View original document

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