The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
.J ' t'1 wc,ster-, MAY 2 5 i936 Unlv,:irs ity Library WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTR.ATION !Jlvision of Social Research INTER-CITY DIFFERENC ES IN THE COST OF LIVING • vi Series I .__ Number 20 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY WO R K S P ROG R E S S ADMI N I S T R AT I O N Harry L. Hopkins, Administ rator Corringto n Gill, Assistan t Administ rator Howard B. Myers, Di rector Division of Social Research R E S E ARC H B U L L ET I N INTER-CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF LIVING Prepared by Margaret Loomis Stecker und e r the supervisi on of Henry B. Arthur, Assistant Director Division of Social Research Washingto n May 1936 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Preface The present bulletin provides a preliminary summary of the most important findings of the survey of living costs conducted in i935 in 59 cities. It is contemplated that a full report on the study wi 11 be released later in the year presenting both the detailed budget upon which the survey was based, the summari .zed price data, and the aggregate costs resulting. The widespread demand for information on inter-city differences in living costs made the preliminary release of the data in this bulletin seem advisable. in terms of dollars publication of the are not final The aggregate costs to be issued prior to the report since they cannot be properly interpreted without a detailed statement upon the underlying analysis. Digitized by NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY / ,,..-~O:-:r;-: ig7:in:-:a71;::fr:-:-o~m:----- NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY INTER-CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST or LIVING Preliminary figures showing the relative cost of living in 59 citi8s in the United States are presented in this bulletin. These costs are expressed as percentages of the cost in Washington, D. C. They relate to the requirements of the four-person family of an industrial, service or other manual worker of small means, based on the maintenance of a specified standard of living. Thus, the study is an analysis of the cost of a fixed list of goods and services required at this standard, rather than an investigation of family consumption and expenditures. In order that all costs might be as nearly as possible on a comparable basis, an itemized budget of family needs was constructed and priced in each of the 59 cities. Certain adjustments wer8 made in the fuel, ice and transportation lists, to take acco,mt of climatic and other purely local conditions, but except for these and a few differences in standards which could not be eliminated through use of specifications for the commodities and services priced, the resulting co st relatives are based on reasonably comparable qualities and quantities of the necessities in each city. The standard family whose cost of living is portrayer! consists of a moderately activEt man and woman, a boy age i3, and a girl age 8. 1 The man wears o v e ralls at his work; no household assistance of any kind is employed; social opportunities are simple. This family's food is an adequate diet at minimum cos t. They live in a house or apartment with water and sewer 1 Goods and services were priced ror children or both sexes between the ages or 2and 15, inclusive; these prices will be worked up later to provide cost estimates ror ramllles or any size and composition wlthin the ages spec1r1ect. 1 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY z SIZE AND LOCA TION OF 59 CITIE S INCLUDED IN COST OF LIVING STUDY 0 ~ I ~ mo l/l -- -I lO m rt :;;o ;:::;· z~ z '-< C o- < m :;;o l/l ~ O oenve, e Wichita 0 Albuquerque e Okla homa City O Tucson z 0 ~ I ~ LEGEND mo l/l -, . m ::;· Q 250,000 l o 500,000 e 100,000 to 250,000 ---l <.0" :;;o OJ Z....., co z3 < m :;;o l/l ~ Over 500,000 Population 0 25,000 l o 100,000 01v1s1on of Soc1ol Research No AF - 1488 INTER-CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST or LIVING 3 con n e ct i on s , pr i v a t e i n door bat h and t o i let , i n at least a fair state of repair. They have gas and electricity, a small radio but no automobile; they may read a daily paper, go to the movies once a week and pay for t·heir own medical care. Carfare, life insurance, necessary taxes and numerous incidental expenses are provided for. This is the so-called maintenance standard. Another list of necessities was constructed and priced for the purpose of ascertaining how much might be saved through eliminating all goods and services which could be temporarily dispensed with under emergency conditions. With this budget, the family of the same size and composition has more cereals and less milk, fruit and vegetables in its diet; clothes must be worn longer and household equipment is not replaced so frequently; housing is less desirable; recreation, insurance and other incident a ls are much reduced, though few are eliminated entirely. The field work was done in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Government •s regular price collecting agency, but the information assembled, except that relating to food, has been worked up exclusively by the Works Progress Administration. Quot at ions were secured as of March 1.935, but according to the Bureau, there have be·en no significant price changes since that time. A total of 93,0CO schedules was taken (including food price reports collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics), on which were recorded more than i,430,0CO price quotations and pertinent consumption data. A broad base for the study is thus apparent. At the maintenance standar d, 1 the rnost expensi ve city in which to live among the 59 studied was Washington, and the least expensive was Mobile . In Mobile, the cost of all the essentials of life was relatively low, while in Washington , rents an d the cost of food and miscellaneous items ac counted for the high total . cost. 1 At the emergency standard a rew shifts 1n rank occur , as can be seen by reference to Table II. These are not important, however, 1n most Instances. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY z ~ 2040 I Wo Sl'llnQIOn, 0 C ~ mo l/l -- ---l lO m rt :;;o ;:::;· z~ C z FOOO TOTAL 0 o'-< < m :;;o l/l ~ 100020 CLOTHING 1-•re• at 40 6 0 1 0 HOUSI NG Ptruni 0 C------C'---,C....~----C ~~~~~~~~t:~ r=::: T -c ~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;~ MISCELLANEOUS HOU SEHOLD OPERATION Pt ,'"ft' IOOII00l:0~6090N)()02.040IO 1040 !~:n::~:~.':~ ~,:t•' t::::;::;::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ Ne w York , NY Chlcoi;io, Ill M, l woukee, Wis Mos, Bosron, Cleveland, Ohio r:,, T. -l S1 Louis, Mo ~:~oi~Q~l~c; Goh! ~:::::::;::;::;::;:::::;::::::: ~~~~;;;:;3 A, ~ . J Clncinnol 1, Ohio Scranton, Po P,llsburQI\ Po 811doepor 1, Conn Al buquer<1ue, NM 8ol11m o,e, Md Ph1Lodelph10, Po Ntwork, NJ ,J Rochester , NY StOU• Falls, S 0 Tucson, Ar •l ., '7 7 ' 7 .· '7 --✓ .1 But1e, Mont Portland, Me Peoria, Ill A1lo n10, Go Richmond , Vo 'n ~ Bufl olo, NY Nodolk , Vo Spokane, Wash ., ~, ' Morichesler , N H .,,.,,.. '7, 'T Denver, Colo Seonle, Wosh 'A Portland, Ore - -✓ ,'7 / ~ I -,- , ~ mo l/l -, ---l u:i" m 3· :;;o OJ Z--,, co z3 < m :;;o l/l ~ // /_/ 7 -, , P t ,c tr ! NOTE h t <lOlltd '" ' rtp, olt ot mt •0,1 , .. ,.,, ,Lnl 11\ t , , 10110 lola l ,0,1 01 on o • n on lho l ut1 " " oa o l Int , ~o,r . ...l.l · / - , -. .A -~ 7 .,, ., ..;..:J ,, 7 ,'/ 1 l<no.v llle, Te,rn (I Po10, Te1 01 LIiiie Rock, Ar k W,chlto, Kon,o, Mobile, Alo '/ ,,, , "T JocksOflville, Flo LouJsv ille, Kt Hov11on, Te ao1 lnd,onopolls, Ind Columbia, SC Cedor Rapids, io-o Columbus, Otuo 8 lrmln9'1om, Alo '/ 7 Cl ;~~:t!::;o s~;~tC::~~;;;;;;;;;;;;1 001101 , Te•os Clorl,..bu r9, W Vo /· ~ New Orleon1, Lo Me mphis, Tenn z / "V Cl Kans as C11y, Mo :~ ~t~:knect!I~ ~!Oh ::::::::::::::::::::ja Bin9homl0fl, N Y 0 p A Foll R,ver, Mou Omoho, Neb / ,· " '/ ., . "Fuun1 " P.,ctnl COST OF LIVING IN 59 CITIES, 1935, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE S Of THE COS T OF LIVI NG IN WA SHIN GTON, 0 C. ( MAINTENANCE STANDARD ) o .. , .. on o l S0<1 01 RtHO tell, •r •OH INTER-CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST As a matter at the top of of the fact, list. only in or LIVING s rents was Washington Food costs were highest in Bridgeport; clothing costs, in Butte; househo ld operation costs, in Sioux Falls; and miscellaneous costs, in Cleveland. Rents were lowest in Port land, Ore ., food costs, in Cedar Rapids; clothing costs, in Dallas; household operation costs, in Houston; and miscellaneous costs in Sioux Falls. The figures indicate that, with a content of living held reasona b ly constant, inter-city differences in the cost of a balanced list of goods and services are not great. Among the 59 cities studied, the lowestcost city was only a little more than 20 percent below the highest. A sales or similar consumer•s tax was leviedini9 of the 59 cities. This v aried from 3 percent on a large port of the budget, including certain services, in Louisville, to i cent on motion picture admissions i n New Or 1 ea n s . E1 i mi n a t i on o f t he s a 1 es tax, making the comparison exclusively on a price basis, would change the rank of the cities only sli g htly. Lowest food costs averaged about i4 percent less than highest food costs, and the difference in clothin g costs was only 24 percent. The difference between the highest and lowest rents, on the other hand, was appr oximate ly 54 percent; costs of household operation, 44 percent and miscellaneous costs, 39 percent. The most important causal factors in this spread of living costs, therefore, are seen to be connected with the p urely local circumstances affect in q housing , household operation and miscellaneous needs. These d i f ferences, in turn, are least susceptible of a ccur a te The type of house in which ~u antitative measurement. ·people live at comparable standards is by no me a ns identical from city to city; the kind of fuel availa b le and the quantity required for home heating in vari o us sections differ widely. The difficulty of stan d ard izing medical services and of allowin g f or a variety of transportation nee d s complicates the problem . Ne v ertheless, the rel a tives show better than any hitherto collected information inter-city differences in the cost of maintaining the standard of living described. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 6 TA BLE I COST OF LIVING I N 59 C IT IES , 1935 , EXPRE SSED AS PERC ENT AG ES OF THE COST OF LI VING IN WA SHI NG TON, D.C. a MAINTENANCE STANDARD MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE City Tota l Food Cl othingb Housi ngc Ho us e ho Id o pera t i ond Mi s cellan eo use % % % % % % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 . 0 100 .0 100.0 San Fr a ncisco, Ca I if . a Mi nneapo I is , Mi nn . New Yo r k, N. Y.a 98.0 9 7 .8 9 7.0 96 . 3 9 1.6 100 . I 116. 4 110. 7 96 . 8 78 .'9 77 .2 87 . 7 118. 3 134 . I 102 .6 10 1. 6 105 .9 100 .0 Ch icago, I I I . a Wis. Bos t on, Mass. Cl eve l a nd , Oh ioa St . L ou is, Mo . 95 . 6 95 . 6 95 . 3 95 . I 94 . 3 97 . I 90. 2 98 .3 93. 3 94 . I 10 7 . 9 11 5 .0 105 .5 117. 7 100 . 2 70 . 2 78. 9 68 .'4 78 . 9 109 .0 11 6. 2 108 . 1 9 3 .9 8 3.8 109.6 IOI . 7 98 . 8 I 17. 5 116.3 Oetroit, Mich. a Los An ge l es, Ca I if. a Cincinnati, Ohiod Sc r anton, Pa . Pittsbur g , Pa. 92 .8 9?.. 5 92 . 4 92. I 92. 0 93 . 2 92 . 8 94.2 94. 0 93.9 109. I 11 5 . I 103.4 105.2 102 . 8 64.9 5 7.9 75 . I 80 . 7 71. 9 106 . 0 103.6 9 1. 4 93.9 8 1. o 109 .2 114 . 8 104.3 93. € 113 . 3 Br i dgepor t, Conn. AI ouquer que, N.M . a Ba l timore, Md . P h iladelphia, Pa. Newark, N.J. 91. 7 102 . 3 9 1.6 I 0 1 . 8 9 1.6 94 . 9 9 1 . 4 93 . 9 9 1 . 2 99.5 10 1.2 !07.5 95 . 0 98.0 94.9 68 . 4 6 7 .9 66. 7 70 . 2 7"i,4 104 . 0 I 13 .4 94. I 9 1.0 102 . 3 89.3 8 0. 9 113 . '$ 109. 6 B7 .7 Roe heste r , N. Y. Sio ux Fa 11s, S. D. a Tucson, Ariz . Butte, Mont. Portland, Me. 90 . 6 90.6 90. 6 90 . 4 90 . 3 92 . a 88 . 7 9 7 .2 94.0 94.5 10 1.0 106 . 4 105 . 4 11 9 . 7 I 12. 7 65.8 79.3 64 . 9 ,S I. 4 59.6 I 19.2 136.5 ,i 18 .3 122.3 12 1 . 8 95 . 4 71 . 8 8 6 .0 83 . 6 89, I Peor ia , a I I I. At I anta, Ga . Richmo nd, Va . Fa I I River, Mass. Omaha, Neb. 89.7 89 . 4 B9.3 89 . 2 88.9 94 . 2 9 7. I 93 . 8 95 . 3 9 3. I 105 . 6 94.5 106 . 6 106.8 102.9 80 . 2 7 1. 9 69.0 64 . 9 69 . 6 86. I 9 1.0 10 1. 6 I 15 . I 99. 4 85 . 5 93. 7 88 . 7 82 .9 90 . 9 Buffalo, N. y . Nor f olk, Va . Spokane, Wash. Manchester, N.H. Denver, Co l o.a 88.9 88.6 88. I 87.9 87. 8 92. 7 95 . 7 89.7 97.3 9 1. 3 103.2 97.9 11 <;, 5 IOI , 4 101 . 8 6 1 .4 69.6 50.9 <;4.4 59.6 99 .8 98 .6 132 . 7 118.5 93.8 IOI . 4 88.4 88.9 87.9 104 . 8 Washington , D. C. Mi l wa ukee, 77 .2 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY TABLE I 7 I Cl)nt i nu ed I MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPE NDIT URE City Total ' Househo ld o perilt io nr1 Misc el- Food C loth i ng b Hous i ngc ' % 5 7 .9 63 .2 57 .0 66 .7 49. 1 % % 8 7. 0 I I I .2 108.8 I 02 . 0 I 08.6 105.8 84.8 92.9 B4 .3 913.4 I ane ouse Prov I de nee, R, I, Salt Lake City, Uta ha BI nghamton, N.Y. Seattle, Wash . 87.7 87.6 87.6 87.2 86.9 96.5 90. 7 93.9 92.8 % I 01 . O 95. 3 111 .4 I 00.6 107.8 Port land, Ore. La.a Memph-ls, Tenn. Winston-Salem, N.C.a Olkahoma City, Okla.a 86.6 86.6 86.0 86.0 85.9 91 .4 90 . 7 90.8 95.5 93, I I 13. 7 96.4 96.8 100 . 0 I 02.2 46.3 57.9 64.9 61. I 60 . 0 11 4 .5 86.7 86.9 I 07. 4 95 .8 95 . 8 109.4 96. 5 79 . 3 89.9 Jacksonvi I le, Fla. Loulsvl I le, Ky.a 85.6 85.5 84 . 8 84.4 83.9 96 .1 93. I 90.7 88 . I I 00. 7 96.5 99.8 I 01 . I 99.0 93.1 57 .9 61 . 3 61 . 4 58 .8 57 .9 I 01, 3 87 . 7 77. 0 92.2 99--9- 86.5 92 . I 97.6 96.1 72 .4 83.8 83.7 83.5 83.0 82.2 95.0 97 . 4 87. 7 93.2 93.6 9 0 .4 I 03.1 I 04. 9 103.8 95 .3 63 .0 56 .1 58.9 56 . I 48. 8 83.5 83 .3 109.9 84.4 84.4 86 . 5 82.2 78 . 2 84 , 4 9 4.7 82.1 81 .o 80 . I 79.6 79.4 88.7 92.5 93.0 89 . 6 90.8 95.8 93.6 96.3 9 7.3 91 . 8 60 . 2 56. I 50.9 48. 2 47.8 90 .9 I 02 . 8 82.5 96.5 93.6 84 . 3 71 . 9 82 . 6 80.8 83.5 Kansas City, Mo. New Orleans , Houston, Texas lndlanapol is, Ind. Columbia, s.c. Dal las, Texas Clarksburg , w. Va. a Cedar Rapids, lowaa .Co I ulllbus, Ohloa BI rml ngrtam, Ala. Knoxv 11 le, Tenn. El Paso, Texas Litt le Rock, Ark. Wichita, Kansas Mobile, Ala, a b c d e 94. I Sales or slmi lar consumer's t ax i nclude d where levied. Includes clothing, clothing upkeep and person al care. Inc I udes rent and water. Includes coal or wood, gas, electricity , ice, household sup plies, et c., refuse disposal, furniture, f urn is h ings and equ i pment . In those ci t ies where water is a direct charge on the tenant , tn i s cost has been added to the rent. Includes medical care, transportat i on, re c reat io n, school atte nd a nce , church and other contribut i.ons, I ife insurance and pers o nal ta xes. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Preliminary 8 TABLE COST OF LIVING II IN 59 CITIES, 1935, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE COST OF LIVING IN WASHINGTON, D.C .a EMERGENCY STANDARD MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE City Tota l .,, i..ti nn edpO I i s, !Ai n n. San Francisco, Ca Ii f. '-· Y. a New Yori<., Mi 1-NdUkee, Ch,cago, Wis. 111. a Cleve l and, Ohio a A I b uquerque, ~.M. " Mi ch . a Det r •: :>it, Ca I i f. s i o ux S. D. Fa I Is, a Cincinnati, Oh i oa Butte, Mont. Port I and , Me. Scranton, Pa. P it t sburgh, Pa . Ba It i more, Md. [lr i dg ep or t, Conn. Roc he s t er, N.Y. Philadelphi a , Pa. a Tu cson, Ariz. Ne wark, N. J. Spokane, Wash. Omahd, Neb. Peoria, I I I . a At l an ta, Ga . Richmo nd, Va. Huffdl o , N. Y. KansdS C ity, Mo. Fa 11 River, Mass. Norfolk, Va. Salt Lake City, Utaha Hous i ngc Household Miscel- Operationd laneous % % 100 .0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99. 7 93.8 98. 7 98.3 96.5 100.6 11 2 . 3 116.5 96.8 76. 7 79. I 86.0 139.0 118. 7 102.9 110.3 98. 7 99.2 91.0 97.8 94.6 97.9 94. 7 113.9 108.0 I 16. 7 105 . 7 100.3 79. I 69.8 68.6 76. 7 79. I 117. 7 109.8 92.8 107.6 82.1 IOI. 7 111. 7 122. 5 93.3 105.6 92. 7 93.0 92. 3 94. 2 92. I 92.3 91 .8 95. I 108.6 109.2 I 14. 7 107. 3 103.4 70 .2 65. I 57.0 79 .5 75. I 114. I 107.4 103.5 91.6 91.2 91.1 91. 0 91.0 97.2 96. 2 95.7 94. 3 9 5. 5 121. 3 114.0 103.9 l'02.8 94.4 64.0 60.5 80.2 70 . 9 67.4 122.8 77.0 125 . 2 86. I 91.l 79.0 115.9 92.4 115.4 90.9 90.8 90 . 8 90.3 89.9 101.8 93.2 95. 5 100.0 99.8 10 I .O 102.2 98.0 105.6 95.0 67.4 65. I 69.8 64.0 74.4 104 . 6 122.0 89.5 117.4 101 .2 89 . 8 89 . 7 89. 7 89.6 89 . 4 93.8 95. 2 95.8 97 . 3 94. 7 I 15. 5 104.0 106.2 93.9 106.2 51.2 70.2 80.7 73. 3 70.5 136. I 99.8 83.7 91 . o 101.2 ee.6 88.3 88.2 88 . 2 87. 5 93. 3 94.9 94. 5 95. 8 93.0 103.8 101 .0 106 . I 98. 3 I 13 . 5 60.5 58. I 65 . I 69.0 55 .8 98.9 85 . 4 II 3. 9 99.0 107. I 95.6 95.5 94.8 94. I 93.9 Bo st on , M.1ss. St. L ouis, Mo. L os An geles, a % Clothingb 100.0 100 . Cl Wa shin g ton, D. C . Food % 8 % 94.6 120.2 75.2 112.8 119.8 63.2 104. I 140 .6 89.8 88.7 86.6 94.4 109. 5 79.0 80.2 88.3 89.9 82.0 94.3 86.0 103.8 114.9 78.0 86. I 91 .2 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 9 MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EX PF.NOi TURE Ci tJ To t~I Cl o th,ny b Hous in~ C " '\ 102.8 107. 6 I 15. 5 % ~ 53. 'i 48.8 I I').) ·I 0 9.6 I 12. 5 J; Manchester, N.H. Se3tlle, Wash. Portland, Ore. a Denver, Colo. Providence, R. I. a La . 8 i ng hamton, N.Y. Memphis, Tenn. Oklahoma City, Okla. a d Winston-S.:1le111, N.C . Ndw Orleans, JdCKSOnv Fla. a i I I t:?, Ky . Louisvi I le, Houston, Texas lndiandp ,JI is, Cl,.rksbur g , w. Oa I I as, Te•as Ceddr Rapids, Columbia, Ind. Va. a lowad s.c. Tenn . a Colu 1nbus, Ohio Knoxv i I le, Birmingham, Aid. El Pas o, Texc1s Little Roel<, Mobile, Aid. Wichita, Kansas ~'"· a b c d Sales or Includes Includes lnclcides 87. 3 87.2 87 . 0 86.8 97.6 9'5.7 9°3.8 92. 7 95.,; 86. 7 86 .? 86. I 86. I B"i . 7 MiscelI ane.ous e " ~ I I I. 7 82.9 98.5 97. I 105 .0 81 .4 'i7 .0 66 . 3 65. I 60.9 61. 2 85.4 103.0 85 .9 96. I 108.5 I 14. 0 77.0 96.9 84.6 74. 3 97. 2 99. 7 10 1. 'i 98.9 I 02 . 8 ,;9 _ I 101.8 85. 'i 71\ . 0 90. 7 79.9 81 . 9 87. 7 99.9 9,;_ 5 96. I 89. 2 100.9 91.,; 95. "i 91. I 105 .2 92. I 96. I 10 2 .~ 63. 7 59.5 '58. I 61 .2 '15. 8 82 .9 99.5 91.9 81 . 4 84.2 71. 5 63. I 8 1 .6 81 . 7 94 .4 95.3 9'i. 3 9'5. 7 94.6 96.8 92. 6 90.'i 91.2 98.6 49.6 'i8. I 52. 3 49~4 -n. 7 84.0 102.3 81. "i 94. I 94.8 67.0 79.4 82.0 96.7 78.0 e~.2 102 . 7 94 . 7 d6. 3 58. I 62.8 92 . 8 94. I 93.7 95. 7 9,;_ 8 96.9 100.5 95 . 9 102.8 100. 0 B"i. °3 S'i.0 84.8 84. 3 84.0 96.1\ 94. 7 92. I 89 .'i 99.6 83.9 83.4 87.9 87.9 82. 'i 82. I 81 .4 80. 'i 80.0 79.4 Hou sehold Operationd Food I 91.9 62. 7 6 1.6 60. 5 'i8. I I 10. 3 79.5 simi l~r consumer's tax included where levied. clothing, clothing up-keep a nd personal c a re. rent dnd watdr. coal or NOod, gas, electricity, ice, ho useh o ld supplies, etc., refuse disposal, furniture, furnishing::; and e ,1uip ,nent. In those cities where water is a direct charge on the tendnt, this cost has ueen added to the r;,nt. e Includes medical care, transport a tion, church and other con tr i out i ans, Ii fe recredt ion, s chool attendance, insur a nce d nd persona J taxes. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
@FedFRASER