 prices, in 20 large
cities and their suburbs (Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, Portland, Oreg. , St. Louis, San Francisco, Scranton, Seattle, and W ash­
ington, D. C. ) Includes a detailed list of the goods and services considered necessary
by four-person fam ilies to maintain the specified living standard as determined by levels
of living actually achieved in the 1950’ s, and describes how this representative list was
developed and priced.
(See Reference No. 10 for description of original BLS City
W orker's Family Budget.)

6.

Orshansky, M ollie, "Budget for an Elderly Couple: Interim Revision by the Bureau of
Labor S ta tistic s," Social Security Bulletin, December I960, pp. 26—36.
A summary report on "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired Couple".
(See
Reference No. 7. ) Includes a discussion of various conceptual problems encountered
in developing normative living costs estimates for a retired couple, and some of the
limitations of this particular budget for the multitude of purposes for which budgets
for older persons and families are needed.




39

40

7.

Stotz, Margaret S. , "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired C ou p le," Monthly Labor
Review, November I960, pp. 1141—1157.
Estimates of the cost of a "m odest but adequate" standard of living for a man
age 65 or over and his wife (living in rented housing), at autumn 1959 prices, in
20 large cities and their suburbs (cities are the same as those listed in Reference No. 5).
Includes a detailed list of the goods and services considered necessary for retired
couples to maintain the specified living standard as determined by levels of living
actually achieved in the 1950's; and describes how this representative list was de­
veloped and priced.
(See Reference No. 11 for description of original Budget for an
Elderly Couple. )

8.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Estim ating Equivalent Incomes or
Budget Costs by Family T y p e ," Monthly Labor Review, November I960, pp. 1197—1200.
Describes a scale for measuring the relative after-tax income required by families
of differing composition to maintain the same level of material w ell-being, or for
estimating comparable costs of goods and services for families of different age, size,
and type.
(Scale values cannot be used to estimate relative costs of components of
family budgets— food, housing, taxes, insurance, e tc .)

9#

Report of the Advisory Committee on Standard Budget R esearch,
June 1963, 26 pp.
Members of the BLS Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research:
Professor Gwen Bym ers, Department of Household Economics and Management,
Cornell University; Ithaca, N. Y.
Dorothy M. Durand, Private consultant on the development and use of standard
budgets; Scarsdale, N. Y.
Gertrude Lotwin, Home Economics Consultant, State of New Jersey Division of
W elfare; Trenton, N. J.
Charles A. Pearce, Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Department
of Labor, State of New York; New York, N. Y.
Lazare Teper, Director, Research Department, International L adies' Garment
W orkers' Union, A F L -C IO ; New York, N. Y.
Gertrude S. W eiss, Chairman, Consultant; Washington, D. C.
C. Ashley Wright, Economist, Standard Oil Company (N .J .); New York, N. Y.
Contains recommendations of this committee of experts on the needs for various types
of budgets, general concepts of the standards of living to be described by the budgets,
and technical and other problems associated with estimating and publishing budget costs.
Includes a selected bibliography on the major uses of standard budgets.

10.

W orkers' Budgets in the United States: City Fam ilies and Single
Persons, 1946 and 1947, (BLS Bulletin 927, 1948) 55 pp.
Describes concepts, definitions, and techniques used
City W orker's Family Budget for a four-person family,
services priced, and 1946—
47 cost estimates for 34 cities.
survey of family budgets, and summary data on State budgets

in developing the original
detailed list of goods and
Also contains an historical
for single women workers.

11. U .S . Department of Health, Education, and W elfare, Social Security Administration,
"A Budget for an Elderly C ou p le," Social Security Bulletin, February 1948, pp. 4—
12.
Contains estimates of the cost of a "m odest but adequate" standard of living for
a couple age 65 or older, at March 1946 and June 1947 p rices, in eight large cities.
(Concepts and techniques used to compile this budget were the same as those employed
in developing the original BLS City W orker's Budget.
See Reference No. 10.)




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O - 278-870


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102