The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Harry L. Hopi.Ins, Ad•lnlllrator
Comnston GIii, A.lstonf Ad•lnlsfrafor
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Myers, Dlredor
INTERCITY DIFFERENCES
IN COSTS OF LIVING IN
MARCH 193 5, 59 CITIES
By
Margaret Loomis Stecker
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XII
1937
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
GoogIe
GIAN NIN I FOUNDATION
Digitized by
GoogIe
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., July f3, 1937.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit the :findings of a study of the costs
of living of industrial, service, and other manual workers at a basio
maintenance level and under emergency conditions, initiated by the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration and completed by the
Works Progress Administration. The figures show the dollars and
cents outlay necessary in each of 59 cities in the United States with a
population of over 25,000 and relative costs among these cities.
The findings provide a large body of basic information which will be
of value not only in handling the unemployment relief problem but
also in many other fields where facts are required regarding the costs
of living and intercity cost differences.
The average cost of living for a 4-person family at the maintenance
level in the 59 cities combined was $1,261 per year in 1935. Costs
were so nearly alike in the separate cities that only in five did the
difference from the average exceed 10 percent. The budget of goods
and services priced does not represent the content of a satisfactory
American standard of living, nor does its cost indicate what families
would have to spend to secure an American standard. It should be
noted, however, that according to studies by the Brookings Institution, 4 out of every 10 families in the United States had annual incomes of less than $1,500 in 1929 at the period of our greatest productivity, and 1 out of 5 had less than $1,000.
The study was made in the Division of Social Research under the
direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division. Margaret
Loomis Stecker supervised the investigation, analyzed the data,
and wrote the report. The field work, which was done in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, was
under the supervision of John H. Cover, who also had charge of
tabulating the data. Henry B. Arthur, then Assistant Director of
the Division of Social Research, supervised the tabulations. John N.
Webb, Coordinator of Urban Surveys, assisted in editing the report.
Acknowledgment is made of the assistance of Elizabeth K. Morrison
and Glenn Steele in preparing the quantity budgets which were priced;
of Harry D. Wilson, Francis E. Wilcox, and Wilson E. Sweeney in
conducting the field work and tabulating the data; and of Joel C.
Hawkins in checking the analysis. Many others, too numerous to
mention separately, assisted in collecting and analyzing the data;
their services are acknowledged with appreciation.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Hon. HARRY L. HoPKINs,
}l'orks Progress Administrator.
Assistant Administrator.
Ill
M44082
D91 zed by
Google
□
z
dbyGooglc
Contents
Page
lntroauction -
IX
Summary - -
XVII
1
Chapter I. Two levels of living Chapter II. Food
13
- - - - - - -
Chapter Ill. Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care -
21
Chapter IV. Housing
33
- - - - -
Chapter V. Household operation - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fuel
_ _ _ _
Ice ______ _
- - - - - - - - -
Electricity _ _ _ _
Household supplies
_ _ _ _ _ _
Furniture, furnishings, and household
Refuse disposal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Unspecified essentials _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
equipment __
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chapter VI. Miscellaneous family needs _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _
42
53
56
58
61
64
64
67
Medical care _ _ _ _ _
Transportation __
School attendance
- - Recreation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Life insurance, church contributions, and other contributions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Taxes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
Chapter VII. Techniques and procedures - - __ _
Chapter VIII. Conclusions
39
69
73
79
81
85
86
91
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
123
What the costs of living are and how they vary
Costs of major budget groups and principal subgroups
Comparisons with results of other studies _
_ _ _ _ _
Comments on methodology _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
124
127
136
144
Appendix A. List of tabla _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
151
Appendix B. Basic tabla _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
156
Index _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
205
V
Dg1tzed by
Google
VI • CONTENTS
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
FIGURES
Page
Size and location of 59 cities included in the study of costs
of living, March 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Annual costs of living, by major budget groups, 4-person
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935 _ _ _ _
Relative costs of food, 4-person manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Relative costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal
care, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Relative rents, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Relative costs of household operation, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Relative costs of miscellaneous family needs, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _
D1g ti zed by
GoogIe
vm
2
12
22
34
40
66
Intercity Differences in Costs of Living
in March 193 5, 59 Cities
VII
Dg1
zedbyGoogle
~
F1G. l·SIZE AND LOCATION OF 59 CITIES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY OF COSTS OF LIVING
Morch 1935
•
~
0
.,,
r
pz
""
UI
,0
tr4e'fl 'for•
0
-
0
6
";;;
(1;
0.
Donas
POPULATION
-<
C')
Hou1ton
~
( ')
®
1,000,000 ar - .
0
250,000 to S00,000
•
100,000 to 250,000
•
Q
rr
0
"
3
m
,.
Denver
0
'- ~
--
~
,,,, .
_.,,,.,.,ffQ11" __,r,e.t
500,000 to 1,000,000
25,000 to 100,000
'O,
A,•2109, WllA
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
THE PURPOSE of this investigation is to determine the costs of family
living in 59 separate cities at two specified levels;1 to measure intercity cost differences at these levels; to find out how much the costs of
living at a basic maintenance level may be reduced to meet emergency
conditions; and to ascertain what factors contribute to explain
observed intercity cost variations. "Costs of living" is defined as retail
prices of the goods and services essential at a specified level of living
in more than one community at the same time, or in the same community at different times, or both, combined with such quantities of
each item as ·will represent normal or average comiumption at that
level. 2
Cost of living estimates obtained by pricing a quantity budget are
not necessarily identical with actual expenditures for living by real
families. Expenditures depend on tastes, customs, and local practices
as well as on prices and are definitely restricted by available income.
In cost measurements the content of living is fixed, income does not
enter into the problem, and variations depend primarily on price.
Expenditure studies show how much is spent in different places and
what is received in return; cost of living studies show how much
would have to be spent in different places to buy a predetermined
content of living which, as far as practicable, is held constant everywhere. By comparing the results of a cost of living study with ascertained expenditures for living in the same place, however, the extent
1 Data were not collected to show the costs of living for individuals apart from
a family group. These differ in many ways from group living costs.
1 Commodity prices and service fees were analyzed only as city averages for
the purpose of interpreting group costs; no attempt was made to measure intracity
variations. Analysis of the problems of sampling in retail price reporting and
of price differences between neighborhoods and types of stores, as well as between
similar stores in different cities, is part of an Illinois Works Progress Administration project under the direction of Professor John H. Cover, of the University of
Chicago, who supervised the collection and tabulation of prices for the present
study. One purpose of the former project is to provide the Bureau of Labor
Statistics with a list of representative stores in each city, to be used in choosing
additional outlets in its collection of retail prices.
IX
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
X • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
to which families in fact are able to obtain the level specified may
be measured, with resulting knowledge as to where existing consumption patterns are superior or deficient. 8
The present study attempts to provide a solution to one of the hitherto unsolved problems of cost of living measurements. Information
has often been collected to show how much families spend to live and
what they obtain for their money;' differences from year to year in
the costs of living have been measured in this country for two decades; 1
the same or different levels of living have been priced by a variety of
agencies in different places at different times. 0 Until this study was
made, however, data were not available to show how much is required
1 The United States Department of Labor and its predecessors in the Federal
Government have made several investigations of family expenditures at approximately the same time, in different communities. A large body of facts relating
to expenditures by wage earners and lower-salaried clerical workers in 92 cities
in 1917-1919 was published in 1924. See Coat of Living in the United States,
Bulletin No. 357, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1924. In 1934 the Bureau started a new series of studies of money disbursements
of wage earners and lower-salaried clerical workers in 55 cities. Results of these
have been published from time to time in Monthly Labor Review, beginning in
March 1936. More comprehensive than any such studies made previously is the
investigation of consumer purchases carried on with Works Progress Ad.µiinistration funds in 1936 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor
and the Bureau of Home Economics in the United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the National Resources Committee and the Centra!
Statistical Board.
' Williams, Faith M. and Zimmerman, Carle C., Studies of Family Living in the
United States and Other Countries: An Analysia of Material and Method,Miscellaneous Publication No. 223, United States Department of Agriculture, December
1935.
1 Index numbers showing cost of living changes over a period of time are computed regularly by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National
Industrial Conference Board, and the Massachusetts Department of Labor and
Industries. The Bureau's figures relate to the outlay necessary for a specified list
of goods and services in 32 cities separately and in all combined; prices are collected
4 times a year, and the index numbers are printed in Monthly Labor Review. The
National Industrial Conference Board's index numbers are computed each month
as an average for the country as a whole and are printed in Conference Board
Service Letter. The aeries for Massachusetts was started in 1919 by the Special
Commission on the Necessaries of Life, and figures are now computed each month
by the Division on the Necessaries of Life in the Department of Labor and Industries. They are mimeographed in Memorandum Relative to the Cost of Living in
11,fassachusetts.
8 The Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1919 constructed minimum quantity budgets
for a "health and decency" level of living for a clerical worker's family and for a
wage earner's family. The Bureau priced the former in Washington (D. C.), in
August 1919. See Monthly Labor Review, December 1919. The wage earner's
budget was printed in Monthly Labor Review, June 1920, and has been priced a
number of times by the Labor Bureau, Inc., a private research group serving the
interests of organized labor.
The National Industrial Conference Board used the same technique but different
quantity budgets in investigating thl, minimum cost of a "fair American" standard
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
INTRODUCTION• XI
for support at a uniform level of living in a large number of places at
the same time, or how these costs compare on an intercity basis. 7
Cost differentials between two well-defined levels of living had not
been so completely analyzed, and such a volume of detail had not been
assembled for comparing estimated costs and actual expenditures.
The reason for this paucity of facts so obviously useful in many
fields of economic and social life does not lie in lack of interest in the
subject. Delay in investigation, rather, is to be accounted for by the
numerous technical difficulties involved in setting up a study which
would supply the materials desired and by the expense of its execution.
As the relief and work programs of the Federal Government progressed, the need for detailed information relating to costs of living
became increasingly apparent. The investigation of which this monograph is a report was made to supply the necessary figures, as part of
the broad research programs of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Works Progress Administration. 8
of living among wage earners. The first of these studies was made in Fall River
in October 1919; the most recent of which a report has been published covered
12 industrial cities in August-October 1927. See National Industrial Conference
Board, The Cost of Living Among Wage Earners, Fall River, Massachusetts, October 1919, Research Report No. 22, Boston, November 1919; and National Industrial Conference Board, The Cost of Living in Twelve Induiitrial Cities, New York,
1928.
Other private organizations have proceeded along more or less similar lines. See,
for example, Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, Quantity and
Coit Budgets • • •, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., February 1937.
See also Visiting Housekeeper Association, Scale for Estimating Minimum
Budgets • • •, Detroit, Mich.
r The National Industrial Conference Board priced an identical level of living
in the 5 separate boroughs of the city of New York in 1926 and in 12 industrial
cities in 1927. In 1935 the Board covered 69 cities in a comparative cost of
living survey, but it has not published figures for the separate communities. See
National Industrial Conference Board, The Cost of Living in New York City, New
York, 1926; National Industrial Conference Board, The Cost of Living in Twelve
Industrial Cities, New York, 1928; and Conference Board Bulletin, December 10,
1935. For such findings of the study in 69 cities as may be compared with those
of the present investigation, see pp. 136-138.
The International Labour Office made a study of the costs of living in 14 cities
in Europe in 1931, as compared with the cost of living in Detroit, by pricing a
sample of goods and services which were representative of local consumption
habits and differed, therefore, in the separate cities. International Labour Office,
A Contribution to the Study of International Comparisons of Costs of Living, Studies
and Reports, Series N (Statistics) No. 17, second revised edition, Geneva, 1932.
Certain findings of the study are noted on pp. 138, 146, and 147.
8
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal agency vested with responsibility
for collecting and analyzing data related to prices and urban costs of living, cooperated in the field work and computed the city average food prices. Thus,
duplication of effort was avoided and the Bureau was able to extend its retail
price reporting system. The Bureau collects retail food prices each month, and
prices of other goods and services quarterly. To the 51 cities in which food
prices were collected prior to 1935, 13 others have been added as a result of the
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
XII • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
QUANTITY BUDGETS
The content of a standard of living is not subject to exact measurement. Even at a minimum level it is not easy to say what is essential
and what is not. Construction of quantity budgets for pricing purposes is accomplished, therefore, through many compromises. These
are multiplied as the number and variety of communities to be represented are increased. Purchases in the course of a year, moreover,
cover a wider variety than it is either feasible or necessary to price.
Hence, the goods and services which are priced must be included in the
budgets in such quantities as will represent others which are not priced,
in order to obtain a balanced total cost.'
Research in nutrition has determined necessary food consumption,
and minimum housing standards are fairly well established. 10 There
is no authority for the other essentials of family living, and budget
allowances must be constructed by well-reasoned estimates. Actual
consumption by families whose purchases seem to supply the needs of
health and self-respect forms the basis for certain budget allowances.
If it appears, however, that some goods and services are being obtained through skimping on other essentials, a synthetic budget must
bring the other essentials up to satisfactory standards. If, on the
other hand, it is apparent that certain expenditures cannot be made
at the level specified without the sacrifice of others more necessary from
a common-eense viewpoint, synthetic budgets will not include them.
Thus, synthetic budgets of a balanced content of living at a minimum level in some respects are superior to the consumption habits of
the class they represent and in others they are inferior. Through
careful planning, nutrition can be purchased for less than families
usually spend for food. Housing occupied by families of modest
means at the present time frequently is below accepted standards of
adequacy. Group pressure often dictates purchases whose principal
justification lies in the intangible satisfactions they afford.
THE TWO LEVELS OF LIVING
In the present investigation quantity budgets were constructed
as an itemization of the content of two levels of living. 11 The ha.sic
maintenance level represents normal or average minimum requirements
present study. These 13 cities are in sections of the country or are representative of local characteristics not previously so completely covered.
1 Popular comparisons of intercity cost differences are sometimes made on the
basis of rents, food prices, or some other single budget item prices. These may
represent, in fact, only a small part of the total cost of living.
10 There is a conflict in housing standards between what is desirable and what
is practical. Those specified for this study take into account the necessity for
pricing what exists, but in no sense constitute specifications for the future.
11 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin Series I, Ko. 21, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, 1936.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
INTRODUCTION• XIII
for industrial, service, and other manual workers; the emergency level
takes into account certain economies which may be made under
depression conditions. The maintenance level provides not only for
physical needs but also gives some consideration to psychological
values. The emergency level allows more exclusively, though not
entirely, for material wants, but it might be questioned on the grounds
of health hazards if families had to live at this level for a considerable
period of time.
The family whose costs of living are measured in this investigation
is best described as the unskilled manual worker type. It consists of
a moderately active man, a moderately active woman, a boy age 13,
and a girl age 8. 11 The man wears overalls at his work. No household assistance of any kind is employed.
At the maintenance level, these four persons live in a four- or fiveroom house or apartment with water and sewer connections. Their
dwelling is in at least a fair state .of repair and contains an indoor
bath and toilet for their exclusive use. They have gas, ice, electricity,
and a smn.11 radio, but no automobile. They read a daily newspaper,
go to the movies once a week, and enjoy other simple leisure-time
activities. Their food is an adequate diet at minimum cost. They
pay for their own medical care. Clothing, furniture, furnishings,
and household equipment are provided with some regard for social
as well as material needs. Carfare, taxes, and numerous incidental
expenses are included in their budget.
At the emergency level this four-person family has cheaper kinds
of food to secure the same nutritive values as the maintenance budget
provides. Housing is less desirable. There is less frequent replacement of clothing, furniture, furnishings, and household equipment.
Household supplies are less plentiful; other services are reduced in
quantity or eliminated entirely.
All the essentials of living are to be purchased at market prices; the
budgets make no provision for home-grown food or home dresqmaking.
11
The size and composition of this family was selected as the nearest approach
to the average census private family, which consists of 4.01 persons. The census
distribution is such that the median size of all families is 3.40, and of urban
families, 3.26. Fifteenth Censua of the United Statu: 1930, Population Vol. VI,
pp. 10 and 16. Less than one-third of the census families in 1930 had more than
four members; in urban areas the proportion was only slightly in excess of onefourth. Ibid., pp. 13 and 14. Sixty-two percent of all census families and sixty
percent of urban census families contained only one gainful worker. Ibid., pp.
22-23. The average number of children under age 15 per family was 1.2 and
per urban family, 1.02. The latter figures were obtained by dividing all children
in this age group by total number of families. Fifteenth Censua of the United
Statu: 1930, Population Vol. II, p. 567. The sex and age of the two children in
the present study were assigned arbitrarily for the purpose of representing a
diversity of cost elements. In the matter of housing ce!"tain complications are
implied which disappear if the family is considered as representative rather than
as an exact replica of real families.
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
XIV • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Complete self-support in all respects is provided for, but only on a
current cost basis, since there is no allowance for carrying or liquidating debts or for necessary future expenditures, except small life
insurance policies.
It is probable that neither of these levels of living has been defined
before. The maintenance budget is not so liberal as that for a "health
and decency" level which the skilled worker may hope to obtain,
but it affords more than a "minimum of subsistence" living. The
emergency budget, restricted as it is, represents a better level of
living than most relief budgets allow.
Neither of these budgets approaches the content of what may be
considered a satisfactory American standard of living, nor do their
costs measure what families in this country would have to spend to
secure "the abundant life." Such a standard would include an automobile, better housing and equipment, a more varied diet, and preventive medical care. Provision would be made for future education
of the children and for economic security through saving. These
and other desirable improvements above a maintenance level of living
would necessitate annual expenditures considerably in excess of the
money values of the budgets used in this investigation.
From a realistic point of view, however, little is to be gained for the
present purpose by constructing quantity budgets whose contents do
not reasonably portray existing expenditure habits. Only on this
basis are they of practice.I use in determining prevailing costs of
living. At the same time it should be understood that the budgets
priced are neither idea.I nor static and that as consumption itself is
raised to higher levels, budgets must take account of the improved
standards of living thus manifested.
CITIES SURVEYED
Selecting the 59 cities in which to make the study required consideration of geographic location, size, and socio-economic characteristics of various kinds. These considerations are discussed in some
detail in Chapter VII, Techniques and Procedures. The 59 cities,
their location and population in 1930, are shown in table 1 and figure 1.
COMPUTING THE COSTS OF LIVING
The quantity budgets at both levels were uniform, in the main, in
all communities studied in order that the cost estimates might approximate a measure of the outlay necessary for the same goods and services in each community. Absolute identity of budget content, however, could be maintained throughout only by the sacrifice of reality.
Some items cannot be priced in certain communities at all; average
requirements overstate or understate needs in given instances. The
outstanding examples of budget needs which cannot be completely
standardized ore housing, fuel, ice, and transportation.
Dg1tzed by
Google
INTRODUCTION • XV
Tobie 1.-59 Cities Included in the Study of Costs of Living, March 1935
City and geographic division
NewBoston,
England:
M889 ____________________ _
Providence, R. !_ ________________ _
Bridgeport, Conn _________________ _
Fall River, Mass _________________ _
Manchester,
N. H---------------Portland, Maine
_________________ _
Middle Atlantic:
New York, N. y _________________ _
Philadelphia, Pa _________________ _
Pittsburgh, Pa___________________ _
Buffalo, N. y ____________________ _
Newark, N. J. ___________________ _
Rochester, N. y _________________ _
Scranton, Pa _____________________ _
Binghamton, N. y _______________ _
East North Central:
Chicago, Ill. _____________________ _
Detroit, Mich ____________________ _
Cleveland, Ohio __________________ _
Milwaukee, Wis _________________ _
Cincinnati, Ohio _________________ _
Indianapolis, Ind ________________ _
C-0lumhus, Ohio _________________ _
Peoria. Ill ____ .. - ----- ------ -----. West North Central:
St. Louis, Mo ____________________ _
Minneapolis, Minn ______________ _
Kansas City, Mo ________________ _
Omaha, Nebr ____________________ _
Wichlta, Kans ___________________ _
f1~": f..tfs~dJ: ~~~-::::::::::::::
South Atlantic:
Baltimore, Md ___________________ _
Washington, D. c _______________ _
Population
City and geographic division
lll30
781, 188
252,981
146, 716
115,274
76,834
70,810
II, ll30, 446
1, ll50, 001
669,817
573,076
442,337
328, 132
143,433
76,662
3,376,438
1,568, 1162
000,4211
578, 24ll
451,100
364,161
2ll0, /164
104,009
821,900
464,356
3119, 746
214,006
111,110
56,007
33,362
South
Atlantic-Continued.
Atlanta,
Oa______________________ _
Richmond, Va ___________________ _
Norfolk, Va ______________________ _
Jacksonville, Fla _________________ _
Winston-Salem, N. C ____________ _
Columhi!,, s. c __________________ _
Clarksburg, W. Va _______________ _
EastLouisville,
South Central:
Ky ___________________ _
Birmingham, Ala ________________ _
Memphis, Tenn __________________ _
Knoxville, Tenn _________________ _
Mobile, Ala ______________________ _
WestNew
South
Central:
Orleans,
1,a_________________ _
Houston, Tex ____________________ _
Dallas, Tex ______________________ _
Oklahoma City, Okla ____________ _
El Paso, Tex _____________________ _
Little Rock, Ark _________________ _
Mountain:
Denver, Colo ____________________ _
flalt Lake City, Utah ____________ _
Butte, Mont _____________________ _
Tu~on, Ariz _____________________ _
Albuquerque, N. Mex ___________ _
Pacific:
Los Angeles, Calif ________________ _
San Francisco, CaliL ____________ _
Seattle, Wash ____________________ _
Portland, Oreg ___________________ _
Spokane, Wash __________________ _
Population
1113()
270,31111
182, ll211
1211, 710
1211, Mil
75,274
51,681
:18, 8611
307,745
259,678
253,143
105,802
68.~
468,762
2112, 352
260,475
185, 381l
102,421
81,671)
287,8111
140,267
3ll, 532
32, 50II
26,570
1,238,048
634, 3114
365,583
301,815
115,514
804,874
486,869
Source: Fiflefflth C,n..,, oftht United Statu: 1930, Population Vol. I, pp. 10 and 22 ff.
Most of the essentials of living in urban communities in this country are acquired through private purchase; some are not a direct
charge to the consumer but are supplied by the community from the
tax fund. Prices of those goods and services to be purchased individually, plus specified taxes, were obtained in each city studied in the
present investigation. City average prices of each item were then
combined with the quantity allowances of each per year, as given in
the budgets, to obtain budget group costs. If there was a sales tax,
its amount was added and aggregates for the cost of living as a whole
were computed.
RESULTS
The findings of the study measure in dollars and cents the costs of
self-support at 2 levels of living for a 4-person manual worker's
family in each of 59 cities. They do not show what families were
spending or what their purchases should be. Component elements
of the costs of living are analyzed and compared to indicate their
relative importance within a given city and to explain intercity cost
differences. Such inferences as may be drawn regarding relative
costs must be considered with a view to the fact that uniform budgets
were priced, in the main, with only minor allowances for differences
in local needs and habits. Comparative group costs, either on a
D q1 1 ,ed by
Goog Ie
XVI • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 OTIES
geographic or size of city basis, relate only to costs in the cities of
which each group is composed.
It is possible that the levels of living specified can be obtained in
the separate cities with smaller outlays than the results of this study
show to be necessary through substitution of commodities locally less
expensive but serving the same purpose as those specified in the
quantity budgets. Likewise, some savings may be effected by home
production, patronage of special sales, and various forms of thrift
and superior household management. On the other hand, waste
of various kinds may more or less offset these savings. Such factors
are impossible of statistical measurement, especially in an appraisal
of intercity costs on a comparable basis.
It would be too much to expect that all details for every city are
exact representations of definite local needs or that even for the
budgets as a whole the values are accurate to the last penny. Accepting the figures for what they are-namely, a generalized statement
of the amounts required for the purpose specified, not to be taken
too literally with reference to any one family or group of familiesthere is reason to believe that a contribution has been made to cost
of living knowledge, not only with reference to the money values of
a given level but also to the techniques by which these values were
obtained. Extension of these 6gures for comparative purposes to
other communities, other levels of living, and families of different
size and composition should proceed with caution.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
SUMMARY
THIS STUDY was instituted to determine the annual costs of selfsupport in 59 cities for a. 4-person manual worker's family at 2 levels
of living. The first level has been designated as the basic maintenance
level and the second as the emergency level.
The terms "maintenance level" and "emergency level" have been
defined in the Introduction. For purposes of this summary it may be
said that the cost of the maintenance level measures necessary current outlay, including some allowance for psychological as well as
material needs. The cost of the emergency level provides more
exclusively, but not entirely, for physical wants.
The Works Progress Administration urges that in considering the
findings of this study two facts be clearly understood.
(1) That neither the maintenance nor the emergency level represents a desirable living standard. Neither level will permit families
to enjoy the full fruits of what we have come to call the American
standard of living. Indeed, those forced to exist at the emergency
level for an extended period may be subjected to serious health hazards. From the point of view of the long-time well-being of workers'
families, a. desirable standard of living would be one in which the concepts of maintenance and emergency have no place. Moreover, as a.
basis for a. national volume of consumption sufficient to keep pace
with the increasing output of industry, the two levels a.re inadequate.
Those interested in improving our standards of living will find the
information in this study useful as a. description of 2 limited levels
which the workers in 1935 could achieve at various costs in 59 cities,
rather than as a statement of desirable objectives.
(2) That the costs of the two levels of living which a.re to be outlined are those of March 1935. Since that time costs of living have
advanced throughout the country. In March 1937 the costs of living
had increased in 31 of the 59 cities studied; facts are not available for
the other 28 cities. Thus, it does not follow that the estimates presented in this study would be adequate at the present time to support
even the low standards represented by the basic maintenance and
emergency levels.
XVII
32592°----88-2
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
XVIII • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
The costs of living at the maintenance level ranged from a high of
$1,415 in Washington 1 to a low of $1,130 in Mobile, at March 1935
prices. The average cost in the 59 cities combined was $1,261. The
cost of living at the emergency level also was highest in Washington,
$1,014; but was lowest in Wichita, $810. The average was $903.
At both levels necessary outlays in the most expensive city averaged
about 25 percent above those in the least expensive. In more than half
the cities living costs were within a range of $100 per year.
These cost of living figures relate to the requirements of a family
consisting of a man, a woman, a boy age 13, and a girl age 8. They were
obtained by pricing a list of goods and services essential for this family
at each level of living; they do not show family expenditures. The
budgets priced were uniform in all cities except for a few items. For
instance, allowances for transportation had to be adjusted to take
account of city size and area; and allowances for fuel and ice had to
be adjusted to take account of differences in climate. 2 Prices of the
separate items obtained in each city, combined with their quantity
allowances, constitute the local costs of support at the levels of living
specified.
The quality of goods and services priced was the same in both
budgets. The cost differential between the two was obtained by substituting a larger proportion of the cheaper kinds of food at the emergency than at the maintenance level to meet the same nutritive requirements, by allowing for less frequent replacement of clothing, furniture,
furnishings, and household equipment, by curtailing the supply of certain household necessities, by providing less expensive housing, and
by reducing the allowances of certain other services.
The average cost of the emergency budget on this basis was 72
percent of the average cost of the maintenance budget; there was little
difference in this respect among the separate cities. Household
operation costs were most nearly alike at the two levels, and costs of
miscellaneous family needs differed most.
Twice as much of the average cost of living in the 59 cities combined
was required for food as for housing, and the outlay necessary for
household operation was less than for clothing, clothing upkeep, and
personal care. The difference between maintenance and emergency
budget costs was greater for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal
care than for household operation, and miscellaneous family needs
took one-fifth of the average maintenance budget cost but only onesixth of the average emergency budget cost.
1 In this summary all aggregate values and percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number; in the text of the report and the tables exact figures are given.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budget.11 for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
StandarM of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, 1936.
Dg1tzed by
Google
SUMMARY • XIX
Mainltnanu
'""' Perctnt
Total __ ---------------------------------------- $1, 261
100
Amount
Food _______ --------------------------· _________________ _
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care_
Housing ________________________________________________ _
Household operation ________________________________ _
Miscellaneous _________________________________________ _
Emtruencv
let,,/
Amount
Perctnt
$903
100
37
16
448
184
35
15
222
154
253
18
12
340
128
168
122
20
145
14
19
14
Intercity variations in the costs of living as a whole resulted from all
manner of combinations of separate commodity and service costs.
Relatively large outlays often were necessary for some items and relatively small outlays for others in the same place.
Among the 10 most expensive cities in which to live at the maintenance level when this study was made, for example, only San
Francisco, Chicago, and Boston reported all major budget group
costs well above the 59-city average. In the other most expensive
cities some group costs were high and some were low. Food costs
were less than the average in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and
Detroit; clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care costs were relatively low in New York, Washington, and St. Louis; household
operation costs were low in Washington, Cleveland, and St. Louis.
On the other hand, all 10 of these highest cost cities reported rents
and the costs of miscellaneous family needs above the average.
In the 10 lowest cost cities rents were less than the average in the
59 cities combined; but only in Mobile, Wichita, Little Rock, and
Knoxville were all costs relatively low. Food was relatively expensive in Clarksburg and Dallas; and clothing, clothing upkeep, and
personal care costs slightly exceeded the average in Clarksburg,
Columbus, and Cedar Rapids. Household operation costs were above
the average in Cedar Rapids and El Paso; and the cost of miscellaneous family needs was above the average in Birmingham.
Though it cannot be said as a general proposition that geographic
location alone determines relative costs of living, there are some sections where costs are undoubtedly low, and some where they seem to be
high, with reference to the general average. In the South Central
States, for example, every city reported less than average costs for the
budget as a whole and for most of the major budget groups. Less was
required per year for support at the maintenance level in the most
expensive South Central city than in the cheapest New England or
Middle Atlantic city. None of these South Central cities had as
many as 500,000 population. The costs of living seemed to be high in
the East North Central Division as well as in the New England and
Middle Atlantic States, but there were exceptions to the general
tendency in each area. More large cities are located in these sections
of the country than in any others, and the costs of living in the large
cities often exceeded the average.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
XX • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
On the other hand, size of city, as such, does not account entirely
for cost variations, though for the budget as a whole costs declined with
population. Families in the two largest cities in the Pacific Division
required more for support at the maintenance level of living than in the
three smaller cities in that area, but in the Mountain Division costs in
the two largest cities were less than in the smaller places. All cities
with a population of 500,000 or more were more expensive places in
which to live than the average, and costs were much alike in most of
them. Costs in some of the smaller cities were relatively high and in
others, relatively low, depending on a variety of local circumstances,
the influence of which may be guessed but not measured quantitatively.
The greatest similarity in major budget group costs,3 which together
constitute the cost of living as a whole, was found in combined food
prices; and the greatest difference, in rents. Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care cost dispersion more nearly approached that
of food; household operation and miscellaneous family needs cost
dispersions more nearly resembled that of rent. Some of the widest
cost variations were found for subgroups within these classifications,
and individual commodity and service prices differed most of all.
FOOD
When prices of the 44 commodities in the maintenance food budget
were combined with the quantities of each required per year by the
4-person family of this investigation and totaled, there was a difference
of less than 17 percent between Cedar Rapids, where cost was least,
and Bridgeport, where cost was most. This cost similarity for food
as a group resulted from partial cancellation of differences for separate
commodities when all were combined. Prices of lard, sugar, ham,
bacon, raisins, cheese, and most can and package goods, for example,
showed ranges of less than 50 percent between lowest and highest city
averages. Highest city averages for carrots, cabbage, spinach, and
apples, on the other hand, were over four times as much a:s lowest
city averages. Prices of other food commodities varied from city to
city within a range between the extremes for the two groups just
cited. In no city, however, were prices of all 44 commodities relatively
high or relatively low.
As compared with the average cost of food in the 59 cities combined,
costs in the New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mountain cities averaged high, and in all other areas averaged low. There
were relative degrees to the variations, however, and they were
caused by differing cost relationships among the separate commodity
groups. Only in New England were all group costs high, and only
1 All cost comparisons are based on prices and quantities allowed in the maintenance budget, plus sales tax where levied. Relatives for the costs of the emergency budget were nearly but not quite identical, owing to differences in the
quantity allowances in the two; prices were the same.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
SUMMARY • XXI
in the East North Central States were all group costs low. Size of
city was not so important a factor in food cost differences as was
geographic location, and group averages for the five population classifications were much alike.
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE
The costs of the clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care budget
for the maintenance level of living va.ried nearly twice as much as
the costs of food; that is, slightly more than 32 percent between Dallas,
the cheapest city, and Butte, the most expensive city. Whereas
only commodities comprise the food list, certain local services in
addition to commodities are required for clothing, clothing upkeep,
and personal care. Prices of these services, such as cleaning and
pressing, shoe repairs, and haircuts and waves, differed more than
most commodity prices. On the other hand, prices of many clothing
commodities were twice as high in some cities as in others. This
spread in prices was particularly noticeable for girls' clothing. Price
differentials, however, tended to cancel in each city, as was the case
with food prices, producing a much narrower range for the costs
of the clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care budget as a whole.
Highest costs for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care were
found in the Pacific, Mountain, and East North Central Divisions,
where all but 2 of the 18 cities were above the average in the 59 cities
combined. Only 2 among the 20 cities in the 3 groups of Southern
States had more than average costs for this major budget group.
These costs also were relatively low in the Middle Atlantic States,
with the exception of two cities.
The relative positions of costs for clothing, clothing upkeep, and
personal care as a whole in cities in the separate areas were also found
for its subgroups, save for clothing upkeep in the East North Cflntral
Division and personal care in the West North Central. Clothing
upkeep was one of the few groups of budget items whose cost seemed
to be closely related to size of city; it definitely increased as population decreased.
HOUSING
Rent of dwellings specified for the maintenance level of living in
Washington was 116 percent higher than in Portland (Oreg.). This
housing was required to have four or five rooms and a private indoor
bath and toilet for each family. It was described as safely constructed, in at least a fair state of repair, without serious fire hazards,
and conforming to existing housing and building codes. It had normal size rooms and windows, and sewer and water connections or
equivalent services. Such accommodations were found in big apartment or smaller flat buildings, in row houses, or detached cottages,
depending on the usual type of working class dwelling in the separate
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
XXII • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
cities. Despite the great variety of building types priced, rents in 36
cities were between $15 and $20 per month, and in 14 more they were
between $20 and $25.
Rents, in general, seemed to be highest in sections of the country
where the most substantial buildings are required because of weather
conditions and lowest where frame cottages on piers provide entirely
adequate shelter. Size of city affected rent levels to a greater extent
than it did most other essentials of living. Thus, the average of rents
in cities with a population of 500,000 or more greatly exceeded the
average in smaller places and the average in the 59 cities combined.
Rents were relatively high in 15 of the 19 largest cities studied, and
they were below the average in 9 of the 13 cities with less than 100,000
population.
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION
At the maintenance level of living approximately two-fifths of the
average outlay necessary for household operation was required for
fuel; one-fifth for replacement of furniture, furnishings, and household
equipment; one-sixth for ice, refuse disposal, and unspecified essentials; and one-eighth each for electricity and household supplies.
Intercity differences in the costs of the household operation budget as
a whole were the result of a wide variety of differences in costs of the
budget subgroups. No city had highest cost or lowest cost for more
than one of these household operation budget subgroups.
The cost of the household operation budget as a whole was nearly
68 percent more in Sioux Falls than in Houston. The cost of winter
fuel, however, was 6 times as much in the city where it was most
expensive as where it was least expensive; the largest annual gas
budget cost was over 13 times as much as the smallest. Differences in
costs of the budget allowances of ice, electricity, and refuse disposal
also greatly exceeded the differences for the entire household operation group combined. For household supplies and for furniture,
furnishings, and household equipment, on the other hand, the cost
spreads between the extreme cities were very much less. The cost of
unspecified essentials in the household operation budget was practically identical in all cities.
Marked differences in the costs of the household operation budget
as a whole appeared in separate sections of the country. All but 1 of
the 16 cities in the New England, Pacific, and Mountain States were
above the average in the 59 cities combined; and all but 1 of the 11
South Central cities were below. In the other geographic divisions
household operation costs were relatively high in some places and low
in others; but, except in the West North Central States, the group
averages were less than in the 59 cities combined. In the areas where
household operation budget costs were highest, everything was above
the average except ice in New England, fuel in the Mountain States,
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
SUMMARY • XXIII
and both fuel and electricity in the Pacific States. In the lowest cost
areas everything was less than the average except the budget allowance
of gas in the East South Central cities and of ice and electricity in the
West South Central cities. Size of city apart from geographic location seemed not to account for any differences in the costs of household
operation as a whole or of its component subgroups.
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS
None of the miscellaneous family needs provided for in the budgets
are supplied by commodities, except drugs and appliances in the
medical care list, school supplies, and certain items in the recreation
list. At the maintenance level of living, recreation of all sorts required
three-tenths of the average cost of miscellaneous family needs; life
insurance, church contributions, other contributions, and taxes,'
one-quarter; medical care and transportation, one-fifth each; and
school attendance, three one-hundredths.
Most of these miscellaneous costs are conditioned largely by local
circumstances. Their intercity relationships, like those for household
operation, result from the balancing of costs of a number of unrelated
items. The cost of miscellaneous family needs was highest in Cleveland, where 63 percent more was needed to purchase the budget
allowance than in El Paso.
The variety of miscellaneous family needs probably explains the
absence of any consistent cost tend;mcies which may be attributed to
geographic location, except as these are brought about by the size of
cities in different sections of the country. There is a definite relationship between size of city and cost of miscellaneous family needs,
owing primarily to the fact that the allowance of transportation in
the separate cities waR based directly on population and city area.
It is impossible to forecast how much any one family will need to
spend in a given year for medical care. Requirements over a considerable period of time for a lnrge number of families, however,can
be estimated with reasonable accuracy. The annual cost of minimum medical care per 1,000 persons constitutes the starting point
of the medical cure cost estimates in the present study. Thus computed, there was a .difference of 72 percent between cities with the
lowest and highest posts. The outlay necessary in euch city was
largely determined by relative doctors', dentists', nurses', and hospital
fees, inasmuch as together they required about 90 percent of the total;
eyeglasses and frames, proprietary medicines, and prescriptions took
10 percent.
Variations in what families needed to spend for transportation were
greater than for any other budget subgroup, except refuse disposal,
school attendance, and taxes. Thirteen and one-half times as much
' Exclusive of sales tax.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
XXIV • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
was required for transportation where cost was highest as where it
was lowest. This range occurred because more rides were allowed
in the largest than in the smallest places, rather than because of any
such wide diversity in streetcar or bus fares. The maximum spread
for adult cash fares was from 5 cents to 10 cents; prices of tickets or
tokens were less widely dispersed.
Some cities provided all the books, supplies, and gymnasium
equipment needed by children in the public schools; in others these
items required nearly 2 percent of the total cost of living for a family
with a boy age 13 and a girl age 8. Hence, intercity differences in
costs were very wide.
Recreation is provided in the maintenance budget by allowances
for newspapers, motion picture theater admissions, organization
memberships, tobacco, toys, and other leisure-time accessories. The
difference in the total recreation cost between the city where least
was required to purchase the recreation budget allowance and the
one where most was required was 40 percent.
The spread in newspaper costs was 87 percent and in motion picture
theater admission costs, 76 percent. By budget definition, the costs
of tobacco, toys, and other leisure-time accessories were identical in
all cities. The amounts involved are small and prices are practically
the same wherever these items are sold, except for sales taxes where
levied. Identical allowances also were made in all cities for organization dues, life insurance premiums, church contributions, and other
contributions.
In 18 of the 59 cities there was a sales tax in March 1935, representing from 2 percent to one-half of 1 percent of the total cost of living.
Personal property taxes were assessed in 22 cities; capitation taxes, in
25; and both, in 11. There were 13 cities where families at the economic level with which this study is concerned were not assessed
direct taxes.
COST VARIATIONS
Differences in service charges and other costs which for the most part
are locally determined seem to be more accountable for intercity cost
of living variations than differences in commodity prices. What must
be paid to the landlord and the utility companies, together with outlays necessary for medical services, refuse disposal, taxes, and similarly
determined local needs differed more among the 59 cities included in
this investigation than the amounts required for food, clothing, household replacements, and supplies. Costs which are determined largely
by local conditions cannot be measured so accurately as commodity
costs, and it is possible that their intercity range is overstated. The
effect of the greater dispersion of locally determined costs on the relative costs of the budget as a whole was reduced somewhat by the
fact that they required slightly under two-fifths of the average annual
cost of living. The less varied commodity costs exclusive of coal or
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
SUMMARY • XXV
wood and ice, together with the outlays necessary for life insurance,
postage, and other essentials whose prices are identical everywhere,
required slightly over three-fifths.
Costs differed most for those services which were supplied from the
t.ax fund in some communities, but which were a. direct charge on the
individual or family in others. These services are refuse disposal and
public school attendance. Direct taxes, which were levied in some
places and not in others, likewise belong in the group of widely dispersed budget costs. Extensive cost variations among the 59 cities
also occurred for those necessities supplied through a. diversity of
sources, or for which the budget allowance for a given purpose differed
with natural circumstances. The widely dispersed costs of transportation, gas, coal or wood, and ice are to be explained not only by price
differences but also by the fact that a larger quantity is required in
some places than in others at the same level of living. For example,
less natural gas than manufactured gas as a rule is necessary for a
given purpose; at the same time, the rate per 1,000 cubic feet of natural
gas usually is lower. The quantity budgets allow gas for cooking and
water heating only during the months when coal or wood for room
warming is not necessary. The period of use thus provided varies
from 5 to 9 months per year. All these factors contributed to explain
annual gas cost variations.
The costs of neW'Spapers, electricity, housing, motion picture
theater admissions, clothing upkeep, and medical services are attributable in varying degrees to peculiar circumstances in each locality.
Size of city affects some, geographic location affects others, out all
are the product of a. variety of local forces past or present which fix
the going rate. For none of. these did necessary annual outlays differ
so much as did costs of the first groups of items mentioned, but they
were considerably more dispersed than the costs of the groups composed mostly of commodities; the latter showed the smallest range.
These groups composed mostly of commodities are household
supplies; personal care; clothing; drugs and appliances; furniture,
furnishings, and household equipment; and food. National advertising, chain merchandising, and concentration of manufacturing and
processing many commodities in relatively few hands seem to make
for commodity cost uniformity. Considerations related to seasonality, the kind of goods locally sold, and the distance from the source
of supply constitute perhaps the outstanding factors in commodity
cost dispersion. Local trade practices and their influence on retail
quotations, though important, were not studied in the present
investigation.
COSTS OF LIVING AND FAMILY EXPENDITURES
Lowest income self-supporting white families in 10 cities were
spending an average of $10 less per year at the time the present study
Dg1tzed by
Google
XXVI • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
was made than the average cost of the maintenance budget in the
same 10 cities. The expenditures with which the budget costs are
compared were made by wage earners and lower-salaried clerical
workers during a period of 1 year between 1933 and 1936. The
facts were collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Families allowed relatively more of their total expenditures for
food, personal care, household operation, furniture, furnishings,
household equipment, and transportation than appeared in the distribution of quantity budget costs; and they allowed relatively less for
clothing, housing, medical care, recreation, and all other needs. The
distributions of average annual cost and average annual expenditure
are shown below.
W.P.A.
trkitv a""rag•
coat of tiring
,tudr
Number of persons per family ______________________ _
4. 00
Cost of living or expenditure _______________________ _ $1,267
Total percent_ _____________________________ _
Food ____________________________________________ _
Clothing and clothing upkeep ______________________ _
Personal care _______________________ : ____________ _
Housing _________________________________________ _
Household operation ______________________________ _
Furniture, furnishings, and household equipment_ ____ _
Medical care _____________________________________ _
Transportation ___________________________________ _
Recreation _______________________________________ _
All other ________________________________________ _
B. L. ,</.
uptndilurt
atudv
4. 75
$1,257
100. 0
100.0
35.
12.
1.
16.
9.
38.
10.
2.
16.
12.
8
6
9
9
8
2. 4
4. 1
5. 0
6. 0
5. 5
5
6
1
6
2
2. 6
3. 5
5. 6
4. 8
3. 5
Families studied by the Bureau averaged larger than the four-person
family whose costs of living were measured in the present investigation,
and they were not of the same composition. What constitute current
charges also differed in the two sets of figures. These facts explain
some of the differences between distribution of expenditures and distribution of costs among the separate budget items. Differences also
occurred because the quantity budget priced in the present study was
designed to provide a balanced plan for spending, regardless of individual tastes or local circumstances, or the managerial ability of any
family or group of families, whereas all these factors play some part
in the actual spending pattern.
D91 zed by
Google
.........
~
=-·-~ : . . . ".
Chapter I
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING
THE
ANNUAL costs of living for a 4-person manual worker's family
at a maintenance level in 59 cities in the United States in March 1935
ranged from a high of $1,414.54 in Washington to a low of $1,129.81
in Mobile (appendix table 2). 1 The cost of living at a level reduced
somewhat to meet temporary emergency conditions was also highest
in Washington, $1,013.98, but the lowest cost city at the emergency
level was Wichita, where the amount required was $809.64 (appendh:
table 8). 2
At both levels highest costs exceeded lowest costs by slightly more
than 25 percent. The spread was $285 at the maintenance level and
$204 at the emergency level, but costs were so similar in the separate
cities that in more than half of the 59, the money value of the maintenance budget averaged between $1,200 and $1,300 per year (table 2);
for the emergency budget between $850 and $950 was required in 41
of the 59 cities. The cost of living in the least expensive city at the
maintenance level was more than $100 greater than in the most
expensive city at the emergency level.
The costs of living at the maintenance level exceeded the average for
the group in 29 cities, and they were less in 30 cities (fig. 2); comparable
numbers at the emergency level were 28 and 31, respectively. Washington costs were about 12 percent above the average; Mobile and
Wichita costs were about 10 percent below (appendix tables 3 and 9).
The cost of the emergency budget averaged 71.7 percent of the
cost of the maintenance budget (table 3). Ratios varied only slightly
1 See table 7, p. 10, for changes in the costs of living between March 1935
and March 1937.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in collecting quotations and computing city average prices and aggregate costs, see ch. VII.
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
.... .·. .:-
2 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Dollars
0
200
600
800
1000
1200
1400
WoshingtOfl, D. C.
$1414.54
San Fraocisco, Calif.
13B9.B7
New York, N. Y.
13B7.79
1375.13
Chica9a, 111.
MilwoukH, Wis.
Boston, Mass.
Cleveland, Ohio
St. Louis, Mo.
1356.11
1353.34
1352.77
134B.33
1339.55
Detroit, Mich.
Scranton, Pa.
1317.53
1312.39
1311.74
131052
130B.I I
MiMeOpolis, MiM.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Pittsburgh, Po.
Los Angtlu, Coli!.
,._,., N.J.
Boltimort, Md.
Albuquerque, N. Mtx.
Philadelphia, Po.
Bridge po, I, COM.
Sioux Falls, S. Dok.
Rochester, N. Y.
Tucson, Ariz.
Bullt, Mont.
Portland, Maine
Peoria, 111.
Fall River, Mou.
Atlanta, Go.
Richmond, Vo.
<olo, N.Y.
1300.86
1300.65
1299.14
1297.69
1296.35
129060
12B7.63
12B7 25
12B3.69
1275.4B
1274.30
l27J.51
1268 22
126806
1261.21
AverOQt, 59 cltln
1260.62
O'naho, Ntbr.
Manchester, N. H.
Norfolk, Vo.
Kansoa City, Mo.
125826
125403
1251.38
1246.07
1~45.42
Providence, R. I.
Bi09homton, N. Y.
Soll Lake City, Utah
1245.26
1243.19
1243.07
Seattle, Wash.
New Or leans, La.
1233.35
1233.08
Spakone, Wash.
Winston-Solem, N.C.
Louisville, Ky.
1228 62
1222.18
1221.72
1221.40
1220.20
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Jacksonville, Flo.
Houston, Ttx.
lnd1onopoli1, Ind.
Columbia, S. C.
1217.80
1217.27
1209.96
119B08
1192.60
Clarksburg, W. Va.
1190.02
f IBB.97
1186.18
1178.70
116B.85
Denver, Colo.
Portland, Oreg.
Memphis, TeM.
Oollos, Tex.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Columbus, Ohio
Birmingham, Ala.
Knox.ville, Tenn.
[I Paso, Tex.
Little Rock, Ark.
Wichita, Kans.
Mobile, Alo.
1166.75
1153.58
1139.06
1131.30
1129.81
Food
Clothing,
H~ing Hou~ehold Miscel·
operot,on loneous
clothing upkeep,
<S>d personol core
FIG. 2-ANNUAL COSTS OF LIVING, BY MAJOR BUDGET GROUPS,
4-PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY,
59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Maintenance Level
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING • 3
among the 59 cities. The smallest differential between the maintenance and the emergency budget costs was found in Minneapolis,
where the latter was 73.1 percent of the former, and the largest was in
Binghamton and Fall River, 70.6 percent. The range in clothing cost
differentials was narrowest, from a ratio of 70.6 percent in Salt Lake
City to 68.5 percent in Scranton; that for miscellaneous costs was the
widest, from 63.8 percent in Kansas City (Mo.) to 50.5 percent in
El Paso.
Table !.-Annual Costs I of living, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Number of cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
TotaL __________________________________________________________________ _
59
59
1----1--g
$800.00-$849.99_ --------- -- ---------- _______ -- •. -- -- -- --- _---- __ --- . _. -- -- -- ---$8!,0.00-$811\l.99_ ---- -- --- . _--- .. --- . ___ . _. -- _. -- .. --- ·- _-- -- __ --- _--- --- -- --- --21
$900.00-$949.99 ____________ --- ----- ... -- - - -- .. - - -- - -- -- - - -- - - -- - ---- - - -- -- - · - · - ·
20
$950.00-$990.Q\l_ ________ - . -- ---- .. - . - . - . -- - - .. -- - . -- -- . -- . - . - - ----. -- . - . --- - . --G
$1,000.00-$1,049.00. ___ ----- _-- . _--- -- --- -- _-- . --- --- -- ------ _-- -- ----. -- ----. -- .
3
$1,050.00-SI ,099.99 __________________ . __ . _. ____ . _.. ___ . _______ . __ . _. ____ . _______ _
$1,ICl0.00-$1,149.99 _________ . _____ .. _________________ . ___ . _____ . _. ___ .. ____ .. ___ .
3
Sl,150.00-Sl,199.Y9 ____________ .. ________ . ____ . ___ . ______________________ . ______ _
g
$1,200.00-$1,~49.91L _______________ . __ •. __ .. __ . ____ . _______ . __ .. ____ . _. ________ _
15
16
$1,:U.0.00-$1,299.00____ --- --- ----- ----- --- . --- . --- . -- . --- -- -- _. --- . ---------- ----
$1,300.00-SI ,349.99 _______ • ______ .. _. ____ . ______ •.. __________ . _.. _. _____________ _
$1,3/i0.00-$1,3111J.99._____________________________________________________________
___ ---- _----. -- . _-- _--- -- -- -- . ---- _--- _------ _. _·-- .. ---- ----_
$1,~.00-$1,449.99
g
6
I
1====;===
$003. Tl
$1,200.621
Average,• 59 cities_ - - -------- - --- -- ------ -- ----- ----- --- ------- -- -- ------1
• Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Owing to differences in the quantities of specific goods and services
included in the maintenance and emergency budgets, relative positions
of only 11 cities were identical in the separate cost of living arrays.
Nineteen were different by one place, ten by two places, six by three
places, six by four places, two by five places, three by seven places,
and two by eight places.
Discussion of cost differences is based on data relating to the maintenance level of living except where factors of significance make
reference to the emergency level desirable. A complete set of figures
for the emergency level is included in the text and appendix B. For
all practical purposes, however, it may be assumed that under most
circumstances calculating the cost of the emergency budget as between 70 percent and 75 percent of the cost of the maintenance budget
will provide adequately for the emergency level of living.
Table 4 summarizes the costs of living per year, per month, and per
week at the maintenance level and at the emergency level, in each of
the 59 cities separately, and as averages of the costs in all cities
combined.
D (JI' 7ed by
Goog IC
4 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Tobie 3.-Costs I of Emergency Level of Living as Percents of Costs of Maintenance Level,
by Major Budget Groups, 4-Penon Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
J\Jajor huclget l!l"Ollp
Clothin g. H ousing,
clothin~ inc·lud•
upke<>p,
ing
nnd per•
sonal care water
- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - i\laintenan c-e lc,·el cost.... .... . . .. ..
100. O
100. o _1_f)ll._Q_ _ _
1~
City
House•
hold
o pera•
tion 1
M iS<.'<l.1•
laneous 1
---- - - - - - - - -
A"\""erage, ~9 C'ities . . ... . . . • • .. .. .... .
Alhuquerque, N. M ex . 1• • ••.•.•.•• . .. . • . •
Atlanta , Ga .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .... .. . . . ...
B a lti more,l\ld .•.. . .. .... .. . . .. . . .. .... ..
B in~hamton ,N . Y .. • . . .. ...... .. . . .... . .
Birmingham, Ala......... . . .... ... ... ... .
Roston, M ass ......... ... ......... ... ... ..
Rrid ~ep ort,Conn __ __ __________ ________ ___
Buffa lo, N. ¥ ___ ___ ___ _______ __ _____ __ __ __
Butte , M on t.... . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .... . . .. .
CedarRapids,Iown 1• •••• • • •• •••••• • • •• .•
Ch!cngo, Til.1,. . .. . ..... . . .... ... .... ... .. .
Cinrinnnti , 6hio 1 ___ _ • • -···- ••• • •• • • .•• ••
Clnrkshurg, W. V s .• .... . .. . ........ . .. .. .
Clevelun,l, Ohio• .... . . . ... . .... . . . ...... .
C olumbia , S. C . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... .. ..... .
Colnmhus, Ohio ' · ·· .•... . ...•.. . ..•.. . • . .
I>nllC\.s, T ex .. ..... . .. .. . . ... . . . .... . . ... . .
D enver, C olo.1 __ __ ___ .. _. • _. . ____ _. •. __ . ••
D etroit, Mich.I . . . .. . .... .. .••. .• .•. . . •• . .
El Paso, Tex. .• . •. .... . . . • •..••. . ... .•.. .
F nll Ri ver. M Ms . . .. ........... . . .. ... .. .
H ouston, Tex . . ... .. .. .. ... .. . . . . . . .... . .
Incl inuapo lis, In ,i_ ... . • . .. • •••• . . . ... . . .. .
J nrkson ville, Fin . . .... . . ... . . . . . ....... ..
K ansas City, Mo . ... .... .. . ... . .. . ...... .
Knoxville, Tenn ..... . .. ... ... • . .• •• •. ••..
Little Rod, , Ark ....... .. . . • . . . ..... •.. . •
Los Angeles , C nlif.l ... . .. .. . ........ . . .. . .
Louis,•ille , Ky.• .. ... . . ... .. . . . .... . .. .. . ..
M anchester. N. 11. ... . . .•••.• . ... ... •.•• •
~~~~~i~e:W~::::::::.::.:
·::: :::::::
M inneapolis, Minn . . . .. .. ... ... . .. . ... .• .
Mobile, Ala .... . .. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. ..... .
Newark, N . J .. . ..... . . . . ......... .
N ew Orleans, Ls _ . ..... . •• .... .. ...... . ..
New Y ork, N. Y .•.. . . ... . . . ....... • . .
Norfolk, \ ·a ........... • .. •. . . ..••• ..•. ..
Oklahoma City, Okin .' . . . .. . •... ....
Omaha , Nebr ... . ..... .... . .. . ..... . .
P eori a , Ill. 1 . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . • • . ..... .
Philadeiphin. P n . • . . . .. .. • ••• • • • • • • •• ..• •
Pittsburgh , Pa . . .... . ........ . .. . . ....... .
P ortland, l\foine .. . . . . . . .. • .............
Portland, Oreg.. . . ..
. . ... . .. . . . .. . . . .
Provirtence, R. 1. .. ... .. .... .. . . . .. . . . .. . .
Hichmoncl, Vn. ... . ....... • .. . .... • . • ... ..
R oche5 tcr, K. ¥ .. . ... .. • . •. . ... . . .• .. .. .•
Solt La ke Ci ty, l "tnh 1. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Frnnclsco, Ca lil. 1•• •••• •• • .•••• • • • • •••
Smmton , P a . .. ... . . . ....... .. . . . .. ..
Seattle, Wash .. .
. . . . .. ...... . . .
Rioux Falls, 8. D nk. .... . . . . . . . . .
Spokane, W as h .. ... . . .. . .. . ... .. . .. •. • .• •
St. Louis, l\10 ... . . .. .. ... . ... . .. .. ....... .
Tu~on, Arir,.1 _..
W a.sh ington, D . (" . .
W i h ita, K ans . . . . ... . ... . . . . .. . . .. ..
Winston•Salem , K. C'.' • . • ....... . .. ......
_I!:_~~
i 2. 9
71.9
71.2
70. 6
ii. 5
i0.9
71.0
11.5
72. 6
71. 6
71. 7
71. 3
71. 7
71. 5
70. 8
71. 3
71. 8
71. 0
71. 6
72. I
70. fj
71. 8
il. 7
71. 4
i2. 3
i 2. 4
72. 0
71. 5
71. 4
i O. o
71. ~
i t. 7
71. 1
72. 1
70. 8
il. fi
ii. 4
i i. 2
71. 8
72. 2
77.6
75.0
7.,.3
7!\. 1
i 5. 4
74.6
74. fi
75. 4
77. 4
7!1. 2
7.,. 6
75. 7
ifi. 5
76. 0
75. 0
ifL 7
76. 0
76. 1
74. 8
77. 2
74. 3
76. 1
76. 1
7S. 6
79.4
67. 5
70. 0
6S.9
f,'s. 9
78. 0
ifi. 8
76. 3
7\1. 11
7Y.·1
78. 0
fi9. 2
69. 6
6P. 5
t.9.2
fi9. 7
70.2
60.!,
69. 4
fi9. 3
'1ft 1
f~'-i. 7
AA. 6
ti.~. 7
i 5.0
i6. 7
75. 0
74. 4
74.3
78.0
76.2
7.,. 0
7~.•is
76. R
75. 6
75. 8
80. 2
79. 1
iS.R
79.9
70. l
iY. 7
79. 8
~O. 1
i~. 0
i fi. 2
i~. S
iY. 1
/;.1. 9
59. 1
.,9. 7
.,2 . .,
,>.S- 8
M. 3
.~'1.9
fiO. l
75. 0
76. f\
fifl. 9
76. 4
7~. i
70.0
69. 4
70. 1
M.9
r.9. 6
, .~. 2
60. 2
fi9. 8
i5. 6
6\i. 3
77. 2
ifi. 6
mlfi
fifl . 7
i ll. 0
6\1. 0
69 3
i f\. 2
i !l. 1
ifi. 8
75. 5
i fl. 7
76. 2
i!l. 1
iR . t\
7.,. 3
7,,. 0
ifi. 9
76. 6
70. 3
f>R. 8
f)8. 7
70. :l
6K 8
69. 4
n .s
80. 4
78. 5
70. 0
iK fi
7R. fi
75. 7
i,'I. 7
77. 6
it,. K
i'!i. 8
55. 7
'"·-~
.,o. 0
7b. 7
, .~. 6
75. 0
7R. 0
74. 4
74. 2
,..:o. 5
~2. :l
7H. s
.lll.9
M.5
!.6, g
M. 3
-~ - 7
fil. 2
57, i
(jlf.f,
i'1 . .">
7S. I
~1. r,
.~1. 7
00. 7
-~. 2
f-.A. 0
5,t 3
57. 4
!>6. 3
.'.R. 7
f-0. 1
.,6. 2
70. 4
f,!l, g
f,9. 1
70. I
7,1. 4
80. 7
f.O. 5
fl9. 7
,~. 2
69. ~
60. 6
R!J. 7
i'0.0
74. 0
; n, fi
74. R
76. fl
76. 1
79. ~
77. 2
7~. 2
7.,. 0
74. 4
il. 0
i l. n
72. 7
72. 8
511.l
75. 7
,.~. 9
ifi. i
i fi. l
5.1. 8
60. 2
r.o. 9
fi9. 7
ii.
71. i
72. 0
,17. 2
51\.7
60. 7
50. 5
80. 2
i8. -~
79. 4
ii. :l
71), 9
69. 4
R9. 3
7-1 . 1
7.'i , 6
j !,, 2
i fi. s
.r,(i. 9
7f1. j'
ii. 6
74. 2
77. 1
74. 2
7'1. 2
i l. 1
71. 8
fiO. 1
fl8. fi
56. 8
fil. 1
SI. 2
1\.1. s
7ft I
i ,t 2
76. 2
i G. 8
i2. 4
i R. 0
79. 8
M. 1
., 3. 7
7K. 0
il. 2
i2. 1
; 1.1
7
';!, ,
71. 7
71. 0
~ ~
R9 . 5 -
70. !\
fi9. 4
79. 7
7~. i
i' !i. 0
77. 1
74. 7
7:1. 8
7J.
(i
7.~. 0
7B. 8
j,'i 0
71. 4
71. -~
71. 7
i l. ti
j ,1. /
71. -1
75. 0
I Include sales tu where levied (Bppendl,r tables 16 BDd 1ft).
• Includes coBI or wood, gas, electricity, lee, household supplies, furniture, furnishings, hoW111hold equll)ment, refnse dispose.I, Bnd unspecl11ed essentials. In those cities where water was B direct charge on the
tenant Its cost was added to rent.
• Includes medical care, transportation, recreation, school attendance, church contributions, other contrl•
buttons, Ille Insurance, and t8JCes exclusive of sales tax.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING
•5
Tobie .f.-(osts 1 of living per Yearf per Month, and per Week, 4-Person Manual
Worker's Fami y, 59 Cities, March 1935
Emergency level
Maintenance level
City
Average, 59 cities...............
Per year
Per
month
$1,260.62
$105. 05
Perweek
Per year
Per
month
$24.24
$903. 27
105. 69
108. 39
103.60
97.40
24. 98
24. 39
25. 01
23. 91
22.48
1147. 57
911. 25
926. 71
878. IO
835.81
69.65
18. 22
17. 52
17.82
16. 811
16. 07
I, 352. 77
I, 2911. 35
I, 261. 21
!, 283. 69
I, 186. 18
112. 73
108.03
105.10
106. 97
98.85
26.01
24. 93
24. 25
24. 69
22.81
958. 45
920. 39
901. 72
932. 11
849. 35
79.87
76. 70
75.14
77.68
70. 78
18.
17.
17.
17.
16.
Chlmgo, Ill.1 __ --···--------. _.. ___ ...
Cincinnati, Ohio'-------------------Clarksburg, \V. Va.I. ________________
Cleveland, Ohio•-------------------Columbia, S. C---------·------------
1,356. ii
I, 311. 74
I, 190. 02
1,348.33
I, 1112.60
113.01
109. 31
99.17
112. 36
972. 59
935. 54
852_ 87
964. 71
80.112
81. 05
77. 96
71. 07
80. 39
70. il
18. 70
17.99
W.38
26.08
25. 23
22. 89
2.~. 93
22.93
Columbus,
Dallas,
Tex.Ohio'-------------------_________________________
Den\~rr, Colo.I _______________________
Detroit, Mich.I. _____________________
El Paso, Tex_ •• ·- ______ . ___ .. ______ ..
1.178. 70
l, 188. 97
1,246.07
I, 317. 53
I, 153. 58
98. 23
W.08
103. 84
109. 79
96. 13
22. 67
22.86
23. 96
25. 34
22. 18
840. 68
853. 98
8&~. 24
944. 00
832.05
70.06
71. 17
73. 77
78. 67
69.34
16.17
16. 42
17.02
18. 15
16. 00
Fall River, Mass ____ . _______ ._. ______
Houston, Tex ________________________
Indianapolis, Ind. ___________________
Jacksonville, Fla.··- _________________
Kansas City, Mo ____________________
I, 271. 51
I, 209. 96
I, 198. 08
1,217.27
!, 245. 42
105. 00
100. 83
IOI. 44
103. 79
24. 45
23. 27
23. 04
23. 41
23. 95
898.09
869. 23
859. 04
868. 57
800. 85
74. 84
72.44
71. 59
72.38
74. 99
17. 27
16. 72
16. 52
16. 70
17. 30
Knoxville, Tenn _____________________
Little Rock, Ark __________ ·--. _______
Los An~cles, Calif.I __________________
Louisville,
KY-'---------·-----------Manchester,
N. IJ. __________________
I, 1116. 75
1,139.06
I. 308. II
I, 2'.!0. 20
I, 254. 03
97. 23
94. 02
109.01
101.68
104.60
22.44
21. 91
25. 16
23. 47
24. 12
844. 37
819. 97
935. 85
871. 62
889. 61
70. 36
68. 33
77. 99
72. 64
74. 13
15. 77
18.00
16. 76
17. 11
Memphis, Tenn.------- ________ . ____
Milwaukee, Wis _____________________
Minneapolis, Minn. ____________ . ____
Mobile, Ala __________________________
101. 78
112. 78
115. 65
94.15
108, 41
23.49
877. 27
970. 64
Newark, N. 1·------------·----------
I, 221. 40
1, 3!'i3. 34
I, 387. 79
1,129.81
I, 300.86
814. 92
920. 54
73. II
80.89
84. 49
67. 91
76. 71
16.ffl
18. 67
19. 50
15. 67
17. 70
New Orleans, La _____________ . ______ .
New York, N. Y.1 ___________________
Norfolk, Va. _________________________
Oklahoma City, Okla.I ______________
Omaha, Nebr ________________________
I, 233. 08
I, 375. 13
l,2.al.38
I, 217. 80
I, 258. 26
102. 76
114, 59
104. 28
101. 48
104.86
882. 80
982. ii
891. 57
874.17
908. 71
73. 57
81.~
74. 30
72. 85
75. 73
16. 98
24. 07
23. 42
24. 20
Peoria, Ill.I __________________________
Philadelphia, Pa _____________________
Pittsburgh, Pa ____________ . __________
Portland, Maine. _________________ . __
Portland, Oreg _______________________
l, 274. 30
l,:!117.69
I, 310. ,a2
I, 27,a. 48
I, 22l. 72
106.19
108. 14
109. 21
106. 29
IOI.SI
24. 51
24.96
25. 20
24.53
23. 49
913. 39
924. 56
930. 45
921.114
884.81
77.M
1,245.26
I, 268. 06
I, 287. 63
I, 339. 5S
I, 243. 07
103. 77
105. 67
107.30
lll.63
103. 59
23. 95
24. 39
24. 76
2.~. 76
23.91
88..~.17
910.36
925.16
956. 48
8\I0.84
73. 76
75. 86
77. 10
79. 71
1,389.87
1,312.39
I, 233. 35
I, 290. 60
I, 228. 62
ll5.82
109. 37
102. 78
107. 55
102.39
26. 73
25. 24
23. 72
24.82
23. 63
1,001.12
932. 21
886. 58
938. 27
8114. 02
83. 43
l, 287. 25
1,414.54
1,131.30
l, 222. 18
107. 27
117. 88
94. 28
101. 85
24.75
920.
1, OJ:!. 98
--~ =
1,299. H
108. 26
Albuquer3ue, N. Mex.I ..............
Atlanta, a ...•••••.........•........
Baltimore, !\Id .............•.•.....•.
Binghamton, N. Y •..•...............
Birmingham, Ala ....................
1,268.22
I, 300. 65
I, 243. 19
I, 168.85
Bost,:,n, Mass .••••.........•.........
Bridgeport, Conn •..•................
Buffalo, N. Y •••••...•....•..........
Butte, Mont ..•......•............•..
Cedar Rapids, Iowa'······----------
Provldenoe, R. I. ___________________ .
Richmond, Va _______________________
Rochester, N. y _____________________
St. Louis, Mo ____ .... _____ . ___ . _____ .
Salt Lake City, Utah'-·--·---------San Francisco, Callr.l •• ______ . __ . ___ .
Scranton, Pa ____________ . ______ . __ . __
Seattle, Wash ________________________
Sioux Fall~ S. Dak __________________
Spokane, -ash ______________________
Tac,,on, Ariz.I _______________________
Washington, D. c ___________________
Wichita, Kans _______________________
Winston-Salem, N. C.I _______________
1 Include
=
W.84
26. 03
26.69
21. 73
25. 02
23. 71
26.H
27. 20
21. 70
23.50
I, 013. 88
°'~
!,00, 64
873. 04
=
$75. 27
Per week
78. 96
75. 114
77. 23
73. 18
76.12
77. 05
76. 83
73. 73
74.24
=
$17. 37
◄3
70
34
93
33
16. 40
18. 55
16. 25
18. 24
18. 89
17. 15
16. 81
17.48
17. 57
17. 78
17.89
17. 73
17.02
17. 02
17. 51
17. 79
18.39
17. 13
74. 50
19. 25
17.93
17. 05
18. 04
17.19
76. 67
84. 50
67. 47
72. 75
15. 57
16. 711
77.68
73.88
78. 19
17.69
19. 50
sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and I~).
Dg1tzed by
Google
6 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
COSTS OF MAJOR BUDGET GROUPS AND PRINCIPAL SUBGROUPS
The cost of living is composed of the prices of a large number of
goods and services, combined with the quantities of each required at
a specified level. The average budget cost in the 59 cities was so distributed that food took more than twice as much as housing, and considerably less was necessary for household operation than for clothing,
clothing upkeep, and personal care (table 5). One-fifth was required
for miscellaneous fo.mily needs at the maintenance level, and one-sixth,
at the emergency level. These budget cost distributions differed in
the separate cities in response to a variety of local circumstances
(appendix tables 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22).
Tal,/e 5.-Percent Distribution of the Average Annual Costs I of Living Among the
Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59
Cities, March 1935
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
Budget group
Average,• 59 cities: Amount. _____________________ ----------------------Percent. .••.. _•..••.• ___ • __ .•.• _••. __ •••• --- . __ . _....
$1,200.62
100.0
$903. '!T
Food _________________________________________________________________________ _
35.6
37.6
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care _________________________________ _
Clothing_. ___ ._._ ••• __ •••••••••• _••• ____ . ____ •. ______________ •••••••••• __ _
14. 6
11.6
1.0
20
14.2
Housing, Including water ________________ ----- __ -----------------. --- ------- ..
17.6
18. 6
Hou.sehold operation •• __________ ---- --- . ------- ------ - ----------. --- -- . --- . -- .
Fuel.. ________________ -------. ____ .------ -- .. --- .. - . ---- .. --- .. - . ----. -- ...
loo _______________________________________________________________________ _
Electricity. __ .-------------------------------------------------- ______ ... .
IIousehnld supplies .... __ -- . _.... _.. _... __ ..... ------. __ ... -- -- . - . - . - ..... .
Furniture, furnishings, and household equipment_ ________ --------·--·.·-·
Relu.se disposal.. .... _____ . _______ . ______ . __ ._ •. ______ .. _._. __ . __ ... _..... .
Unspecified essentials. ___________ . ____________ .... ____ . _________ ... __ ._ .. .
12. 2
4. 6
13. 5
0.2
0.3
Miscellaneous. ________________ . ____ .• ___ ... _.. __ . __ .. _. __ ._. __ . __ . ___ .-· .. ·- ..
Medical care. __________ . ____ ••. ____ --- ___ ..•. ___ . __ . -- . -- - . - - .. - -- ....... .
20.0
4. 2
16.1
5.1
5.0
0.8
1.4
~!~!t~'.!f ~~'.".'~~ ~:: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::
J:1~:)
it:r~=~~¥~n~=::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
Recreation _______________________ . ______ -- .. __ --- ----- -- .. -- .. - . --- . -- ... .
1
I
1
1.8
I. 5
1.5
2. 5
0. 1
4. 3
0. 5
Life insurance _________________ ._ .. --- - - - _. - . - --- __ . ___ --· --- ............. .
Church contributions and other contributions _________________ ··--------··
5.9
3. 7
I. 2
Taxes•---·--·· .... ------.------•·-------------------·---·-·-·· -- · ··- ·· ·· · ·
0. 2
100.0
11. 1
1.3
1.8
6. 3
2.1
1.6
J.Q
2.1
0. 2
2. 3
1. 2
0.3
lnrlurle s.les tnx where levied (sppendl~ tables 15 and !6J.
Exclu~ive ot ~-ales tax.
The greatest uniformity in budget group costs among the 59 cities
was found in combined food prices; the greatest difference, in house
rents (table 62). The cost of the budget for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care more nearly approached that for food in its
dispersion; household operation and miscellaneous cost differences
were more like that for rent. The widest dispersions for any subgroups were found in the costs of certain items of which the household
operation and miscellaneous groups are composed.
The relative cost of living in one city as compared with all others is
fixed by various combinations of separate commodity and service
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING • 7
costs. Among the 10 most expensive cities in which to live at the
maintenance level, for example, only San Francisco, Chicago, and
Boston reported all major budget group costs well above the 59-city
average (appendix table 3). In the others some were high and some
were low. Food costs were less than the average in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Detroit; clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care costs were relatively low in New York, Washington, and St.
Louis; and household operation costs were low in Washington, Cleveland, and St. Louis. On the other hand, all 10 of these highest cost
cities reported rents and the costs of miscellaneous family needs above
the average.
In the 10 lowest cost cities rents were considerably less than the
average but only in Mobile, Wichita, Little Rock, and Knoxville
were all costs relatively low. Food was expensive in Clarksburg and
Dallas; and clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal ca.re costs slightly
exceeded the average in Clarksburg, Columbus, and Cedar Rapids.
Household operation costs were above the average in Cedar Rapids
and El Paso, and the cost of miscellaneous family needs was high in
Birmingham.
These combinations of high and low costs of various magnitudes
appear throughout the array of the 59 cities and require study to
ascertain how they, in turn, were made up and what elements in the
group totals account for their respective ranking. This analysis is
contained in the chapters which follow.
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF CITY ON COSTS OF
LIVING•
The section of the country in which families live influences to some
extent the a.mount which they must spend to secure a specified level
of living (appendix tables 5 and 11 ). The effect of geographic location
is modified by other circumstances, notably size of city, and it is
difficult to say with assurance that any one causal factor is most
important. Costs were undoubtedly low in the South Central States.
Every city in these areas reported less than average values for the
budget as a whole and for most of the major budget groups; in the
most expensive places less was required per year for support at the
maintenance level than in the cheapest New England or Middle
Atlantic city (table 6). None of these South Central cities had as
many as 500,000 population. Costs of living seemed to be high in the
Middle Atlantic, New England, and East North Central States.
There are more large cities in these sections than in any other geographic division, however, and it was in the more populous centers, for
1 See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
325Q2°-3S--3
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
8 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
the most part, that costs exceeded the average. The two large
California cities had greater budget costs than the other three cities in
the Pacific Division. The average in the South Atlantic States was
slightly below the average in the 59 cities combined, but in the largest
places in this area the costs of living were above the 59-city average.
On the other hand, though the costs of living in the Mountain States
averaged more than in the group of 59 cities as a whole, the 2 largest
communities therein reported below average figures. In the West
North Central cities costs were high and low in about equal proportion,
with the average in the area just above the average in the 59 cities
combined.
Tobie 6.-Avera,e Annual Costs I of Living in 9 Geographic Divisions and 5 Size of City
Classifications, Ratio of Highest to Lowest Cost in Each Group1 and Highest and Lowest
Deviations from Group Averages, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
JU.INTBNANCE U:VJl!L
[Average cost. 59 cities-$1,260.62)
Peroent devle.tion from
group average
cost
Annual cost or living
Geographic dlvl,lon and slie or
city classification
Percent
group
average
Is of 611city
average
Group
average
Hlgh!'8t
cost In
each
group
Lowest
cost In
each
group
Percent
highest
cost Is of Highest
Lowest
lowest cost
in each
group
Geographic division
New England ____________________
Middle Atlantic. ________________
East North Central. _____________
West North Central. ____________
South Atlantic .. _. _______________
East South Central. _____________
West South Central__ ____________
Mountain ________________________
Pacific ___________________________
101. 7 $1,282.57 $1. 3-~2. 77 $), 2◄5. 26
103.0 1,298. 1>8 l,3i5. 13 I, 243. 19
102. 5 1,292.27 1,356.11 1,178.70
100. 2 I, 262. i3 1,387. 79 1,131.30
99.8 I, 2.58. 32 1,414.54 1,100.02
113. 7 I, 181. 40 1,221.40 I, 129.81
9-1. 4 I, 100. 41 1,233.08 1,139.06
100. 9 1,271. 8-4 1,2\lll.14 1,243.07
101.2 1,276.33 1,389.87 1,221.72
108. 6
110.8
115. 1
122. 7
Jl8. 9
108.1
108.3
104. 5
113.8
+6.5
+5.9
+4.9
+9.9
+12.4
+3.4
+3.6
+2.1
+8.9
-2.9
-4.3
-8.8
-10.4
-6.4
-4.4
-4.3
-2.3
-4.3
106.0
110. 2
121. 0
116. 0
115.0
+:i. 3
+4.3
+13.0
+6.3
+6.6
-2.6
-5.3
-8.6
-8.4
-8.2
Slie of city classlllcatlon
1,000,000 or more. ________________
to 1.000,IJ()()________________
250,100 to 500,fXML ________________
100,!JOO to 2.',(),000. ________________
25,000 to 100,000 __________________
50(1,IXJO
105. 6 $1,3.'I0.92 $1,375.13 $1. 297. 69
105. 7 I, 332. 03 1,389.87 1,261.21
99.3 I, 251. 68 1,414.54 1, ms. ss
98.0 I, 235. 05 1,312.39 I, 131. 30
97. 6 1,230.25 1,299.14 I, 129.81
' Include sales tax where levied (appendix table 15).
All places with a population of 500,000 or more had costs of Jiving
definitely above the average in the 59 cities combined (appendix
tables 7 and 13). There are 13 cities in this population classification
in the United States, and all were included in the study. The average
in localities with a population between 250,000 and 500,000 was
slightly less than the average in all cities included in the stu<ly, but in
4 of the 6 largest places in this population classification costs were
higher than either the group or total average. Thus, in 17 of these 19
largest cities costs of living for manual workers were above the average
Dig Ii zed oy
GoosIe
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING •
9
in the 59 cities. Costs were so much lower in the other cities between
250,000 and 500,000 population, however, that the group dispersion
was tho widest found in any size of city classification.
Group costs in the smallest cities averaged markedly less than in
the largest cities. At the maintenance level the highest reported
cost in the smallest city group exceeded by less than $1.50 per year
the lowest cost in the largest city group (table 6). Within the groups,
however, cost tendencies were irregular, and variations were nearly
twice as wide as among the two largest city groups. In 5 of the 14
places where the population was 100,000 to 250,000 and in 5 of the 13 •
in the group with 25,000 to 100,000, reported costs were above the
average in the 59 cities combined. These intragroup differences
among the smallest cities may be attributable to the absence of stabilizing cost factors which were common to the larger places. Without
them, geographic location seemed to be a more important cost of
living determinant than it was in cities of greater size.
COSTS OF LIVING AND THE SALES TAX
In this group of 59 cities 18 had a nonabsorbed sales tax of some
kind on the retail price of one or more budget items in March 1935
(appendix tables 15 and 16).' Of the 10 cities at the top of the list
in costs of living, 5 had a sales tax; of these, Detroit would be eliminated from the top group if costs were computed without the tax,
and the positions of some of the others would change. Louisville,
which had the largest sales tax, was 16th from the least expensive
city among the 59 and would drop 4 places without the tax. Columbus, Clarksburg, and Cedar Rapids, which were among the 10 cheapest
cities in which to live at the maintenance level, each had a sales tax.
CHANGES IN COSTS OF LMNG MARCH 1935-MARCH 1937
During the 2 years since the date of this study costs of living
increased in all 32 of the cities where the Bureau of Labor Statistics
measures price changes.5 The greatest difference between March
1935 and March 1937 occurred in Detroit, an increase of 8.9 percent;
the least was reported from Boston, an increase of 1.6 percent (table
7). In the 32 cities combined the average increase was 4 percent.
The most spectacular changes reported were certain rent increases,
but in a few cities rents decreased within the 2 years. The budget
groups made up of commodity prices, on the other hand, were more
• This tax may be levied on occupation or gross income of the vendor, but
where it is supposed to be collected from the consumer as a separate charge, not
absorbed by the vendor or concealed in prices, it has been treated as a direct
sales tax. New Orleans levied a tax on motion picture theater admissions exceeding 10 cents, but this has not been treated as a sales tax.
'The Bureau of Labor Statistics computes cost of living changes quarterly in
32 cities; 31 of these were included in the present study.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
10 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
costly in each of the 32 cities in 1937 than in 1935. Increases for
food and for furniture, furnishings, and household equipment varied
somewhat among the cities, but for food the difference exceeded 10
percent in 7 cities, and for furniture, furnishings, and household equipment it exceeded 10 percent in 11 cities. The average increase in
all cities for both major budget groups was greater than the net
Taf>/e 7.-Changes in Costs
1
of Living, by Major Budget Groups, 32 Cities, March
193s-:-March 1937
Cost of living
(maintenance
level)
Percent 00\lt In 1937 was of co•t In 1935 •
Furn!·
City
March
March
1937
1035
Total
Cloth• Bow,.
Ing
111&
Food
Fuel
and
llght
f.=h.
ings, and
bona&hold
equipment
Mis•
cellaneous
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (I)
(')
104.0
• 101.0
103. 8
105. 3
98. 7
109.3
100. 5
1,466.M
!, 434. 711
I, 422. 56
1,421.84
1,414.M
1,317. 53
l,:!M.11
1, 3811. 87
102.11
!OIi.ii
104.9
102.3
102.11
109.0
107. 2
102. 8
105. 6
103. 0
103. 7
105.2
104. 2
131. 5
105. 3
101.6
1111. 7
1111.8
104.11
117. 1
109. 4
!OIi. ii
!OIi. 4
108. 5
100.11
103.3
IOI.II
100.4
Cleveland, Ohio 1••••••.
New York!,f· Y. 1•••••.
St. Louis, o .....••••..
Loe Anaeles, Calif.I •..••
BOiton, Mass •••..•••.••
1,418.44
1, 3119. 88
1,3115.81
1,382.67
1,374.41
I, 348. 33
!OIi. 2
101. 8
104. 2
105. 7
101. 6
105.8
104.2
110. 0
108. 9
103. 5
106. 6
103. II
102.8
104. 2
102. 7
ll'.l
100. l
102. l
116. 8
100.D
1111.3
96. 7
11'-6
98. 2
108. 4
107. 7
110.4
113.3
107. 7
100.2
1111.7
100. 2
100.5
100.3
Cincinnati, Ohio'· .....
Pittsburgh, Pa ...•••.•..
Baltimore, Md ...•.....
Philadelphia, Pa..•.....
Scranton, Pa. .•••.•.•...
1,3&. 52
l,SCill.01
1,347.47
1,345.. 70
l, 345. 20
1,310.52
1,300.65
1, 2117. 69
1,312.39
104.1
103. 7
103.6
103. 7
102. 5
107. 7
107.3
107. 5
1()8.8
108. 1
105. 1
103. 5
101. 8
102.D
103. 8
103.D
102.5
103. 6
102.5
92.11
101. II
117. 0
113.1
108.6
!OIi. 4
108. 2
100.D
99.8
100. 8
W.8
98.4
111.2
1111. 3
118.11
105. 2
104.4
107.9
104.1
106. 2
106.D
109.2
113.11
106. 4
110.11
103. 9
104. 0
105. 7
105. 8
106. 5
111.0
103. 2
114. 8
106.1
108. 7
104.6
102. 8
107. 3
106.0
106. 8
101.11
:~=sd~:::::::::: 1,318.24
Buffalo, N. Y ........... 1,312.92
Seattle, Wash ........... 1,309.82
1,288. 2'l
1,268.06
l,2'll. 72
1,261.21
1,233.35
117. 7
112. 4
108. 7
106.11
IOI. 7
W.8
101.8
Denver, Colo.I ..........
Portlan<a MainP........
Kans"" tty, Mo .......
Norfolk, VR .............
Jacbonvllle, Fla........
1,305.88
I, 304. 82
1,303.95
1,291.42
1,274.48
1,246.07
I, 275. 48
1,245..42
1,2111.38
1,217.27
104.8
102. 3
104. 7
103. 2
104. 7
109. II
107. 7
110. 6
107.5
108. 5
IOI. 8
100.6
105.1
103.6
104. 4
l!0. 7
911.1
103.4
99. 5
107.5
98. 8
117.8
118. 4
98. 8
98. 3
107. 2
103. 8
105..4
106.11
105. 2
Memg,hls, Tenn ........
Bolll n, Tex ...........
Indlanare:lts, Ind •..•••.
New Or eans, Lil. .......
Btrmlngbam, Ala .......
1,271.48
1,269.211
1,266.37
1,262.67
1,250.67
I, 221. 40
l,20II. 96
1,198.08
1,233.08
1,168.85
104. 1
104. 9
105. 7
102. 4
107.0
100. 7
107. 4
11:l. 5
103. 5
111.5
103. 5
103. 4
106. 4
105. 5
105. 2
109. 3
111. 0
111.~
99. 9
118. 5
102. 6
102. 4
94.0
98. 7
102. 0
110. 3
113.2
111.D
110. 3
110. I
99,0
91U
lflO. 7
100. l
Mobile, Ala ............. 1,156.93
Savannah, Oa •••••.....
(')
1,129.81
(')
102. 4
102. 3
107.4
107.1
102. 7
JOI. 7 •100.0
Hl.l.3 101.3
110.2
107.1
lie. 9
96. 7
Average, 32 cities .
Minneapolis, Minn .•...
Washington, D. c ......
Detroit, Mich.I •••..•...
Chicago, Ill.I ••..••..••..
San Franclaoo, Calif., ...
-- --- --- - - - - --- --- - - - - -106.
113.6
$1,480. 77 $1,387.79
7
103. l 106.4
118.11
110.8
102. 7
Atlanta, Ga .•..••.••••.. 1,334.17
1,323.85
1,375.13
1,339.511
1,308.11
1,352.77
I. 311. 74
103. 0
118. 7
1111.2
101. 2
100.2
I
ro. 7
100.0
100.3
100.8
102. l
99.8
'l[l('Judo 8alC8 tax where levied (appendix table 15).
• Tbegroupingsarethoseofthe Bureau of Labor Statistics but the tennlnologyts that or thepN111entreport.
I AggrCRBlcti Wert' not computed.
• Includre Ill cities.
1 IDC1'1lBSed less than O.Oll percent.
• Decreased less than 0.05 percent.
'Savannah was not Included in the Works Progress Admlnlstratlon'• study; therefore, aggregatee not available.
Source: The percent changes were computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from data collected In
Its quarterly enumeration. The sg~regates for March 1935 are the results of the present study; those for
March 1937 were computed by adding or •ubtractlng the appropriate percent changes to or from the aggre,
gates for March 1935. Were the aggregates for March 1937 computed by totaling the costs of the separate
budget groups, slightly different figures would appear, because of differences In the samples and quan•
Uty allowance,, used In the prt"lent study and bl. the Bureau of Labor Statisti~. The B.illfllllallll!l d.> not
show the costs of the Bureau or Labor Stattstlcs sample.
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
TWO LEVELS OF LIVING • 11
change in average rent. Price increases for the clothing group, while
not so large, nevertheless, were general. In nearly two-thirds of the
cities fuel and light combined was less expensive than 2 years earlier,
and the average difference was a small decrease. The cost of miscellaneous items changed very little anywhere.
These cost of living changes reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are based on prices of goods and services which are not necessarily identical with those used in this study of the costs of living in 59
cities. They represent purchase:,; of wage earners and lower-salaried
clerical workers, however, and the percentages probably are sufficiently representative of differences between the costs of the maintenance budget in March 1935 and March 1937.
If the March 1935 cost of living figures obtained in the present
study are recomputed to bring the figures up to March 1937 in the
31 cities where the changes can be taken into account,& certain shifts
occur in the cost array. Minneapolis advances ahead of Washington and San Francisco to top place. Detroit moves up to 3d
from 9th place among the 31 cities; San Francisco goes down to 5th,
and New York to 7th, from 2d and 4th, respectively. Tho cost
ranks of Boston, Portland (Maine), Scranton, Norfolk, and New
Orleans become several places lower, and of Los Angeles, Portland
(Oreg.), and Seattle, several places higher. The cheapest cities in
this group of 31 in 1935 are still the cheapest in 1937: Mobile and
Birmingham.
These cost of living changes in 31 cities separately and the average
change in 32 combined provide no data by means of which the relative standing in March 1937 of all the 59 cities included in this investigation can be computed. It is apparent that some changes must
have occurred in most if not all of the remaining 28 cities, and it is
probable that the effect of any increases or decreases would be to
rearrange the relative positions of the separate cities.
6
Savannah, the 32d city, was not included in the present study.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
....
lOlAI..
,o
'LO'-'l, CER[ALS, WJ BREAD
Pt,, ... ,
MU< AMl CHEESE
r RUITS />HJ \1£Gl:TABL£S
FATS, SUGARS, A~'O ACCtSSORIES
0-.--2~~~"'0
(,M..mM,S, C
,-.,.. Yo, , . to f
Y,rro1, P\t "O!O", 0 C
Nif•orti . ,~ J
Bo\1-.)11,ll,l• u
0
...,
e::~'l;,-;' Vo
Wo,,c,W11,t,,. r, H
AJIO'l to . C.o
s'z
C M O<IO. 1!1
~ '"'°' "'-• . R t
~.!;!';.,~:•(1~ol!f
w,,,kwl $41•"".NC
t.,,o, Io,1 , ..,.,
~G>
F• il A ·• ••• \loll
e.o,,,,,_o,,._ti,10
r,.
Oo:111, , .
Pc•t1• ~... Mo,...
u,
,0
Fwr;, ,o, 111
n
3
m
C"'(""::i h,
()flio
e,.1i,. , Mc,,,1
Svc,,,.IQ".Po
~~,.i.:,~ 1C,~~Mo
~~::~~'.o~
Vl
Po
R,(,-..,.0,. 0, Vo
8 ·11-1,- 10,,0, NY
8••-
11 ~, ..... ,.
c,,,..!G,,d, 61\,o
Cott,..-11..,,. 0 ,i.o
{Hlr(H, llil•t l'I
L ,11 1• P o t l , A,1,
()f!'lo"4,'1o1CI•
.
L Dv•l ~•d ol ,
0
~
,.,
8.
~
C')
0
0
-
00
()
11 ,
~::~~, ~·~\
~~,:,-:;:,,,_co111
Po11,o, ' ••
0,, lo".o"'•
[ 1
c,,,, O•!o
M """t OPGhS., N ,l'Vl.
P!).IIOl"O 0•1 9
o,,.
... _t,10
,_. o O, llf, Alo
,.,, ....,"I<,.'-""
flc • O, L•g • 1,. LG
$ 011 LO'• Citr. V•o)
HOJn "Oft.fU,.
""<-"'''· ...W"'Dll'I
t,<O-... lf.
"'•!• a ... • • •••••
,s.:,,. , ro11, , S
llli_rio•••••. h n11
0
0
~ -::
"°•
~
c...,.
A,Jlh14 ...'11"". N ti.t,,
&, ,do,.po, ! 0
Ci.i i
&:~:Jt'tQ.,;
flG.3-RELATIVE COSTS OF FOOO, 4·PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY, 59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Mointenonce Level
(Aver1191, 59 ,,1oe1 • 100)
Af·Zll3, W:PA.
Chapter II
FOOD
THE COSTS of the maintenance food budget for a 4-person manual
worker's family varied among the 59 cities from $487 .51 per year in
Bridgeport to $418.28 in Cedar Rapids (appendix table 2). Thus,
16.6 percent more was required in Bridgeport than in Cedar Rapids.
The average annual outlay necessary for food in the 59 cities combined
was $448.18. Twenty-seven cities were above this average and
thirty-two were below (fig. 3). In no case was the deviation from the
average as much as 10 percent (appendix table 3). The annual costs
of food at the maintenance level were between $430 and $460 in more
Tobie 8.-'-Annual Costs 1 of Food, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
Number or cities
Annual cost
Maintene.noe Emergency
Ie,·el
level
Total.. ________________________________ .. __ ·--------------· .. ____ ._______
511
59
l----+---$310.00-$319.99 ______ -------- -- -- --- -- -- .. --- . -- _.. --- ..... -- . -- -- .. ·---. -- .. --$320.00-$329.99. --- _________ . ----------------· ·--·. ··---------· ----··. ··---·$3.10.00-$339.99 _____ -- ·-. _.. _... -- -- . _.. _.. __ ....• _. _.. -- _.. -- .... _... -- ... _. --$341!.00-$349.99_ ---------. ·- .. -- . _. ---- .. _-- . ----. -- --- -- --- ·- ·-- .. -- . __ -- . --- ••
$350.00-$359.99 _________________ ·--·. _·- .. -- ----. _ --- ··- --- . --- . _•. ---- .•. -- •• ·-
2
5
25
18
6
$360.00-$369.99. _____ . -- .. --- .•. --· .. -- •.. ·- ... ·-. ·- ... _-- .. -- .. -- .. ·- .•. _-- . -- •
$370.00-$379.9\L ______ • __ . __ ... _.. __ .. ___ .. _....•. __ ...... _•.•.... _... ___ . __ . __
$380.00-$389.99 _______ .. -- . --- .. _. _ ....•.. --- ....... . ....... -- ... _.... -- .... ---$390.00-$399.99 _____ . ------. _. -- . _•. ·--. --- .. _·- .. -- ...... _.. _-- .. --- .. _--- --- -$400.()0-$409.99 ______ . -- ----- _. -----. _·- •. -- -- .. _... -- . _. _. -- _.. --- ·- --- -· _-- ---
2
l
S-110.00-$419.99. --- --- .. -- . _... _. _. -- .... _...... -- -- . ·-- ... -- ... _.... -- --- -- • -- _
$420.00-$429.119 ______ --- .. -- -- • _. --- .. -- ......... _.. _. _.. _.......•..• -- ... -- . _-$430.00-$439.99 ____ . _. _. ·--- ..... _... _ .. --- ... -- .. -·· ....... -- ..... -- ..... _. -- . _
$440.00-$449.99 _____ -- -- ·- ·-- ..... -- ... -- . -- -- .. ·- --- _-- . _...• -- ...... ·- -- _.. _-$450.00-$459.99 _____ -- ------. --- .. _. -- . _. -- ... -- .. --- .. ·-· .. -- . _. _.. -- .. -- . --- . _
2
5
8
23
$41!().oo-$4il9.99 __________ ----. --- -- -- . -- -- -- . _. --- -----. _•. _. ----. _. -- --- ----- _.
$470.00-$479.99___________________________
_____ .. ·- -- -- ------- --- -- _·-.
_. -- -- -- _. _-- .. _-- . _. _·- ·- ...
$480.()()-$489.W
• ___________________________
.•. -__ ....
. ___ _.
9
6
33
Average,, 59 cities ______________________ . ________________________ ._______ l====•I====
$448. 18
$340. 30
1
Include sales tax where levied (RPP<>ndix tables 15 e.nd 16).
13
D (:]II zed by
Goog Ie
14 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
than two-thirds of the cities (table 8). Costs at the emergency level
were even more narrowly concentrated. 1
The ra.nks of cities with reference to the cost of the emergency food
budget (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13) differed somewhat from their
ra.nks for the maintena.nce budget, because the quantities of the commodities included in each budget were different. The cost range was
only slightly wider, however, though in brackets about $100 less per
year. The amount required to purchase the emergency food budget
averaged 75.9 percent of the cost of the maintenance food budget in
the 59 cities combined, but ratios varied from 78.1 percent in Spokane
to 74.1 percent in Providence (table 3).
The average cost of food in the 59 cities combined was distributed
as shown in table 9. These percentages differed '!lightly among the
separate cities as the cost of one group or another was more or less
than the average. In all the cities, however, the larger share required
for starches, sugars, and fats at the emergency than at the maintenance level reflects differences in quantity allowances in the two budgets to meet the needs of nutrition with less expensive foods. Milk,
cheese, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, fish, and eggs took a proportionately smaller share of emergency than of maintenance budget cost.
Table 9.-Percent Distribution of the Average Annual Costs 1 of Food Among the
Principal Commodity Groups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
Malntennnce Eme~ency
leYel
level
Group
Total.. ...............•......•.......... - - -··• ··· -· · ·• · • · · · · · • · • · · · · · · · · ·
100.0
100.0
Flour. cereals. and bread ..•.•.•.•.....•.•.•.....•...••.••.....................
Milk and cheese .......•..••••••••.•••.•••..•.............•..........•.........
Fm its and ve~etahles ......••.•••....•..•....•...................•.............
Lenn meat, flsh. and •~~•-·· .................................................. .
Fats, sugars, and accessories ___________________________ . __ ._ .. ___ .. _. __ .... __ ..
16. 3
23. 5
23. 2
13. 9
23.1
23. 7
16. 3
21.{
9.3
29.3
$445.52
$338. 24
Average,• 59 cities .••..•...•••..••......•.....................•..........
1
i====,1=
Do not Include sales tax where levied.
Food of all kinds was relatively expensive in Bridgeport and relatively cheap in Cedar Rapids, but the milk and cheese group and the
lean meat, fish, and egg group were well toward the extremes in the
two cities. Their costs covered a wider range among the 59 cities than
any others. Except for eggs and one meat item, however, prices of
the commodities making up these groups were more uniform than
were many other food prices. Some groups which as a whole varied
least in cost, on the other hand, were composed of commodities whose
price spreads were widest.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in collecting quotations and computing city average prices and aggregate costs, see ch. VII.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
FOOD• 15
Prices of 17 of the 44 separate commodities listed averaged over
twice as much in one city as in another (table 10).2 Each of the nine
kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables 3 priced was more than twice as
Tobie 70.-Food Commodity Price Ratios, 1 59 Cities, March 1935
Commodity
Numher of cities where priees
exceeded ± lO perc;,nt with
rrfrrrnce lo the 59•city
avrragc 1
A hove
average
Total
Relow
average
Percent
hi~hcst
price is
of lowest
price 1
---- ---Total food ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.
Flour, eeresls. and bread .•....••..•..•••....................
White flour ....•......••••..•••...•••••....•.......••...
Corn meal. .••...•...........•.•...••.....••.•..•••..•...
Rolled oats ••••...•.•....••...•....••••....•..•....•......
Hir,e ....•.•••..•.•.•.•••.•.•••.•.........................
MacaronL ..•.•..••..•.•.•.••..•..........•..............
Wbit,:, bread •••..•.•.........................•...........
Rye bread._ ....•......•.....•.........•.................
Whole wheat bread ••••••.•••..•...•.•.......•.....•...•.
Milk and cheese .••..•.•...•.•...............................
Fresl, milk .•..........•..•...............................
Can evaporated mllk .. ................................. .
Cheese ..•••••.•..•.....•...•.............................
Fruits anrl vegetables ....••..................................
Potatoes ..•••••••...••.....•.............................
Cabbage ...•••.•...•.....................................
Carrots ••••••••••••••••...•................•.............
Spinach .••••••.•....••.•.........•.......................
Lettuce________________________________________________
.••••••••••••••••.....•.....•.....................
Onions
. __
Ornn~es .........••••.....................................
Bananas (rloten) ...•.................. . ..................
Bananas (pound) ............•...•.......................
Bananas (dozen and pot:nd). ............. ......... _.... .
~r.1::1~.:::~;;;,:-i-i,eas::::::::::: ::::: :::::: :: ::::: :: ::::::::: ::
Navy beans ...••••••••••..••.............................
Pe1mut
butter .•••••.•••.......•..........................
PrunPs _______________________
. __________________________ _
Raisins .....••.••••.•.•.•.....•.•.•.•..•...............
Can tomatoes ...••••••.•••••.••.••.......•.....•.........
Can string beans ••••••••.••.•..•.••....•.•...............
Can corn ..••••••...••••••••••••.•••..•.•.•••••.•.•••.....
Lean mf'St, fish, and egw.i •••••••••••••••••.••••••..•.••..•.••
Plate beet. .............................................. .
Chuck beet.. ............................................ .
Breast of lamb •.•.........•.............................
Picnic ham .............................................. .
Can pink salmon ........................................ .
(1)
__
(I)
5
11
(0
11
28
18
21
13
13
6
17
3
13
9
9
8
7
5
23
e
15
9
12
5
6
8
13
26
(')
(•_)_
---2- ---3
(1)
12
(1)
133. 5
157. 5
2885
147. 8
20!l.6
183. 5
Iii. 6
185. 7
182.0
5
lJ'l. 7
14
11.\11. 7
119. 4
10
6
4
143. 8
7
5
18
19
21
2
24
18
13
24
19
14
II
lO
13
7
4
14
17
16
1~
lO
7
2
7
13
6
12!1. 7
31!7. 5
4.\2. 0
523. 5
421. 2
302. 5
21~ 2
•2
37
34
3.~
30
21
11
17
8
30
• 15
1 11
7
27
2,S
30
13
8
34
17
15
5
17
24
16
7
10
4
g
14
8
3
lO
11
15
18
6
g
g
30
15
25
14
10
11
15
14
7
Eggs .........•...........................................
Fat.., 1ml('lrs, and BCCe88ories ................................. .
36
I
14
Butter .•.•..••..•......•••.•..••........................
Lard ............•..•..••••...•••.................•.......
Oleomargarine ...•.....•.....•.••..............•.........
B•con ..........••............•........••.................
Snit pork .....•..••••••.•...••••.................•.•.....
9
3
16
12
18
10
Can corn syrup .••••••...•.....•.....•.•.........•.•.....
Can molasses ....••••.•....••.••....•.•.........•.........
Tea ...•.••••••••••••••.•...•.•.••...••..........••.......
Coffee ...•••••••••••••••••.••••.......••..•...............
23
29
Oranub1tl'<l SIJJ!'Rr ________________________________________ _
116. fi
31
20
7
7
3
22
(')
1
3
3
6
(')
II
10
6
lO
6
8
7
10
3
13
15
17
g
14
14
11
20f,. 3
205. 5
170. 9
2Ul
416. 7
214. 3
224. 4
147. R
172. 0
143.R
160. 7
164. 5
153.1
146.3
240. 4
184.0
184. g
139.9
137. 2
210.4
120.9
147. 0
128. 4
207.6
141. 6
160.3
134. 0
144. 0
217. 1
174. 4
150. g
1 Ratios for all totals were computed Crom maintenance level costs for a 4-person manual worker's lamlly.
The total cost or foo<I Includes sales tax where levied (uppcndix table 15); tho group totals and commoditJ
prices are without ~ales tax.
• In no city wa.~ deviation from the avern~e as murh as 10 perc..nt..
• Number of cities where prices exceeded± 10 pereent with rrfrr,•nce to the avern~e In 29 cltl!'l!.
• Number of cities where prices exceeded ±10 perccnt with relerence to the average In 30 cities.
2 Prices in all instances are compared without sales tax in order that the two
may not be confused in the measurement of intercity differences. Were the tax
where levied added to prices, the spread often would be greater than appeal"II in
the comparison without tax. The total cost of food includes sale~ tax where levied.
1 Except bananas sold by the pound.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
16 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
expensive in some cities as in others; for some of them, the top prices
were four or five times the bottom. Highest egg prices were more than
double the lowest. Com meal and rice were so cheap in some places
and so dear in others that the spread from bottom to top in the array
of 59 cities was over 100 percent. Greatest price uniformity was
found for evaporated milk and such staples as lard and granulated
sugar; most can and package goods could be bought for amounts
differing from the average by less than 50 percent wherever they were
sold; and bacon, cheese, and ham prices were fairly similar in all cities.
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF CITY ON COSTS
OF FOOD•
The cost of food was higher in New England than in any other
geographic division (appendix table 5). All commodities were
relatively expensive but the group composed of meat, fish, and eggs
was outstandingly above the average in the 59 cities combined.
Almost as much would have to be spent for food in the South Atlantic
cities as in New England, largely because of the high cost milk and
cheese group; all group costs except meat, fish, and eggs also exceeded
the average. The meat, fish, and egg group in the Middle Atlantic
cities averaged well above the 59-city average; this is the only section
except New England where this situation was found. The East North
Central cities, on the other hand, reported less than average costs
for every food group, and in several sections of the country all were
low except one group.
Most cities within each geographic division reported high or low
food costs in keeping with the area average. All the New England
cities were above the average in the group of 59 combined, and so
were all the South Atlantic cities except Richmond. Less than average costs were reported in all the East South Central cities. On
the other hand, food prices in two of the eight Middle Atlantic cities
were so high that they raised the average in that section to third
place among the geographic divisions. Among the North Central
cities there were more with low than with high costs.
Size of city apparently affects the costs of food less than does its
geographic location (appendix table 7). In 2 of the 5 cities with
1,000,000 or more population, food costs were above the average, and
in 8 of the 13 with 25,000 to 100,000 population they were also above
the average. No one size of city classification was consistently high
or consistently low, though the tendency was downward until the
smallest cities were reached. The average for this group of 13 was
higher than for any of the other classifications with less than 1,000,000
population.
0
'See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
'and size of city classifications.
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
FOOD• 17
COST DIFFERENCES
The relatively slight dispersion of food costs as a. whole among the
59 cities has 2 principal explanations. First, national advertising of
trade-marked goods, widely operating chain store systems, and the
concentration of processing and distributing functions within relatively few hands tend to standardize retail charges for certain commodities. Second, though intercity price differences for other commodities were wide, high prices were not all found in the same place,
nor .were low prices similarly concentrated. When the price of each
commodity was combined with its budget allowance and annual costs
were computed, high and low prices tended to counterbalance each
other to produce much more uniform aggregates. These two influences on food costs are seen in the fa.ct that group costs which varied
most were composed of the most similar separate commodity prices
(table 10), while commodities which showed tho widest price scattering
were combined into groups whose costs were relatively homogeneous.
Food group costs as a rule did not differ so much as the prices of any
of the commodities of which the groups were composed. Assembling
the separate costs of 44 food commodities produced totals which were
only 16.6 percent greater in the most expensive than in the least
expensive city.
Variations in the costs of the entire food budget in different sections
of the country are related to more or less all-pervasive influences. The
high cost offood in New England, for example, suggests that, in general,
not enough is produced in that area to supply the needs of its population and that charges for getting most commodities to market are
greater than in, say, the States where the production of meats, grains,
or fn1;its and vegetables is a major industry. Costs in the South
Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, and Mountain cities showed the effect of
conflicting price influences--some local and some of a more general
nature. These sections as a whole were above the average in food costs.
It cannot be said, however, that the prices of foods nationally distributed from more or less centrally located production points, or standardized by brand, as a. class were dispersed less than the prices of
commodities not so regulated, though the tendency was in that direction.' Bread prices, for example, varied somewhat more than prices
of the flour from which bread is made; can and package goods were
more uniform in price than were fresh vegetables and fruits, fresh
milk, and fresh meats, home output of which competes in varying
degrees with the supply shipped in from distant points. Local factors which are combined with those of more general application to
create the level of food prices are so numerous that an attempt to
classify them would require a study of its own, which is no part of the
5 No attempt was made to compare prices of identical brands in the separate
cities.
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
18 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
present investigation. 8 These local phases of price behavior play their
part, however, in determining the cost of food in any given city. Some
food cost differences cannot be explained at all in any generalization.
Seventeen cities reported a nonabsorbed direct consumers' tax on
all or most food commodities sold at retail in March 1935 {appendix
tables 15 and 16).7 The most common exemptions were fresh milk
and breadstufis, which were excluded from the tax in five and four
cities, respectively. In sections of the country where, in general, food
costs were highest there wa.'I no sales tax, and in Cedar Rapids where
food was cheapest there was a sales tax. Food requires so large a
part of the total cost of living, however, and its costs were so similar
in the separate cities that the addition of a sales tax to food prices
resulted in a different order in the array of food costs in the 59 cities
from that shown without the sales tax.
Though no part of the present study contemplates an analysis of
commodity prices sufficiently refined to indicate exact causal relationships, certain phases of the investigation bearing on commodity prices
must be noted to explain the dispersion of food costs as a whole.
These circumstances relate to specifications, to the seasonal factor in
food prices, and to the problem arising in some cities because the date
to which prices relate was some weeks earlier than the date on which
they were collected.
All commodities were priced by specification. Specifications for
· food have been standardized more definitely than for most consumers'
goods. Alternatives which were permitted in this study for certain
articles, however, might well account for some of the price spread.
For example, certain States have standards of their own for strictly
fresh eggs, which were used instead of the U.S. grades; prices of plate
beef were for the best cut of the best grade of beef handled, with the
bone in, but such a specification covers a wide range of meat grade
as well as a varying proportion of bone, depending on the method of
cutting used. 8 A diversity of grades was possible within many of
the other specifications. Oleomargarine 9 might be either animal or
6 An analysis of intracity price variations, which takes into account factors
connected with marketing, has been made as a special Works Progress Administration project by Professor John H. Cover, of the University of Chicago, who
supervised the collection and tabulation of prices for the present study.
7
The local sales tax in the city of New York is not levied on food, except mealis
in restaurants costing $1 or more.
8 The methods of cutting meat for retail sale vary considerably in different
parts of the country.
9 An oleomargarine tax varying from 5 cents to 15 cents per lb. was effective
in 23 cities, but in only 7 of them did the price of tJ-,is commodity Yary 10 percent or more from the average in the 59 cities combined, suggesting that the tax
accounted but little for price differentials. Failure to secure any quotations for
oleomargarine in three cities, on the other hand, may have been caused by prohibitive taxes or license fees which excluded this commodity from the market.
D (JI' 7ed by
Goog IC
FOOD•
19
nut vegetable; prices of commodities sometimes sold in bulk and
sometimes in packages or cans, such as lard, butter, coffee, tea,
molasses, ceree.ls, and dried fruits, were obtained in units of varying
size, according to the usue.l method of sale. Some fresh fruits and
vegetables were priced by size rather than by weight: number of
oranges, of heads of lettuce, or of bunches of carrots to the crate;
and not one number but a limited r&nge was specified. That the size
of these commodities must have varied considerably is suggested by
the fact that the price spread of bananas sold by the pound was
considerably less than of bananas sold by the dozen (table 10).
Most food dealers carry only one kind of certain merchandise at a
time, and the price quoted was necessarily for the commodity in stock
on the day of the report. Often neither the shopkeeper nor the field
agent could tell exactly what its specifications were. Prices of fresh
fruits and vegetables varied most among the separate cities; quotations for these commodities on any day depend e.lmost entirely on the
available supply, for such perishables soon lose all value if they are not
sold. Supply in tum is related to the see.sons and to shipments
received in the market each day. Prices were obtained in March
1935 in cities where summer had already come as well as in those where
winter still lingered. Thus, various degrees of seasonality were embodied in the quotations reported from different parts of the country.
To those circumstances which genuinely influence food prices as
paid by the consumer there must be added, as an explanation of the
very wide spread in quotations for some commodities, the fact that
prices were not taken on an identical day in all 59 cities. Reports in
46 of them were secured on March 12 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics through its regular channels; in some of the 13 others, where
prices were collected for the first time for this investigation, the study
sta.rted 6 weeks or 2 months after the middle of March, to which date
prices referred. Food prices vary greatly from day to day and few
dealers have a record of what the customer paid on any given date;
when queried on the subject they must depend largely on memory for
the answer. It is significant that the spread of prices among the 13
cities where quotations were not collected on March 12 was much
greater, for the most part, than among the 46 where quotations were
furnished on the identical day to which they applied. The apparent
biases did not run in the same direction for all co~modities in seven1l
cities, with the result that their reported intercity price ranges were
very wide. The resulting price dispersions may overstate the true
spread for the separate commodities.
In the last analysis, however, so sensitive are retail food prices to
the influence of any circumstance which affects the flow of commodities to the dealer's shelves and so quickly can changes in his costs be
passed on to the consumer that quotations for a single item on a given
D (JI' 7ed by
Goog IC
20 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
day may in no sense be representative. Prices of a large number of
items combined with their quantity allowances, however, are likely
to measure satisfactorily prevailing food costs. The in-season period
is not identical for all commodities, and seldom do all prices tend to
be high or low at the same time. The inclusion of 44 separate foods
in the quantity budgets provides a wide field within which high and
low prices may cancel, so that the cost of all combined is fairly
uniform.
Under some circumstances home production of certain commodities
may reduce food costs, but in urban communities property occupied
by working class families as a rule does not provide facilities for either
gardens or livestock. It should be remembered, however, that the
foodstuffs listed in the quantity budgets are samples for which substitutions can and will be made at no sacrifice of nutritive satisfaction.
Thus, individual families may keep down their expenditures for food
by purchasing each day those articles in the separate food groups
which at the time offer the best value. 10 No other necessity of living
can be supplied through so varied a choice.
10 Sometimes a small percentage of the cost of a synthetic food budget is added
to provide for waste, unwise purchases, and the like. This procedure was not
followed in the present calculations, both because the allowances in the budgets
for food accessories are liberal and because prices were obtained from all kinds
of stores rather than from only those where quotations usually are cheapest.
Digitized by
GoogIe
Chapter Ill
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP,
AND PERSONAL CARE
THE ANNUAL costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care
covered a wider range among the 59 cities included in this investigation than the comparable outlays necessary for food, but still varied
within relatively narrow limits. The [most expensive city was Butte,
where $214.54 was required to purchase the maintenance budget
for a four-person manual worker's family, and the cheapest was Dallas,
where $162.09 was necessary (appendix table 2); relatively, these goods
and services together cost 32.4 percent more in Butte than in Dallas.
Their average cost in the 59 cities combined was $184.35, an amount
which was exceeded in 27 cities and not reached in 32 (fig. 4). The
highest cost exceeded the average by 16.4 percent and the lowest was
less by 12.1 percent (appendix table 3). In 47 of the 59 cities the
costs of the maintenance clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care
budget were between $170 and $200 per year (table 11). Emergency
budget costs had a similar range in lower cost groups. 1
The average cost of the emergency budget for clothing, clothing
upkeep, and personal care in the 59 cities combined was about $56
less per year than the average cost of the maintenance budget, a
ratio of 69.5 percent (table 3). The percentage which the emergency
budget cost was of the maintenance budget cost varied only slightly
among the 59 cities, from 70.6 percent in Salt Lake City to 68.5 percent in Scranton. Ranks of cities in the emergency cost array (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13) were not always identical with those in the
maintenance cost array, owing to the differences in quantity allowances of the goods and services in the two budgets, but such shifts
were slight.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic 2Uaintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in collecting quotations and computing city average prices and aggregate costs see ch. VII.
21
Dql
zedbyGooglc
TOTAL
CLOTHING
cO
40
60
CLOTHING UPKEEP
..,,..,
P"'c...,1
0
90
TOO
120
O
;:...__
;::....~
4 0\
60
_;_,;;.c-..:;=-.~..:;::~
PERSONAL CARE
_;::;c:...,.._;;
9 .it1,, ua,,,
~
( 'fr"91at>d, C)l,io
Son fronc,Ko, COM
5o;.)t.Ol'>f . llln)II
L O'\ A"'-1 le1 , Co hl
u,, ..OJlo u w,,
Po, 11ond, b111rc;i
0
..,
r
c,, ,.
5@!! Lai t
Utol'I
M ~PQ/o \ , MIM .
F'(;, lfond , t.<ltl •nt
()e 1, 01 1, W,c l'I.
<
z
(. ~.,oqo,,11
~111, , Wot"
;~~,•:.o::-;.:~~H,
p
Vo.
~ ,c: m,,ond ,
5,c,,,u foll 1, S . Oalt.
P 1to110, I II
0 0111,)l'l
l ..c l.Of'',
Mon .
VI
,0
AHi
Sc.• or,•on. Po
C<l' Ja< S<oo.,d s , IOtl'O
(.oh....,tM.,(),>0
C tll(.1...-.0 1, Qn ,o
'=i"'
Bu lt,:it.;) , t./_ y
ui
~~.:t~! b-w Vo .
Po.
P ,n \b<,,Ql>,
o-iorvno
c,,,.
o,,.,,..... , (.(,lo
°''°·
-..on<t'•n fer , N H
8' l<l~ t COIWI
Ho,n •on, f , ,
~'o,,~~.
8 •"'9hom 1on ~, 'f .
s,
0
c.o·
;=;c
i'i"
(I)
a.
IT
'<
C')
0
-
~
rv
Mo
Lou, ,
:;,~t~-,~.l•;tNC
Lou, , ,,.,111 , 1< 1
lr<l,ot\Cpol, s , lnd
P..o100, 1D11•0, Pa
~
IOI ~ , VO
Yt ,(.l'U IO, i<.!ln t
Mltrnon,, ,
r......
0
Joc; il ~ l .. ,F lo
rw-. 0< ieon1, L.o
~
"°"°
•
'"'
Yo, ~ , f4T .
L•lll t AocJo A, ,
l( r,o n ,llt, T't rn
9 ,, m.,nqhom, Alo
P10,,><k,nte , R I
~;f'"~ 't·
Alla r, lo,Gc:i
El Po.o, Tt ■
C,ot.. mti,o , S C
~ ! f ,4IO
0ouo, , Tu
FIG 4-RELATIVE COSTS Of CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, ANO PERSONAL CARE, 4-PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY, 59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Maintenance Level
(A..,,oge, 59 t ilies • 100)
Af·211 ~, W.P.A.
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE •
23
To&le 11.-Annual Costs 1 of Clothing, Clothing Upkeep, and Personal Care, 4-Person
Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
TotaL •.•.•.....•............•............••.........••.................
59
$1:/0.00-$12\U/9 .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• __ •••••• _••••••• _••• - ••••••••••••• _
$1 '10.00-$139. 99 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - • -· - •••••••••• • •••••••••• - - •••• $140.00-$149. 99 •••••••••• _--· •••••••• -- • -·. -- -· -· -·-- .• _••••••••• _••• -··· •••••••
$150.00-$169.W••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••
13
7
1
59
,---$110.00-$119.99 .••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ---- ---······················-·······
$160.00-$169.99 •••••••••• -· ••••••.••. _. -· -· •• -··· -·- •..• -- -· •••••••• -· ·- -- •••••••
$170.00-$179.00 •••••••••••• -··· ••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$180.00-$189. 00 •••••• -···· •••••••••••. _•• _••••• ··•· •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$190.00-$199. 99 •••••••••••••••••••••••. -- •• -· •• __ ••.•.••• -- ••••••••••.••••••••••
$200.00-$209. 99 •• _. -- -- •••••••••••••••••••• ·-- ••••••••••••••••••• _••••••••••••••
$210.00-$219.99 •• ·- -·- •••••• _•••••••••••••••• ·--- •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·- •••
11
71
5
18
19
10
5
2
l====,I=
Average,• 59 cities .. ··················-······-···-·······-··············.
$184.35
$128. 05
t Include BBles tu where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
The proportions of average annual cost of this major budget group
attributable to each of its subgroups are shown in table 12. Clothing
includes 90 commodities separately priced in all cities plus an identical money allow.ance in each for articles usually sold for the same
amount everywhere in the chain limited price variety stores; clothing
upkeep includes 7 services separately priced and an identical allowance
in each city for other items; personal care includes 1 commodity and 4
services separately priced and an identical allowance in each city for
other items. The percentages taken by the different subgroups were
not the same in all cities, but the range within which they varied as
prices varied was limited. Identical money allowances accounted for
10.8 percent of the average cost of the group as a whole at the maintenance level in the 59 cities, 7.1 percent of clothing cost, 11.5 percent
of clothing upkeep cost, and 32.4 percent of personal care cost.
To&le Jf.-Percent Distribution of the Average Annual Costs I of Clothing, Clothing
Upkeep, and Personal Care Among the Principal Commodity and Service Groups,
4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Maintenance Emel'l(encJ
level
level
Group
100.0
100.0
~~~~ ~:~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
79. I
7.4
13.5
78. 3
9.3
12.4
Average,• 59 cities .•••..•••••.•••.........• ___ .••••••••..... _...... _____ _
$184. 35
$128. 05
Total .•.•..•.......•....•.•...•••.. -··-·· -·-· ·· ·- -----··- ------ ·•· ···· ·· Clothing .... _.............•.••..................... ______ •.•.. ______ . ____ .•...
• Include sales
w
where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
CLOTHING
Clothing costs considered separately showed practically the same
spread as when combined with outlays necessary for clothing upkeep
a2:;92•-ss-4
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
24 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
and personal care. The most expensive city for this subgroup was
Cleveland, in which 31.9 percent more was required for clothing at
the maintenance level than in Dallas. Thirty dollars per year
measures most of the cost variation among the cities (table 13).
Tol,/e 13.-Annual Costs I of Clothing, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Number of clti~
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
TotaL.__________________ ____ ____ ___ _____ ____ ____ ______ ___ _______________
59
.!II
SS0.00-$89.99 ___________________________________________________________________ , - - - - i - - - - 3
$90.00-$99.99 ______________ ----- ---- -- --- -- _---- __ --- _-- __ --- -- _----- --- -- -- _-- _
$100.00-$109.99_____________ ______ ____ __ __ ___ _____ ______ __ ___ __ ___ _____ ____ _____
$110.00-$119.99 ______________________________________________________________ . __
$120.00-$129.99 ________ -- --- _-- -- ___ • _-- . ________ -- _- -- - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
28
Ill
II
2.
$130.()()-$139.99 ___ -- -------. --- ·- ·-. ·- --- ·-· _--- _. -·. ·-. ----. --- _--- __ -- __ --- _..
15
$140.()()-$149.9\l ________ --- ----- --- .. --- -- . ----- _-- _. ------. ----- __ . _-- _. ---- -- ..
25
$150.00-$159.99 _____ ··-. -- _. ----·. -- .. _-- --- __ -- __ ---- ... --- __ -- .. -- _---- _-- -- . .
10
$160.()()-$169.99 _________________________________________________________________ 1==';~,s;;
7=i==';~';;a
Average,' 59 cities_______________________________________________________
$145. 93
$1()().
23
• Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
The annual costs of clothing in the 59 cities combined averaged
$145.93; 26 cities exceeded this amount and 33 were less. Men's,
women's, boys', and girls' budgets showed varying degrees of cost
similarity, and quotations for individual articles varied most of all
(table 14).2
Prices of most men's garments differed by less than 100 percent
between the lowest and highest cities. Work socks, house slippers,
and wool work shirts, however, which had the widest price ranges,
showed average spreads of about 167 p~rcent, 121 percent, and 104
percent, respectively. The dearest city for business shirts, overalls,
winter union suits, and cotton pajamas, on the other hand, was not
50 percent above the cheapest. When the entire men's clothing
budget for a year is considered, the difference between its smallest
and largest value was only 36 percent.
A price range of 100 percent or more between tlie least expensive
and most expensive cities appeared for the following articles in the
women's clothing budget: kimonos, handbags, wool sweaters, wool
dresses, cotton house dresses, and summer hats; quotations for
several other garments approached 100 percent differentials. A
combination of the prices of all women's garments and accessories
·with the quantity of each necessary per year produced a cost difference of only 37.3 percent between the lowest and the highest cities.
1 Prices in all instances are compared without sales tax in order that the two
may not be confused in the measurement of intercity differences. Were the taJ:
where levied added to prices, the spread often would be greater than appears in
the comparison without tax. All totals except for men's, women's, boys', and
girls' clothing include sales tax where levied.
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE• 25
Tol,/e 14.-Clothing, Clothing Upkeep, and Personal Care Commodity and Service Price
Ratios, 1 59 Cities, March 1935
Commodity or !!Crvloo
Numh<'r of cities where prices
exceeded ±10 percent with
reference to the 69-city
average 1
Above
average
Total
Total• clothing, clothing upkeep, and pel'l!Onal care__.
g
7
---- ---JO
7
Clothing•·------································-·-····
---- ----
Men'• clothing .•••••••.•...•.............•..•......••.•• ·-·-·
Winter overcoat ......................................... .
Winter suit .••.••.........•.........•..............•.•••.
Summer suit .••••••••............................••••••••
Wool sweater ........................................... .
Work trousers·-··············•·••························
Bn81ness shirt ........................................... .
Cotton work shirt ...•...................•.......•.•.•....
Wool work shirt ......................................... .
Overalls..•. _•.•.......................................••.
Jumper .. -------······· ................................. .
Wlntn union snit ....................................... .
Summer union suit .....•........•........................
Flannelette pajamas .................................... .
Cotton pajamas ...•.••........ . ..............•...........
Cotton dress socks ...................................... .
Cotton work socks ...................................... .
Felt hat.·-······· .•.•.........................•.....••...
Straw hat._··-······· ••.........................•.•......
Wool cap ........................................••••.....
Leather street gloves ........••....•.•....••...•••••••••..
9
22
20
19
29
32
fl
7
13
JO
18
8
29
13
16
6
5
40
131.11
136.0
158.11
173. 2
158. 4
192.6
170.0
9
16
17
4
g
5
6
g
132. 4
2
9
JO
10
28
23
23
21
2
3
10
13
15
18
26
12
13
9
18
Below
average
Percent
highe.st
price is of
lowest
price I
2
g
16
7
7
JO
16
10
4
g
141.3
153. 3
204.3
148.4
153.5
142. 1
166.5
174. 8
13:!. 3
152. 8
19
13
11
13
12
21
15
12
10
267.3
161. 3
170. 8
Jr.2. 4
161.3
13
9
8
15
I
184. 7
l/i6. 5
165. 9
221.0
163.4
g
Cotton work irloves ...............................•..•••
Oxfords .....••••...............................•.....•.•.
Work shoes ..•.•......•................................•.
House slippers ••.....................................•...
Rubbers .•••••••..•.............•..................•.•••.
28
4
15
10
7
13
3
Women's clothing• ....................................••••••.
Winter coat ..•.•••.................... . ...............•..
Ill
27
10
14
13
~l.'~'j~:e!~i-·:::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::: :::: ::::::::::::::
21
88
34
32
11
JO
Cotton street dress ....................................•..
Cotton house dre.ss •..............................•.•••••.
Dress slip ...•.•. ·••-··· ..........................••.••...
Corset .. _••..••..........................................
Brassiere •••..•.••••.............•....................••..
31
13
36
27
5
I~
13
28
11
17
186. 5
210. 9
IAA.8
186.9
196.4
Bloomers or panties ..............................•...•••.
Winter union suit ..............................•...•••••.
Flannelette nightirown ...........................•...•.•.
Cotton nightgown ............................•...•...•...
Bathrobe...•.•••.•...............•.........•.....•.•••••.
30
23
19
32
25
15
10
15
13
10
16
14
184. 4
16.l. 8
148. 4
100. U
181.6
Kimono •...............................................•.
Cotton stockings ..•......................................
Silk stockings •...........................................
Winter hat ...••................ . .........................
Summer bat. ••••.•......................................
21
22
38
28
11
11
21
16
10
237. 2
174. 2
193. 8
172. 2
205.2
Fabric irloves .•••.....••...............................•..
Street shoes ...••..•.•..............................•.••••
Bouse slippers •••........................................
Galoshes .........••.•....................................
Cotton umbrella .•••.............•...........•........•..
Handbag •••••••••••....•.................................
19
23
15
7
19
32
10
11
5
2
JO
16
157. 8
165. 7
161. 6
164. 2
l.'\5. 2
229. 2
2
6
13
15
7
13
134. U
132. 4
IR7. 6
190. 9
Jh2. 2
Wool dress .••••...•.............................•.....•.•
Silk dress •••.•••••.••.....••..................••...•••...
Boys' clothing• ......•...•...................•...........••..
t~r:i~~~~~~~.~t_-_-.-:::::
:: ::::: :: ::::::::: :::: :::: ::::::
Winter suit·--·-··········· ........ . . ................... .
Wool sweater ....••.•.....................................
Corduroy slacks.•.•.....................................•
See footnotes at end of tnble.
19
15
28
23
18
13
17
20
13
18
8
20
g
16
11
JO
11
17
12
13
9
12
10
5
g
16
8
fl
25
32
14
3
12
17
7
16
g
29
fl
21
15
14
D qi' ,ed by
137.3
100.8
174.1
224.11
212. 7
177. 4
233. 3
Goog Ie
26 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
To&le 74.--Clothing, Clothing Upkeep, and Personal Care Commodity and Service Price
Ratios, 59 Cities, March 1935--Continued
Commodity or ..-rvlce
NumbPr or cities where prlr,s
exoe,ded ±10 percent with
re fcre nee to lhe 59-city
average t
Above
average
Total
Below
average
PerN'nt
hi~hest
price ls
of lowest
price I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----11----Boys' clothing l-('ontfnued.
Cotton slacks_----------------- _________ . _______________ .
Cotton shirt_ ____________ .-·-----·---·---·---- ___ .·-. __ ..
Overnlls ........ ·-· ·---- ·---- ·----. _. ·----· ... ·- ·--. __ ... .
Winter union sult.---·----·--·-·-····----··--·-·-·····- ..
Summer union sult •• __ . ___ ·-----·--·--·----·--·---·---··
Flannelette pajamas _____________ ... _·-·-·-. ___ ... ___ ·- ..
Cotton pajamas. ___ .·----··------··•··-------··---··-·- ..
Winter cap .. _______ .-------·---··.··-····--· ___ ·-·--··· ..
~xfo~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Canvas sport shoes.·-----···-----···-·-·---··--··---··-.
Rubbers ____ . --- . ---- ·- .. ·-·. ____ .. - ---·- -· ---· ·- ·- --- ...
Girls' clothing'·-------··--.·-- .. ·- __ ... ··-·-._---··--·--·- ..
Winter coat.·---- __ ._.·- .. _____ ._ ...... __ ·-.·- - . - ·- _-· _..
Spring coat.-----·---·-···-··---··---·-···-·····-·····-··
Wool sweater-----·---··-·-·---···-·-·-·--··-·····-···--·
Rilk dress.--·-- .. _·- ....... - . -- . - . ·-- --·. -- ...• ·- .. ·- ... Cotton dress _____ ... ·-.··-··--··-·-·-··--·.·-···-·-···- ..
Wool ~kirt__····--·---··---···---···-··--·---··--········
Cotton hlouse ___ ... ·- ··--. _... _______ .. --· _·- -· ·- ____ .. -·
Cotton dress sl!p.-·--------·· --·-···----··-··----·----· ..
Rloomers or panties._ ...... ·--·-···-·--·- .. ···----··-····
Winter union suit._·-···-·-···-·-···--·····--·-·-·---·· ..
Summer union suit..--·-··------·-- .... ··-···-·--·.---··
Flannelette ni~htgown_ ---··---- ·----·•·--· ·-·-•-·····-··
Cotton nightgown_._.·---···----··--- .. ··-· .. ·-··--·-·· ..
Cotton stockings .. _.. ----··.·---•·-·---·--····---··-····Socks. __ -------·------ .. -·- .. ·-. _... _____ .. __ .•. _. ··- ....
Winter hat.·-·--·--·---·-·-· --- . ··-··--·· ··--. ·-- .. ·-··· .
Summer hat.------·-·---···-·-·-·---··--·-···--··-·---··
~x1~~s~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Pumps·-·-----···----·-··--····----····--···---·--·······
Sneakers .... _____ ·- .. __ . ___ ·--· .. _·--- .. ______ . ______ .·-·
Galoshes_·--·.·-- .. __ .-· __ . _____ ·-.·- ___ . ___ . --- . ·-- .- ...
Clothing upkeep'··--·-----------·------·--._-·. __ . __ ..
Cleaning and pressing:
Men's suit __ ------------------------------- _____________ .
Women's dress ... ____________________ .--·-·_ •. __________ .
Women's coat._·--·.·-- .. _··--·._ .. __ ·-·-.·-- .. _. __ ..... .
Shoe repairs:
Men·s half soles and heels .. ···--·-------·----·········· ..
Women's hall soles and heel•·-·-·--·-----····-··-··-·····
Women's heels only_··-·--··-·-------··--·--··--·-··· ....
Girls' hull soles and heel•·-----····--·-··-··-·-····-·--· ..
Jg
JO
15
17
16
14
20
ZI
38
15
6
6
7
8
g
6
12
13
20
10
II
4
0
3
II
6
10
12
13
15
22
22
28
35
ZI
13
4
8
9
190. ll
l;',O. 8
148. 8
163.
7
156.8
8
8
n
145.3
14
18
5
lS.1. 1
200. 3
319. 2
157.11
4
3
134. 2
H7.6
5
137. 7
219.
216. 2
210. 4
253. I
197. I
12
10
15
20
14
13
16
12
10
11
12
23
Ill
18
7
32
16
11
16
12
8
n
14
219. 3
2:ll.8
187. 2
12
15
20S. 1
168. 2
11
16
16
10
8
:m.8
2'!4. 8
252. II
HlQ. II
40
34
29
16
19
18
18
15
9
9
22
2.,7. 8
252. 7
10
'
161. ti
170.11
g
6
5
4
2
203. II
JO
200. 7
39
31
24
Z!
r.
r.
2'l
4
---- =
21
11
---- ----
16
H
196. 5
2i2.8
IH.4
39
36
36
rn
23
14
15
21
327. 2
2J9. 1
2.,5. 7
30
30
34
24
13
13
16
g
17
210.6
---- ----
1:i
8
Personal care•-_·--··----·-·--·-------·------··-•-- ...
---- ---Haircut:
16
35
Men's·-----·-------------·--·-···•··--•-----------------,,.
omen's. ________ -·- ______________ -·------ _________ --· __ _
24
22
17
21~).3
IS
15
224. 0
234. 2
5
137. 3
19
13
2'2
1112. 3
192. 3
Zl0.4
34
11
12
Halrwsve:
\\'on1en's ...•. _. _________________________________________ _
30
13
Ji
239.4
Toilet soap ... ·-· ........ ·····--·· ............ -·······-··· ... -
9
6
3
155.0
Oirls'----·-·---·-·-------··------·······--·-·-·-·---·····
Ratios for all totals were computed from malntenanc-3 level costs for a 4-person manual worker's family.
Except for men's, women's, hoys', and girls' clothin~. the group totals Include sales t11x where levied (ap•
pernllx tahle 15); commodity and service prices are without sales tax. Prices or commodities or services used
In valuing more th11n I hmlget are shown only once.
• lnelucles an identical allowance in 11!1 cities lor items not '"'PBrnl.ely prie<"d, 1\8 well a.• prices for the item,
listed which were priced in each city, combined with their <Jll!UII ity allowances in tho m:iintouanoo bud!lot.
1
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE • 27
The widest price variation among the 59 cities for any single garment in the 4 separate clothing budgets appeared for boys' wool
gloves; the largest city average was 219.2 percent more than the
smallest. Corduroy slacks and winter caps were conspicuous in the
breadth of their price ranges. Such commodities as canvas sport shoes
and sheep-lined jackets, on the·other hand, showed relatively small
price differences among the cities. For the boys' clothing budget
as a whole, the highest annual cost was 34.9 percent above the lowest.
More items in the girls' wearing apparel budget showed wide
price ranges than in the other three clothing budgets. Of the 22
commodities priced, 14 cost more than twice as much in the highest
as in the lowest city; and of the other 8, prices of 7 varied nearly as
much. Orily girls' sneakers cost less than half·as much again in the
most expensive as in the least expensive city. When combined with
annual quantity allowances, these wide commodity price differences
were so compensated, however, that for the girls' clothing budget
as a whole 37. 7 percent more was required in the highest than in the
lowest cost city.
CLOTHING UPKEEP
The costs of clothing upkeep covered a much wider range, relatively,
than the original costs of the garments, judged by the amounts which
would have to be spent for shoe repairs, cleaning and pressing, and
such supplies as shoe polish, thread, pins, and the like. Most was
required for this purpose in Butte, $21.82, where annual outlay necessary was practically twice that required in New York, $10.87, the least
expensive city. The average annual cost in the 59 cities combined
was $13.55. As appears from table 15, Butte prices were not repreTat,le 15.-Annual Costs
I
of Clothing Upkeep, 4-Per,on Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
Numher of cities
Annual rost
MeJntennnce Emergency
level
level
Total.. .•.....•.•....•...•.........................•.........•••.•.......
69
611
$9.()()-$9.911 .........•.••....••.... _...•. _........ _•.• _••......... _•.••••••..... _
$10.()0-$10.99 .....•.....•......••••....•....•...•••.••••••••••.•••.•.•••.. ••·•·
$11.00-$11.99 .........••.......•..•...••.•...•....•••.•.•••......•..••. ········$1 °.00-$12.99 .••••••••••••. ··• ••••••••. ·•·· •.••••••••••••.••.••.••.•••••••••••••
$13.00-$13.99 ••••••••.•••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••.
1
7
Ill
14
16
19
4
7
$1 t.00-$14.99 .•••••••.••••••••••••••..••••.•••••••••••..• __ ·•• .• ·•• •••••••••••••
$1 ,1.00-$15.99..................•.. •·· ... ····•· •··· ..... -...... ·•· •.. •·•·•· .••••.
$Jfl.00-$16.99 .•••••••• _.•••.••.•••••• -.••• - ••...•. ··•. · .. · ···•· · · · • .• • · · · •••••••
$17.00-$17 .99 .••••••••••••.•..•..••••••••••••••••••••........••..•.•...••••••••.
$18.00-$18.99 .••••.••••.••••••••••••••••.••••..•••. ··• .••••••••••• ••···· •••••••.
6
2
9
II
3
2
2
$ 19.00-$19.00 ..•.••......................•........•..•..................•.•.•...
$20.00 ·$20.99 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...••..••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••.
$21.00-$21.99 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••.•••••.••••••••..•.••••.•••••
Average,• 50 cities .•••...................................................
1
$13.55
$11.88
Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Dql
zedbyGooglc
28 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
sentative, and clothing upkeep costs, as a rule, fell within a narrow
range. There were more cities in which prices were below the average
than above.
Prices charged for shoe repairs were extremely diverse and highest
quotations exceeded lowest by 100 percent or more (table 14). For
cleaning and pressing services even wider price ratios were common.
PERSONAL CARE
Prices of barber and hairdressing services, soap, and other toilet
supplies combined with their quantity allowances produced an average annual personal care cost in the 59 cities combined of $24.87.
The highest city was Butte, $29.32, and the lowest, Wichita, $21.36.
The excess was 37.3 percent, and many more cities reported below
than above average costs (table 16). Only two of the five items
separately priced were at least twice as high in the most expensive
as in the least expensive city (table 14).
Ta&le 16.-Annual Costs 1 of Personal Care, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Number of cities
Annu11l cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
Total ________________________________ ------------------------------------
59
59
$14.00-$14.00 .•. ________________________________________________________________ 1 - - - - · 1 - - - - I I
$15.00-$15.W- ____ . __ . __________________ . ___________________ -- ___________ --- -- __
24
$16.0(}-$16.W. __________________________________________________ ---- - ----------17
$17.00-$17.W-. ______ . ____ . ___ . __ . _____________ . ___________________ . _____ _____ __
7
2
$18.00-$18.W- __ .. _______________________________ . ___ _______ ________ _______ ___ __
$19.00-$19.00.
--- . --- _. ------.
-- _••--------- ---- ------- --- _•
$20.CM)-$20.W. ____
.. -___--. -______
. ______ --------------• ________________
_______________________
$21.00-$21.W. _______ . ______ • ---- ____ --- ________ --------- -- _____ . - --- --- -------.
$:!'2.lM>-$2'2.W. __ .. ______ . _-- __ ••• __ . _••• -- • _. __ -- • ---- __ •• ____ - • --- • __ ______ ___ _
$:.!3.00-$:.!3.9Q _____ . ______________ . ___ . ____ -- ____ ---- __ • ____ . _________ ----------$24.00-$21.99 _. _-- __ -- _. -- -- _________ . _-- _____ -- ____ . _______ -- ________ --- _--- _. _
$2.5.Qn-$2.'i.W. ______ ••• ________________ --------------- •• -------------------- ___ •
$2fl.lM)-$~.gg ______ . ___ ... ____ . _______ . _____________ ... __ . __ ____ ___ __ _____ ______
$27.()(>-$27.W. _______ •. __ • --- ----. - --- __ . ------. -- - • --- • __ - -------- -----. --- • --$28.(M>-$28.\Jll. __ --------- ----- -----. -- _----. --- --- -- -- --- • --- • ------------. ----.
$29.00-$29.111) _____ ----. ------- -- -- ---- -------- --- --- ---- -- -- -- ------------------
2
4
18
13
6
7
3
3
3
1 = = = =1===~
A verage, 1 59 cities. __ . _____________________ . ____ -------------. ________ _
$24.87
$15. 113
0
t
Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF CITY ON COSTS
OF CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE 1
Larger sums were required to purchase the clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care budgets in the Mountain and Pacific Areas
than in any other section of the country (appendix table 5). Every
city in these geographic divisions except Denver reported costs ex1 See table I, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE• 29
ceeding the average in the 59 cities combined, and 5 of the 7 cities
with total annual maintenance budget values above $200 per year
were located here. The costs of this major budget group were low in
all sections of the South. Of the 20 cities in the South Atlantic,
East South Central, and West South Central Divisions only 2 had
costs as great as or more than the average in the 59 cities combined.
Outlays necessary for the principal subgroups showed much the
same dispersions as for the three combined. Clothing was definitely
expensive in the Pacific States and definitely cheap in the Southern
cities. In other sections of the country high and low cost clothing
was found, though in the North Central and Mountain States there
were more places where it was above than below the average.
The cost of clothing upkeep was high everywhere west of the
Rockies except in Los Angeles and was correspondingly low in most
of the Southern cities. Costs in the other geographic divisions varied.
Personal care was uniformly more expensive than the 59-city
average in all the Pacific and the smaller Mountain cities. Charges
were high in the East North Central cities except in Detroit. Costs
in the West North Central cities as a gr(?up averaged the lowest found
anywhere, and all cities in the group except Cedar Rapids were below
the average in the 59 cities combined. Personal care for the most part
was cheap in the South.
Size of city apparently had no effect on the combined or separate
costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care, except that the
outlay necessary for clothing upkeep went up as the size of the cities
went down (appendix table 7). Clothing and personal care costs were
erratic among the five size of city classifications. Services were
relatively less expensive than commodities in the largest cities, but
for the group as a whole no relationship of any significance apparently
can be attributed to size of city as such.
COST DIFFERENCES
The costs of outfitting a four-person manual worker's family with
clothing and keeping its members clean and presentable varied
slightly less than twice as much as did the costs of food. The considerable uniformity in the outlays necessary for these goods and services,
wherever purchased, seems to have occurred because similar stocks of
certain commodities at comparable prices are found everywhere in
chain limited price variety stores; and because no matter how widely
dispersed prices of other goods and services were, they never were all
low or all high in the same place. Tendencies toward dispersion
result from regional differences in charges for shipping commodities
from producers to retailers, and from the existence of natural differentials based on climate and the standard of living whose influence
was not eliminated by specifications. These general suggestions for
explaining cost differences do not preclude the possible existence of
Dql
zedbyGooglc
30 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
peculiar local situations connected with the cost of doing business,
intracity competition, and the like, which in a particular community
may go far toward determining whether or not it is an expensive place
in which to buy.
About one-tenth of the average cost of -the maintenance budget for
clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care in the 59 cities combined
was accounted for by $19.80, plus sales tax where levied, to cover the
cost of chain limited price variety store merchandise and incidentals
which were not specified. The stabilizing effect of being able to purchase the same commodities for the same price in any part of the
country is particularly noticeable in the case of personal co.re; nearly
one-third of the average annual cost of this maintenance budget
subgroup was for such items.
A total of 102 goods and services• in the budgets for clothing,
clothing upkeep, and personal co.re was separately priced in each city;
for many of them city averages varied widely from place to place.
Specifications for these items described inexpensive merchandise,
such as usually is purchased by industrial, service, and other m11.D.ual
workers of small means. Some of these specifications were more
exact than others, in the nature of the case, and it is possible that
part of the intercity price diversity of clothing, just as of food, is
attributable to the fact that quotations for identical goods and services were not always obtained. It never happened that all prices were
extreme in any one place, however, no matter how much more or less
than the average in the 59 cities combined the purchaser might have
to pay for specific items. When the city average price of each was
combined with its designated annual allowance as given in the quantity budgets and these costs were totaled, the spread between cities
was greatly reduced. Hence, there was more cost uniformity for the
group than was found for any of its separately priced component
elements. 5
All differences were not obliterated by this tendency toward highlow cost balancing, which was not half so effective as in the case of
food, though prices of more than twice as many items were combined.
Families in Butte or Cleveland required nearly one-third more for
clothing and its upkeep and for the personal core of four individuals
thon in Dallas or Mobile, but among most of the cities cost differences
were limited to a range of only half this ratio.
The great centers of the clothing industry for the most part are
east of the Mississippi River, but production of garments in which
fashion is not a primary consideration and no great skill is required
'Excluding duplications used in more than one subgroup.
a Except for sheep-lined jackets, for which the price spread without the sales
tax was identical with that for the costs of the group as a whole, which include
the tax.
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
CLOTHING, CLOTHING UPKEEP, AND PERSONAL CARE•
31
is more generally scattered. Thus, advertised "prices slightly higher
west of the Mississippi" or "west of Denver," to cover the great.er
cost of bringing gannents or materials from factory to retailer, are
indicated in the somewhat larger outlays for clothing quite generally
found to be necessary west of the Rockies and in certain of the West
North Central cities. Possibly, also, some of the cheapest merchandise sold in or near the places where it is made never finds its way
to remote places because of high shipping costs.
Above average clothing costs reported in most of the cities in the two
North Central Divisions and in certain New England and Middle
Atlantic cities may result, however, more from their winter weather
than from their distance from the wholesale markets. Even with the
quantity budgets priced everywhere by uniform specifications, clothing
locally sold seems to be adapted to probable need, for its cost was
often high where winters are long and severe and low where they are
short and mild, except on the Pacific Coast.9 Differences not only in
climate but also in standards of dress and personal care may be reflected in these prices. For example, the consistently lower prices of
winter garments in the South than elsewhere, which largely account
for low clothing costs in that section, seem to indicate that the quality
is poorer or that when the period of use of warm clothing is relatively
short only a small investment will be made in such apparel. Higher
prices in the Northern cities may reflect the opposite situation. Thus,
clothing prices seem to reflect local choice differentials which were not
eliminated by specifications, as well as differential charges for sending
merchandise from the producer to the consumer.
Clothing upkeep and personal care require services for the most
part rather than commodities, and their prices are controlled more
largely than commodity prices by local circumstances. These are
not standardized among cities and tend to produce a wide range of
cost differentials. Commodity prices totaling an identical amount
in all cities somewhat limited the cost range for clothing upkeep as a
whole, but not so much as in the case of personal care.
A sales tax in 18 cities (appendix tables 15 and 16) accounted for
some differences in the relative costs of the budgets for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care. Services usually were exempt from the
sales tax, but commodities quite generally were covered. Most cities
with a sales tax were located in sections of the country where clothing
costs would have been high had there been no tax. The cost of
8 Instructions for pricing took account of the fact that March is a different
season in various sections of the country by including only in-season quotations,
no mark-down or clearance-sale prices. In none of the cities where the costs of
clothing were high were the price collection periods far removed from the date to
which prices referred. Even were prices quoted at a later date, however, recorded prices are more apt to be available from clothing stores than from food
stores.
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
32 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
clothing in one of the Southern cities with a sales tax, however, was
raised above the average because of its inclusion.
All costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care were computed from in-season prices. Families may not buy exactly the contents of the quantity budgets as listed, but any substitutions on the
same basis would probably necessitate an equivalent outlay. Certain
savings may be effected, however, by purchasing at special sale or
mark-down values. Home making of some garments instead of
purchasing them ready made as provided for in the budgets may also
reduce clothing costs.
D (JI' 7ed by
Goog IC
Chapter IV
HOUSING
RENTS OF houses or apartments meeting the qualifications specified
in the maintenance budget for a 4-person manual worker's family in
the 59 cities ranged from $342 per year in Washington to $158.40 in
Portland (Oreg.) (appendix table 2). The former, therefore, was 115.9
percent more than the latter. Rents averaged $221.89 in all cities
combined, with 29 cities above and 30 cities below this amount (fig. 5).
Washington rent exceeded the average by 54.1 percent and Portland
(Oreg.) rent was less by 28.6 percent (appendix table 3). These comparisons are based on quotations of house or apartment rents for four
or five rooms and bath, plus the water rate in cities where the tenant
pays this as a separate charge. 1 If reported rents be compared, there
Ta&le 17.-Annual Rents,1 4 or 5 Rooms and Bath, 59 Cities, March 1935
IIAINTENANCII LEVEL
Number of cities
Annuul rent
All rent~
Reported
Reported
rents in•
rents <lo
adjusted
to include cludewater not include
cost
wutor cost
water cost
Total.........................................................
59
33
26
S150.00-$1i4.99. _•..•....••.•.. _•.••••• ___ • .•.• ••. • ..•..•...........•
$17.~.00-$19!1!!9 ..••.•••••••••..•••..• --- -- -- ••••••••••••••• ····- •••• _
$200.00·$~24.!!9 ..• _.•••. _. __ ..• __ .•••.•.••• _..• _. •• . ••••• •••••. ••• . ••
$Z.l,'.i.00--$249.ll!I •••• -- •••••••••••••••••••••••• -- ---··--- •••• ---·····--
7
10
I7
13
2
6
8
8
10
$250.00-$274.99 .. ······-- _. _-- -- --- ..... ---- --- ----- --- ............ -$275.00--$2\19.!19 .. _•••••• --- _--- -- -- -- ••••• -- ••••••••••• -- ••••••••••••
$300.00-$:l24.!19 __ •.•••••. _•• ___ •••••• ___ • ••• • •• • • •• • • •••••••••••• •• • •
$325.00-$349.11!1 •••.•• _••••••••••••••••.••. _______ .• •••••• ••••• ••• • • • •
g
1
1
6
3
A verage, 1 59 cities ..•....... ___ ...... __ .... ________ ............
$221. 89
1----1
1 Include
I
5
4
4
1
I
1
sales tax where levied (appendix table 15).
1
It is the custom in some cities for the owner of low rent houses to pay the
water rate; in others, the tenant pays; in some cities, both procedures are found.
In order to make all comparisons on the same basis, the cost of water was added
to the average of reported rents in each city where the tenant pays this charge.
33
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
34 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Percent
o- _ _2_0_:.__4_o_ __6_o_ _ _s_o_ _~'oo
120
140
Washington, D. C.
New York, N. Y.
Scranton Po.
Peoria, 111.
Sioux Falls,
S. Oak.
Milwoullee, Wis.
Sl Louis, Ma.
San Francisco, Calif.
Boston, Mass.
Minneapolis, MiM.
Newark, N. J.
Cincinnat_k Ohla
Atlanta, uo.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Chicago, 111.
Philadelphia, Pa..
Omoha, Nebr.
Norfolk, Va.
Richmond ~Bridgeporl, Conn.
Cleveland, Ohio
Albuquerq1J!'1 N. Mex.
Baltimore, Md.
Binghamtonl,N Y.
Rochester, N. Y.
Detroit, Mich.
Fall River._Mast.
Memphis, 1enn.
Tucson, Ariz.
Dallas, Tex.
Providence, R. L
Buffalo, N. Y.
Butte, Mont.
Houston, Tex.
Louisville, Ky.
Winston-Salem, N.C.
Knoxville, Tenn.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Denver, Colo.
Portland, Maine
Cedar Rapids Iowa
Indianapolis, ind.
Columbia, S. C.
Jacksonv,111, Fla.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angeles, Calif.
New Orleans, La.
El Paso, Tu.
Salt Lake City, Utah
s;1arksburQ, W. Vo.
Columbus, Ohio
Manchester, N. H.
Little Rock, Ark.
Spokane, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Birmingham, Ala.
Wichita, Kans.
Mobile, Ala.
Por ti and, Ore9-
FIG. 5-RELATIVE RENTS, 4-PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY,
59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Maintenance Level
(Average
59 cities• 1001
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
160
HOUSING• 35
is a slightly different cost distribution between those which do and do
not include the service of water. Nonpayment of the water rate,
however, did not necessarily mean lower rents. Among the seven
lowest rent cities in this study, five were thus classified after the water
rate had been added (table 17). Highest reported rents do not seem
to be in this position because they covered the water rate.
Rents at the emergency level of living were computed as 75 percent
of reported rents at the maintenance level, plus the water rate where
it was paid by the tenant. With local adjustments for water and other
considerations in a few places, the average ratio was 75.6 percent
(table 3). The smallest ratio, 73.5 percent, was found in Denver and
the largest, 78.6 percent, in Butte.1
In most cities between $15 and $20 per month was required to secure
satisfactory accommodations of four or five rooms with private bath
(table 18). For less desirabe but habitable dwellings $10 to $15 per
month was necessary. 3 The positions of the cities with reference to
rents at the emergency level of living (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13)
were practically identical with those shown at the maintenance level.
Table 18.-Monthly Rents, 1 4-Penon Manual Worker', Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Numh<-r or cities
M onthl y ren t
M a intenance
level
Emel'J(ency
level
Total.... .... .. .. . ......... .. . .. . . . .... .... . . .... . .... .. . .. . . ......... . ..
59
59
$5 .00--$9 .00 .. • ........ . ........ . . . ........ ...• .•...... . ......... ... .••••.. .... . • 1 - - - -1- - - - l
$10.00-$14 .99 . .... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . ... .. ... . .. .. . .• . .. •••. .. .. .
7
311
$!.~.Ol>--!IY.00. ......•..•••.•....... ... . . . . ... . ••. .. .. .. .. .... • ... .. .••••.• . • . . .•
36
18
$20.00-$24. YD . ................... . .. . .... . ............ .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . ...
14
1
$25.00-$211.1111 .. ... .•........••.... ... . .. . . . .... . .... ... .. . ......... . ...•. • ..• • ..
Average.' 59 cities. .. ........ .. . . . .. ... ........ ............. . . . ...... . ...
$1~. 49
$13. 98
1===~2~===~
1 Include
the cost of water plus sales tax where levied (a ppendu tables 15 and 16).
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF CITY ON RENTS'
There was a tendency for rents to average highest in the Middle
Atlantic, North Central, and South Atlantic States and lowest in
the South Central, Mountain, and Pacific States (appendix table 5).
Owing to the fact that water was not billed separately in any city
studied in New England or the Middle Atlantic States, rents actually
1 See p. 106 for discussion of the reason why emergency level rents actually were
sometimes more and sometimes less than 75 percent of maintenance level rents.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in collecting quotations and computing city average prices and a ggregate costs, see ch. VII.
• See table 1, p . XV, for list of cities in each geograph ic d ivision and their population and table 62, p . 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
Digitized by
Goog1e
36 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
paid for the housing listed showed a wider variation than when the
charge for water was added to rents which did not cover this. All
Middle Atlantic cities except Buffalo and all East North Central
cities except Indianapolis and Columbus reported rents above the
average in the 59 cities combined. Rents in every city 6 in the two
South Central Divisions were low. Rents in the largest cities in the
South Atlantic Division were above the average and in the smaller
cities were below. The opposite situation appeared in the Mountain
States. In the Pacific Area only San Francisco rents exceeded the
average, and 3 of the 7 lowest rent cities among the 59 studied were in
this section.
Size of city seems to have made more difference in rents than in the
costs of any other major budget requirement (appendix table 7), but
it is difficult to separate the factor of urbanization from that of
climate. Thus, in cities with 375,000 or more population rents averaged considerably higher than they did in most of the smaller places,
and rents reported in 15 of them were above the average in the
group of 59. Fifteen of these nineteen largest cities, however, were in
the high rent sections of the country; and two of the four which were
in low rent areas had rents well above the area average. All the low
rent smaller cities were not in the milder climates, but many were.
RENT DIFFERENCES
The very wide range of rents for working class hour.ing which met
certain specifications was no greater than the price ranges for many
separate commodities and services in the other major budget groups.
Because these commodity price extremes tended to cancel when combined to measure the group costs, the spreads for the other major
budget groups were much less than the spread for rents, for which
only housing and water were priced. Even so, $75 per year marked
the limits of rent variations among most of the cities. This relationship is perhaps more remarkable than are the wide differences shown
for a few cities at either extreme of the array, considering the great
variety of housing which prevails throughout the country, the general
nature of the specifications used in pricing, and the fact that most
factors responsible for rents are of local origin. These matters cannot
be analyzed in detail but a few generalizations seem to be warranted.
For the most part, more substantial and, therefore, more costly
buildings are required in those sections of the country II where rents were
• Rent in Memphis including the water rate was just above the average in the
59 cities combined; water was a separate charge, however, so that rent as paid
was well below the average.
e Rents in the South Atlantic Division would average slightly below the average
in the 59 cities combined were it not for Washington, where an abnormal market
had pushed rents to the highest reported in this study. Rents above the average
were required in several other cities in this area, however, to obtain standard
accommodations.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
HOUSING• 37
found to be highest. Brick or wood houses with basements, plumbing
insulated against freezing temperatures, and other devices for insuring
comfort during severe winter weather, however, may provide no more
desirable shelter in the Northern cities than frame bungalows on piers
in a warmer climate. Where less substantial houses are built of materials available nearby, low rents are common unless other circumstances more than counteract this advantage.
Rents were neither consistently high nor consistently low in all
the geographic divisions, however; nor were all the high rents in the
high rent areas or vice versa. This circumstance suggests that the
situation in each city plays a considerable part in establishing relative
rent levels. Land values apart from the improvements thereon,
cost of municipal operation, and fiscal policy with reference to the
tax burden are related to size of city to a considerable extent. Communities hard hit by the depression, those where working class dwellings have been overbuilt in relation to the demand, or those where
other circumstances have kept a large supply of houses on the market
may have low rents. In other cities, however, rents may be maintained at a higher level because of the diversified nature of their
economic life or a shortage of low price housing.
Cities where home ownership is more common than the average
sometimes lack proper rentable homes. A shortage of four- and
five-room dwellings in comparison with available accommodations of
other size may explain relatively high rents for four- and five-room
units in some places. Working class housing, in general, is so poor
in some cities that to get reports of rents for accommodations meeting the specifications it was necessary to price dwellings not customarily occupied by industrial, service, and other manual workers of
small means. 7
Thus, to climatic conditions and degree of urbanization as factors
in rent differentials must be added the local supply of working class
housing which meets certain specifications. Where such dwellings
are usual, the reported average rent may be less, relative to the average in cities of the same size or in the same geographic location, than
where unskilled laborers as a rule live in substandard houses. This is
not to say that substandard housing commands a higher rent, but
that it was not considered in the cost of living estimates. In such
cities rents allowed were for houses not usually occupied by industrial, service, and other manual workers of small means.
Another factor in intercity rent differentials which cannot be measured with the data at hand is concerned with the relative acceptability
7 A check with the Real Property Inventory in certain cities, where at first
glance the rent allowances as calculated for this study appear to be high, shows
that while many houses might be had for less than the amounts allowed, the
proportions of these without private indoor bath and toilet or in poor condition
were so large that the higher rents were required to obtain the standard specified.
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
38 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
of the housing priced. Specifications were necessarily general, and
criteria. for establishing the extent of adequacy were few. Hence,
the four or five rooms and bath provided by the reported rents might
be of varying size and convenience of layout, with a diversity of equipment ranging from old-fashioned to modem improvements. Single
cottages, row houses, flats, and apartments might provide these
accommodations. The age of the buildings and their construction
materials were not homogeneous; size of building plots, desirability
of neighborhoods, and location of the dwellings with reference to the
social and industrial life of the city were not always the same. Any of
these circumstances may account for ascertained rent differentials,
apart from other considerations.
The rents used in the cost of living estimates are average figures
for housing which met certain specifications in each city. Beyond
conformity with these specifications, which were necessarily very
general, it cannot be claimed that identical or even completely comparable accommodations were priced.
Except for a. sales tax on water in 3 cities, the tenant paid no direct
tax on his housing in any of the 59 cities studied (appendix tables 15
and 16).
Dql
zedbyGooglc
Chapter
V
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION
HouSEHOLD OPERATION costs were computed from outlays necessary for the following items: fuel; ice; electricity; household supplies;
furniture, furnishings, and household equipment; refuse disposal; and
unspecified essentials.
The combined costs of all these goods and services in the maintenance
budget for a 4-person manual worker's family averaged $153.54 per
year in the 59 cities (appendix table 2). The disperson among the
separate cities ran from $208.08 in Sioux Falls to $123.98 in Houston.
This excess of 67 .8 percent of greatest over least cost somewhat exaggerates the normal spread, because of the very large outlays necessary
in two cities. Were Sioux Falls and Minneapolis with their unusual
fuel costs omitted, the range would measure only 49.2 percent difference from lowest to highest. Twenty-nine cities exceeded the average
and thirty cities reported less than the average cost of the household
operation budget, but the lowest cost was more representative than
the highest (fig. 6). The most expensive city cost exceeded the average in the 59 combined by 35.5 percent I and the cheapest was 19.3
percent below the average (appendix table 3).
Household operation costs were less narrowly concentrated than
those for certain other budget groups previously considered (table
19), even leaving out the two extreme cities. Forty dollars per year
marked the range within which more than half the city average costs
fell. 1
The spread between top and bottom emergency household operation
budget costs (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13) was somewhat greater
1 Were it not for Sioux Falls and Minneapolis, the highest cost would have
been only 20.5 percent above the average.
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Lilling, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in collecting quotations and computing city average prices and aggregate costs, see ch.
VII.
39
D
I
zedryGooglc
TOTAL•
GAS
,.._
ICE
100
S1ou1 Foll1, S 0.
1 1 ~ ,.....""
- - ·IQJ5EHOU)
ELECTRICITY
Sll'PUES
100
IOO
FIJNTIIIE,~
NII.AND HOUSE•
IQ.D
-..T
l00
:=;:~~~,°'
...
Rochftt.,,N Y
110.,cl'l•H l••,N H
T\iCiQtl, Ar•t
sz
Foll R, __ Mou
A.11).,,:iu••que NM••
PrO\'•d•••u,l;i:1
Cf'dor Roo,d1,lo-o
Soll l.Oli• C,ty,UIOl'I
p
1~!4 w8,':;
1
80,to",Ll<1n
Vt
,0
W'"1100-5o1.,_,, NC
C'-<OQ0,111
g
Nir-o•ti, NJ
0t,Ho,!,l,l,c"
r,;i1':.;',~·/c;,,
u:
[tPow, Tin
Ne--Yo,,k,NY.
0N Y.
t.~i~o;~~,)
Ja,r;•IO"v,111, Flo.
Colu,nboo, SC.
Bullolo. Ny
Omo"'a. N•tw
No,lolk, Vo
Wo1"""9'0tl,0C
w,ch,10, 1C.011a.
S(;ronlOfl,Po
6
oi.10"°"'0C,ty,Olilo
Bolh"'Ol'l, lld
ci-•011d,Ol'loo
o.,,,...,,c010.
N
llobtll, Alo
ii
llld•O"Ol)Ohi
tftd
61'1,o
C,nc•,,,-ql,,
rr
Pt,,lodtlotuo, Po
l(no-v,11 ••
C')
~r~iff.· ?::~
-<
0
~
r5"'
r,,-11
.t.1101110, Go
1
0
New Or110,,., Lo
Pwo,10, ILi
~r~:~~:o••o
Coiu"'bu1, Ofl.io
&o•k1W4, W Yo.
Lit~::'A!::,
~
r-
Son F•O!'C•Ko,Cold.
M,1-ouae•. w,,
0
•
0
..,
~ll.<1.,.,WOVt
~
t
an.
HCllll110fl, Tn.
FIG. 6-RELATIVE COSTS OF HOUSEHOLD OF'ERATION, 4-PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY, 59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Maintenance Level
•AllotfVff for the lotol COtr1Ntld frc,m oW'VO,_ wNch inttudl alloMn:e
fer u,toin minor ftNdt no1 ite'nind stporotllJ.
(Avetoge, 59 cltits-100)
Al'-2111,W.I'&.
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 41
than the spread between maintenance budget costs. The ranks of
certain cities also were shifted because of the existence of minimum
charges for gas and electricity, which sometimes made the necessary
emergency level bills for these services higher than would application
of the rates alone to the quantity allowances. The two most expensive
cities were identical in both arrays, but the lowest emergency budget
cost was found in Clarksburg, as compared with Houston for the
maintenance budget. The average difference was less than $32.
Emergency budget cost averaged 79.4 percent of maintenance budget
cost (table 3), and ratios varied from 82.3 percent in Minneapolis to
76.2 percent in Clarksburg.
Table 19.-Annual Costs 1 of Household Operation, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
Number of clties
Annual cost
Malntenanoo Emergency
level
level
soooo-~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1-- -·-~0-1----s!
SIOO.OO-SIOll.99. .... . ... . ..... . . ... . ... ... .. . . ... . ... . . . .. . . .. . . ....... ... . . ... .
10
Sl10.00-Sll9.99. ... ... . ......... . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . ...... ... .. . . .... ...... . .. . .... . .
13
$120.00-$1211.W. ................ . . . . . . . . . ....• •• .. • ...................••........
8
12
Sl30.00-St39.Q9. .. . ...... ......... .. .... .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ...•. .....••. .....
o
7
$140.00-Sl4g,gg·· · · ················ · ···· ·· ·· ···· ···· · ··· ···· · ············· · ··· ··
10
7
$150.00-$159.W. ........................ . . . . .. . . ..... .. ... . ................... ..
10
1
$100.00-$169.99. •.•.... .. ... .. ..•.. ••.. ... . ... . . . • . ••. . • .•.. .. ..•.•..•.•..•••...
10
1
$1 70.00-SlN.99. .................. .. . ........ . . ........ . .................... . . . .
6
$180.00-$189.99 . .................. . . . .. ....... ... . . . . .. ................... .. .. ..
4
$190.00-$199.99 . .. ................. . ... .... . .. ..... . ... .. ... .. ........... ... . .. .
S2()0.00-$209.99 ..... .............. . ... . . . ... . . . .. . . .... . . . . ............... . ..... l===;:;2=1===;;;
Avenge,• 59 cities....... . . . ... . ... ... ... . . . . .... ...... .. . . .......... .. ..
$1 53. 54
$121. 84
• Include mies tu where levied (appendix tables 16 and 16}.
The average cost of the household operation budget was divided
among the different goods and services which make it up as shown in
table 20. Inasmuch as the annual costs of some of these items varied
widely from city to city, the distributions of costs also showed wide
differences. The saving in operating expenses at the emergency level
of living through a curtailment of furniture, furnishings, and household
equipment replacements is apparent. The cost of water, which
logically is chargeable as a household operation expense, has been
considered in connection with rent.3
Marked differences in the costs of the household operation budget
appeared in different sections of the country (appendix table 5).'
All New England, Pacific, and Mountain cities were high except
Denver, and all South Central cities were low except El Paso. But
in New England everything except ice and in the Mountain States
See pp. 105-106.
'See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their popu-
1
lation and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
0!]1
?f>dbyGoogle
42 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
everything except fuel, required more than the average outlay in the
59 cities combined, whereas in the Pacific States fuel and electricity
took less. Necessary outlays for gas averaged high in the East South
Central cities and for ice and electricity, in the West South Central
cities; otherwise all annual costs were low in these areas.
Household operation costs declined with size of city until the middle
classification was reached and then rose to the highest level in the
smallest cities (appendix table 7). All household operation costs in
cities with a population 250,000 to 500,000 were less than the average
in the 59 cities combined, and all were more than the average in those
cities where the population was 25,000 to 100,000. In the other size
of city classifications some costs were high and others were low.
TalJle 10.-Percent Distribution of the Average Annual Costs 1 of Household Operation
Among the Principal Commodity and Service Groups, 4-Penon Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Maintenance Emer~ncy
level
level
Group
TotaL .••••••••••••...•••••...•.•••••.•....•••..•••.••..•...•••..........
100.0
100.0
Coal or wood ................................................................. .
Oas .......•••.••••••••••..••.•••.•••.•••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•....••..••.•..•..•..
Electricity .•.•.••..•••..........................................•.....•....•...
lee •.........•....•••.•••.•.••••••.••..•..•.•••.•••...•....•.••••.•.••.•.•.••..
30.5
7. 2
12. 2
31.8
8.3
II.II
15.3
Household supplies_ •.•...........................••••.•...•••...•.••••.•.•..•.
Furniture, furnishings. and household equipment •.•..••••••••••..••.•.•......
Refuse disposal ................••........•.•..•.••••••••••••••••••••••••.......
Unspecified essentials ....•••••..••.••••.•••••......••.•••••••••.•••••••••••••.•
~-2
1.0
2.0
13.D
15.3
1.2
2.3
Average,• 59 cities .••••.•.•••••••••••....••••••••••••••.••••••.••........
$153.M
$121.M
t
14. 6
12. 3
Include sales ta:i: where levied (appendiz tables 15 and 16).
To interpret the cost of household operation as a whole, it is necessary to analyze the costs of its component elements. Except for the
fact that the quantity budgets prescribe complementary periods of
use for coal or wood and gas, and that ice is allowed for the same
number of months as gas, these budget subgroups bear no relationship to each other and can be considered as entirely separate entities.
On the other hand, since the complementary fuel and ice allowances
are necessarily arbitrary there is an advantage in discussing fuel and
ice costs together, in that a deficient allowance of one may be counterbalanced by an excessive allowance of the other. Hence, the cost of
coal or wood, gas, and ice combined presents a better value for these
items, to be apportioned by local requirements, than does the cost
of any one of them separately.
FUEL
The fuel budgets itemize quantity requirements for anthracite,
bituminous coal, or wood for room warming, cooking, and water
heating throughout the coldest months, and gas for cooking and
water heating during the remainder of the year. An identical amount
of money was allowed everywhere for kindling, matches, and other fuel
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 43
accessories. Coal or wood and accessories required about fourfifths of the average annual fuel cost and gas about one-fifth. There
was a great variation among the separate cities.
The spread in total fuel costs between the most expensive and the
least expensive city was greater than for any item of comparable
importance in the family budget except transportation, and only three
of lesser significance exceeded it.6 In Minneapolis, where the outlay
necessary per year for a four-person manual worker's family was
$108.28 at the maintenance level of living, 326.8 percent more was
required than in Clarksburg, with its annual fuel cost of $25.37
(appendix table 2). The average cost of the fuel budget in the 59
cities combined was $57.98; this was exceeded in 28 and not reached
in 31. The highest cost exceeded the average by 86.8 percent and
the lowest cost was less by 56.2 percent (appendix table 3). The
classification of city costs (table 21) shows a considerable variation
as well as a wide range between extremes, indicating that necessary
annual fuel bills in the separate cities were not so uniform as were
those for food, clothing, or housing.
Table .21.-Annual Costs I of Fuel, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
Numhl'r of cities
Annual cost
M alntenancc Eme111enC7
level
level
TotaL. .. -••• --. - .... -... - .... - ....•.. - . _. _. -- -- --- -- . - . - .• -- - ..•.•••....
$10.00-$19.99 .••• ·- ••••••• _--- _•• _••.•••• _•••••••• ____ ••.•• _••••. _•••••• _•.•••••
$20.00-$29.99 .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••.•••
$30.()()-$39.99 .• _. _•• _•.•• -- ••••••••• _•••••••.•• _••• ·- •.•••.•.•.•••••••••••••• _••
$40.00-$-10.99 ..••••••••••• ·--··· •••••••••• ••••••••••••• •• ··-· ••••••••••• •••••••.
_______,____
59
Ml
13
1
6
10
18
~.00-$59.99 .••••••••••••.••••••••••••.....••••••••••....•......•...•....••••••
16
13
SllO.oo-$69. 99 .•• _••••••• _•• _•••••••••••••.• __ •.•••••• _••••• _ .•••••••••••••••••••
8
8
e
$70.00-$i9.99 .•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• ·-····-··-··· •••••.•••.•••••••• ···-· ••••
$80.00-$.!-9.99 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
$\l(l.lX.-f:!l\l.99 .•••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••..••••••••••••.•••••••.•••••
3
6
$100.00-$10ll.99..••••.••... _...... _..........•.•....•••••••• _.. --- _. _·-- ••......
2
2
2
Average, 15g cities.························--················-···········
$57. 98
.
3
2
1
$48. BO
• Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Emergency fuel budget costs (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13)
averaged about $9 less per year than maintenance budget costs, but
the differentials varied amohg the separate cities with the total cost
of each fuel budget. The average ratio of 84.2 percent results from
the fact that little economy in fuel is possible if modest comfort is to
be secured. Differences in the rank~ of cities in the two arrays are
caused by the existence of minimum gas bills in some places. These
often were greater than the costs of the emergency budget allowance
1 Refuse disposal, school attendance, and taxes might or might not require a
direct charge; hence, the spread in annual costs of these items varied from nothing
to several dollars per year.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
44 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
would have been had it been possible to consider rates alone, as
usually was the case in computing maintenance gas budget costs.
The range in costs of the separate fuel items (tables 22 and 23),
especially of gas, was much wider than of fuel as a whole. The
TalJle !!.-Annual Costs 1 of Caal or Wood, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59
Cities, March 1935
Number or cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emel'R!lncy
level
level
Total ••• --------- -- •••••.••••••.•••.•••••••.•..••••.•....•.••••• - ••••••..
$10.0(}-$19.99....................................•...•..•..........•.•..••......
$20.00-$2\J.99_. - ••.......• - ..... - .........•• - ..•••••.......•...•.••...••. - ...•..
$30.00-$39.99_ .•••••...•.... _•...•••.•.•..••.• _•.•.••••..•...•••••.•.•.•••...•.•
$40.00-$49.99 .••••.. __ ........ _. _••..• -- _•.•. ·-- •• --- •••.. _•••••.••••• -· ••• ·- •.•
$00.()0--$59.99 ... - ................••• -- ... ·- .•....•......•..•.•••••.•..••.•.•••..
$80.~9.99_ ••.••..•..••. - .................... ····••·• .•..•• ---- ---------- ··-.
$70.00-$79.99 ..•..•.. _ ••..•••..••••..•.. _••..••..•.•.. -·· ••••••......•.••• -- .•••
$80.00-$89.99 ..•••.•. -·· .......•••...... _•...•.............•.......•..•.......•.
$ll0.00-$99.99 .................................................................. .
$100.00-$100.99 ..........•.•..••. --· ••• ·-· ... -- •...•.•.•••.. ·- .....•.•.. -· .•....
59
5ll
3
7
15
G
13
15
II
11
-----t--
11
9
8
1
3
2
2
1
1
l=====I==
Average,1 59 cities ______________________________________________________ _
$47.00
1
1
$38. 6G
Include sales tax where levied (appendix tahle.• 15 and 16).
Table 23.-Annual Costs 1 of Gas, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
Number of cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
Tot.al ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••.••••.
5ll
59
l-----l--
~-00-$4.99 ......................•................•.•.••...•.......•...•••••.•..
$6.00--$9.99_ - •••••••••• ··-·- - •••.•••••.•.•••.•.•••••...•••.••••••••••••••••••••.
$10.00-$14.99 ..•••.••••••.•.••••.•••••••.•••••.•••••••.•••••.•••••••••••••.••••
$1.~.II0-$19.99_. _..• _.•••••••.••••.•.•••••.••.••.••.•••..••.•...•••••••••.•••. - ..
$20.00--$2-l .99 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.
7
~
21
0
4
7
28
15
5
3
$2.'i.lKl---$29.99 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$30.00-$34.99 ................. ·--· ...................................... ··--··-.
Average,t 59 cities .••••...•...........•••.•.•••...•.•....................
1
l=====I==
$10, Q8
$10. 14
Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
allowance of bituminous coal and fuel accessories at the maintenance
level in Minneapolis was over six times as expensive as the comparable
allowance of wood and fuel accessories at the same level in Houston
(fig. 6). The outlay necessary for manufactured gas in Jacksonville
was more than 13 times as much as that for natural gas in Clarksburg.
lnRuence of Geographic Location and Size of City on Costs of Fuel 8
Fuel costs varied noticeably among the difJerent sections of the
country (appendix table 5). Every New England city was 20 percent
• See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city cl11Bsificatio11s.
Dig lirnd by
Goos le
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 45
or more above the average in the group of 59. Four of seven West
North Central cities exceeded the average by a wide margin; the two
highest cost fuel cities studied were in this area. Though the outlays
necessary for coal averaged about the same in New England and the
West North Central States, the quantity of gas allowed in the budget
was so much more expensive in the former than in the latter that the
cost of the total fuel budget in New England was greater. The costs
of fuel as a whole were uniformly low in both South Central Divisions,
despite the large requirements for gas in several cities. In the Pacific
Area every city except Spokane had a low total fuel cost, though the
costs of the gas budget were high in all of them.
Size of city as such had no influence on the costs of fuel (appendix
table 7). These costs declined as population decreased until the
classification 250,000 to 500,000 was reached. In the two groups
of smallest cities costs were higher than in the middle group. These
relationships seem to depend on the geographic location of the cities,
however, both with reference to climatic needs for winter fuel and
distance from the source of supply.
Co.. Dlfferencn
The family necessities whose costs were considered in the preceding
chapterR were allowed in equal quantity in a.II 59 cities on the theory
that, though identical goods and services might not be universally
consumed, the value of those priced would provide adequately for
substitutes in local use. For fuel, however, average quantity allowances would be too much in some places and not enough in others,
owing to the great extremes in the American climate. Moreover, no
one fuel is in such general use that its price would be significant everywhere, even if quotations for it could be obtained. On the contrary,
consumption of different kinds of fuel serving identical purposes is
quite definitely localized. For these reasons alternative means of
providing for room warming, cooking, and water heating were included in the quantity budgets; and the fuel priced in each city was
the one most commonly used by industrial, service, and other manual
workers of small means. 7
The necessity for recognizing that quantity allowances of fuel for
room warming depend on winter temperatures and that identical
fuel is not used everywhere for a given purpose inevitably injected
elements into fuel cost calculations which had nothing to do with the
price of fuel as such. To get at the factor of price in fuel cost, therefore, as contrasted with quantity allowances and the kinds of fuel
used, such an analysis is necessary as will eliminate the effects of
7 As will be noted later, quantity allowances for the fuel most popular in a few
cities are not contained in the budgets, and fuel costs were computed from prices
of those which the budgets list. See pp. 52 and 108.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
46 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
differential allowances and of pricing a variety of fuels in the separate
cities. This is accomplished by classifying the cities in four groups
according to their average winter temperatures: "A," cities with
winters long or cold or long and cold; "B," average; "C," short or
mild or short and mild; and "D," very short or very mild or very
short and very mild. All cities in each climate group were allowed
identical or comparable 8 quantities of fuel per year, but between the
climate groups quantities were graduated by the number of months
of use required in each. The number of cities in each of the four
climate groups, 9 classified as to fuel priced for room warming, cooking,
and water heating during the colder months and for cooking and water
heating throughout the remainder of the year, is shown in table 24.
Table 24.-Kinds of Fuel Priced in 59 Cities in 4 Separate Climate Groups
1
Numher of cities In climate group 1
Kind offuel
__________________,__ - - - - - - - Total
Total for colder montbs .•..... -----·------·------------·-
Antbr11Mt~- ___ ----------·----- .. ______ ---------------- _______ _
Bituminous co&! ___ • _______ --··-·-. _______ ..• ·- .• __ • ______ ••• _.
Wood_--------------------------------· ---·-------- --- --- ----Natur11l !!&S. _______________________________ . ___ .... ___ .. _____ . _
Manufactured gas _______________________ • __ ---··----._-·-··-·-
i&IL-------------------------·--·-----····-·-····--·---
"B"
"C"
"D"
59
13
24
13
9
13
40
3
JO
10
13
1
10
3
7
2
59
13
24
13
g
26
6
6
11
7
2
4
2
--- --- - - - - - I
6
Total for remainder or year _____________________________ _
Mixed
"A"
-- -3 - --II
27
6
7
See text, above, for deftnttlon of these 4 climate groups, and p. 107 for list of cities In each group.
• Includes coke In 1 city.
1
The largest outlay for fuel generally, but not always, was found to
be necessary where long, cold winters require the most extensive use
of artificial heat for room warming, but at the other end of the scale
the reverse was not true. There was a spread of 80.6 percent between
the least expensive city and the most expensive ci~y in the "A" group.
Nine cities in the "B" group and even one "C" group city had average
annual fuel costs exceeding that of the cheapest "A" city. The latter,
however, ranking 23d from the highest cost city among the 59, was
near the anthracite fields and coal prices were correspondingly low; the
gas cost there was also less than the average in the 59 cities combined.
Coal prices were so high in a few "A" cities that the average annual
cost for the group was exceeded in only four, while costs were less
than the average in nine. All cities with excessive fuel costs in the
"A" group owed their positions to high coal prices. Only in New
England were high coal prices combined with above average rates for
the gas budget allowance.
8 Based on consumption equivalents for anthracite, bituminous coal or ooke,
and wood, and on calorific values for natural, manufactured, or mixed gas.
• See p. 107 for list of the cities in each climate group.
Dg1 zed by
Google
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 47
Among the "B" cities largest annual fuel costs were uniformly found
in New England and the Middle Atlantic anthracite using centers,
where manufactured gas was the common cooking fuel and rates were
relatively high. There was a wide range, however, among the cities
in this average climate group. In Fall River, using anthracite, the cost
of fuel was three times as much as in Clarksburg, using run-of-mine
bituminous coal. Fall River is several hundred miles from tbe anthracite fields, whereas bituminous coal mining is one of Clarksburg's
leading industries. Clarksburg, with its natural gas, reported the
lowest cost for the budget allowance among the 59 cities studied; but
manufactured gas in Fall River was more costly than the average.
The annual cost of fuel in Winston-Salem exceeded costs in all other
"C" cities, ranking 21st from the top in the array of 59 and 94 percent
above Little Rock where the cost of fuel was the lowest in the group.
Coal prices in Winston-Salem averaged next to the highest in any of
these 13 mild winter climate cities, and the gas rate for the budget
allowance was highest of all. Little Rock fuel was inexpensive, not
only because wood was most commonly used and its price was low
but also because cheap natural gas made tho outlay necessary for
cooking fuel next to the smallest in the "C" group.
The cost of fuel was greater in Jacksonville than in any other "D"
city, owing largely to the high mte for the budget allowance of gas;
the price of coal was about average in the group. In Houston, on the
other hand, the gas rate was as low ns any in the "D" city group; wood
for room warming required a smaller outlay for winter fuel than in
any other city among the 59 studied; and the total cost of fuel was less
than in any other city except Clarksburg.
As table 26 shows, the only winter fuel priced in all sections of the
country is bituminous coal. 1° From the equivalents for other fuels
included in the quantity budgets, however, a comparison can be made
of re]ative fuel costs, exclusive of sales tax where levied, in cities in the
separate climate groups, with relative annual allowances of the same
fuels in the same climate groups (table 25). Budget allowances are
based on the assumption that needs in the "B" climate are average.
The cost of winter fuel in the "B" cities combined averaged 101.4
percent of its cost in the 59 cities combined, with half above and half
below. Thus, fuel budget costs in the "B" cities were very nearly
representative of the average necessary outlay for fuel. In the "D"
cities the cost of fuel was 76.6 percent more than the relative fuel
requirement for that climate; in the "A" cities, 38.3 percent more;
and in the "C" cities, 15.4 percent more. In other words, prices in
the "B" cities were relatively low in the ratios shown.
10 Bituminous coal was priced in some cities in each climate group, but it was
not priced in all because it was not the usual domestic fuel.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
48 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Tol,le 25.-Relative Quantity Allowances and Relative Fuel Costs in 4 Separate Climate
Groups, .J-Pe110n Manual Worlcer's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935 I
Coal or wood
Climate group
Annual
quantity
allowance•
Ave,_
annual cost ,
115. 4
100.0
61.5
26.11
••A,, -- - --- -- -- --- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- - ---- -- ----- -- ---- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- •• B '' -- ---- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- -- ----- ---- ----- -- ---- ---- --- --- ---- -- - - -
•'C" -- -- ---- ---------------- ---- ------ -- -- ------- ---------------------------''D" ------ ------ ---- -- -- ---- --- -- -- --- ---- ---- -------- --- -- --- -- ---- ---- -----
1511. 6
100. 0
71. 0
47. 5
1 This comparison Is bRsed on maintenance bud~et quantity allowanoes and costs. The cost ftgur•
Include neither the allowance for kindling and matches In all cities nor the sales tax where levied.
• Bituminous ooal only. No other fuel was priced In all sections of the country.
Average prices of both anthracite and wood were much alike in the
separate areas where these fuels are used, but bituminous coal prices
covered a wider range (table 26). Among the separate cities bituminous coal prices were even more varied. The highest city average where
bituminous coal is commonly used, 11 $12.89 per ton, was in the "A"
group; three other cities reported average prices exceeding $10; and
only two reported $7 .50 or less. City average prices per ton were less
than $8 in all "B" cities; the lowest were in three important bituminous coal centers. The 10 cities in the "C" group using bituminous coal
reported average prices ranging from less than $6 in 2 cities near bituminous coal mines to $9.60 at Atlantic tidewater. Prices were $10.50
or more per ton in five of the seven "D" cities using bituminous coal.
Tal,le .26.-Average Prices I of Coal and Wood in 4 Separate Climate Groups, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Cool per ton
Cllmate group
1---~----1w::r
Anthracite
"A"-----------------------------------------------------------.. B,, ___________________ • _______________________________________ _
$12.M
12. 39
uco ------------- ------- ------······-- -- ---- --- ----- --- --- -----"D" -------- - -- - -- ------------ - -- - ---- ------------ ----- ---------
• Prices are without sales tax.
Bltumfn005
I
$9. 42
5.59
7. 68
12. 711
$5.84
6. 76
6. 28
• Includes oolre In l city.
Anthracite quotations averaged $10, $12.65, and $15 per ton in
the separate "A" cities. In the "B" group they ranged from $7.90
in Scranton, the center of the industry, to $15 in one of the New
England cities; all except two reported more than $11 per ton. City
average prices of wood per cord varied from $4 to $7 .50 in the separate
localities where this fuel is commonly used for room warming.
Common qualities which can be specified for pricing even a given
kind of coal or wood wherever it is sold are almost entire,ly lacking,
11 Highest prices were found in the "D" cities on the Pacific Coast and the
Southwest, but coal is not the usual domestic fuel in these cities.
Dg1tzed by
Google
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 49
except for the size standardization of anthracite; nor is any one kind
of coal or wood in general use. The range of calorific values, however,
is probably more limited for anthracite than for bituminous coal or
wood. Anthracite sizes are standardized, and the chestnut size as a
rule was priced. There are no such universally accepted specifications for marketing bituminous coal or wood, and quotations necessarily were obtained for the grade and size popular as domestic fuel
in each community. The area of anthracite mining and use is small,
but bituminous coal is found in several parts of the country and its
consumption is Nation-wide. Anthracite prices vary little at the
mines, because of the generally uniform quality of the veins and the
standardization of production costs through labor contracts. 12 The
greater range of quality of bituminous coal and its scattered production centers make for greater price differentiation. Wood is the customary domestic fuel only where it is readily available and marketing
costs are low. Part of the sectional uniformity of wood and anthracite prices no doubt reflects more nearly similar distribution charges
than are embodied in bituminous coal prices, but part of it may be due
to other circumstances peculiar to the industries.
Fuel prices during the beating season preceding March 1935 were
collected. This period was not the same in all cities, nor were prices
collected on the same date in all cities. A slight price variation may
be attributable to these circumstances. The price of fuel is essentially
seasonal, rising during the period of greatest use and falling during the
warmer months.
Turning to an analysis of gas costs, a procedure may be followed
somewhat similar to that employed in the discussion of outlays necessary for coal and wood. The quantity of gas allowed per year in each
city depends on the number of months it is required for cooking and
water heating and the kind of gas used, as given in the budgets. In
both the "A" and "B" citi·es, where the allowance was for 5 months,
annual group costs averaged $8.57; in the "C" cities, for 7 months,
$13.52; and in the "D" cities, for 9 months, $17.24.
Even when reduced to a monthly basis and the sales tax is omitted,
the budget allowances of gas averaged nearly 13 percent more expensive in the "C" cities than in the "B" cities and nearly 12 percent
more in the "D" cities than in the "B" cities. Though differentials
based on annual requirements play no part in necessary monthly
bills, the kind of gas used is still present as a cost factor.
Costs of the monthly budget allowance of gas in the cities in the
"A" and "B" groups covered a wide range. Spokane, where manuu Labor costs constitute nearly 60 percent of the total cost of mining anthracite.
Fifteenth Cemm of the United States, Mine/I and Quarrie/1: 19£9, p. 11. Wages
throughout the industry are regulated by agreement with the United Mine
Workers of America.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
50 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
factured gas is consumed and the largest outlay per month in any city
among the 59 was required, is in the "B" group, as are several other
cities with high rates for manufactured gas. On the other hand, many
cities in or near the middle western oil fields are also in the "B"
group. They use natural gas or mixed gas with a high B. T. U.
content 18 and were among those having lowest monthly gas costs.
Six of the thirteen cities in the "C" group have manufactured gas
whose monthly costs exceeded the group average. Manufactured
gas also is consumed in Birmingham but its cost was below the
group average. In the other six cities in the "C" group use of natural gas at low rates made for relatively low monthly gas costs.
The smallest monthly bill required in any of the 59 cities for the quantity of gas allowed in the maintenance budget was for natural gas in
Oklahoma City.
Among the 9 "D" cities the 2 which use manufactured gas were the
2d and 7th from the top of the array of monthly budget costs in the
59 cities. The two most expensive natural gas cities also were in this
group of "D" cities. Natural gas is used in the 2 cheapest cities in
the "D" group; these cities were 12th and 13th from the lowest in
monthly cost among the 59 cities. Hence, whether manufactured
or natural gas is supplied to the "D" cities, their monthly budget
allowance costs were high in comparison with most of the other cities
among the 59 studied.
The part played by kind of gas used in determining how much a
family needs to spend a month for cooking and water heating fuel is
suggested by the figures in table 27. Thermal content of gas varies,
and necessary monthly bills to a considerable extent reflect these
differences in calorific values because the monthly budget allowances
Tol,le .27.-Monthly Costs I of Gas, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, ClassiRed by
Kind of Gas, 59 Cities, March 1935
Kind of gas
Monthly cost
All kinds
Total............................................
$0.00-$0.49.............................................
$().50-$0.99................. ...•........•.... ...... ..•...
$1.00-$1.49 .••• ···········-· ··············•·•· .....••. ..
$1.60-$1.W..... ••••••••••••••..•..•....•.•.•.•.••.••.••
$2.00-$2.49 .••• ··········-··············· .••.•.•..•••. •·
$2.50-$2.99.............................................
$3.00-$3.49 .•••••••••..•••••••••••.••••••.••...••••. ·--.
Natural
Manufactured
Mixed
59
27
26
ti
,----,----,---·,---1
1
6
15
15
5
10
7
12
6
2
4
3
6
1
2
3
8
6
2
$3.50-$3.99 ••••••••••••..•••.•••••••••.•••.•••.....•••.. 1=====2 =====1===;;~2,1===r.=~
Average, 1 69 cities ... ··-·························
$1. iU
$1. 35
$2. 33
$1. 38
1 All costs refer to the maintenance level and are without sales tax. Inasmuch as thll! table Is Included
only for illustrative purposes, comparable data for the emergency level were not assembled.
11 B. T. U. is the abbreviation for British thermal unit, the quantity of heat
required to raise 1 pound of water through 1 degree Fahrenheit. The more
B. T. U.'s contained per 1,000 cu. ft. of gas, the fewer cu. ft. are required for any
given service.
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 51
for manufactured gas are greater than those for natural or mixed
gas. Arraying the estimated. necessary monthly gas bills at the
maintenance level of living in the 59 cities, 27 were above the average
and 32 were below. Of those above, 19 have manufactured, 7 have
natural, and 1 has mixed gas. Of those below, 7 have manufactured,
20 have natural, and 5 have mixed gas. The 12 cities where largest
monthly bills were required use manufactured. gas. Manufactured
gas is used in 18 of the 20 cities where gas costs were highest, and
natural gas or mixed gas approaching a natural gas B. T. U. content
is used in 18 of the 20 cities where gas costs were lowest.
When reduced to the common basis of outlay necessary per month
to obtain approximately equivalent calorific values, it is apparent,
therefore, that natural gas was less expensive than manufactured gas.
This is true because basic rates for a specified quantity of natural
gas usually were lower than those of manufactured. gas, tt and also
because the B. T. U. content of natural gas is greater, with a consequently smaller allowance for a given purpose.
The largest annual outlays for gas were required in the two cities
where its use for 9 months was allowed, where manufactured gas is
consumed., and where the rates for the monthly allowance were high.
The combination of 9 or 7 months' use and high price manufactured
gas explains all annual gas costs exceeding $15, except in three cities.
In Tucson and Mobile, which have natural gas, the budget allowance
called for 9 months' use, but the rates were higher than in any other city
in which natural gas was priced. In Spokane for 5 months' use of
manufactured gas the rate for the monthly budget allowance was the
highest reported.
From the foregoing analysis it appears that local fuel price differences depend for the most part on the kind of fuel consumed and distance from the source of supply. Coal grade variations cannot be
measured, but they account for some of the diversity of reported prices.
The B. T. U. content of gas plays a large part in determining how much
the monthly bill will be. Natural gas is used in the locality of its
source and often it is piped long distances. Manufactured gas usually
is consumed within a small radius of the place where it is made, and
to a large extent its price is related to the price of the coal from which
it is produced. Shipping costs, therefore, may enter into gas rates
as well as into coal and wood prices. The demand for gas and
the location of its customers in each locality also determine the
price of the service rendered. Gas rates, like churges for other public
utilities, are subject to government regulation; and peculiarities of a
given local situation, unrelated to any other community, often are
embodied in the rate structure.
14 Basic rates have not been discussed because of the great variety of factors of
which they are composed.
Dql
zedbyGooglc
52 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 OTIES
Inasmuch as annual outlay necessary for fuel depends on quantity
allowance, kind of fuel, and price, its amount in the separate cities is
determined by different combinations of three variables. Places
which require more than average fuel for room warming because of
their long and cold winters frequently are far removed from the coal
fields. Prices, therefore, are high, since of ten only the better grade
of coal is shipped and freight charges are heavy. If manufactured
gas is used for cooking aild water heating in these same cities, its costs
may be greater for 5 months'use than the costs of natural gas consumed
over a longer period of time in cities where rates are lower. Where
rates are high and gas is required for 7 or 9 months, even with low
price coal or wood necessary for only 5 or 3 months, costs of the
total fuel budget may exceed costs where more fuel for room warming
is required. These are only examples of possible combinations of gas
rates, coal or wood prices, and quantity allowances which determine
the annual cost of fuel in a given community.
The fuel included in the quantity budgets was more expensive than
possible substitutes in a few cities, and use of these alternatives was
sometimes reported. For example, range oil may take the place of
anthracite in New England, and homes are warmed by natural gas
in Los Angeles. Families of small means do not .use gas in certain
cities, but coal, wood, or oil takes its place. Thus, in Columbia,
Portland (Oreg.), Spokane, and Winston-Salem wood is the customary cooking and water heating fuel the year around; in Seattle
wood is used in summer, and coal, in winter. Both oil and wood
are used for this purpose in Jacksonville and Mobile; coal, in Butte,
Knoxville, and Salt Lake City; and oil, in Portland (Maine).
A smaller quantity of fuel may be required to warm rooms in
apartments or other compact units than is included in the budgets for
a stove heated house. The total cost of fuel is not likely to be much
reduced, however, because coal for apartment use frequently is purchased in small units at high rates. The smaller quantity required,
therefore, may be counterbalanced by the higher prices paid.
A factor making for greater uniformity in fuel costs than would
exist otherwise is the inclusion of an identical money allowance in
all cities to provide for kindling, matches, and other fuel accessories
not subject to quantity itemization. The cost of coal and gas alone,
without this stabilizing element, was over 400 percent greater in
the highest cost city than in the lowest, as contrasted with 327
percent difference when the allowance for accessories was added.
The sales tax as such played a minor part in accounting for intercity
differences in the costs of the fuel budget. Consumers paid a tax on
coal or wood and accessories in 18 cities and on gas in 11 cities (appendix tables 15 and 16). Among the cities where fuel costs were
highest, the top 7 in the array of 59 had no sales tax; and Clarksburg,
at the bottom of the scale, had a sales tax.
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 53
ICE
Few families at the economic level with which this study is concerned own mechanical refrigerators. Ice is commonly used for food
preservation during pa.rt of the year, however, in most sections of the
country.
The average cost of ice in the 59 cities included in this study was
$22.40 per year for a 4-person manual worker's family living at the
maintenance level (appendix table 2); 21 cities were above this average,
and 38 were below (fig. 6). Highest costs were $47.97 in San Francisco 16 and $47.50 in Tucson; lowest costs were $12.96 in Milwaukee
and Philadelphia. The cost of ice in San Francisco was 270.1 percent
more than in Milwaukee or Philadelphia; the former exceeded the
average by 114.2 percent and the latter were less than the average by
42.1 percent (appendix table 3). In nearly three-quarters of the cities
the costs of the maintenance ice budget were between $15 and $25
per year (table 28); emergency budget costs were similarly concentrated, at a lower level.
Table n.-Annual Costs I of Ice, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
Number of cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
le,·el
level
Total ••••••••.•.•••.•.••..•.•........•................•......•.•.....•...
5g
59
1----1-
SI0.OO-SH.99 ..•.•.•.•...•................•................••.•...••.•••.....•••
115. 00-SI U. 911 ..••••.•..•..................•.......•....•••...••...••..•..•.•••••
lal.00-$24.911..•••••...•..••..........................•.....•...••..••........•.
S~.00-$211.W .................... __ ..... __ ..................................... .
$30. 00-$34. 99 .••.. - - -· ..•.. --· -- -- ..........•. -- .••.•••••.....•...•...•••••••••
135.00-$39.911..•••.•••....•• --·-· •.•...•.....••••••..••.••....•......•. _---·- •• _
$40.00-144.W.•..............•............•.......•...••••.•....•..•.••••.•...•.
3
31
12
14
32
4
6
2
2
2
4
5
~.(1}-S4U.W•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2
Average,• 5U cities ..•.••••..•• ______ ••.• ___________ • __________ .. _____ •.••
$22. 40
$18.67
• Include sales tu where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
The emergency ice budget allowance is 83.3 percent of the maintenance budget allowance. The annual costs of ice, therefore, showed
this ratio in all cities (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13), and the ranks
of cities were identical in both series.
Influence of Geo9raphlc Location and Size of City on Con of Ice
11
Ice costs averaged highest in the South Atlantic, West South
Central, Mountain, and Pacific cities. They were well below the
average in all other areas except the East South Central, and here
See p. 55 for comment on the representativeness of this ice cost.
See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
16
15
Dig t1zed ny
Google
54 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
they were 99.7 percent of the average in the 59 cities combined (appendix table 5). Every New England, Middle Atlantic, and North
Central city was low; every Pacific city was high; in other sections
above and below average costs accounted for the relative positions
of the areas as a whole.
Size of city was without significance as a factor in ice costs (appendix
table 7). The group average in the smallest places was well above
that in the 59 cities combined, but in 8 of the 13 smallest cities costs
were below the 59-city average.
Coll Differences
The annual cost of ice is dependent on the quantity allowance and
the price for which it is sold. Ice is allowed in the budgets for the
months when fuel for room warming is not necessary: namely, 5, 7, or 9
per year. The high average cost of ice in the group of 59 cities results
from the fact that in a few places where most ice was allowed its price
was the highest recorded. All cities where ice costs exceeded $25
per year were in the group for which the budget allowed a period of
7 or 9 months' use.
Tol,le !9.--Prices 1 of Ice per 100 Pounds, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of
cities
Price
Total.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1----::lill
S0.40-SO.«------------- --- ----- --- --- ----- --- --- ------ -- ---- ---- -- ------ -- --- --- -- -- -------S0.46-S0.49 ________________ --- ---------- ----- --- -- --- ----- -- _---- ----- ---- -- _-- -- -- ---------S0.50-$0.64__________________________________________________________________________________
SO.M-SO.ll!L________________________________________________________________________________
7
6
13
6
21
S0.60-S0.64 __________ -- -- _--- _____ -- ___ -- __________________ --- _____________ -- ______ -- ------ __
S0.66-S0.159 __________ -- ____ -- --- -- ___________ -- -- ____________ -- -- ________ -- ___________ -- _-- __
2
S0.70-$0. 74 ___________ -------- _-- -------- _---- ___ ---- ----- -- . -- __ -- --- _-------- _-- _------ ---1
so. 76-$0. 79____
_____-------- ------ ----- ------- ------ --------- ---- -- -- -- --- ---------------S0.80-S().84
--- _____
-------_-- ________________________
-- ____________________
-- ____ --- -- -- __
f1
Average,• 69 cities ___________________________________________________________________ _I = = = =
S0.67
1
Prices are without sale• tax and are based on a sales unit of 25 I bs.
Most ice for city consumption today is manufactured rather than
winter cut and stored, but plants are located where the product is
used and only the peculiarities of the local situation control its price.
The rate per 100 pounds computed from quotations for a 25-pound
piece delivered can be used to separate the price of ice from its annual
allowances in the budgets. This rate ranged from 40 cents to 80 cents
(table 29). The most frequent quotations for 25 pounds were 13 cents
and 15 cents. Prices varied within the cities but the average in each
would purchase ice at a representative rate.
Average prices of ice per 100 pounds, when purchased in a 25-pound
piece delivered, were almost identical in the four climate groups for
which quantity allowances differed (table 30). 17 The large allowances
17 Quantity allowances of ice in the "A" and "B" cities were identical..
pp. 108 and 110.
Dg1tzed by
Google
See
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 55
assigned to the 22 cities in the "C" and "D" groups, therefore, were
more accountable for the fact that their ice costs ranked at the top of
the array of the 59 cities than was the price of ice. A comparison of
average prices with annual costs in different parts of the country
(table 31) indicates that high prices and high annual costs or vice versa
seldom went together.
Tcrftle 30.-Average Prices 1 ·of Ice per 100 Pounds in 4 Separate Climate Group,, 59
Cities, March 1935
Average
price
Climate group
Aver11119, 69 citles•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• • •.••.••••• . ••••••••••• l===to=.===:6i
uA n - - -------- - - - ----· •••• • ---------- .• ------ ----····. ---- - .••••••••••••• - ·••·•··•••••• •• ••
''B'' _______ -------- · - ------ •• • - -. ------ -- -- .•. ---- ----- - - -- -- •••••. ------- - -- - -- -- ----- -- •.
ucn - - -······· ----- -- --- --- -- ------ -- ----------------- --- --- ------- ---- -- ---------------- --
''D" __ -------------- -- ------------------------------- ----- ----- --- . ••.•. -- ----------------.
1
. 65
. 60
. 58
. 57
Prices are without sales tax and are based on a sales unit of 25 lbs.
Except for Tucson and Albuquerque, where quotations were among
the highest reported, the price of ice, in general, was low where most
is required and high where least is required. This relationship does
not appear from the tabulations, because employing winter temperature as a criterion for city grouping resulted in large ice allowances in
several places where use of artificial refrigeration is uncommon at any
time. In San Francisco, Portland (Oreg.), and Seattle ice was 80
cents per 100 pounds when purchased in 25-pound units, but 85 percent of the families interviewed in San Francisco, 77 percent in Portland (Oreg.), and 55 percent in Seattle reported that they used neither
ice nor mechanical refrigeration. This custom may be due partly to
the high price of ice and partly to the fact that summers are not warm
enough to make ice a necessity. 18 The latter is probably the more
important reason, because in Tucson, where ice also was 80 cents per
100 pounds and summer temperatures are high, more than half the
reporting families purchased ice, and all but three of the remainder
had mechanical refrigerators. In Albuquerque, with ice at 76 cents
per 100 pounds, 53 percent of the families used it, but 31 percent
reported they used no refrigeration of any kind. Thus, it is not unlikely that in San Francisco and Portland (Oreg.), and possibly in
Seattle, the estimated costs of living are high by the amounts that
have been allowed for ice, if inadequate provision for other essentials
did not absorb these surpluses. From the information collected on the
family schedule, it appears that ice is a necessity in the other cities.
11 That ice is not a necessity in San Francisco is indicated by the fact that in
the Heller Committee budgets only the executive is allowed refrigeration. His
cost of living averaged $6,025 per year in November 1935. Budgets for a clerk
and for a wage earner make no provision for ice or refrigeration. See Heller
Committee for Research in Social Economics, Quantity and Cost Budgets • • •
Priua for San Francisca, November 1985, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif., February 1936.
32592°-38--6
Digitized by
Goog1e
56 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
A sales tax was levied on ice in all 18 cities where there was such a
tax (appendix tables 15 and 16). Without the tax the ice cost spread
would be somewhat reduced.
The budget allowances of fuel and ice were based on the assumption that the periods of their use within a year were complementary.
It is perhaps best, therefore, to consider costs also as complementary.
The annual outlay necessary for coal or wood, gas, and ice in each
city would then be considered in the aggregate rather than separately.
In such a combination dispersion was greatly narrowed as compared
with the cost spread of any one of these items alone (table 62), 111 and
a better comparison of intercity variations is obtained.
Tol,le 31.--Relative Prices of Ice per 100 Pounds and Relative Annual Costs 1 of Ice in
9 Separate Geographic Divisions, 59 Cities, March 1935
Percent or 59-clty
average
1
Geographic dh· lslon
Price
New England ____________________________ . ____ .··- •••. _________________________ _
Middle A tlantlc. _______________ .. ________ . ____ . ______ . ___________ . ____ . _______ . _
East North Central ___ ·- ______ .. ________ . __________________________ .. __________ _
West North Central _____________ :_. --- __ ----------. ____________________________ .
South Atlantlc ________ - _____________________ . __________________________________ _
East South Central __________ -------- _____ - . __ -- ------- _____ --------------------West South Central _____ •. _____ . __ . _________ ----. _______ . __ ._. ____ . ____________ .
Mountain ______________________________________________________________________ _
Pacific ___________________________ . ___________ . __ ... __________ . _________________ ..
102.1
100.5
117. 7
89.11
117. 7
88.4
85.8
117.11
131.0
Annual
cost
83.4
82.4
81.5
73. 7
107.8
1111.7
112. 3
125. 7
160.1
• Prices are without sales tax and are based on a sales unit or 25 lbs.; annual costs Include sales tu when
levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
ELECTRICITY
Electricity is generally consumed for light and operation of small
household appliances. 20 Hence, electric energy was priced in all
cities, and provision for lamp replacements and other electrical accessories was included in annual electricity cost. At rates in operation
March 15, 1935, the outlays necessary for energy and accessories in
the 59 cities combined averaged $18.68 per year for a 4-person manual
worker's family at the maintenance level of living. Twenty-five
cities exceeded this average and thirty-four were lower, suggesting
that high rates for the budget allowance in a few places somewhat
raised the average (fig. 6).
19 This phenomenon appears for many combinations of items.
The present
one is significant because of the complementary allowances in the quantity
budgets, not because of canceling price differentials. The latter may play a part,
however, in the greatly reduced dispersion of combined costs as compared with
any one separately.
zo In a few cities families of small means reported using oil for illumination,
because they either had found it cheaper than electricity or had failed to deposit
the necessary guarantee with the utility companies.
Dg1tzedbyGoogle
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION •
57
In Newark where $25.37 was required, the annual necessary electricity bill was 127.9 percent more than the $11.13 required in Cleveland (appendix table 2). For energy only, the difference was 145.1
percent. Newark's cost exceeded the average by 35.8 percent and
Cleveland's was less than the average by 40.4 percent (appendix
table 3). Costs within a range of $8 per year provided for necessary
energy and accessories in most places (table 32).
Table 32.-Annual Costs 1 of Eledricity, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Number of cities
Anntllll cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
511
511
1-------1
TotaJ ___ ··-····-················-··-···········-····--·-·-·-·--··--··---$'1. 00-$8. 99 _- -- ---------------------- --------- ------------------·-- --·----·---- $9.00-$10.99.
--------------- _--- --------------- ---- -------------. ---------SI 1.00-$12.119._---______________________________________________________________
·---
3
4
11
$13.00-$14.119 ___ ·----·-··· •••...•• ···- -----·-- --··- -··-- --·---·- ----------·-·--$15.00-$16.119 _________ -·- _•••• __ •• ___ •• ___ •• ___ •• _-·- _-·· ___ -· ·- __ ·-. -·-----·---
4
10
111
11
$17.00-$18.99_ •. _____________________ -·- _________ ·-· ___ -· ________ -· -· ____ ·-- __ __
$19.00-$20.119 _____ -·-----··- __________________ ---·--··- -·········-···-·-·---····
$21 .00-$22.119. _-· ·----····--·-·· -·-- _-- -· -···- -·- -··-- -···-··-···- ···-· -- _·-- -- _
$21.00-$24.119. _____ . _-· -··· _. _.. __ •. _. ___ •.• ·- _••••.... ___ . _--·. ·-· _. _. __ ... ·-··
$25.00-$26.119 ... _____ -·-··-··· -·-·----·· ·····-·····---·--····--··· ----·-·------.
18
II
7
II
II
4
Average, 1 59 cities ..••.•.•..•• ·-· .••.••••• -·········--·······-------·-·-.
2
1====1°====
$14.62
$18. 68
1 Include sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Emergency electricity budget costs (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and
13) averaged about $4 per year less than maintenance budget costs.
Cities ranked somewhat differently at the two levels of living, however, owing to the fact that minimum bills, meter, and similar charges
carried greater weight with the smaller allowance in the emergency
than in the maintenance budget.
lnllvence of Geo,raphlc Location and Size of City on Colll of Electricity 11
Electricity rates for the budget allowance, in general, were high in
the New England, Middle Atlantic, West South Central, and Mountain Divisions (appendix table 5); all but 7 of the 25 cities studied in
these 4 areas reported costs considerably above the average in the 59
cities combined. Below average costs, on the other hand, were
reported from every East North Central, East South Central, and
Pacific city. High and low rates were found in the other sections.
Electricity rates seem to have increased as the size of cities decreased, except that where the population was a million or more
they were higher than in cities where the population was between
250,000 and 1,000,000 (appendix table 7).
11 See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their
population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic
divisions and size of city classifications.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
58 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Coif Differences
Ji'actors influencing the cost of electricity are largely local in character. Kind and density of the population served, and diversity of their
requirements both as to time of day and amount of energy used, accessibility to fuel or water power, and seasonal consumption probably
condition the price necessarily charged. Inasmuch as the distribution of electric energy is virtually a monopoly in most communities,
State regulation has attempted to control rates for the benefit of the
consumer, but the force of tradition has kept many variations of which
some depend on circumstances no longer in operation. 22
The inclusion of an identical amount in all cities to pay for accessories which can be purchased everywhere for the same price resulted
in a smaller cost spread than was shown for energy alone.
A sales tax was added to the total cost of energy and accessories
in 11 cities and to the cost of accessories only, in 7 cities (appendix
tables 15 and 16). The amounts required were small but contributed
a little to the variation in electricity costs among the separate cities.
HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES
The annual costs of soap and other cleaning and laundry supplies
for a 4-person manual worker's family in each of the 59 cities studied
ranged from a high of $23.93 in Tucson to a low of $16.10 in Columbia,
at the maintenance level of living (appendix table 2); the former was
48.6 percent more than the latter. The outlays necessary for household supplies in the 59 cities combined averaged $18.82. More cities
reported low costs than high costs, however, for extreme prices in a
few produced an arithmetic mean which only 24 exceeded while 35
Tal,le 33.-Annual Costs I of Household Supplies, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
Number or cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emer~ency
level
level
Total ___________________________________________________________________ _
59
611
1----1-
$14.00-$14.99 ___ ••• _•• _•• -- _••• -- _. _•• -- •• -- . -- __ -- -- .•• _. --- --- • _-- __ . _•. _. -- ..
$15.00-$15.99 .•• _. -- ••• ____ . -- ___ • _-- .• ___________ ..• _-- _••• --- • -- ____ .• _____ • _.
$16.00-$1ij.\19 _________________ ------------------------------------------------ -$17 _()(}-$17 .11\l. __ • _________ • _. _-- _-- •. _. ____ -- _-- .. _. --- ____ -- _. _. _______ -- __ • __ .
$18.00-$18.99 ___ -- --- --- --- __ --- _-- --- --- . ____ -- _-- --- . -- __ --- --- _-- -- __ -- _--- _.
8
16
13
$19.00-$19.99. __ ••• -- -- ---- -- .• _-- ..• __ -- •• -- . -- _••.•.• _--- • _. _-- __ . __ • __ -- _-- _.
$20.00-$20.99. _-- _-- ___ -- __ •.•• _-- __ -- --- ••• ____ • --- -- ••• _•. __ . _. -- •• --- -- • _. -- _
$21.00-$21.99 .• -- -- • _-- ----- -- •.• _--- • __ • _-- -- __ -- __ -- ---- _______ -- _____ -- _-- __ _
$2'1.()(}-$22.99. ___ -- -- --- __ . _-- _______ • _- - - • - - • -- - - - - - . - - - --- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- $23.00-$23.W __ -···- ···-- __________________________________________ . __ • __ • _____ _
11
2
3
3
3
6
17
13
13
a
2
4
2
Average, 1 69 cities____________________________________ . _____ ..... __ .... __ _l=====I=
$16. 94
$18.82
1
lnrlude sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Federal Power Commission, Electric Rate Survey, Preliminary Report, Domestic and Residential Rates in Effect January 1, 1935, Cities of 50,(X)() Population
and Over, Rate Series No. 1, p. 14.
22
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION •
59
were less (fig. 6). The most expensive city was above the average
by 27.2 percent but the cheapest was only 14.4 percent below (appendix table 3). Differences of $3 per year marked the range among
two-thirds of the cities (table 33).
Inasmuch as the cost of the emergency household supplies budget
was computed as 90 percent of the cost of the maintenance budget
(appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13), relative costs of both were identical.
Eleven commodities constitute the household supplies budget.
Five were separately priced in each city; for the other six, an identical
amount of money was allowed in all cities, based on chain limited price
variety store quotations which are likely to be the same everywhere.
Though the costs of household supplies as a group differed but
slightly among most of the cities, the spread was much greater for
some of the separate commodities of which it is composed (table 34). 23
Tol,/e 3.f.-Household Supplies Commodity Price Rotios, 1 59 Cities, March 1935
Commodity
Number ofcitles where prices
exceeded ±10 percent with
reference to the 5klty
average•
1---~--~---1
Total
Total• household supplies ••••.••••• _..................
Soap powder.................................................
Kitchen soap.................................................
Soap flakes...................................................
Starch.......................................................
Laundry soap................................................
Above
average
Below
averuge
Percent
highest
price is or
lowest
price•
17
10
7
148.fl
"==---,~-~
---,~--45
44
30
10
14
2!
19
11
5
11
21
25
19
5
3
417. 4
282. 0
250. 9
189. 9
149.2
1 The ratio ror the total ls identical for a 4-person manual worker's family at both the maintenance and
emergency levels. The total cost or household supplies includes sales tax where levied (appendix tables
15 and 16); commodity prices are without sales tax.
• Includes an identical allowance in all cities !or items not separately priced, as well as prices ror the Items
lsted which were priced in each city, combined with their quantity allowances in the maintenance budget.
Prices of soap flakes, for example, were so high-in a few cities that the
average in the 59 combined was greater than in 42 of them separately.
Laundry soap quotations were more uniform, but in 33 cities the
prices were below the average for this item, in 2 they were at the
average, and in 24 they were above the average.
lnRuence of Geographic Location and Size of City on Com of Hou1ehold Supplles:u
Nine of the ten highest cost cities for household supplies were in the
group of ten in the Pacific and Mountain States (appendix table 5).
11 Prices in all instances are compared without sales tax in order that the two
may not be confused in the measurement of intercity differences. Were the tax
where levied added to prices, the spread often would be greater than appears in the
comparison without tax. The total cost of household supplies includes sales tax
where levied.
·
M See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
Dql
zedbyGooglc
60 • COSTS OF LIVING,
59 CITIES
The lowest cost cities were geographically more scattered, but 5 of the
10 in this class were found among the 14 South Atlantic and East
South Central cities.
No cost variation for household supplies appears to be directly
connected with size of city (appendix table 7). The largest deviation
from the average was observed in the excessive cost in the smallest
cities. Three of these are located in the Mountain Division, however,
where prices were the highest in the country.
Cost Differences
The dispersion of costs of household supplies among the 59 cities
exceeded that for certain other commodity groups, but was less than
might have been expected, considering the few items of which the
group is composed and the extremely general specifications by which
these goods were priced. Average prices per pound in the separate
cities reflect differences in brand, in weight of the commodity unit, and
in unit of sale, as well as price differentials of specific commodities on
a unit price basis. For the most part, however, field agents obtained
samples of strong and mild cleansing materials in a range of prices so
that when quotations were averaged, combined with quantity allowances, and totaled, the costs of the budget as a whole showed no such
spread as the prices of the separate items displayed. In the highest
cost cities better brands of merchandise were more uniformly priced,
and quotations for these brands were higher than the average.
A preponderance of yellow soaps and powders in the sample kept down
the cost of household supplies in the South.
The relatively narrow range in the costs of household supplies as a
group is also to be accounted for by the inclusion of an identical
amount of money in all cities for a few items, the prices of which tend
to be the same everywhere. This identical allowance totaled 30.5
percent of the average cost in the 59 cities, 24.2 percent in the highest, and 35.4 percent in the lowest.
A sales tax in 18 cities (appendix tables 15 and 16) had little effect
on the variation in costs of the household supplies budget.
Had it been possible to set up a balanced budget of cleaning supplies
by brand name, identical size of commodity unit, and uniform unit
of sale, prices might not have been so widely dispersed as happened
where a variety of articles meeting each specification was priced, but
some differences would have appeared. Each locality seems to have
its own group of best sellers, however, and these are not the same the
country over.
Thus, though the variation in prices of individual commodities
was wide, the very greatly reduced differences observed when all
were combined probably represent what families in the separate localities had to pay for household supplies in the course of a year. To
analyze commodity price differentials separately, brand, size of
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 61
commodity unit, and unit of sale would necessarily be segregated, and
comparisons would be made only to the extent that prices could be
related to a completely homogeneous sample.
FURNITURE, FURNISHINGS, AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
The annual costs of necessary replacements of furniture, furnishings,
and household equipment for a 4-person manual worker's family
living at the maintenance level averaged $31.10 in the 59 cities combined and ranged from a high of $36.27 in Butte to a low of $27 .53
in New York (appendix table 2). This difference of 31.7 percent
represents rather extreme variations, with the excess somewhat on
the side of high costs; 28 cities were above the average and 31 were
below (fig. 6). Necessary outlay in the most expensive city was 16.6
percent more than the average, but in the least expensive it was
only 11.5 less (appendix table 3). Five dollars per year marked the
difference in costs of necessary replacements of furniture, furnishings,
and household equipment among most of the cities (table 35); emergency budget costs were within narrower limits.
The cost of the emergency furniture, furnishings, and household
equipment budget (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13) was computed
as 60 percent of the cost of the maintenance budget. Intercity
differences, therefore, were identical at both levels of living.
More than 150 commodities constitute the requirements for housekeeping listed in the quantity budgets; their prices represent the
Tal,le 35.-Annual Costs 1 of Furniture, Furnishings, and Household Equipment, 4-Person
Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of cities
J, nnual rost
TotaL...................................................................
Maintenance Emer,,:ency
level
level
1
59
59
Sl6.00-$16.99.•.•.......•.•.......•.....•.......•.•............................. - - - - l · - - - - - , , 2
S17.00-$17.99...................................................................
14
$1R.00-$1R.99... •.• .•.•.••..•. ... ..... .. ... ... . .•....... .. .. . . . ... ... . . ... ... .. .
19
$19.00-$19.99 .•••. ••··.... •..... ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .
17
$20.00-$20.99......................... ...•. ....... ...... .. ..... ... ... . . ....... ..
6
$21.00-$21.99............................... .................... ................
2
$22.00-$22.99.................................................................. .
$23.00-$23.99 ...................................•......•..•....••......••.......
$2-f.00-$24.99 ..............•................•.... · .. · · .. · ... · · · · · · · · · · · · ..... · ·
$26.C0-$26.99............................................. . .•..••.•.•......•..
S211.00-$211.99 ...•..... ...........•.....•..................................•.••..
$27.00-$27.911 .••••••••••..•........•.••.•..••...•.•.••....•...•.•...•...........
$28.00-$28.99 .••..•............. ••·•·· •.................•.......................
$29.00-$29.99.•.....................................•....... -.................. .
$30.00-$30.99 •••••••..•. ··•·•·•·· .....•.•.....•...•.••....... ·•·····•·· ....•....
S31.00-S31.!Xl. ................................................................. .
$32.00-$32.99 .•..........•.........•............... ····•·········· .. ······ ···•··
$33.0')-$33.119.................................................. •·•·• ••••...•....
$34.00-$34.99..................................... ·•·•··· .................•.•...
~.00-$3.~.99 .•••••.•.•••••.••..•.•.•••.•••.....•...•.......•.•••..••••.••.••...
I
7
9
12
13
9
2
4
$36.00-136.W ...........................•.........•.....•..•..............•...•.
1
1
Average.' 59 cities •.•...••..•........•...•.....•.....••••...•............
$31.10
1 Include
sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
62 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
initial cost of furniture, furnishings, and household equipment from
which annual replacement cost was calculated. About one-third of
these commodities were separately priced in each city and two-thirds
were quoted everywhere at prevailing chain limited price variety store
Tal,le 36.-Fumiture, Furnishings, and Household Equipment Commodity Price Ratios,1
59 Cities, March 1935
Commodity
Number or cities where prices
exceeded ± 10 peroent with
reference to the 61l-clty
average•
Above
average
Total
Total • furniture, furnishings, and howehold equipment_
=
Living room rug __ -------------------------------------------
5
25
=
Below
average
131. 7
4
13
15
14
10
11
12
21
14
Ill
13
l&.7
475. II
180.0
260. 7
171l.3
17
15
15
220. 7
204.0
Living room heater ___ -------------- ________________________ _
Living room table __________________________________ . ________ _
311
Upholstered
chair.------------------------------------------or a.rm
chair _________________________________________ _
Rocker
35
24
Straight
wood
chair_----------______ -----------------------Table lamp
______________
. ____________________________
. _____ _
Radio .. _____________________________________________________ _
Small bedroom rug __________________________________________ _
34
~
Jg
Bureau with mirror_----------------------------------------Chest or drawers _______________________ ---------------------Double
bed- _______ ------------------------------.-----------_
Cot
_________________________________________________________
14
17
Ill
12
20
8
II
18
15
24
24
44
8
8
12
12
21
10
7
12
12
23
21
29
22
16
21
10
14
15
24
34
26
30
40
13
15
22
Double bed spring __ --------------------------------------- __
Bedroom chair_-------------------------------------------- __
Double bed mattress ___ . ____________________________________ _
Cot mattress. _____________________ . _________________________ _
Bed pillow.----------------- ________________________________ _
Double
bed
sheet- _____________ ------------------------------_
Cot
sheet
___________________________________________________
Pillow csse __________________________________________________ _
Wool blankets._--------------------------------------------Cotton
comforter ________________ . ____ . ______________________ _
Bedspread. _________________________________________________ _
Couch cover __ ----------------------- __ --- _____ -- ___________ _
28
31
V
Percent
highest
price is or
lowest
price I
11
g
8
11
11
7
13
23(1_g
305.8
134.3
157. 3
156.1
17V.0
17V.II
311.8
1!13.5
216.0
2'.19. a
154. 2
1g1,3
19
15
16
22
207.0
292.5
211.1
~-1
333.3
12
16
9
16
193.0
375. 4
1114.8
308.8
177.0
11
14
18
11
g
10
22
7
21
12
Ash cnn
________
---- --------- ---- --------------.
---- ---______
---- .._
Oas
plate._.
___________
. ___--. __------.
______
. _____
Porta hie oven __________ . _____________ .----- ____________ . ___ ._
Refri~erator __ . ____________________ --- _______ . _______________ _
Kitchen table __________________________ . ____________________ _
33
34
42
26
27
13
11
18
II
12
20
23
24
15
15
242.8
343. 2
3.'>'!. 3
226.0
190.8
Kitchen chair_------------------------------- __ ---------- ___ _
Oarbaj!e pall_ ______________ ---- ____ ._._. --- ________ . ---- ___ ..
Bread
_________ .------ -- ----------- -------. - ---------- -- • -_
Tea
ketbox
tie ___________________________________________________
Large kettle _________________________________________________ _
18
23
21
23
Jg
10
8
13
12
11
150.0
189. 3
1S2.4
151!.5
20!!.3
&
&
11
37
13
12
14
17
14
15
20
15.'I.I
1~0.,
205. 7
229.3
214. 7
25
20
30
32
10
14
16
14
10
16
16
210. &
170. 4
236. 4
20ll. 7
Table
cloth
__ ------------.
--- . -------------- -- ---------- --. -Napkins
______________
. ________
. __________________________
__
Felt base rug _________________________________ . ______________ _
Kitchen range ______________________________________________ ..
Coal scuttle ______________ ------ -- - ------- -- --- ------------- --
Wash tub ___________________________________________________ _
Wash honrd ______________ . ______ . ____ . ___ . ______ . ____ . ______ _
Clothes wringer ___________________________ . _____ -- - --- ------Clothes hoiler ________________ . ______________________________ _
Electric iron _______________ ---------------------- ___________ _
Ironing board. ______________________ . __ . ____________________ _
Clothes basket_. ____ .. _____________ .. ______ .. _______________ _
Broom ______________________________________________________ _
Hatchet ________ -- _____ -- ___ --- --- -- -- -- -- --- --- -- -- ---- --- -- -
38
16
37
21
10
24
26
29
10
g
12
10
II
g
t The ratio for the t-0tal Is identical for 11 4-person m11mrnl worker's fomlly at both the maintenance and
emergency levels. The total cost or furniture, furnishings, and hoLLsehold equipment Includes sales taz
whero levied (appendix tahles 15 and 16); commodity prices are without sales tax.
1 Includes an Identical allowance In all cities !or Items not separately priced, as well,._. prices for the items
listed which were priced in each city, combined with their quBDtity allowances In the maintenance budget,
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 63
figures. The identical amount of money allowed for these items in all
cities, however, averaged only 12.1 percent of total cost, varying from
10.3 percent in Butte to 13.8 percent in New York.
Of the 49 commodities separately priced, the highest city average
quotation for 27 was more than twice the lowest (table 36), 21 but no
city reported consistently high or consistently low prices. 28 Commodities showing the greatest price variations were living room heaters,
with an intercity price variation of nearly 500 percent, and kitchen
ranges, napkins, portable ovens, gas plates, couch covers, bedroom
rugs, and bedroom chairs, with price variations of 300 to 400 percent.
The smallest differences between lowest and highest prices for any of
the 49 commodities in the separate cities were 36.3 percent for bureaus
with mirror and 50 percent for kitchen chairs. For 20 other items the
ranges in prices from lowest to highest were less than 100 percent.
lnRuence ol Geo9raphlc Location and Size of City on Com of Fumlture, Fumi1hln91,
and Household Equipment 17
Though furniture, furnisbio~, and household equipment costs were
found to be highest in the Pacific and Mountain States and lowest in
the West Central Areas, the differences between sections were relatively small (appendix table 5). All geographic divisions except those
where costs were highest contained cities both above and below the
average. Costs seemed to go up as population decreased (appendix
table 7), except for the middle group. High and low cost cities
appeared in the separate size of city classifications.
Cost Dllferences
The explanation of the relative similarity in the annual costs of
replacing furniture, furnishings, and household equipment in the 59
cities lies in the large number of commodities making up the list.
City average prices of the separate items were never all high or all
low in the same place, and the extremes tended to cancel when combined to obtain the total cost. The allowance of $3.73 in each city,
plus sales tax where levied, as the annual cost of articles which can
be purchased for the same amount everywhere in the chain limited
price variety stores also acted as a cost stabilizer. Constituting less
than one-eighth of the average outlay necessary for this budget sub• Prices in all instances are compared without sales tax in order that the two
may not be confused in the measurement of intercity differences. Were the tax
where levied added to prices, the spread often would be greater than appears in the
comparison without tax. The total cost of furniture, furnishings, and household
equipment includes sales tax where levied.
20 It so happens that in New York most prices were low and in Fall River
mOBt were high, but these situations were unusual.
17 See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
64 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
group, however, its influence m this direction was relatively
unimportant.
Omission of the sales tax on furniture, furnishings, and household
equipment in 18 cities {appendix tables 15 and 16) would make for
a greater rather than smaller cost range among the 59 cities studied,
because New York, the cheapest city for this budget subgroup, had
a sales tax. The largest amounts added as sales tax were found in
the 3 Ohio cities where the rate was 3 percent; without the tax the
position of Cleveland would drop 10 places and this city would no
longer be among the 10 with highest costs for this budget subgroup.
The tendency toward higher prices in the Pacific and Mounts.in
Divisions observable for other commodities appeared also for furniture,
furnishings, and household equipment. This reflects perhaps higher
charges for shipping from factory to market, perhaps a superior
quality of merchandise, perhaps above average costs of doing business.
Specifications for many of these items were necessarily somewhat
general and could be met by articles of wide quality range. Some of
the commodities whose price ranges were widest, however, appear to
be more adapted to exact specification than others whose price ranges
were less. To the extent that quotations were obtained for commodities in popular use, they indicate the sums required annually for replacement of the items listed in the quantity budgets or for obtaining
equivalent commodities serving the same purpose.
REFUSE DISPOSAL
A variety of customs governs the disposal of refuse. In some cities
the householder is responsible for this service; in others, the city
collects garbage, ashes, and other trash, either charging directly for
this service or covering its cost in the tax rate. Provision for refuse
disposal is made in the quantity budgets if it involves a direct expense
to the family.
In 18 cities included in this study, the householder assumed all or
part of the cost of refuse disposal. There was a direct charge for
garbage removal and none for ashes in one city, and in nine the opposite practice was found. In general, the smallest outlays were reported
where it was necessary to pay for the removal of ashes for a few months
or for some other part of complete service.
Maintenance and emergency budget provisions for refuse disposal
are identical, hence costs at the two levels of living were identical
(appendix tables 2 and 8). Cost relatives were computed {appendix
tables 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13), but they are without significance because
the costs of refuse disposal were direct charges in only 18 cities.
UNSPECIFIED ESSENTIALS
The quantity budgets for a four-person manual worker's family
include $3.05 at the maintenance level and $2.75 at the emergency
Dig l17ed by
Goog Ie
HOUSEHOLD OPERATION • 65
level in all cities to cover the cost of a number of minor family needs,
such as writing materials, postage, telephone calls, twine, glue, tacks,
and similar essentials. Where a sales tax was applicable to that part
of the allowances included for commodities as contrasted with postal,
telephone, and other services, 28 its amounts (appendix tables 15 and
16) were added to annual costs; in all other cities the allowances noted
above were included for unspecified household essentials (appendix
tables 2 and 8).
18 Telephone calls were taxed in one city, but no effort was made to apply the
rate to that part of total annual allowances of $1.90 and $1.65 in the maintenance and emergency budgets, respectively, which mip;ht be expected to be necessary for telephone calls.
01g t1zed by
Google
MEDICAL CARE
T RANS?OR TATION
........
..._
N[WSPllP[AS
SCHOOi. ATTENDANCE
I()()
!CO
MOTION PICTUR£
Tt€ATER AOMISSIONS
}09_
~
~
Po1!1burQI'>.~
LOI A"'Qe'tt.C.Ol, f
M • Or l• -. LO
0
,,
CIW090_ 111
r,,,1~tpfrt,u 1.Po
O.•,o,1_l,l,ci\
u.,....opol.•1. M-
c",.-..o.
"'""'°'
tie-e•. C,olo
C
sz
C.•~.,,_,;_o,,..o
M,lao,A". ·1111, ,,
8wlf!IIQ,. N'f
So,,,
r ,ol'C•11::o.
p
coi,,
~":::~l~t
~~-""'"
s...r,,,.1111rcv,
1-<::,,.;110,,.• Tu
UI
,0
ll"OoO"""'JOOhil"d
('I
~"'Cl'•·''""
F>orttor,d, 0:1 0
3
Ri:l(.""1rtr . NT
~
~lllu'"';~~l(•,"IO
.\l'Of';IO. C:0
s,,cr,o,,,, Po
S o ll i,.O ~t C.. 1 , ,U ' ■ "I
0,. lo!!c:l~o
.,. _ _... ,,. .
Otto
C·•,,
Jr,l>j
..~-~.t.
~
R,c:~~."O
~ I IOl"d_lr,li,, ~
0
8
~,,.a,, - , N J
B,,OcJ1t ()(lo- lCON1
Joo-,.il,,_f10
01:IUot, Tn
"'
8 1fl"'0"'10fl,MT
T11 t l>ffl, A• <i
"<
,..., ..... "''"
ro
D..
O'
,.()
....,
a-n
•
('I
C\M IOf'ld,~
St L-•.l.4o
001,- •.
g
tt,odo•~. Vo
Pt •
t1 ,HI
Pto.-adeo><•. RI
Co,......eut, _Qt--o
~
1C•oo:-n!)f' , 'ft -
1tw111. l,to,,1
lilolD-•l t .Al O
L•"'• PloO,
.t,,_
C.10, _\.tlv, ', , W Vo
w,c,.,•,111-
a u,.,q.,...o.,. .,. "'"
W,t111o,1 - Sof,..,, N C
CtOOr ~GQ ;O, ,, .. 11
S,o.,, fa1t1, ~
(01,, ,.,o,io_ 'i C
0
(1 Po10, , • •
•
FIG. 7- RELATIVE COSTS OF MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS, 4·PERSON MANUAL WORKER'S FAMILY, 59 CITIES, MARCH 1935
Maintenance Level
•htch 1nclvd1 allOWOl'ICI
°"'"°'"
R,10,..H fo, , .... fOIOI COfflOl,teO ''""'
fo, ctnoeft m,no, ,,... Mf 1tM111Hd ..,_oJtitJ.
••11o11dlroct...,...
(AvefOQt. 59 c,!ies•IOO)
., ....... ,A.
Chapter VI
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS
IN
THE group of budget items combined under the classification "Miscellaneous" is included a number of unrelated family needs grouped
together for convenience of summary. Specifically, these are medical
care, transportation, school attendance, recreation, life insurance,
church contributions, other contributions, and taxes. 1
Miscellaneous items as a group required the largest annual outlay
in Cleveland, $316.41 for the maintenance budget, and the smallest
in El Paso, $193.72 (appendix table 2). The former averaged 63.3
percent more than the latter. The average in the 59 cities combined
was $252.67, with budget costs above this figure in 29 cities and
below it in 30 (fig. 7). The highest exceeded the average by 25.2
percent and the lowest was less by 23.3 percent (appendix table 3).
Thirty cities reported annual costs of miscellaneous items between
$220 and $260 at the maintenance level of living (table 37), and
thirty-eight were between $120 and $160 at the emergency level.2
The average outlay necessary for the emergency budget of these
goods and services was only 57 .5 percent of the maintenance budget
cost, a smaller ratio by far than was shown for any other major budget
group (table 3). The content of the 2 budgets for miscellaneous
family needs differed considerably in some respects; hence, the relative positions of the 59 cities in the 2 cost arrays often were not
identical (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13).
1 Sales taxes have been computed as part of the costs of specified groups of
goods and services. They arc aggregated and discussed in this chapter, but the
only taxes included in miscellaneous expenses as a separate item are personal
property and capitation taxes.
'Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budgets for Basic Maintenance and Emergency
Standards of Living, Research Bulletin, Series I, No. 21, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936. For the methods used in
collecting quotations and computing city average prices and aggregate costs,
see ch. VII.
67
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
68 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Tal,#e 37.-Annual Costs 1 of Miscellaneous Family Needs, -4-Penon Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of cities
l.nnual cost
Maintenance Emergenc:r
level
level
TotaL.................................... ...•.... ..•••••.•••••.•. .•.••.
69
'8().00-$99.99........... .. .•.• ...•.•.. .. ••••.• ...•••.•.•••••••••..•••.•••.••••.•
$100.()0-$119.00......... .. .• . •........ .. . •...... .•.. ..... .•••• .•.. .•.• ....••••.•
$120.00-$139.00 ..... ····•·· ..................•.......... ·•••·••····•••·• ...•••••
$H0.00-$159.00.... ..•... .. •....... ...• •.. •. •. .. .•. ... . . • . •. .. .. ....•.•...... ••.
$160.()0-$179.00 .•••.•.•••.•• ··•·•· ...••••••• .... .•. . ....••••••••... .•... ... .••..
$180.00-$100.00.................................................................
59
1-----1----
8
'200.00-$219.99...... ... .....•..••••••..•••••••••••. .. ......••.. ••. • ..•• •••••••.
$220.()()-$239.00. .... •.......•• •..•••••..••••...•••.•. ..•.. ••.••• .. .• .•••••••••••
$240.00-$2-~9.00. .........................•..................... ......•...•.•••••
$211().()0-$279.00.................................................................
$280.00-$2911.00.. .•. •• ..•.•. .•....•• ........••.......• .......... .... .. . ..... .•••
$300.00-'319.W..... •••• •• . • • • ••••• •.. . . •. • . •••. .• • . . • .. .. . . • . . . • .. • •• •• .. ..••••
4
18
12
Average,1 611 cities ..•••••.•••••••••••••..••••••......•. ················--
$252. 67
l
5
22
16
8
7
II
8
6
• Include sales tu where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
The goods and services making up the group of !Iliscellaneous fe.mily
needs are a heterogeneous lot. Certain items in the maintenance
budget are omitted entirely in the emergency budget; for some, smaller
allowances are made and for others, identical allowances are made.
The proportions of the total miscellaneous costs required for ea.ch
item, therefore, were different (table 38). The average distribution
in the 59 cities combined varied considerably among them separately,
not only with prices but also with differential transportation allowances
and public policy as to school costs and taxes.
Certain items whose costs are the same everywhere and certain
needs which cannot be definitely specified were covered by money
allowances of $92.20 at the maintenance level and $36 at the emergency
level in all cities, plus sales tax where levied. These sums were
Tal,#e 38.-Percent Distribution of the Average Annual Costs I of Miscellaneous Family
Needs Amon9 the Principal Commodity and Service Groups, -4-Person Manual
Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Maintenance Emerirency
level
level
Group
100. 0
100. 0
TotaJ _______ ._ ----··----·- --------·-·-·-···- _____ -·-- -·---·-·---········Medical care---·-··--·---·-·--·-------·-·--·-----···-·--·-------------------···l--.......,.,20,-,.7,-1---3-2-.5
J;~ra~\:~d~ncii.~:::::::::::: ::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ::::::
Recreation_-·· .......... ___ ... ---·-------·---·---·-----·-------··-·-·-·••·-···
Motion picture theater admissions .. -.. -----·. _____ .....• ---·-·--···- .... __
Newspapers ___ --·-._ .. --······ ... _____ . _____ . ___ ···----· ...•.. __ .·--· ... __
Organizations_--·--.--·--------······---------····------····-----·-·-----Tobacco and toys .. •-·····----·--··--------------------··---·-·---··-··---Lire Insurance .. ______ ..... __ ..... _... _..... -----··-----------··-··-·······---Church contributions and other contributions. __ --·-.··-···_ --- .. _... -· .. ·---.
Taxes•-·---------------------······--------·····-·······----·-············----
Average,• 59 cities.--·-··.-----·----·-·-- __ --·-- ___________ .• ··•-··-·-·..
2
~:;
29. 8
13. 4
4. 3
3. 8
8. 3
18. 3
6. I
I. O
8. 7
5. 4
3. 3
14. 3
7. 2
I. 7
l=====I====
$252. 67
Include sale.s tax where levied (appendlx tables 15 and 16).
• )I; ot included in emergency budget.
• Exclusive or sales tax.
1
Dig tirnd by
~:;
Goos le
$14.'i. 30
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS • 69
designed to provide for organization memberships, tobacco, toys, and
other leisure-time accessories, life insurance, church contributions, and
other contributions. The maintenance allowance constituted 36.5
percent of the average miscellaneous cost in the group of 59 cities
combined and varied from slightly more than 29 percent in Cleveland
to slightly less than 48 percent in El Paso. Though the inclusion of
an identical amount in all cities for so large a part of the total cost of
miscellaneous family needs apparently tended to limit the range
between cities, the procedure depicts a situation which exists and its
use does not misrepresent the true spread.
The variety and unrelated character of the items grouped as miscellaneous family needs (table 38) explain the absence of any consistent
cost tendency among the separate geographic areas (appendix table 5),
except as these were influenced by the size of cities making up the
groups. There was a definite relationship between the size of city and
costs of miscellaneous items (appendix table 7), due primarily to the
fact that the quantity of transportation allowed in the separate cities
decreased with population and area. 3 The analysis proceeds, therefore, to consideration of the various budget subgroups as a means of
explaining miscellaneous coijts.
,
MEDICAL CARE
Neither the kind nor the quantity of medical care required by any
one individual or family can be predicted in advance; hence, its cost in
any one year cannot be estimated. Requirements by large groups of
persons, over a period of years, however, can be calculated. Such
estimates on a minimum basis constitute the quantity budgets for
medical care priced in the present study. The amounts obtained
measure the costs of the minimum medical care required during a
life time, prorated to an annual basis for a four-person family. They
should be regarded only as a means of accounting for this necessity
in the annual costs of living for average families. They are without
significance as a measure of the necessary cost of medical care for
any one family.
The amounts required each year to provide minimum medical care
when needed for a four-person manual worker's family were computed from reported charges for a representative sample of medical
services, and drugs and appliances in such volume as would represent
minimum requirements per 1,000 persons of small means. Prices of
11 services and 9 commodities were used in the cost calculations. In
29 cities costs were above and in 30, below the average of $52.32 in
the 59 cities combined (fig. 7). Thirty-seven cities reported maintenance budget costs within a range of $10 (table 30). There were
extremes, however, which resulted in Spokane, the highest cost city,
I
See pp. 116-117.
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
70 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
with a budget cost of $66.10 per year, being 71.9 percent above
El Paso, the lowest cost city, where $38.46 was required (appendix
table 2); the former was 26.3 percent more than the average and the
latter, 26.5 percent less (appendix table 3).
Inasmuch as the cost of the emergency budget for medical care
(appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13) was computed as 90 percent of the
maintenance budget cost in all cities, intercity relationships in the
two series were identical.
Tal,#e 39.-Annual Costs 1 of Medical Careh-4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59
Cities, Marc 1935
Number or c1t1111
Annual cost
Malntenanre Emel'lll!ncy
level
level
Total---------------------------·····-····-······-··-·--················· 1 - - - -611
1
'30_00-$3.j .99 .•. ··- ..•••••••••••••••. ·-. - ..•. - .. ··-. - ..........• ··-· ..••••......
$35.00-$39.99 .•. _. ·- ••••••••...... ·--. ··-- ·- ..••. ·-. -· ·-· .•..•.••••. - ••• - ·-··· ..
$40.00-$4-4.99 .•• -- .•••••••...... ·-- ·-· - ... ··- •....••• ·- .• ··- .••••••••••... ··- ...
~.~9.911 •••••• _••••••.• - - _- - .•••••••••••• - - • - - - ••••••••••••••••••••• - ••• - ••
$50.00-$.54.99 .••••••• -···-·--···················································
SM.00-$59.99 .••••.•........•....•••••••••....•.•..•....•.••••....•.•.•. _.••••..
$60.00-$64.99 .••••.. ·-. - •.•••.•••••••••••••...•... -- ..••..•. - .••••....•.•••••••.
$65.00-$69.911 .•••• ·- ..•••••••••••••••.•• -· ·-· .••. ·-·. ··- ---- ..• ·-·· ••. -- ••••••••
Average,• 611 clt.les •• ·-·-·-···-······-·····-···················----·······
I
8
8
22
15
4
1
I====
$52.32
&II
I
7
9
24
H
4
$47.08
• Include Mies tax where levied (appendix tables 15 and IG).
The average annual cost of medical care in the group of 59 cities
was so distributed that services accounted for 90.5 percent and commodities, 9.5 percent (appendix table 14). Hence, the costs of medical
care in the separate cities tended to be fixed largely by combined local
charges for physicians', dentists', nurses', and hospital services,
though the relative positions of these items separately were not identical in the same place.' For example, Spokane, where medical ·care
as a whole cost most, also reported the largest outlay necessary for
all services combined and highest physicians' fees; but dentists'
charges ranked 30th from the top; hospital care cost, 25th; and drugs
and appliances cost, 23d. The least expensive city for medical care,
El Paso, on the other hand, was lowest for all services combined, and
for physicians separately, 41st from the top for dentists, 53d for hospital care, and 38th for drugs and appliances.
Among the 59 cities 29 reported more than average costs for services
and 30 reported less; the excess of highest over lowest was 81.4 percent. The spread for drugs and appliances,includingeyeglasses and
'Necessary substitutions of quotations for eye refractions by optometrists and
for nursing care by public health nurses in 22 and 36 cities, respectively, resulted
in identical costs for the first service in 36 cities, and for the second, in 59 cities.
The amounts involved were $1.80 per year in the maintenance and $1.62 per year
in the emergency budget costs in 36 cities, and $1.60 and $1.44, respectively, in
23 cities. See pp. 114-115 and 115.
Dg1tzed by
Google
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS• 71
frames, was from 15.6 percent above the average to 14.9 percent below,
with the highest cost city 35.9 percent more than the lowest. The
separate services and commodities showed still wider cost ranges
(table 40). 5
Tal,#e 40.-Medical Care Commodity and Service Price Ratios, 1 59 Cities, March 1935
Commodity or -vice
Number of cities where prices
exceeded± 10 percent with
Percent
reference to the 59-clty
highest
average 1
price Is of
1 - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - 1 lowest
price I
Above
Below
Total
Total medical care•••••...•••...••••••••.•.•••••••••••.•
Service!! ..................................................... .
Physician• ••.................••••••...•....••..•..•...•..
Dentist..••..............•...•.•.....•••....••.•.•••......
Hospital ....•••..........•...•.•.•••.•••..••.•••.•••..••..
None 1••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••• •• •• ••• ••
D"Toli!:~ appliance!! ....................................... .
g~::r~1~fnc:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MUie of magnesia ...............................•.........
Luatlve . ............................................... .
Aspirin ....••.•••.•...•...•••.•...•.•.•....••••••••.•.•..
Prescription ..••..........••.•..••......••....••.•••.•.•••
Eyeglasses and frame ••••••...••......•••••.••.•.••.••••.
22
=
23
25
(')
37
32
6
9
4
II
II
10
average
average
II
11
171.8
11
181. 4
216.4
214.6
235.11
--12
(1)
12
16
12
13
21
20
(')
(')
3
2
3
7
135.9
140.7
128.6
4
4
5
5
143.3
I
I
g
179.2
177.6
153. 3
382.3
'
(')
14
8
3
6
45
Ill
26
4
164.8
• Ratios for all t-0tals are Identical for a 4-pen,-0n manual worker's famlly at both the maintenance and emer•
gency levels of living. The total cost of medical care Includes sales tax where levied (appendix tables 15
and 16); the group totals and oommodity and 88l'Vloe prices are without sales tax.
• Includes optometrist.
• The fees for nurses' servlcee were the Mme In all cities. Bee footnote 4, p. 70, and p. 115.
• In no city wu the deviation from the average 1111 much 1111 10 percent.
lnRuence of Geo9raphlc Location and Size of City on Colll of Medical Care 1
Medical care was notably expensive in the Mountain and Pacific
Divisions (appendix table 5). All cities in the former and three of the
five in the latter group reported both service and commodity costs well
above the average; drugs and appliances were relatively cheaper,
however, than services. In all but one of the East South Central
cities and in all but one of the West North Central cities medical care
costs were below the average, but high price services often were combined with low price drugs and vice versa; in general, charges for
services in these areas were relatively lower than for commodities.
The costs of the medical care budget tended to decline with decreased
city size (appendix table 7), at lea.st until the 250,000 population group
• Prices in all instances are compared without sales tax in order that the two
may not be confused in the measurement of intercity differences. Were the tax
where levied added to prices, the spread would be no different than that shown,
inasmuch as neither of the extreme cities had a sales tax. The total cost of
medical care includes sales tax where levied.
• See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
32592°-38--7
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
72 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
was reached. Highest costs were found in the smallest cities, but these
may be influenced more by geographic location than by size.
Cost Dllferenca
Physicians' and dentists' fees and charges for hospital care did not all
rank in the same direction in many places; where some were relatively
high, others were relatively low, with numerous intermediate ratios.
Thus, when all service prices in each city were combined, variations
were not nearly so great as were those for any one separately. After
the outlay necessary for drugs and appliances was added to service
fees, the tendency toward cost uniformity was further narrowed. As
already noted, however, services everywhere required so much more
of the total cost of medical care than commodities that the ranks of the
cities in total medical care costs were somewhat similar to their ranks
in service costs alone.
When causal factors are considered, it is logical that there should be
a considerably greater spread between the costs of services than the
costs of commodities. Charges for most services depend on local circumstances past or present which vary widely and on a diversity of
influences within a given community. Quotations obtained in cities
with well-defined working class neighborhoods, for example, may
represent a fee scale somewhat below the general level for the community. In places where physicians serve patients of small means
along with those of larger resources, on the other hand, the reported
charges may not be those usually paid by unskilled laborers, owing to
the custom of adjusting prices to what the patient can afford. Check
of fees reported in the separate cities indicates, however, that this
factor was relatively unimportant as an explanation of cost differences. The fact that the costs of nurses' and optometrists' services
were identical in most cities only slightly counteracted the general
tendency toward wide medical service cost variations, because the
allowances for these two items were small.
The influences which determine commodity prices are more alike
than are those which account for service charges. Specifications for
drugs and appliances permitted inclusion of several brands of some
proprietary medicines in the sample, however, and a variety of other
circumstances served to produce a diverse range of city average
prices. The dispersion of commodity costs as a group was less than
half that of service costs and tended to reduce somewhat the spread
in costs of the medical care budget as a whole.
Except in one city the sales tax on medical care was applicable
only to drugs and appliances, and not to all these in every city. In
New York, for example, only physicians' prescriptions for drugs were
exempt; in Oklahoma City only eyeglasses and frames were taxed.
Thus, the existence of a sales tax in 18 cities (appendix tables 15 and
16) contributed little to medical care cost differences.
Dg1tzed by
Google
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS • 73
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation requirements are largely an individual matter.
They depend on the location of each family's home in relation to the
place of employment of its members and the children's school, as well
as on shopping, visiting, and other social demands. Average transportation needs are without significance, therefore, except to provide
for this item in a balanced measure of the cost of living. In general,
requirements may be presumed to differ somewhat with the area of a
city and the size of its population. Quantity allowances based on
these factors varied among the cities; but even though they were taken
into account in computing necessary transportation costs, these costs
must be regarded primarily as representative for groups of families,
rather than for any one family.
Tol,le 47.-Annual Costs I of Transportation!, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, Marc
1935
Number of cltlea
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergent'}'
level
level
TotaL _________________________________________________________________ _
59
SO.oo--$9.lKI ____ . _______________________________________________________________ _1 - - - - 1 - 2
$10.00-SIQ.lKI ___________________________________________________________ .. _____ _
7
$20.00-$29.lKI ____ . __________________________________ . _____________ . ____________ _
6
g
$30.00-$39.99. _. _.. _----- _-- _-- --- -- -- _-- _-- --- ___________________ -- ____ . --- _-- _
$40.00-$49.119. -- --- _. -- ----- _--- -- -- --- __ -- _________ -- ____ . _-- ____ . _______ -- -- -5
Sli0.00--$59.99 __ . ____ ------- ----- ---- --- --- -- --- _______ --- -- _--- __ --- ____ --- _-- __
5
$60.00-$69.99 __ . -- ___ -- _____ --- _____ -- _____ --- . ____ -- _______ -- ____ . _____ . _. ____ _
$70.00-$79.119_ -- -- ___ . _--- -- __ -------- ___ -- --- __ -- ______ -- . ___ -- -- -- _-- _--- ____ _
SS0.00-$89.119 _____ ------ _--------- ---- ---- ------ _--- -- __ --- --- --- . _--- __ . ------$90.00-$119.lKI. - - - --- - - - - -- --- -- - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - . - -- --- - --- --- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - $100.00-$109.99 ___ -- --- _--- -- _____ -- -- ---- ---- __________ -- _-- _______ - - - - - - - . - --$110.00-$119.1111 __ --- ----------- __ • _-- -- --- ---- _--- -- _----- -- -- _-- ___ -- ________ -Average,' 59 cities ___________________________________________________ . __ _
1511
5
f}
9
9
6
g_
7
4
5
2
5
6
6
2
4
2
$5.'l. 96
$44.W
• Include sales tax In 1 city (appendix tables 16 and lfl).
Charges on public conveyances commonly patronized by industrial,
service, and other manual workers of small means were used as a basis
for computing annual transportation costs; an automobile is not
included in the quantity budgets. If the costs as computed permit
transportation in an automobile 7 the same purpose will be served.
Owing to the wide range in the quantities of transportation allowed
in the separate cities, annual costs of this service for a four-person
manual worker's family also were widely dispersed; the largest outlay
necessary on the basis of March 15, 1935, rates was more than 13.5
times the smallest (appendix table 2). In St. Louis where most was
needed to purchase the quantity allowed at the maintenance level,
$118.44 per year was required; in Columbia where annual cost was
lowest, a smaller quantity was allowed and $8.75 was required. The
7 It is not uncommon for several men to share the cost of transportation to and
from work in an automobile owned by one of them.
D
I
zedryGooglc
74 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 QTIES
average cost of the transportation budget in the 59 cities combined was
$53.96 annually; 27 cities exceeded this amount and 32 cities were less
(fig. 7). In the city where most was required, cost was 119.5 percent
more than the average, and in that with smallest necessary outlay, its
amount was 83.8 percent less (appendix table 3). There was no welldefined concentration of transportation costs (table 41), such as was
found for most other items of family consumption, but rather a fairly
even grouping in $10 intervals.
Emergency transportation budget cost (appendix tables 8, 9, 11,
and 13), by definition, averaged 83.3 percent of maintenance budget
cost everywhere; relatives, therefore, were identical in all arrays.
lnfhlence ol Geo,raphlc Location and Size ol C~ on Com ol TrantpOltatlon 1
Geographic location as such had little to do with car and bus fares
or with the annual costs of transportation, except as costs were influenced by the size of cities in the separate areas. Costs were perhaps somewhat higher in the Middle Atlantic and North Central
States than in other sections (appendix table 5), save for the Pacific
Division where high costs in three of the larger cities brought up the
average for the area.
Because quantity allowances were largely based on the population
factor, transportation costs were more dependent on size of city than
were the costs of any other budget group and declined as cities d&. creased in size (appendix table 7).
Coat Dllerenca
The quantity budgets set certain basic standards for the calculation
of transportation costs and provide for modification of the basic
allowance to represent local needs. These adjustments were made
for each city on a percentage basis adapted to local population and
city area. 11 Three elements, therefore, entered into the annual cost
of transportation as computed for this study: the lowest rate of fare
on public conveyances for each purpose specified, the basic allowance
in the quantity budgets, and the percentage of the basic budget allowance applicable in each city.
Street railway and bus fares were sufficiently varied to account for
most of the range in unmodified transportation costs in the 59 cities:
namely, from 5 cents cash fare or reduced ticket or token rate where
the cash fare itself exceeded 5 cents, to 10 cents cash and no reduction
by ticket or token. Some cities had special fares for children under
12 years of age or for all children within certain hours on school days,
while others charged children the same rates as adults. Cash fares
• See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisiona
and size of city claseifications.
• See pp. 116-117.
Digitized by
GoosIe
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS• 75
Tol,le .fJ.-Adult Cash Fares and Annual Costs 1 of Transportation, -4-Penon Manual
Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
City
Aggregat,i cost 1
Relative cost 1
Percent 1- - -- - -- - -- -11-- - - - -- - - - modltlra·
Ba.sic
Basic
tlonol
aJ.
budget RI·
Ba.sir budget
bnslc
Adult Basic
lowanoo
Jowanre
Adult
budget. budget modified
cash budget modified
nlJOW·
allow• for popula•
8
for popula•
rare
fare
anoo
ance
lion and
tlon and
city area
city area
1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ , ____
""''h
!~,:·
- - - - - -- - - - - --
Average, OOcitie&........... ..
-
$00. 48 _ _$_ti.J_._
oo_ f{). 087
llXl. 0
100. 0
95. 11:1 - 7o "°"T37T ===11"'1=
. 2=
126 . .',Q
106. 26
. 10
131.1
196. 9
124. oo
~9. 28
. 10
128. 5
185. 5
124 . 00
29. 76
10
128. 5
M. 2
123. 38
118. 44
. IO
127. 0
219. 5
121. r,o
43. 74
. IO
125. 9
81. I
121. IIO
,18. 32
. 10
12.~. 9
IO!l. I
120. :10
11 5. 49
. 10
124. 7
214. 0
I IX. RO
:.!!,. 51
. 10
123. I
52. 8
112. 62
94.00
.IO
116.7
175.3
112. 311
5.1. 95
. IO
116. 5
100. 0
111. 83
40. 26
. 08
11.~. 9
74. 6
110. 48
100. 06
. 08
114. 5
196. 6
110. 2.~
39. 69
. IO
114. 3
73. 6
109. 35
52. 49
. 10
113. 3
97. 3
109. 35
9 1. 8.~
. 10
113. 3
170. 2
100. .',()
ll.1. 90
. 111
110. 4
118. 4
10.~. 7.~
IOI. 52
. 10
109. 6
188. I
IO,~. 75
76. 14
. IO
109. 6
141. I
'105. 57
I 12. 67
. 10 I 109. 4
123. 5
105. 53
IOI. 30
. IO
109. 4
187. 7
103 95
a ~4
. 10
107. 7
138. 7
103 . .',()
24. 84
. IO
107. 3
46. 0
1()2. 75
12. 33
Ill
100. 5
22. 9
102. 48
61. 49
. 0i
106. 2
114. 0
102. 06
RI. 24
. 117
105. 8
113. ,,
IOI. 8,,
97. 78
. oi
l05. 6
181. 2
99. ,',()
3.~. 82
. 10
103. I
00. 4
99. 2.,
59. M
. 10
102. 9
110. 4
97. 3~
11.IJX
. 10
100. \l
21.6
97. 20
93. 31
- "7
100. 7
172. 0
97. 14
69. !H
. 10
100. 7
129. 6
92. 61
66.68
. JO
96. 0
123. 6
91. 13
IO. !H
10
94 . ,,
20. 3
90. .'i6
65. 21
. 07
93. 9
120. 8
00. 19
IO 82
10
93 . .,
20. I
89. 85
i ->. 47
. 10
93. I
139. 9
89. 28
32. 14
. 10
92 . .1
59. 6
87. JS
31. 46
. 10
00. 6
58. 3
87. 38
20. \17
. 07
90. 6
38. 9
87. 23
20. 93
. o.~
00. 4
38. 8
Rtl. 10
41. 33
. o.~
811. 2
76. 6
&~. 86
30. 91
. 10
89. 0
57. 3
85. 811
41.21
. 10
89.0
76. 4
85. 50
82. 08
. 06
88. 6
152. I
8.,. o.,
71. H
. 10
88. 2
132. 4
8.1. rn
39. 92
. 07
86. 2
74. o
s 2._ ~.1
3ft. 53
. 10
I!.,. 4
73. 3
9. 20
. 07
79..~
17. 0
76 " 7
74 . 40
71.42
.o.,
TT. I
132. 4
74. 10
H . 16
. Of\
76. 8
82. 4
73..,o
61. 74
. o.,
76. 2
114. 4
K8DB88 City, Mo . . . . . . . . ...... . ----r-fo 1:12. 8:l
Plttshurgh, Pa . .. ... ... ..... ..... . .
Buffalo, N. Y . . .. . . . . . • . . . . .. . . . . . .
Peoria, Ill.. .. .. .... . .. . . . ... ... ... .
St. Louis, M o.... .. . ... .. . . . .. . .. . .
Bridgeport, Conn . . . . . . ...... . .....
Omaha, Nebr ... . .... . . ..... .... ...
Baltimore, Md ........ ... ..... . ... .
Portland, Maine . . ... ...... ....... .
Clnclnnatl,Ohlo ....... . .. ....... . .
SaltLakeClty,Utah . . . .. . ... . . . .
Scranton, Pa..... . ... . .. .. . .. . . . .. .
Philadelphia, Pa . ..... ... • . . • . . ..
Manchester, N. II. .. . .. ..... . ... ..
Atlanta, Ga. . ..... ... .. . . ... . .. ....
Minneapolis, Minn . .. . ... ..... . . ..
Roch011ter, N . Y _.. ........ ••. . .. ..
Cleveland, Ohio... ..... ...... .. ....
Milwaukee, Wis .. . ... ... ........ ..
Albuquerque, N. Mex . ... .. .. .. . .
Los Angeles, Cali L . . . . . .•. • .•.. .
Denver, Colo ... . .. ..... . ... .. . . . ..
Cedar Rapids, Iowa .. . .. . .. .... ....
Tucson, Ariz... . . . . .... .. . . .. ... ...
Birmingham, Ala .. . ... ... . . .... . ..
Memphl~, Tenn .. . .... . . .... ... . ...
New Orleans, La .. ..... .. ... . _. _. .
Norfolk, Va.. ..... . .... ... . . . ... ...
Louisville, Ky ............. .. . .. ..
B lnghamton,N.Y . .... . • .. •• . • .
C hicago, Ill.. ...... ..... . . .. . .
Portland, Oreg. .. .. ... . .. . .. . . . .
Honston,Tex. . .. ...... ........ ... .
Rioux Falls, 8. Dak .. ... .• . • . . .
Indianapolis, Ind.. .. . ... ........ . .
Butte, Mont.. . ..... . . ..... . . . .... .
Seattle, Wash ... . .... . . ..... . . . .. ..
Knox vtlle, Tenn. .... . . ....... .....
Fall River, Mass.... . .. ... ... .... . .
Winston•Salem, N . C ... . ..........
Mobile, Ala. . . . ... .. .. .. . . ... .. . . .
Providence, R. I. -••· . . .... .. ... .. .
Jacksonville, Fla... . ......... .. . ...
Rpokane,Wash . ... .. . . . . . ..... . ...
Detroit, M ich .. .... .. ..... . ... ... ..
Washlngtoo, D. C .. . . . . .. ..... . . ..
Rich mood, Va ... ...... . ....... ....
Oklahoma CJtr, Okla ....... ..... ..
Clarksburg, \\.Va.... . .. ... . . .....
NewYork,N . Y .. .. . . .. ..... . .... .
Columbus, Ohio. . . .. ... .... . ..... .
Boston, M a."8. ... .. . . . .. . . • . . • .. . • .
~~~'
lif!'.at:~[::::::::::::::::::::
El Paso, Tex ... .. ...... .. .. .. .... . .
Little Rock, Ark . ... ... ... .... . .. ..
Newark, S. J ·· •--9__ -- -·•·9 ·---- ..
San Francisco, Cali f. . . ... . . . . . . . .
D81188, Tex.... .... . . . . . . . . . . .
~
84 . 0
72. o
24 . 0
06. 0
36. o
411. 0
96. 0
24 . 0
84. 0
48 . 0
36. o
96. 0
3R. o
4S. 0
84 . o
r,o. o
96. o
n .O
12. 0
96. 0
;2. o
2l. O
12 o
f\0. 0
60. O
!lll. o
36. O
60. o
12. 0
96. o
72. o
72.0
12. 0
72. o
12. 0
84. 0
36. o
36. o
24. o
24. o
4K 0
3fi. o
4~. o
00. 0
84 . o
4S. o
4~•'· o
1 0
96.0
00. o
84 . o
1~24.1)g g;~
71. 2S
2Ui
17. 11
24. n
f'l(1. o
16. 40
~7- i.'i
so. 78
3,,. oo
!<-1 o
f;(J
o
fl'- . .\~
fi2. f'1
60. 4,,
~o. 94
: ~~
. Of\
. 00
. O.'i
I
. or.
. 07
~t~
73. 9
71. I
f\.'i _2
62. i
02. I ,
100. 0
114.9
114.0
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
92. O
92. 0
114 . 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
114. 9
114 . 9
114. 0
114 . 9
114 . 9
114 . 9
80. 5
RO. 5
80. 5
114. 9
114. 9
IH . 9
RO. 5
114. 9
114 . 9
114. 9
80. 5
114. 9
114 . 9
114. 9
114. 9
80. ,I
92. o
92. 0
114. 9
114. 9
69. 0
11-1 . 0
80. ,I
I 14. 9
80. 5
57. 5
60. o
!,i . ,
lU
31. 7
:69.:~
0
30. r,
70. o
60. 0
.~7. .~
.,; . -~
80. 5
04. I
M. 6
1 All costs refer to the maintenance budget. Inasmuch as this table ls Included only for illustrative pur•
comparable data for the emergency budget were not &Membled. Emergency transportation budget
coat, 1ny dellnltlon, la 83. 3 percent or maintenance budpt ooet; anncate and relative annual costs
are shown ln appendix tables 8 and II.
I lncludM ales tax (appendix tables IS and IG).
Dig lirnd by
Goos le
76 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
varied 100 percent from lowest to highest: in 36 cities the rate was 10
cents; in 11 cities, 7 cents; in 4 cities, 8 cents; in 4 cities, 6 cents; and in
4 cities, 5 cents (table 42). The total spread between the lowest and
highest annual costs of transportation in the 59 cities, obtained by combining minimum charges for specified services with the basic allowance
for transportation in the quantity budgets, was 121.6 percent.
The basic budget allowance of transportation for the man to work,
612 rides, is identical in all cities, but for the boy to school it varies
with the number of school days per year. Twenty-one separate
numbers were reported. 10 They ranged from 156 days in Dallas to
200 days in St. Louis; 11 the median and the mode were 180 days.
Assuming that all cities had a school year of 180 days, the maximum
differences in total transportation costs attributable to variations in
the number of school days would be $4.03 per year reduction in St.
Louis and $1.30 addition in Dallas. Thus, differences in the annual
transportation costs among the separate cities were not closely related
to differences in the basic budget allowances.
Modifications of the basic budget allowance in the separate cities
to provide for local transportation requirements ranged from 96 percent in the largest to 12 percent in the smallest places. Applying the
appropriate local percentage to the basic budget allowance cost in
each city produced a transportation cost range of 1,253.6 percent
between lowest and highest cost cities, as compared with 121.6 percent unmodified cost range. It is apparent, therefore, that the great
spread in transportation costs among the 59 cities in this study was
due primarily to differential needs based on population and area.
Without this modifying factor of differential needs, the cost dispersion would have been wider than for many other items, but not nearly
so great as the final calculations show.
To illustrate the effect of these three elements in transportation cost
computation, attention may be directed to Kansas City (Mo.) and
Dallas, the extreme cities for basic budget allowance costs unmodified
by local differentials (table 42). In Kansas City (Mo.), where the
basic budget allowance cost was highest, fares were at the rate of 4
rides for 35 cents on a token basis for adults and children over 12 years
of age; cash, 10 cents; and a weekly pass, $1.10. Neither cash fare
nor weekly pass was used in computing costs. The cost of the basic
budget allowance in Kansas City (Mo.) was modified to 72 percent
to provide for local requirements, and that city then ranked 8th from
the top in the cost of this service as finally calculated for the 59 cities.
In Dallas, at the other end of the scale of basic budget allowance
10
Not including three cities where 5 days were added in computing carfare
to provide for midweek holidays.
11 The school year was 200 days but owing to the use of a weekly pass 41 weeks
were assumed to provide for week11 in which there were holidays.
Dg1tzed by
Google
77
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS •
transportation costs, the adult ca.sh fare was 7 cents but 6 tokens were
sold for 30 cents and school children rode for 3 cents. The basic
budget allowance for transportation in Dallas was reduced to 60 percent to provide for local needs, but in many other cities reductions
were so much greater that instead of being at the bottom of the list
for carfare actually required, Dallas was 20th from the cheapest city.
Basic budget allowance transportation costs and adult cash fares
were not closely related, primarily by reason of the great variety of
modifications of cash fares expressed in ticket or token rates for adults
and children. 12 Both happened to average highest in the 72 percent
cities and lowest in the 60 percent cities (table 43). Though local differentials declined in 12 point intervals from largest to smallest, the
average annual costs of transportation in the groups of cities with the
same differentials did not vary so regularly. The largest local consumption differential was eight times the smallest, but the average
annual cost of transportation in the group of cities with the largest
percentage allowance was more than nine times that with the smallest.
Tcrl>le 43.-Relative Car and Bus Fares and Relative Annual Transportation Costs,
Classified by Local Consumption Differentials, 59 Cities, Mardi 1935
Percent of ~0-clty aver,.ge
Local consumption differential
Adult cash
fare
11& percent_ ______________________ --------------------------------.
84 percent. ______________ ------------------------------------ ____ _
72 percent __ ----------------------------- ________________________ .
eo percent __ ------------------ ____________________ ------------ ___ _
48 percent ___ ---------------- ____________________________________ _
311 percent ___________________________ . ___________________ . _____ . __
24 percent __ • __________________________________________________ . __
12 percent._.------------------------------------ ______________ . __
92. 0
103.4
114. g
80. 5
103. 4
103. 4
92.0
103. 4
Basic
budget
allowe nee 1
cost
106. 5
97. 4
110. 6
811.V
100. 8
100. g
97.V
• IM. 0
Basic budget
allowance
cost modified for
population
and city area
182. 7
U6. 2
142. 4
116. 5
IMl.5
M.V
42.0
I
20. 2
t Includes slt~ht differentials related to number of school days In each city.
• Includes sales tax In 1 city (appendix tables 15 and 16).
One factor possibly affecting transportation costs in certain cities,
which could not be considered in any generalized method of cost calculation, is the circumstance that reduced fares for children are good
only for school use. In computing total transportation costs from
these charges, payable only under certain circumstances, these totals
may be slightly understated. The average fare good only on school
days in 34 cities was 4.13 cents per ride, and that paid by children in
cities where there were no such special rates averaged 7 cents per ride.
On the basis of 180 school days per year the budget cost differences
were $10.33 for school use at both the maintenance and emergency
levels of living, $5.17 for other purposes at the maintenance level and
u Differences in the numbers of school days reflected in the basic budget allowance accounted for some, but very little, of the differences between basic budget
allowance costs and adult cash fares. See p. 76.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
78 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
$2.58 at the emergency level, or total average annual differences of
$15.50 and $12.92, respectively, in basic budget allowance costs.
Modified by local consumption differentials, reductions varying from
4 percent to 88 percent would be made.
For only 22 cities is any test available of the reliability of the locaJ
consumption differentials used in computing transportation costs.
Even this probably means little because the bases for measuring local
transportation use were different. The Real Property Inventory of
the Department of Commerce in 1934 attempted to ascertain the
number of principal income earners in areas studied who walked to
work and the kind of transportation used by those who rode. 11
Assuming that all who did not walk required transportation, reducing
these aggregates to percentages of all principal income earners, and
comparing these percentages with the local consumption differentials
used in this study, it appears that, for principal income earners only,
the smaller local consumption differentials were too small and the larger
ones were too large in an almost uniform progression. In other
words, in the smaller cities not enough transportation to work was
provided by the local percentage differentials and in the larger ones,
too much. Manual workers, however, are more likely to locate their
homes near the places of their employment than are all income earners
as a class. This practice is especially noticeable in smaller cities,
where industrial plants quite generally are surrounded by modest
residential areas in which their employees live. Moreover, from such
information as was obtained in this study regarding school transportation needs, location of shopping areas, and related matters, any
apparent deficiency of transportation to work in the smaller cities
seems to be fully counterbalanced by an excessive allowance of transportation to school. The reverse relationship probably exists in the
larger cities.
Fares on public conveyances are subject to control by public service
or other regulatory bodies, and a number of local circumstances determines what are reasonable rates. From this standpoint, the process
of their establishment is analogous to the fixing of gas and electricity
charges. The present analysis in no sense constitutes a comparison
of car or bus fares. Its purpose is to measure, as accurately as possible
according to a definite formula, the costs of transportation in the
different cities. Inasmuch as requirements as well as fares varied,
both are reflected in the costs as computed.
A sales tax was levied on bus fares in Albuquerque in March 1935
{appendix tables 15 and 16). This was the only city among the 59
which had a sales tax on car or bus fares.
11 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic
Commerce, Real Property Inventory, 1934, City Proper, Table V, "Mode of
Transportation and Time for Principal Income Earners to Get to Work." There
are separate reports for 64 cities.
Dg1tzed by
Google
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS • 79
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
The two children in the family whose costs of living are measured
here were assumed to attend public schools. Minimum requirements
connected with this attendance for the boy age 13 in the 9th grade and
the girl age 8 in the 3d grade are books, stationery, other supplies,
and gymnasium equipment. u Resulting annual school costs for a
four-person manual worker's family varied from nothing a year in
Fall River, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Sioux Falls to $21.19 in Clarksburg (appendix table 2). Extremes were unusual, however, and in
most places school costs were less than $12 per year (table 44). The
average outlay necessary in the 55 cities where school attendance
required a direct charge on the family was $7.37. In 27 cities costs
were above this amount; and in 32, including the 4 in which there was
no cost, they were below (fig. 7). Relative costs are shown in appendix
table 3.
Tal,le 44.-Annual Costs I of School Attendance, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
55 Cities, March 1935
Number of
Annual cost
cities
Total.----·-·········..................................................................
M
I---
S().00-$3.99...................................................................................
$4.()()-$7.99 ..................... ·············· ···················· ................. ····· ......
tfj.00-$11.99..................................................................................
$12.00-Sl5.99............ ........ .................. ................. .. ..... .............. ......
$16.0()-$19.99.................................................................................
$20.00-$23.99. ·································································•···•··········
Average,• M cities......................................................................
18
16
18
4
2
2
I===
fl.:rt
1 M&lntenance and emergency level costs by dellnitlon are Identical; sales tu: Included where levied
(appendix tables 16 and 16).
By definition, maintenance and emergency school attendance
budget costs were identical (appendix tables 8, 9, 11, and 13).
lnlluenc• of Geosiaphlc Location and Size of City on Com of School Attendance 11
In genera.I, the New England and Middle Atlantic cities required
the smallest direct outlays from pupils in the public schools for books,
supplies, and gymnasium equipment, and the East North Central and
South Central States required the largest (appendix table 5). The
cost of school attendance in the South Atlantic Division also was
well above the average.
Though there seemed to be a tendency for school costs to increase
with decreased city size (appendix table 7), the relationship was neither
uniform nor regular.
1• Outlay neceSB&ry for school lunches is included in the cost of food, car or bus
fare in the cost of transportation, and social expenses in the cost of recreation.
11 See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic divisions
and size of city classifications.
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
80 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 GTIES
Co1t Dtlferenc..
The most significant cause of the wide range in the amounts families
must pay as a direct charge for public school attendance in the separate
cities, based on use of identical or comparable equipment by two
children of specified sex, age, and school grade in all, lies in variations
in local practices regarding expenditures for this purpose from public
funds.
State laws govern the policies concerning textbooks and supplies
in some cities; other cities are permitted to determine how many of
these necessities the taxpayers will furnish. Between 1931 and 1934
the amounts spent for books and supplies by the public school systems
in 728 cities of all sizes the country over declined about one-third,
though the number of pupils increased. 18 Decreased public support
means that these materials must be supplied privately. Table 45,
embodying the results of a survey made in 1934 by the National
Education Association, 17 suggests an important explanation of the
variation in school costs reported in the present study.
Tcrf,le 45.--Policy Relating to Furnishing Free Textbooks and Supplies, 800 Public
School Systems, 1933
School systems
Items furnished by public lunm
Number
Total----····-·------------· .•••. ··-····· •. ·-···-·.··--····--·--·-·--·.....
Percent
800
JOO. 0
Textbooks and supplies In all classes . ....... ·--··--···········•····-•··•····-····
Textbooks and supplies in elementary cll\.sses onlY·-·· ·••··-•····-···-······· · ···
Textbooks and some supplies........................................ . .... . ..... .
3M
35
38
25
24
44. 3
4. 4
4.,
3. t
3. o
Supplies but DO textbooks ... · -····· · ············································
Textbooks In elementary cll\.sses only ••.••..... ·-·-··············........ . .......
Neither textbooks nor supplies.-···. . ...........................................
Some materlabt-other policies not das,lflable under above Items................
116
23
128
8. 2
2. 0
1e. o
Supplies and some text books. . . . • • • . • • . . . • . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Textbooks but DO supplle,i... --·- · ···················-·-·-·--··-·-·-···-·········
1----1----
JO,
1~. 4
Source: National Education Association. Department or Bu~rlutendence and Re!earcb DlvbloD. School
Re!earch Service, Circular
Boob and 8uJ)pliea: &ernt '.n>tndl In EzpnidUuru and Polil:lu, Educalional
No. 2, February 1934, p. 6.
Some or all school materials were subject to tax in the 18 cities
where a sales tax was levied (appendix tables 15 and 16). School
books were frequently exempt but supplies and gymnasium equipment
usually were covered.
Though in 1935 children in the public schools were paying for some
of the equipment previously supplied by the community, 18 few cities
11 National
Education Association, Department of Superintendence and
Research Division, School Booka and Suppl,iea: Recent Trends in Expenditure, and
Policies, Educational Research Service, Circular No. 2, February 1934, p. 1.
17 Ibid., p. 5.
11 Some cities are attempting to return all children to a free basis. From Seattle.
for example, came the report in 1935: "Students are furnishing stationery and supplies (partially) due to shortage of money for school. This condition ie for this
year only and, therefore, is not representative of Seattle schools."
Digitized by
Goos Ie
MISCELLANEOUS ~AMILY NEEDS •
81
failed to provide equipment for pupils who were too poor to furnish
their own. Cost estimates in the present study are designed to
cover all school needs in a self-supporting family of the specified size
and composition.
RECREATION
The costs of recreation for a four-person manual worker's family at
the maintenance level were $87.18 per year in Binghamton and
$62.33 in Kansas City (Mo.) (appendix table 2). These were the
extremes among the 59 cities studied. The average for the group as
a whole was $75.18, made up of more low than high cost cities; the
spread from lowest to highest was 39.9 percent. Binghamton cost
exceeded the average by 16 percent and Kansas City (Mo.) cost was
less by 17.1 percent (appendix table 3). While maintenance recreation budget costs covered a $25 range among the 59 cities, emergency
budget costs were less than $15 a year in all of them (table 46).
TalJle 46.-Annual Costs I of Recreation, 4-Penon Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
Number of rlties
Annual cost
Maintenance Eme11?eney
level
level
Total....................................................................
59
59
l----1·---
SlO.OO-S14.IML .••.• .. .. •.•.. ... ..•.• ..•.... .. • . . •• .••. ...•... ..... .. ...... .. ....
$15.00-$19.99 .... ························•······································
SaJ.(l0-$24.99 ..............•.........•.•...•.......•.•..................•.......
$25.00-$29.99 ..................•...•.....•......................................
$30.00-$34.99.........•.•.....................................................•.
59
$.%.00-$.19.99 .•••...•••..••••....... __ -- _-- ··- -··········-················ ···••·
$40.<Kl-$44.00 .•....• -····•···•··· ___ _
___ -······•· ·············•··••···· .••.
$45.00-$49.99 ........•••.•••.•..... _··- _. ····· ······•·•· ············•·••········
$.50 00-$54.09 .•.•.••.•••••......•........ -••..••...•.••..•••.•.•.•.•.•.••••.••••
$65.00-$59.99 .•.............••. •·•·• ...•••••...•....•••.... ····•·· ··• .••.•......
$60.00-$64.99 •.•..•. ·•· .•.......................................................
SM.00-$611.99 •••••••••.•...••.••.••••••.•••..••••..•••...••••...••••....••.••.•.
$70.00·$74.99 •.••.• •··•·•••·•••••••••••·•••••••••••••••••·••••••••••·•••••·•••••
$75.00-$79.99_ .•• ·•· ..... ·••·· ...•••••.••••..•••••.•••.•••••••.••••••.••••.••.•.
$80.00-$84.99 ..••••.•.•.•....••••.••..••....•.••..••..••••••••••••...•••.•.•.•••
$85.00-$89.99 .. •..•.•....•...•...•. ····· ••.••••.•..............•..........•••. •·
Avel'81?e, 1 59 cities ....•...............•.......•.•....•..•.....•..•..•....
1 rnclude sales
1
II
22
II
12
2
l = = = = I ===
$75.18
$12.63
tax where le,·led (appendix tables 15 and 16).
The emergency budget contains no provision for newspapers or
organization memberships, and the identical money allowance in all
cities for toys, tobacco, and other leisure-time accessories is materially
less than the maintenance budget allowance. Highest to lowest cost
ratios in the two arrays were nearly the same, however, though ranks
of the individual cities were somewhat different (appendix tables 8, 9,
11, and 13).
Newspapers accounted for 14.4 percent of the average cost of the
maintenance recreation budget; motion picture theater admissions, 45
percent; and an identical allowance plus sales tax where levied amountDig l17ed by
Goog Ie
82 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
ing to 40.6 percent covered organization memberships, tobacco, toys,
and other leisure-time accessories. Cost details of the items making
up the recreation budget follow.
Newspapers
A daily newspaper is allowed in the maintenance budget as a
means of measuring the outlay necessary for reading material of all
kinds. A variety of prices and combinations of prices for newspapers
was found. These ranged from.a per copy rate of 3 cents daily and 10
cents Sunday on the street, at a total cost of $14.56 per year, to 15
cents weekly or 65 cents per month for delivery 7 days per week by
carrier, at an annual cost of $7.80 (appendix table 2).
The spread of 86. 7 percent between lowest and highest newspaper
costs was so distributed that among more than half the cities differences
of only $2 per year were found (table 47). The highest cost exceeded
the average in the 59 cities combined, $10.84, by 34.4 percent, and the
lowest cost was less by 28 percent (appendix table 3). Newspaper
costs were more than the average in 24 cities and less in 35 (fig. 7).
Tal,le 47.-Annual Costs of Daily and Sunday Newspapers, 59 Cities, March 1935
Numberot
cities
Annual 0011t
Total ________ --------------- ____________________ .------------ ________ ---------------___
$7.~Si.99 ______ ______________________________________ ----· -·---·-. ·-- ·-·· ·-· ____ -----·----·-S8.00--$!UML ______________________________________________________ ··-··--···-···--··-···---·-·
$9.~$11.99... _.... --·---·····---·-··-·----···--·····--···-·-··-······---·---·-·-·-···--------s10.~s10.99.·--·····---·--·-··---·-·---··--··--···-·-··----·-··-··---··---·-·-----·-·--·---·$11.~$11.99._._. ___ .. __ ·_·---·----·-····-·-·----·-··-···-·---···--·--·-·-·-·-----·------··---
s12.~s12.99 __________________ ·---------------·-·--··--------·-·-·----·---------------•-·----·
S13.~13.99. _____________________________________ ·--·---------·----·-------·--·-----·-------·
$14.~SH.IIIL._ .. ______ . _______ ·--------·------·---------··---·-··--·----·--·--··----·-·--·-·
Average, 511 cities. __________ . ___ --·--·--. _________ . ___ ·----------- __ . ___________ -·-·---_
Ml
1---
7
8
2
21
10
7
8
I===
$10. 8'
The most frequently found annual newspaper costs were $10.40 in
17 cities, $11.44 in 9 cities, and $7 .80 in 7 cities. These were, respectively, 20 cents per week by carrier; 2 cents per day for 6 days and
10 cents on Sunday, street sale price; and 15 cents per week or 65
cents per month by carrier.
Analysis of street or newsstand sale prices of papers selling for the
weekly amounts used in computing cost estimates shows the following
rates per copy daily: 3 cents, 26 cities; 2 cents, 12 cities; 5 cents, 12
cities; 3 or 5 cents, 4 cities; 2 or 3 cents, 3 cities; 1 cent, 1 city; no
report, 1 city. Sunday papers most often were 10 cents on the street:
41 cities reported this price; 11 cities, 5 cents; 1 city, 5 or 10 cents;
1 city, 6 cents; 1 city, 7 cents; 1 city, no report; 3 cities had no local
Sunday paper.
Motion Picture Theater Admissions
Admission charges to motion picture theaters were adopted as a
generally applicable means of measuring the costs of commercial
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS• 83
entertainment on a common basis in all cities. If necessary outlays
thus computed were to be used for other kinds of recreation, the same
purpose would be served.
The amounts to be spent for motion picture theater admissions by a
four-person manual worker's family living at the maintenance level
varied from a high of $42.54 in Philadelphia to a low of $24.13 in
Kansas City (Mo.); the average was $33.80 (appendix table 2). For
these amounts each member of the family could go to the theater
once a week. 111 The cost of attending the movies in Philadelphia was
76.3 percent more than in Kansas City (Mo.) and 25.9 percent above
the average in the 59 cities combined (appendix table 3); Kansas City
(Mo.) cost was 28.6 percent below the average. Costs exceeded the
average in 27 cities, were less in 31, and the cost was exactly the same
as the average in 1 (fig. 7).
Maintenance budget costs of motion picture theater attendance fell
within a range of$15 peryearamongmostof thecities (table48). The
cost range for the emergency budget was $5 between lowest and highest,
and in no city was as much as $10 per year required for this budget.
Tar.le 48.-Annual Costs 1 of Motion Pidure Theater Admissions, 4-Person Manual
Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of cities
Annual cost
Maintenance Emergency
level
Total •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••..•••••..
level
59
59
r-----1
1111
$5.00-SQ.IMI •••••••••••••••••••••• ··-· -· ••••••••••••••• -·· ••••• ·- •• - • - ••••••••• ·$10.00-Slt.lMI. _••••••••••••••.•.•••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.
$15.()0-$19.99 ...••••••••.....•••••••••••••••••.••••••.••.••.••••.••••••••••••••.
$20.00-S2t.W•••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••.•.•.
SU.00-$211.911 •..•....•.....•..•.•..•.........•..•••..•••...•.•••.•.••••••..•••••
$30.00-S:U.1111 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$35.00-$39.119 •......•••••.••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••
$40.QO-fff.W ••••..•••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••
Averarte,t 1111 cities ••••......•.....•.•.......••.••.....•.•••••••••••••.•.•
13
Ill
Ill
7
I====
$33.80
$7.80
t Include sales tu where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
Or9anlzatlons, Tobacco, and Toys
Within this classification the quantity budgets allow certain sums
of money to cover recognized needs which cannot be itemized. Children belong to character-building groups, school and church clubs,
and similar organizations; adults are associated in nationality and
patriotic groups, fraternities, musical and athletic groups, and the
like. Their purposes are legion. To provide such memberships for a
four-person manual worker's family at the maintenance level of living,
11
The emergency budget allows one attendance per person per month.
Dig 11~ed by
Goog Ie
84 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
$9.60 was included in all cities (appendix table 2). This amount does
not cover labor union dues. 20
An allowance of $20.80 in the maintena.nce budget (appendix table
2) and of $4.80 in the emergency budget (appendix table 8) was
included in all cities, plus sales tax where levied, to meet the costs of a
large number of goods and services which no two families probably
would specify similarly as to details. These amounts would provide
tobacco, "treats" of various kinds, games, athletic equipment, and a
variety of other leisure-time accessories, serving no particular purpose
but contributing something to life's more frivolous moments.
lnffuence of Geo9raphlc Location and Sla:e of City on Coltl of Recreation
11
Recreation costs were above the average in the Middle Atlantic,
Mountain, East North Central, and New England States in the
order given and below in all other areas except the Pacific States,
where exactly the average cost was found (appendix table 5). In no
section, however, were all cities consistently high or consistently low.
Size of city seems to have been a more influential factor than geographic location in the establishment of recreation costs, especially
with reference to the very large cities (appendix table 7). Differences in the costs of motion picture theater admissions were more
accountable for this relationship than variations in newspaper charges.
In general, newspaper costs were high in the Middle Atlantic,
East North Central, New England, and Pacific States; were about average in the Mountain Division; and were low in the West North and
South Central Areas. The five cities included in the East South Central Division reported the same annual newspaper costs; identical
outlays were necessary in six of the nine South Atlantic cities. No
other sections showed such uniformity of newspaper costs. In all but
2 cities with 500,000 or more population newspaper costs were higher
than the average in the 59 cities combined, and in all but 4 of the
smaller places they were lower than the average.
Low cost motion picture theater admissions were usual in the
West North Central and East South Central States, and costs were
high in the Middle Atlantic, Mountain, and New England States,
but these costs perhaps were related more definitely to size of city
than to geographic area. Costs declined until the 25,000 to 100,000
population classification was reached; the smallest cities averaged
slightly more than those in the next 2 larger size classifications.
Among the 7 highest cost cities were 3 with a population of 25,000
to 100,000, and the lowest cost city had a population of approximately
400,000.
Union dues for unskilled manual workers average about $12 per year.
n See table 1, p. XV, for list of cities in each geographic division and their
population and table 62, p. 128, for cost variations within separate geographic
divisions and size of city classifications.
20
D1qtizedoyGoogle
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS• 85
Cost Differences
A large amount cannot be provided for recreation in a. low cost
family budget but simple leisure-time activities must be regarded a.s
necessities. What these activities shall be is a. matter of opinion.
The quantity budgets embody those which seem most universally
popular, with the idea. that cost computed on the be.sis of the goods
and services listed will supply recreation, no matter how the need
is expressed in individua.l cases. Families will not spend what these
budgets cost in the manner outlined, but the amounts thus provided
should take care of minimum needs.
The fact that the range in recreation costs from lowest to highest
city wa.s only about half that shown for newspapers or motion picture
theater admissions is to be attributed to the partia.l cancellation of
extremes in combination, and to the fact that more than two-fifths of
the average total annual necessary outlay was carried as an identical
amount in all cities, plus sales tax where levied. Newspaper and motion
picture theater admission costs together were nearly twice as far
apart between the extreme cities as was the spread when the identical
allowance for organizations, tobacco, toys, and other leisure-time
accessories was added. The smaller difference is the more representative, however, in that the identical allowance provides for items with
highly standardized prices, which normally differ little wherever sold.
Newspaper prices are largely of local origin and the fact that a range
of nearly 87 percent between lowest and highest costs was found is
without significance, except as a reflection of local conditions.
Average charges for admission of adults to motion picture theaters
on Saturday evenings varied from 13.2 cents to 27 cents and on Saturday afternoons from 10 cents to 23.75 cents, but children's prices on
Saturday afternoons ranged from 5 cents to 12 cents. City averages
for each admission were not uniformly high or uniformly low in any
place; hence, a narrower cost spread appeared for the entire family's
theater attendance than that indicated for any individual separately.
Motion picture theater admissions were subject to a sales ta.x in
three cities (appendix tables 15 and 16}. In addition, New Orleans
had a 1-cent tax on all admissions exceeding 10 cents; this was the
only direct consumers' tax in the city in March 1935. Without these
taxes the dispersion of motion picture theater admission costs among
the 59 cities would have been slightly narrowed. Tobacco, toys, and
other leisure-time accessories always were covered where there was a
sales tax.
LIFE INSURANCE, CHURCH CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
The a.mounts to be included in the total cost of living for life insurance, church contributions, and other contributions are specified in
the quantity budgets and allowances were identical in all cities.
D1g ti zed by
GoogIe
86 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Life insurance for a four-person manual worker's family at a maintenance level of living required annual premiums totaling $46.40
(appendix table 2). These premiums would provide a death benefit of
$1,000 for the man and smaller amounts for the woman and two children. The $20.80 per year premiums allowed at the emergency level
(appendix table 8) would assure small death benefits for each member
of the family.
Church contributions to be made by this family are allowed as
$10.40 annually in both budgets, but at the maintenance level of living
$5 more is included to cover support of community activities of various
kinds, bringing the total necessary outlay for contributions at this
level to $15.40 per year (appendix tables 2 and 8).
TAXES
Personal property and capitation taxes of various kinds may be required of industrial, service, and other manual workers of small means
as well as the consumers' sales tax referred to previously. The sales
tax has been treated throughout this analysis as part of the cost of
the commodities and services on which it was levied, but its basis is
discussed in this chapter. Personal property and capitation taxes
constitute separate charges to be added to other budget costs. 21
Reports regarding tax rates and their applicability collected for this
study were not always consistent among different authorities consulted
in the same State, or with available manuals. 23 This confusion probably occurred because some taxes are permissive and may or may not
be levied by a given local unit, and also because rates and their application change from year to year and the dates to which the separate
reports refer may not be identical. The data used relate to taxes payable as of March 15, 1935.
Personal Property and Capitation Taxes
Personal property taxes were collectible from the 4-person manual
worker's family of this study in 22 cities in March 1935, and capitation
taxes, in 25; 11 cities had both and 23 cities had neither (appendix
tables 2 and 8). By definition maintenance and emergency budget
taxes were identical. The maximum amount recorded for a personal
property tax was $6.22, and sums in the neighborhood of $2 or $3
were most commonly required. Capitation taxes seldom amounted
to as much as $5 per year (table 49).
Personal property and capitation taxes were most frequently
found in New England and the Southern States; none of the Pacific
n Though many States and the Federal Government levy income taxes, exemptions and deductions were such that income taxes were not collectible from families
at the economic level with which this study deals.
D The Tax Research Foundation, Tax Systema of the World, sixth edition,
Chicago, 1935.
D1gtirndbyGoogle .
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS • 87
Division cities reported such taxes. Among the largest cities only
Chicago reported a personal property or capitation tax, and the
popularity of these taxes increased as the size of cities decreased.
Geographic division and size of city relatives (appendix tables 5, 7, 11,
and 13) are without significance, however, owing to the fact that not
every city in the group of 59 had personal property or capitation taxes.
Tal,le 49.-Annual Taxes I Exclusive of Sales Tax, -4-Penon Manual Worker's Family,
36 Cities, March 1935
Number or cities
Annual tu
Alltuee
TotaJ __ --------------- __ _______ __ _______ __ __ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ __ _
rt.:~::fU~: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::: :: :::::: ::: ::::: ::::::: :::
=
~=-== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
$t.00-$4.w__ __________ ____ ____ ___ ___ __ _____ _________ ______________ __
88
Penonal
Capitation
tu:
property
tu:
22
26
1-----1------1----
,
~a
~
:
a
2
6
11
5
15.00-$8.1111. ____ --- _·- __ -- --- ____ -- _-- -- -- _-- -- -------- -- -- __ -- ---- -4
2
1
'8.00--$6.99__ - --------- -------- ------- ------ ------------- -----------'
$7.00-17.1111- _-- _--- ___ --- --- __ -- -- -- _-- _. _-- . --- __ ---- ____ ------ ----2
IIL00-$8.1111_ - -------- __ --- __ ____ ____________ _________ ___________ _____
8
1====1=====1====
$2. IHI
'3.40
Annp annual
k 17
tu:•------------------------------------------
1 Maintenance and emergency bndget taxea by deflnltlon are Identical.
• The a-nragea In the aepante oolumna are baaed on the number of c!tl111 In whlob the apeclfted tu waa
levied.
Sala Tax
Any tax levied as a percentage of retail prices and paid by the consumer as a charge separate from these prices was treated in this study
as a sales tax. On this basis, 18 cities had a sales tax in March 1935.24
The amounts represented by a sales tax in the aggregate cost of living
of a four-person manual worker's family covered a fairly wide range
(table 50). 16 In Louisville where most was required for this purpose,
necessary annual outlay was $25.20 at the maintenance level of
N Known generally as retail sales taxes, these taxes often are excises on grosa
income or receipts of busineas, levied in exchange for the privilege of engaging in
a specified occupation but designed to be paid directly by the retail purchaser.
Some statutes forbid vendors to advertise that they absorb the tax or will refund
the amount paid. In other States, however, the vendor may absorb the tax or
add it to the purchase price, as he pleases. A third group of States have taxes on
the value of retail sales which the vendor himself is required to pay. Changes in
the laws of several States have been made since March 1935, but rates and other
specifications in operation at that time were used in all cost calculations.
21 This table is included for reference only; the sales tax has already been added
to the costs of all items on which it is levied. A local tax of 1 cent on motion picture theater admissions exceeding 10 cents in New Orleans was also added to
the charge itself in all cost calculations. It amounted to $1.56 annually at the
maintenance level of living and 36 cents at the emergency level. This tax was
not a sales tax and New Orleans is not included with the sales tax cities.
s2r1e2•-ss-s
Dg1 zed by
Google
88 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
living; the smallest sales tax was $6.49 in New York (appendix table
15). Emergency level sales taxes were proportionately less (appendix
table 16).
Tol,le 50.-Annual Sales Tax, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 18 Cities, March
1935
Number of cities
Annual sales tax
Maintenance Emergenc7
level
level
Total _________________________ • ______________________ .___________________
_____ ____
,
$4.00-$5.99.
_--------------------------·__________________
-------- ---- --- ---·
··----- -- ----- ----...
SG.OO-$i
.99. ___________________
• ______
• ________________
•• ___ _
18
18
,
2
2
2
5
$8.00-$9.119 ____ ------------· ·--- ------ ----- ------- ----- ----- -- -- . -- -- . -- -----. -$10.00-$11.99_ -- -- __ --- -- _______ -- _------ ---- _-- ____ --- . ________ -- ____ . __ -- __ -- _
$12.00-$13.99. -- -- --- ____ -- __ -- --- • -------- ----. __ • -- • __ • _. ___ • _-- _. _. -- •••• ____
1
$14.00--$15.99~ -- ----- ----- _. --- ----------------------- .. --- . ---------------. ---t
8
--- -----------------------------------------·
------. ·--·
.... ----..
34
2
$16.00-$17.99.
$18.00-$1H.W .....
___ . ___________
. __ -- _.. __ . ___________ . _________
_________
.... _
2
$20.00-$21.99 ... _-- ______ ----- ----- ----- ______ . ______ --- __ -- ___ -- _. --- ---- _____ .
$22.00-$23.1111'
_. -- -- ·- --· -----. ---------------------. --------- _. -- ·--- .. ---- -- l = = ~ ~ l1= I = = ~ =
t'4.00-$25.99. -__________________________________________________________________
Averaee, 18 cities________________________________________________________
$16. 76
$12. 38
The sales tax accounted for 2.1 percent of the total annual cost of
living in Louisville and one-half of 1 percent in New York. The
average in the 18 cities combined was 1.3 percent of the maintenance
budget cost and 1.4 percent of the emergency budget cost (table 51).
None of the cities in New England had a sales tax, and the local
excise in the city of New York was unique in the Middle Atlantic
States. Sales taxes were found in a number of cities in other sections
of the country, and they were especially popular in the East North
Central and Mountain Divisions. Butte was the only Mountain city
which had no sales tax.
Tol,le 51.-Sales Tax as Percent of Total Cost of Living, 18 Cities, March 1935
Percent of cost of Jiving
Rate of
tax
(percent)
City
Average, 18 cities ____________________ ·----------------------Albuquerque, N. Mex ____________________________________________ _
8t,f:11:~nl~:-~~".
~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::··-:::_________________
:::::::::::::::::_
Cincinnati, Oblo ..".___________________________
Clarksburg, W. Va _______________________________________________ _
Cleveland, Ohio_. ___________________ •. ____________________ . ______ _
Columbus, Ohio __________________________________________________ _
Denver, Colo .•.• ______________________________________ ••... _. ____ _
Detroit, Mich ___________________ .. _____ .... ___ .. __ . __ ..... ___ . ___ _
Los Angt>les, Calif________________________________________________ _
Louisville, KY--------------- ______ . _______ ·-·. __ . ___ .... _________ _
New York,City,
N. Y Okla
--··------·--------------------·-·--····-··-·----·
Oklahoma
______________________ • ___ . ________ .... _____ .
Peoria, Ill._ .. ___ ... __________ . ___________ . _____ .. __ . ______ ... ____ .
Bait Lake City, Utah _____________________________________________ _
Ban Francisco, Calif_______________________ . ____ ... ________ ._··-._.
Tucson, Ariz. ___ ... _. ___________________ .... ______ .... __ .·--·· __ ..
Winston-Salem, N. C .. -----------··. _________ ... __ . ···-----·-- ··-
Digitized by
2. 0
2. 0
2. 0
3. 0
2.0
3. 0
3.0
2. 0
3. 0
2.5
3. 0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2. -~
I. 5
3.0
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.0
1. 8
1.5
2.1
0. 5
0.6
I. 2
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.4
GoogIe
I..
I. 5
I. 4
1.2
I. 5
1.3
I.ft
I. 7
1. l
1.9
1.5
2. l
0. 5
0.11
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.5
MISCELLANEOUS FAMILY NEEDS • 89
Tax Dllhrenc•
Tax differences among the separate cities are accounted for by a
number of circumstances. 'What personal property shall be taxed,
what percentage of full valuation shall constitute the tax base, how
much shall be tax free, and what rate shall be levied vary considerably
and explain personal property tax differences. The difficulty of collecting these taxes from individuals of small means has resulted in
entirely exempting personal property of low value in some places.
So also with capitation taxes. These a.re fixed amounts which vary
&.ILong the separate cities. Roads, schools, poor relief, old-age pensions, general expenses, and other purposes benefit from these taxes.
Several such taxes may be levied for different purposes or by different
branches of the government on one person io. a given community.
They may be paid by men only, or by men and women, and age
limits usually a.re specified. Some States forbid poll taxes; nowhere
except in a few Southern States is their payment a prerequisite to
voting.
The sales tax laws indicate the percentage of gross income or
gross receipts which will be collected from the merchant and require
that this be charged to the retail purchaser; but few of the statutes
specify how the consumer shall pay, in the absence of legal tender of
less than 1 cent.30 A schedule of brackets usually is set up, in which
purchases of less than a certain amount are tax free; within the next
price grouping a tax of 1 cent is required; then a price group where
the tax is 2 cents; and so on, so that an average equal to the rate per
$1 of sales presumably will be collected. Unless the schedule is
embodied in the law or has general application throughout the State
by order of the State tax commission, a wide variety of bracket
systems may be used in any one State or even in any one city.
The States differ somewhat in their application of the sales tax,
varying from the procedure in New Mexico where in March 1935 all
retail purchases supposedly were covered, including professional services, car and bus tokens, and telephone calls, to North Carolina where
all services, public utilities, and many food commodities were exempt.
The most usual exclusions from sales tax coverage were services and
sales by nonprofit-making institutions. Rates also varied among the
18 cities from 3 percent of retail value in Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Columbus, Detroit, Louisville, and Winston-Salem to 1 percent in
Oklahoma City. In most of the others the rate was 2 percent.
These variations in applicability and rates, together with prices of
the goods and services taxed, account for sales tax differences. For
example, both Louisville and Detroit had a 3-percent rate. The annual
21 Some States have adopted a system of tokens valued at fractions of 1 cent,
and the exact percentage specified is collected on each purchase no matter what
its price may be.
Digitized by
Goog1e
90 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
tax on the maintenance budget cost was more in Louisville, however,
because a larger part of the budget was covered, than in Detroit where
prices were higher but fewer items were taxed. In New York the rate
was 2 percent but food and personal services were exempt, so that the
tax at the same level of living amounted to less than in Oklahoma City
with its I-percent rate and lower prices but more extensive coverage.
Dg1tzed by
Google
Chapter VII
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES
PROPER INTERPRETATION of the cos~ of living figures analyzed in
the earlier chapters depends on an understanding of the methods used
in obtaining them. 1 These techniques and procedures are described
in the present chapter.
CITIES SURVEYED
Choosing the cities in which to make the study required consideration of geographic location, size, and socio-economic characteristics of
various kinds. At the same time it was desirable to include as large
a proportion of the country's population as possible. Inasmuch as
40 percent of all inhabitants of the United States live in cities of 25,000
or more,• and a greater body of information is available regarding the
characteristics of these communities and their residents than of
smaller places, the study was confined to cities of this size. Nearly
50 percent of the total population and slightly more than 63 percent
of the urban population live east of the Mississippi and north of the
Ohio Rivers. 3 This area is more homogeneous in climate and in social
and economic life than the remainder of the country, which comprises
several times as much territory, but the remainder of the country also
was represented. Covering the country as a whole in the group of
cities surveyed resulted in a certain amount of conflict between population and geographic criteria, in that some sections are best represented
by cities of certain size; the inclusion of these reduced the proportion of
cities of the same size in other areas where they are more numerous
but less significant. Thus, it happens that in the present group of 59
1 Quantity budgets for the two levels of living are given in complete detail in
Stecker, Margaret L., Quantity Budget& for Ba&ic Maintenance and Emergency
Standard& of Living, Research Bulletin Series I, No. 21, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, 1936.
1 Fifteenth Cemm of the United State&: 19SO, Population Vol. I, p. 14.
1 Ibid., pp. 10 and 15.
91
Diq l1~ed by
Goog IC
92 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
cities the smallest a.re perhaps more typical of the section of the country in which they are located than of their population class.'
In compiling the list of cities to be investigated, free use was made
of earlier studies by other organizations interested in price and cost
of living research 6 and of the list prepared by the Federa.l Emergency
Relief Administration for its study of urban workers on relief. 6 Because the retail food prices collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
were to be used as far as possible, most of the 51 cities in which these
were being reported regularly in March 1935 were included. 7 Their
inclusion automatically brought into the group all but 1 of the 32
cities in which the Bureau makes its quarterly study of changes in
the costs of living. 8 The cities finally chosen (table 1) proved reasonably satisfactory for the purpose in hand; those least representative
from an industrial point of view were included to obtain geographic
coverage (fig. 1). 9 Appendix ta.hie 1 indicates that the 59 cities in
which prices were obtained had 60.9 percent of the urban population
living in communities of 25,000 or more in 1930 a.nd 24.4 percent of
the entire population of the United States.
NEIGHBORHOOD COVERAGE
All cities were districted and neighborhoods were spotted for price
collection and other study. A variety of data formed the be.sis for this
neighborhood selection. Census tracts, local surveys, and opinions of
municipal authorities, chambers of commerce, social welfare organize.' For example, 7 of the 10 cities with a population of 25,000 or more in the
Mountain Division are in the group 25,000 to 50,000; 3 of these were included in
the investigation. The Mountain Division, with these 3 cities, is 72.4 percent
covered as to population in places of 25,000 or more. There are 185 cities in the
United States, however, with a population between 25,000 and 50,000. Obviously many of these are not represented by the Mountain Division cities.
1 A list of 110 cities prepared by the Cost of Living Division of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in 1934 contained 91 with a population of 25,000 or more; 55
of these were included. A list of 237 communities prepared the same year for
the Joint Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services of the
American Statistical Association and the Social Science Research Council contained 119 cities within the same size range; 57 of these were included. Cover,
John H., Retail Price Behavior, Studies in Business Administration, Vol. V, No. 2,
University of Chicago, Chicago, 1935, pp. 3-4, and 69-75.
1 Wood, Katherine D., Urban Workers on Relief, Research Monograph IV,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936.
7 Charleston, S. C., New Haven, Conn., St. Paul, Minn., Savannah, Ga., and
Springfield, Ill., were omitted because of geographic considerations.
11 Savannah was not included because the Bureau's list is somewhat overweighted with Atlantic port cities, and another city in the same area was substituted.
1 In the analysis in chs. I-VI involving geographic location, city groupings
are made according to the census classification as shown in table 1. Size of city
groupings are those of the census, except that cities with a population of 25,000 to
100,000 are combined.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 93
tions, and other local groups were correlated to determine where in
each city the industrial population lived and did its buying.
Coverage in a given city depended on the composition of its population with reference to isolation of the industrial group, on its own
peculiar layout, and to a certain extent on its area. The study was
confined within each city's corporate limits for the most part, but in a
few places these were exceeded because the suburbs were closely
integrated with the city itself. The proportion of each city's population living in the neighborhoods studied varied from city to city, but
in 49 for which coverage could be estimated the average was slightly
over 48 percent. These estimates are not exact and too great importance cannot be attached to them, but they serve to indicate that
a representative sample was secured in each city as a basis for the cost
of living analysis. 10
COMMODITIES PRICED AND THEIR SPECIFICATIONS
The quantity budgets are made up of the kind of goods and services
used by families of industrial, service, and other manual workers of
small means in urban areas. The annual allowances were designed
to supply the needs of such families.
A total of 251 separate commodities listed in the quantity budgets
was priood in each city on 13 separate schedules. 11 Four additional
schedules inquired into (1) consumer shopping habits; (2) medical,
dental, nursing, and hospital care; (3) housing, fuel, light, ice, and
water; and (4) such miscellaneous needs as transportation, school
attendance, newspapers, motion picture theater admissions, refuse
disposal, and taxes. Finally, quotations were available for 44 food
commodities, 12 priced in 46 cities by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and in 13 additional cities by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Approximately 1,432,000 price quotations and pertinent
consumption data were obtained on 93,000 schedules, together with
10 The areas covered represent the most important industrial life of most of the
cities. Where plants are located outside the city proper, as sometimes happens
with mines, quarries, and similar extractive industries, or with factories which seek
to obtain lower taxes by suburban locations and operate on the company village
plan, some of the significant aspects of the working class life of the locality may
have been missed, but the necessity for uniformity of the sample dictated that they
be omitted.
11 The goods and services priced cover requirements for men and women and
for children of both sexes between the ages of 2 and 15, inclusive. Most of the
material was used in estimating costs for the four-person family of this study.
A few clothing, and furniture, furnishings, and household equipment items related
specifically to the needs of families of different size and/or composition; rents for
larger and smaller units than those used also were collected. Specifications and
schedules on which quotations were collected are not reproduced in this monograph
because of space considerations.
11 Prices were collected for 87 food commodities, but only 44 of them are listed
in the quantity budgets.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
94 •
COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
a large volume of supporting and interpretive facts and figures.
About 175 small articles, such as handkerchiefs, tea strainers, or bluing,
were not listed on the schedules, but their prices in Washington chain
limited price variety stores were used in all cities. All told, prices of
approximately 550 separate items went into the cost calculations in
each city.
To insure comparability of standard from store to store and place
to place, specification manuals were made up, embodying descriptions
of most of the goods and services to be priced. Neither secondhand nor reconditioned merchandise was included. The specification
for a few commodities, such as cleaning supplies or proprietary medicines, 13 was that they should be those having the largest sale. The
types of housing and fuel priced were related somewhat closely to local
means available for satisfying stipulated needs. Public utility rates,of
which there usually was only one in a given city for a given service, required no definition beyond their relationship to the budget allowances.
Quotations were obtained for items which met the specifications as
closely as possible, but where the designated commodities were not
carried and comparable merchandise seemed representative of local
use, the latter was priced. These deviations from specifications in all
instances were to be noted by the field agents in order that noncomparable quotations might be eliminated.
Obviously, it is impossible to maintain absolute identity of budget
content in 59 cities scattered throughout the country. A few items
cannot be priced in some communities; average requirements overstate or understate the needs in particular localities. One kind of
housing cannot be priced the country over. The same fuel is not used
everywhere. Average fuel allowances would be inadequate where
winters are long and cold, and excessive where they are very short and
very mild. The reverse relationships would occur for refrigeration
requirements. More transportation obviously is necessary for carrying on life's ordinary economic and social activities where a large
population is scattered over an extensive territory than in small
communities where the industrial and social life is more concentrated.
Quantity allowances for these items were adjusted in the budgets to
represent differential needs.
Because the costs of refuse disposal and school attendance may be
paid directly by individual families in some cities while they are met
from public funds in others, the outlays necessary for these purposes
were included in each city's cost estimates as required, without quantity allowances. Taxes were similarly treated. Several costs were not
itemized but were included in the budgets as fixed values, without
provision for local pricing. These identical allowances were for such
11 These were trade-marked or other commodities usually sold by brand namea,
which were not svecified in the present investigation.
Digitized by
GoogIe
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 95
necessities as postage, telephone calls, and insurance, whose costs
are the same everywhere; or church contributions and organization
membership, which obviously are completely unstandardized.
Thus, certain departures from an identical budget were made.
Despite these departures, the principle of uniform budgets was
maintained by means of the substitutions and adjustments described
above.
PRICE COLLECTION
Local agents under the supervision of members of the research
staffs of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Retail
Price Division of the Bureau of Labor Statistics did the field work.
They obtained reports from families regarding their buying habits,
rents, and prices paid for certain items of household operation; 14
they collected commodity prices from stores at which industrial, service, and other manual workers of small means trade and service
charges from those who supply such families. The 17 schedules and
specifications previously described were used in this procedure. 11
The time spent in each city depended on the size of the community,
its business and residential layout, and the number of persons engaged
in collecting the data. The average was about 2 months.
The commodity schedules called for notation of the kind of store,
such as department, specialty, variety, and the like; type of operation, such as independent or chain; type of service, such as cash and
carry, credit and delivery, or installment credit; and location, such as
central shopping area, neighborhood trade center, or other neighborhood location. Every city supervisor was provided with an estimate
of the number of different kinds of stores in the city and the commodities sold in each, based on the 1930 Census of Distribution. 10 At
least 10 quotations for each commodity in each shopping area were
called for, pro rata to the census classification as far as possible,
unless the commodity was not sold in 10 retail outlets. In some
cities, especially the smaller places, strict adherence to established
classifications was not feasible, and all stores which sold a specified
commodity necessarily were visited. The resulting sample adequately
covered stores which serve a working class trade, and the number of
quotations obtained for each article insured a representative city
average price.
1' A total of more than 10,000 schedules was taken from families in the 59
cities for the purpose of obtaining certain information regarding consumer
shopping habits, rents, and prices paid for fuel and ice. Price data were used in
cost calculations for this study, but expenditures, reflecting consumption habits,
were not analyzed.
16 Retail food prices also were collected on 6 separate schedules in 13 cities
where the Bureau of Labor Statistics had no routine price reporting system in
March 1935.
11 Fifteenth Censm of the United States: 1930, Distribution Vol. I, Pts. II and III.
Dg1
zedbyGoogle
96 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Service schedules also were assigned on a quota basis. Selecting
the samples for housing, medical care, and various miscellaneous
family needs required more time and presented more complications
than any other phase of the study, owing to the fact that for most
of them standards could not be specified in definite terms.
Quotations were obtained as of March 15, 1935, except that for
certain essentially seasonal goods prices in the last preceding season
were taken. Special sale values were avoided if these were markdowns, clearance prices, or other discounts from regular quotations,
but stores always operating on a cut-rate basis were included. Installment prices were quoted for commodities frequently purchased on the
deferred payment plan.
OFFICE PROCEDURE
Certain limitations are inherent in the use of specifications in price
reporting, and the judgments of the agent who collects the quotations
and the dealer who sells the goods play a large part in the procedure.
Considerable discretion was required, therefore, in editing the schedules to determine which prices to admit and which to reject. The
following general rule was laid down with reference to discards: quotations were to be rejected for all commodities which did not conform
to specifications if apparently they would not serve the same purpose
as the item specified, if the length of their service probably would be
less than that called for in the quantity budgets, or if differences in
size, material, or construction might result in price differences. If
the specifications were not sufficiently precise to insure that they were
always interpreted in the same way or that they were <'becked carefully, all quotations which fitted into the array of prices for commodities conforming to the specifications were used.
In the event that acceptable quotations for a given item were not
obtained in a community, one of several procedures was followed to
complete the cost estimates. If a similar commodity had been found
to sell elsewhere for approximately the same price, this price was
substituted for the one which was missing. If no such relationship
was apparent, the average of prices of the missing article in cities in
the same areas or prices from other reliable sources were used. The
theory behind these procedures was that certain wants were to be
provided for and that where the items specified were not sold, comparable merchandise at comparable prices would take their places.
All told, relatively few substitutions of any kind were necessary, and
city averages for the separate items are fair statements of local values.
In preparing the field data for analysis after editing and coding,
both machine and hand tabulations were used, depending on the
nature of the material; and two types of average were necessary because of the variety of data to be handled. It may be said that, in
general, commodity price quotations were coded for machine tabula-
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES•
97
tion and the average taken was the simple arithmetic mean; no
adjustments whatever were made in these results. 17 Hand tabulations were necessary for service prices, and a modified median 18 was
the average most frequently used. Emphasis was placed on the
reasonableness of the results. Where the nature of the data, taken
in connection with nonquantitative field reports and other means of
checking, in a few instances suggested that the figures were not representative, they were adjusted on the basis of apparently more authentic
information.
Eventually usable city average prices for every item in the budgets
were available. These were then combined with their respective
quantity allowances for the four-person family of this study, and the
costs of the budget groups were calculated. Finally, group costs
were totaled to obtain the outlays necessary for the content of living
as a whole at the two levels. Where there was a sales or similar
consumers' tax, its amount was computed by taking the rate percent
of aggregate costs of the budget groups 111 and was added to these
aggregates. This method of calculating the sales tax was used because in no two jurisdictions is it similarly applied in all respects to
separate purchases. By isolating taxes from prices, the latter can be
compared by themselves and the part played by sales taxes in intercity cost of living comparisons can be appraised.
In computing average costs in the 59 cities combined and in the
separate geographic divisions and size of city classifications, individual
city costs were not weighted by either their population or area importance, but the simple arithmetic mean was taken. The average
in the 69 cities combined affords a convenient value in terms of which
individual city costs can be compared.
BUDGET GROUPS AND PRICES
The procedures used in collecting and tabulating prices and in computing and analyzing costs are described below in essential detail for
the separate budget groups.
Food
The quantity food budgets contain 44 commodities listed for pricing, with 1 percent of their cost added for nonpriced condiments.
These foods are grouped as follows: flour, cereals, and bread, 8 commodities; milk and cheese, 3; fruits and vegetables, 17, of which 9 are
11 City average food prices were calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
which used machine operations and computed the arithmetic mean. Inasmuch
as the latter included a sales tax where levied, certain recalculations were necessary to obtain each price without the tax. See footnote 22, p. 99.
11 Arithmetic mean of the three, four, five, or six central values in the array,
the number of central values averaged depending on the total number in the array.
11 Where certain commodities or services were tax exempt, they were excluded
from the aggregates for tax computation purposes.
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
98 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 OTIES
fresh, 5 are dried, and 3 are canned; lean meat, fish, and eggs, 6; fats,
sugars, and accessories, 10. They were selected from among the 87
items for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly collects
quotations each month, on the basis of their low cost food value, in
order to represent a balanced diet at minimum cost. The same
foods are included in both the maintenance and emergency budgets,
but the former contains a more liberal supply of the higher cost foods
than does the latter. It is to be understood, of course, that the
budgets are only samples of inexpensive foods, included in such quantities as to provide for consumption of the greater variety of commodities which families purchase in season, to satisfy their own tastes,
and to conform with local custom.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' regular price quotations obtained
as of March 12, 1935, were used in calculating average food costs in
46 of the cities. The Bureau had no routine reporting system in the
other 13, and food prices as of March 15, 1935, were collected for the
first time for t4e present investigation. The Bureau's six food price
schedules 20 and the Bureau's specifications as to type of store and
kind of commodity were used.
In general, merchandise was described as "U. S. No. 1 or equal
grade," "good quality," "best cut" carried, or by similar designations
applicable to different types of commodities. These specifications
permitted a wide choice in pricing, but the articles selected for this
purpose were sold by each store visited to its working class trade.
Where only one grade was carried, that commodity necessarily was
priced. Potential inaccuracies resulting from the heterogeneity of the
sample were overcome in the average of a considerable number of
quotations. Their number varied among the separate commodities
and with the retailing situation in the different cities. As a rule, at
least 10 quotations were taken and sometimes as many as 20; in no
instance was an average computed of fewer than 4.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated all city average food
prices, using the simple arithmetic mean of quotations furnished by
the separate dealers in each city. All the Bureau's food price averages
contain the sales tax where levied. 21 In computing the cost of food for
use in the present study, the tax was abstracted from the city average
price of each commodity with which it had been incorporated by the
Bureau, and these revised prices were then combined with the
20 Some commodities were priced on more than 1 schedule, and 37 items not
used in this investigation also were listed. Hence, no attempt is made here to
classify commodities by the schedules used in their collection.
11 Where provision has not been made for adding the tax to the sale price on a
unit basis, as, for example, through use of tokens valued at Iese than 1 cent,
bracket systems are used. With this arrangement, prices within certain ranges
call for taxes of specified amounts, so adjusted that on each dollar of sales the
average rate percent will be realized. See p. 89.
0 g1 zed hy
Google
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 99
quantity of each article required for the four-person family, as listed in
the budgets for the maintenance and emergency levels of living. 11 One
percent of the total of these amounts was added for condiments to complete the estimate of necessary annual food cost, exclusive of sales tax.
Clothing, Clothing Uplcnp, and Penonal Care
Commodities and services to the number of 177 were priced, on 9
schedules, 102 of which were used in computing the cost of clothing,
clothing upkeep, and personal care (table 52). Those not used are
listed in the quantity budgets for children out.side the four-person
family with which this monograph is concerned, or they were collected
for special purposes not directly related to the present study.
Tcrl,le 5.2.-Number of Commodities and Services Priced and Used in Computing Costs
of Clothing, Clothing Upkeep, and Personal Care, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number of commodities
and
aervloes
Schedule
Uledl
Priced
TotaL _____________ ·- ••.• ··- .• ··- .•... ·- ••.•. ·- ··- ·--- •.. ·--·· ·- •• -·. ·- •• _.
177
102
::
I:
I:
: :
1
•~
1----1----
~~~::.~~i::,ii1ng.-.............................................................
Boys' clothing.•..•.••••••••.••.....••.....••.•.•..•.•.....•.•.•••..... ·-........
Girls' clothlng ..• -·-··-·--·····-·····-· ···-···· .. ·····················--· ··--····
Shoes-···-·---········--·-···-·····-··························-·······-·······-··
i::i:r;:srvla!S ..... _.. _......... __ .. _... _.................................. _..
8f.;.~n=~plies and sundries._._ ..••..• _.• _•..• __ •..• _•.•• ____ •••• _. -· __ • _••. _
40
41
26
1~
' H
18
14
• A few of tbeae commodities and ,ervlces were not uaed In computing the costs of the emergency budget.
Includes l ltt>m not In the quantity budl'{'ts.
Does not Include I Item from the women's clothing ~cbedule, uaed also for the man'• budgets.
' Does not Include 2 Items from the men's clothlni schedule, uaed Riso for the boy's budgets.
• I Item used for both man and boy.
• Otber Items on this schedule were priced either for the household supplies group or for the furniture,
turnlshlniis, and houaehold equipment iiroup, or were not Included In the quantity budgets.
1
1
Identical money allowances were added to the cost of goods and
services priced separately in each of the 59 cities to provide for commodities whose prices are likely to be the same everywhere and for
unspecified clothing incidentals (table 53). Though all these items
are essential, they are usually bought at chain limited price variety
stores for the amounts specified, and omitting them from the schedules
materially reduced the field work and other operations involved in
cost computations.
n BecaUBe of the deletion of the sales tax, food prices used in this study differ
slightly in some instances from those reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistica
which include the tax. In deducting the tax from each city average price, the
amount applicable to that price according to prevailing brackets was removed,
unless this procedure resulted in a nontaxable price or one in another tax bracket,
in which case the average of the two taxes was deducted. In cities where there
WBB a sales tax, its amount was added to the aggregate cost of food to conform with
the procedure used in calculating the annual costs of other budget groups.
Dg1tzed by
Google
100 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
The exactness of the specifications varied with the nature of the
items described. They listed the appropriate size or age of each
person for whom each garment was priced and designated the material
and construction of "inexpensive quality" merchandise. Obtaining
quotations in the stores where the families of industrial, service, and
other manual workers of small means trade provided a good check on
the sample, and judicious editing for prices obviously out of line insured representative city averages when all were combined.23
Tol,le 53.-ldentical Annual Allowances I for Clothing, Clothing Upkeep, and Personal
Care: Commodities and Services Not Separately Priced, -4-Penon Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Annual allowance•
Item
Maintenance Emeo:ency
level
le,·el
Total.. _________________________________________________________________ _
Men's clothing ....... ____ ..........•. _____ ....•• __ .....•....••. _________ .... __
Women's clothing .....•• ____ . _______ .• __________________ . _____ .. _______ . ___ .. .
Boys' clothing ..•.. ___ •.. __ ._._. __ .. ___ •• _. __ •.......•... __ •...••..•• ___ •• _._ ..
Girls' clothing ...•...••... _____ .. ____ ..••... ___ ..••........ ___ ..•. _____ .••. __ ..
~:!~~V~'.".'~·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1
$111.80
$13. 60
3. 50
2. i5
2.65
I. 35
1.55
8.00
1. 45
l. 50
. 75
1. as
II. 80
,----
1. 7.l'i
Bales tax to be added where levied (appendix tables 16 and 16).
Prices for clothing, unlike those for food which were as of a given
day in mid-March, were the in-season prices. Thus, if the merchandise called for was out of season on March 15, as, for example, winter
garments, the season's prices rather than mark-down values were
reported. The arithmetic mean of all accepted quotations for each
item was taken, and this was combined with its appropriate annual
allowances as given in the quantity budgets. These processes were
performed entirely by mechanical tabulators. Aggregates of these
annual costs for the separate items gave annual costs for the budget
subgroups and for the major budget group as a whole, exclusive of
sales tax.
Housing
In studying the costs of support at comparable levels of living in
59 separate cities, few problems presented so many phases demanding
special attention as arose in connection with rents. The homes of
industrial, service, and other manual workers of small means are
found in frame bungalows in some cities; in others, in big brick tenements. A diversity of dwelling types exists between these two extremes. Houses vary as to material, age, and state of repair; as to
number, layout, and size of rooms; as to conveniences, neighborhood,
and numerous other criteria of desirability. Hence, the pricing specifications were fairly general, and details were worked out in each city
to meet the peculiar local situation. In computing the outlay neces13
See pp. 95-97.
D1(] l1?ed by
Goog lC
sary for rent, more definite criteria were set up. 24 It should be clearly
understood, however, that the purpose of the study was to ascertain
representative rents for dwellings meeting specified standards; all
other data collected were collateral to them. In no sense was a
general housing survey conducted. The relative prevalence of different types of dwellings in a given city was not necessarily ascertained,
therefore, and a large sample was not always essential for proper
valuation of standard accommodations.
The following excerpts from instructions for using the housing
schedule in the field indicate the method of collecting the data.
• • • The schedule is designed to fulfill the requirements for studying
both standard and prevalent types of housing. • • • The definitions of
dwellings, standard dwellings, and typical dwellings are as follows:
Dwelling Unit: This term is designed to cover any one of several types of family
residence units. It may be a single-family house; it may be part of a two- or
three-family building; or it may be a suite of rooms in an apartment, tenement, etc.
The term refers at all times to a residence unit in which a single family resides.
Standard Dwelling Unit: A standard dwelling unit meets the housing requirements of either a minimum decency :11 or an emergency budget. The former
provides for a private bathroom; the latter only for a private toilet. Other
requirements are identical for both budgets.
The building must be safely constructed and in at least a fair state of repair,
clean, sanitary, and without serious fire hazards. Where there is a State or local
housing code setting minimum standards for light, air, sanitation, etc., and
where there is a building code setting standards for structural safety, the housing
must comply with these regulations. Each room in a dwelling unit must have
at least one window of normal size admitting natural light and providing ventilation. • • •
Bedrooms must be large enough to contain one double or two single beds, a
chair, and chest of drawers; the living room must be large enough to permit
seating all members of the family at table at the same time for meals, with additional space for a couch and easy chairs; or the living room may be large enough
for a couch and easy chairs, and a kitchen large enough to permit seating all
members of the family at table at meals. In all instances, space for moving
about, children's play, etc., must be provided for.
The requirements for minimum decency and emergency housing are identical
in the above respects. The specifications for bath, toilet, and water facilities
differ between the two types of housing and are stated as follows:
Housing that meets the requirements of minimum decency must have a bathroom, running water, and a toilet for the exclusive use of one family, and these
facilities must be in a separate compartment within the dwelling unit of the
family. No variation, whatever, is permitted from these requirements.
The standard of emergency housing does not require a private bathroom. A
private toilet is essential, however, and if sewer and water mains exist in the
area being studied, both the toilet and running water must be within the dwelling
unit of the family and the toilet in a separate compartment, except that if the
locality being studied is one where freezing temperatures rarely occur, the toilet
may be on the back porch and the water may be outside the house. The toilet
may be in the yard only when a privy is the only practicable form of toilet, and
H
211
See pp. }03-104.
Later called "basic maintenance."
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
=1'0'51 • .(-QSJS ;QF 1:.1VLN.6, 59 CITIES
when that privy conforms to local health requirements. There may be no other
variation from these atandards, and under no circumstances are cellar or community toilets of any kind to be considered satisfactory.
Typical Dwelling Unita: Typical dwelling units are the types of units most
frequently found in the neighborhood in which the study is being made. Typical
dwelling ,units may or may not meet the specifications for standard dwelling unita.
Sourcu of Information: The information called for on this schedule is to be
110Cured by interviews with a variety of informants. Health officers, building
inspectors, officials of zoaing boards, local research organizations, real estate
agents, and social workers will supply most of the information concerning the
character and cost of housing. • • •
The local health officer and the building inspector will know whether the
housing in the study areas violatea the sanitary and housing regulationa or the
building code.
Bchedule11 will also be taken of ll&Dlples of families living in various types of
dwelling units in the designated neighborhoods, as a check on other sourcea of
information. • • •
Areaa: The areas inhabited by low-income families in industrial, service, or
other manual worker groups will have been identified for the PUl"J>Ol8 of pricing
other items, such as food and clothing. The ll&Dle areas will be covered with the
present schedule, • • • Gapt when the standard dwelling units do not e:riltt
in the areas selected for survey. • • • It is anticipated that in the larger
cities both atandard dwelling types will be found in some of the neighborhoods
studied. In some of the smaller places, however, housing which meets specificationa for standard dwelling units may not exist in the neighborhoods selected, but
may be found in other parts of the city. In such cases it will be necessary to
price housing outside of the selected neighborhood. • • • Whenever this ia
done, rentala for housing which most nearly approaches working claaa uses and
which ill in areas that can be readily identified should be secured.
lnterviewa: All persons interviewed should be acquainted with the purpoee
and method of the investigation. • • • After areas have been spotted for
study, the first visit should be made to those officials in the city hall who are
charged with the responsibility of enforcing zoning, building, or unitary codes.
They will be able to tell the extent to which housing in the areas selected oonforma to building and sanitary codes, and to designate specific blocks which are
acceptable from that point of view. This will enable the interviewer to complete
the detailed specifications for standard dwelling units. Social workers familiar
with the neighborhood will also be informed on this point and will provide much
background material as the basis for further work. They also are likely to know
of particular studies made of the neighborhoods by research organizationa, from
which information may be secured regarding the housing situation. Real
estate agencies handling housing in the area should then be visited, for the purpose of obtaining definite information regarding rentala of specific groups of
houses. • • •
Finally, families living in houses of the types determined to be standard and/or
typical will be visited to obtain information regarding rents • • • actually
paid by them. * * *
If there are variations in housing in the neighborhood based not on standarda
of adequacy or bath and toilet facilities but on variations in the kind of housing,
such as single-family dwelling units, flats, and/or apartment hou8811 or tenementa,
and these are not covered in any of the dwelling units already scheduled, as many
additional schedules should be taken as will properly represent them, also. * • *
In interviewing families, select several specific dwelling units or blocks of
standard and typical dwellings with the help of health officers, real estate agenta,
Digitized by
GoogIe
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 103
social workers, etc. The number of dwellings of each type interviewed should be
approximately in proportion to the percentage which such types are of all types in
the neighborhood. • • •
Total Number of Schedules: The total number of schedules to be filled for any
one city varies with the number of different types of housing existent, with the
size of the city, with the presence or absence of standard dwelling units, with the
extent to which these units are typical units, with the number of areas selected for
study, and with other factors. Since not all of these factors could be known in
advance of the study, it was necessary to fix the number of schedules for each city
somewhat arbitrarily. • • •
It should be particularly noted that adherence to these allotments is neit.her
necessary nor desirable. In a city where only one or two areas are studied and
where standard dwellings are typical of the neighborhoods, the cost of housing and
other items can be readily obtained in only a few interviews and can be checked
with a comparatively small number of family visits. • • • On the other
hand, in some cities, several areas may have been selected for study, two or three
kinds of dwellings may be typical of the areas and these types may not meet
standard specifications. In cases like this, it will be necessary to conduct many
interviews and to fill many schedules in order to obtain the cost of the various
types of housing demanded by the study.2t Considerable judgment is, therefore,
placed in the hands of the supervisor and of the interviewers who 88Sume respon•
sibility for this part of the study.
Caution to the Interviewer: The specifications • • • developed for this
study are adapted to meet the minimum requirements for healthy and normal
life under existing conditions and in no sense are they to be regarded or interpreted
as general housing standards established by the F. E. R. A.
With these instructions rents were ascertained for three-, four-,
five-, and six-room dwelling units. 27 Considerable nonquantitative
data also were assembled. The amount allowed as rent at the maintenance level was based on fulfillment of the following particular
conditions in addition to the more general ones listed in the instructions: the house or apartment must be built on a basement or piers,
be in good or fair repair, have sewer and water connections or equivalent services, and a private indoor bath and toilet; it must be rented
without heat, light, refrigeration, or furniture; water, stove, set washtubs, and a garage might or might not be provided by the landlord. 28
Beyond these requirements the specifications could not go, and the
accommodations obtainable for the estimated rents varied widely.
Minimum housing at any level of living requires at least one room
per person exclusive of bath, hall, porch, closets, attic, or basement.
:re Housing which was either inferior or superior to standard specifications, rented
or owned, was studied with other purposes in mind than computing the costs of
1
living. The variety of room units was required as a basis for estimating the costs of
living for families of other size and composition than the four-person family "';th
which this analysis is concerned.
21 Larger or smaller units also were priced in certain cities where they were
representative of working class dwellings.
as Provision of these facilities by the landlord seemed to make no difference in
the rent, and their presence or absence was ignored in the computations, except
that the final rent estimate for each city included provision of water.
32502•-as---9
Og1
edbyGooglc
104 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Rents of both four- and five-room dwellings were used for the fourperson family of this study. 29 For the amounts thus computed, accommodations of either size could be obtained in most cities.
Hand tabulations were required because of the nature of the rent
and supporting data. Complete comparability of values was not
obtained in some cities, and in some there were relatively few quotations for four and five rooms. Reported rents could not be edited for
reasonableness, nor could substitutions be made as with commodity
quotations. Hence, the simple arithmetic mean of reported rents was
not computed. Instead, an average of several quotations clustered
about the median (three, four, five, or six central values) was taken.
Tcrl,le 54.-0ifferences Between Rents Reported by Reel Estate Agents and by Families,
.,4 or 5 Rooms and Bath, 59 Cities, March 1935
Nomberof
Percent dlll'erenoe
cities
SI
TotaJ __ --------------- ----- -- ---- ------- --- ---- -· -· -- -· -- -- · · · · -- · --- ··- ·· · ··· · ·· · · · · · · 1 - - Real estate qent higher:
31--40.11. -- • __ •. _. -- • _. -- -- .• --- . -- _. _.. _. _.. _...•..•.... --- ... _. -- . -- .... -- . _. _.•• _-- . _. - .
21-30.11_ ••.. ------------ --- ··-· _-- ···-·· ------ --- ----- ------------ ---- ----- ... --------- _..
1
3
11-20.9_ .. -- _. --- __ . _. --- ___ . -- _. -- •.. __ . -- _-- --- _....... _--- .. _______ -- _. ___ -- -- _____ -- __
12
1-10.11 ___ -- .. _. _---- __ -- _-- . __ •.. --- _--- __ -- -- . ------. ---- _. __ --- __ -- __ -- -- _-- . _--- _. __ ..
17
1-10.9 ___ -- -- _------ .. ___ . _--- . __ .. -- _. _. _. ____ ..• _. _-- ___ . _. -- __ . __ • _. -- ___ -- _-- . _-- ___ _
11-:rl.9- __ • _. _. _-- _. -- ••• _•• -- __ • _-- • _. ___ • _. ___ ••••••• -- •• _-- • _-----. __ -- • ____ -- _. _. __ • _.
21-30.9 ______ --- _. -- • _.... _. -- .• -- .. -- __________ -- • _. _-- -- -- _. _-- . -- --- __ -- ____ -- _. _. _. _•.
31--40.9.•• ·--- --- . ----- -----·. --- -- ......•..... ----- .. ----- ---- .. ----- ------ ----- ........ .
10
Identical or less than 1 percent dlll'erenoe--------------------------------------------------- ..
Beal estate qent lower:
No OODl1)61"isoD posslble. ---------------. -------------. -- -------. ----- ----. -----. ----- ---- -- ..
'
'
1
I
8
Two sets of rent averages were finally available for each city:
those derived from family reports of current charges and estimates
from real estate agents as to representative rents for housing meeting
the specifications. The agreement of these two series was very close
considering the nature of the data (table 54); in 47 of the 53 cities
where comparisons were possible there was less than 21 percent difference, and in 31 cities the difference was less than 11 percent. All
discrepancies in reports from the two sources were examined for
explanations of observed nonagreement. Such causes appeared as
differences in types of building or neighborhood, the overweighting of
one sample with four rooms and the other with five in those cities where
rents varied with the number of rooms, and the inclusion of water in
one sample and not in the other in cities where this made a difference
in rents. 30
Several tests of the reasonableness of city rent averages were applied. Did they agree with the field supervisors' descriptions in the
211 The composition of this family requires three sleeping rooms, one of which
may be the living room in a four-room house or apartment. Two bedrooms will
be sufficient for many four-person families, and there is no reason to include an
additional room because of the composition of a theoretical family. On the other
hand, averaging rents for units of two sizes pr;>vides for the neceBSity of an extra
room under certain circumstances.
:o See pp. 105-106.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 105
neighborhood data? How did they check with the Real Property
lnventory,81 information in the files of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and reports of rents made by other students, especially local authorities? What proportion did rent take in computed total cost of living?
As a result of these comparisons reported rents were revised slightly
in a few cities, where they seemed to be unrepresentative, on the
basis of apparently better data.
In recognition of the fact that mathematically computed rent
averages might give a semblance of exactness not warranted by the
basic material, they were rounded off according to the following
schedule in computing the outlay necessary for rent in each city:
1. If the modified median lay between $X.21 and $X.29 inclusive,
the rent used was $X.25.
2. If the modified median lay between $X.30 and $X.70 inclusive,
the rent used was $X.50.
3. If the modified median lay between $X.71 and $X.79 inclusive,
the rent used was $X.75.
4. If the modified median lay between $X.80 and $X plus $1.20
inclusive, the rent used was $X plus $1.
Another problem which arose in connection with the rent estimates
was what to do about the water rate. Customs with reference to paying for water used by the tenant varied among the separate cities and
among landlords in the same city. For the purpose of intercity comparisons it was necessary that all rents cover the cost of water.
Decision as to whether or not the water rate should be added to reported rents rested on the prevailing custom in each city. Usually
two-thirds of the reports either way determined the procedure used.
In a few cities where the custom was not clearly defined, decision was
made on the basis of other pertinent considerations. In general, it
may be said that in most cities there is a tendency for owners of low
rent dwellings to supply their tenants with water, 82 and that where
strictly working class housing was priced water did not constitute a
separate charge. Rents for these houses often were less than for
houses in the same cities where the water rate was paid by the tenant.
If typical working class housing was not up to the standard specified
for this investigation and city average rents were computed from
charges for better accommodations, tenants usually paid for water
separately and its cost was added to estimated rents. The minimum
annual cost of water reported by the local water company always was
11 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic
Commerce, Real Property Inventory, 19S4. There are separate reports for 64
cities, 22 of which were included in the present investigation.
a Table 17 shows that rents were lower in cities where water was a separate
charge than where it was supplied by the landlord, and vice versa. The inclusion
or exclusion of the water charge was of little, if any, importance in accounting for
these differences.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
106 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
used. Identical quantities were not allowed for the minimum in the
separate cities, but most families interviewed seemed to find that the
minimum allowance was sufficient. 83
The plan to compute emergency level rents from quotations for
dwelling units meeting all the requirements for maintenance level
housing except private indoor bath proved impracticable, because in
most cities houses which had a private indoor toilet also had a private
indoor tub or shower; where there was no bath the toilet frequently
was shared or outdoors, or the building was in poor condition and
was eliminated on one or more of those counts. Where satisfactory
accommodations with private indoor toilet only could be obtained,
their rents averaged about 75 percent of the amounts required to
obtain maintenance level housing. This ratio was used, therefore, in
computing emergency level rents in all cities. The resulting figure
was then rounded off as described, and the cost of water was added
where water was a separate charge. Rounding off 75 percent of the
modified median of maintenance level rent and adding the cost of
water resulted in ratios between emergency and maintenance level
rents in the separate cities which were not always exactly 75 percent,
though deviations from this average were not large.
The type of dwelling to be obtained for the estimated emergency
level rent cannot be specified as was maintenance level housing, but
accommodations were available in every city for the rent given,
which might be occupied at least temporarily without serious hazard.
Fuel
In a country where the area is as vast as the United States, with
its widely varied climate and wealth of natural resources, the demand
for artificial heat and the means available for supplying it form an
intricate pattern. Even at one specified level of living, requirements
differ in different places. 34 Anthracite consumption, in general, is
confined to New England and the Middle Atlantic States. Bituminous coal is more commonly used for room wanning throughout the
country than any other fuel, and wood is burned in the milder climates.
Gas or oil is the popular domestic heating fuel among families of small
means in some cities; wood or oil occasionally is used for cooking and
water heating; gas often is consumed for these purposes the year
around instead of only during the summer months.
13 In Dallas, El Paso, and Winston-Salem a necessary sewer charge paid by all
tenants was also added to house rents and water rates.
H There are differences in the natural demand for many commodities baaed on
temperature and other climatic influences, but the theory of substitution which
is inherent in the method of cost computation used in this study implies that for
the costs of living estimated by valuing a quantity budget, locally used goods and
services may be obtained. For fuel, however, average allowances of specified
goods or services oft.en would be excessive in one locality and inadequate in others.
In some places the items themselves could not be priced at all.
Dg1tzed by
Google
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 107
Local fuel consumption depends partly on available supply, hence
on price, and partly on custom. A cost estimate which ignores these
considerations may be less representative than one in which they are
taken into account. On the other hand, estimates which require
getting quotations for a variety of fuels and for fuels to be used under
a diversity of circumstances, with a corresponding number of separate
quantity allowances, would add unnecessary detail to an already
complicated problem. A considerable amount of attention, however,
was devoted to working out differential allowances in the quantity
budgets for several kinds of fuel under a variety of climatic conditions.
The 59 cities in this study were classified in four different climate
groups on the basis of their average winter temperatures and the
number of months cold weather might be expected. Thirteen were
in the "A" group, twenty-four were in the "B" group, thirteen were
in the "C" group, and nine were in the "D" group. These groups
do not conform to the usual census classification by geographic divisions but cut' across them all (table 55). The cities in each climate
group were as follows:
Table 55.-59 Cities Classified by 9 Geographic. Divisions and 4 Separate Climate
Groups
Number or cities In climate group
Geo~raphic division
UA"
Total
"B"
---------------)---- --- --- --- --Total..........................................
59
13
24
13
9
------- --NewEngland.......................................
n --2
4
Middle Atlantic.....................................
East North Central.................................
West North Central.................................
South Atlantir............... .......................
East South Central ................................. .
West South Central ................................ .
Mountain .......................................... .
Pacific............•................•...••..•••.••..•.
8
8
7
9
3
3
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
I
I
2
2
1
3
1
ll
"A" cities (winter long or cold, or long and cold): Binghamton, Buffalo, Butte, Cedar Rapids, Chicago, Detroit, Manchester, Milwaukee,
Minneapolis, Omaha, Portland (Maine), Rochester, and Sioux Falls.
"B" cities (average): Baltimore, Boston, Bridgeport, Cincinnati,
Clarksburg, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Fall River, Indianapolis,
Kansas City (Mo.), Louisville, Newark, New York, Peoria, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Scranton,
Spokane, Washington, and Wichita.
"0" cities (winter short or mild, or short and mild): Albuquerque,
Atlanta, Birmingham, El Paso, Knoxville, Little Rock, Memphis,
Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Portland (Oreg.), Richmond, Seattle, and
Winston-Salem.
"D" cities (winter very short or very mild, or very short and very
mild): Columbia, Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Mobile,
New Orleans, San Francisco, and Tucson.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
108 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
The quantities of anthracite, bituminous coal, or wood required
each winter for room warming, cooking, and water heating were
determined for each climate group. Gas was included for cooking and
water heating during the months when fuel for room warming is not
required, and quantity allowancesfor these in each climate group were
established (table 56). The same quantity of a given kind of fuel
was allowed in each city in each climate group. 36 Though local taste
Tobie 56.-Fuel Allowances in 4 Separate Climate Groups 1
Climate group
Fuel allowance
"B"
"A"
Number or months 00111 or wood 15 provided for room warullng,
cooking, and water beating_---------------------------------_
Number or months gas 15 provided for cooking and water beating_
Relative
allowance or
or gas
coal_____________________________
or wood•-----------------Relative quantity
quantity allowance
"0"
"D"
--------7
6
116. 4
100.0
7
5
7
5
100.0
100.0
61. 6
140.0
3
g
211. g
180. 0
1 This comparlaon 15 based on maintenance budget allowances. Emergency budget allowances show
practically Identical ratios. Only bltuminollll coal Is ll8ed In all sections of the country; through establ~hing
anthracite and wood requirements equivalent to thoee for bituminous ooal, comJ)IU'llltle allowanoes for the
former wen evolved.
may prefer gas or oil for room warming, coal or wood was always
priced, and no substitution was made for gas as summer fuel. Costs
computed from prices of fuel not in general use among families of small
means undoubtedly cover the outlays necessary for the locally popular
fuels, inasmuch as the substitutes had become popular because of
their lower costs.
Coal, or Wood
Annual quantity allowances of winter fuel in the budgets are
shown in terms of tons of coal or cords of wood. Ton or cord lots
could be priced everywhere, but quotations for smaller units were not
obtained in some cities or were obtained for quantities not convertible
into the budget units. 38 Costs were computed, therefore, from prices
for tons and cords, delivered at the curb, no matter how purchases
actually were made.
Whether anthracite, bituminous coal, or wood was used to compute
winter fuel costs in a given city depended on local consumption.17
11 Quantity allowances of wood are included in the budgets only for cities with
a mild winter climate, but one average climate city in the present investigation
was located in a lumber region where wood was the usual fuel, and quantity allowances for this city were estimated.
M Smaller quantities were bought at a time in a few localities where little
fuel is required, or where storage space is limited, as in city apartments. Prices .
usually varied with the size of the purchase unit: the smaller the unit, the higher
the price.
17 Coke, a coal derivative, was used in one city.
Both ton-lot prices of coal
and cord-lot prices of wood were not always obtained in cities where coal and
wood are consumed. The fuel used in cost calculations was the one for which
quotations were available.
Dg1tzed by
Google
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 109
'\\'oere anthracite was priced, quotations for the chestnut size were
generally obtained, but for bituminous coal or wood, the sample consisted of whatever families reported they were burning in their stoves.
Heating equivalents cannot be measured exactly, and a better fuel
probably was obtained in some places than in others.
Two sources of information supplied coal and wood prices: reports
of what families paid and dealer quotations. The same schedule was
used for both. Questions asked were: price during heating season
preceding March 1935, and price of lot last purchased (sold). Reports
from families were more uniform and complete than were dealers'
quotations; fuel cost estimates were made from these family reports.
Prices were collected on the housing schedule.811 They were tabulated, and averages for each city were computed as were rents: namely,
modified medians were calculated from hand tabulations. City
average prices in the heating season preceding March 1935 811 as thus
computed were combined with the appropriate annual quantity
allowances for the particular climate group in which the city was
classed.
Gas
Gas for cooking and water heating may be natural, manufactured,
or a mixture of the two. The calorific value of natural gas averages
nearly twice as great as that of manufactured gas, and that of mixed
gas approaches one or the other. Eighty percent more manufactured
gas than natural gas is provided per month in the quantity budget
for a four-person family at the maintenance level, and the allowance
of mixed gas is either 1,800 cubic feet or 1,000 cubic feet per month,
depending on whether its B. T. U. content most nearly approaches
that of manufactured or natural gas.•0 These ratios are not absolutely applicable to all cities, inasmuch as B. T. U. content is not
uniform for the kind of gas specified, but they are sufficiently exact
for the purpose in hand.
Gas rates for domestic cooking and water heating were obtained
from the local utility companies as of March 15, 1935, and that applicable in each city to the monthly allowance in the quantity budgets was
18 Fuel prices were collected on the housing schedule rather than on a regular
commodity schedule, and reports were secured frolll individual families in order
that something regarding consumption habits might be learned.
at The date to which this study of the costs of living relates is mid-March 1935.
Collection of prices required a period of several months, and the last city was not
completed until mid-July. The period thus covered for last sales sometimes
included that of lowest fuel prices. It seemed more reasonable, therefore, to
combine the price of fuel during the preceding heating season with March prices
of other commodities and services than the price of fuel last purchased, which
may have reflected a seasonal drop. The same practice was used with reference
to certain seasonal articles of clothing.
,o See footnote 13, p. 50, for definition of B. T. U. ,
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
110 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
used in computing costs. Minimum bills, block rates, and prompt
payment discounts were taken into account. Cost per month was
multiplied by the number of months' consumption allowed in the quantity budgets to determine the annual cost of gas.
To the annual cost of the maintenance budget allowance of coal or
wood and gas, $5 was added in each city to provide for kindling,
matches, and fuel accessories; 41 to the annual cost of the emergency
budget, 75 cents was added in the "A" and "B" cities, and $3 in the
"C" and "D" cities. 42
Ice
The quantity budgets provide for ice consumption during the
same months as gas for cooking and water heating: namely, those in
which fuel for room warming is not required. This classification
resulted in a grouping of 37 cities where ice was allowed for a period of
5 months; 13, where it was allowed for 7 months; and 9, where it was
allowed for 9 months. 43 The quantity per week was the same in each
group under all circumstances. Thus, multiplying the number of
pounds required per week by the number of weeks ice was to be used
gave necessary annual consumption in pounds. Needless to say,
this is an arbitrary method of computing the annual quantity allowance of ice, but for the most part it provides a reasonable basis for
calculating annual cost. The distribution of consumption throughout
the year may differ, however, from that on which annual costs are
computed.
Ice is purchased in units varying from 10 pounds to 100 pounds
and is either called for or delivered. There may be a difference in the
price per 100 pounds on the basis of either of these criteria. The unit
priced for this study was 25 pounds delivered." Data relating to the
sale of ice and its price were obtained on the housing schedule. As in
the case of rents and fuel costs, facts obtained from families appeared
to be more consistent and complete than did quotations obtained from
dealers. The modified median of prices reported by families who
41 Though coal and wood are used fewer months in the "C" and "D" cities than
in the" A" and "B" cities, the same amount is included in all for kindling, matches,
and fuel accessories to compensate for the fact that, where gas is used for cooking
7 or 9 months a year, a gas range is likely to be used instead of the gas plate and
portable oven included in the quantity budgets, which are satisfactory for 5
months' supplementary use. The cost of the surplus allowance for fuel takes the
place of gas stove replacement cost.
42 See footnote 41 above.
The excessive allowance for fuel in the "C" and "D"
cities will pay for the depreciation on a gas range, which is not included in the
quantity budget.
43 See p. 107 for list of cities in each climate group.
44 If ice is called for its price may be lower than if it is delivered.
Purchase of
ice tickets or coupon books may reduce the cost somewhat. Such prices were not
used in computing average cost, nor were deferred payment prices used.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 111
purchased ice in 25-pound lots delivered, therefore, was taken in each
city as the average price of ice.
Electricity
Electricity rates for residential service in effect March 15, 1935, in
each city were obtained from the public utility companies. The
main problem connected with computing electricity costs, therefore,
was how to disentangle from the mass of elements frequently entering
into the statement of monthly bills those applicable to the four-person
family whose costs of living are measured here. As pointed out in
the preliminary report on domestic rate schedules by the Federal
Power Commission, "So many and such varied factors enter into the
determination of electric rate structures that it is difficult to state them
accurately and comprehensively even for a single community." 46
Many of the rate forms "are beyond the grasp of the average layman,
and not a few [areJ difficult for even an experienced rate specialist to
interpret." 40
In both maintenance and emergency budgets a house of four rooms,
hall, and bath is assumed. Fifty-watt lamps are allowed for six
outlets. An iron and, in the maintenance budget, a small radio are
provided for. The total quantity of energy allowed per month for
this service is 23 K. W. H. in the maintenance budget and 17 K. W. H.
in the emergency hudget.'7 Demand, minimum, and other fixed
charges were considered in computing monthly costs. If there was a
prompt payment discount it was deducted, and all other modifications
were considered in order to ascertain the net monthly bill. This
amount was multiplied by 12 to obtain the average annual cost of
energy. An addition of $1.25 was made to the maintenance budget
cost in all cities to cover replacement of lamps and other electrical
accessories, and $1.05 was added to the emergency budget cost for the
same purpose.
Household Supplia
Eleven commodities comprise the household supplies budget, as
follows: kitchen soap, laundry soap, soap powder, soap flakes, starch,
bluing, ammonia, scouring powder, lye, insect powder, and toilet
paper. The first five of these items were separately priced in each
46 Federal Power Commission, Electric Rate Survey, Preliminary Report, Domestic and Residential Rates in Effect January 1, 1935, Cities of 50,000 Population
and Over, Rate Series Ko. I, p. 8.
to Ibid., p. 14.
47 Hours of daylight vary with the seasons and with latitude of the separate
cities; operation of a daylight saving program also reduces somewhat the necessary
demand for artificial light. Differential allowances bai,ed on these considerations
seemed unnecessary in view of the relatively small po.rt of the total cost of living
required for electricity, in comparison with the elaboration of calculation which
would be required by their use.
Digitized by
Goog1e
112 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 GTIES
city (table 57),48 but the last six were assigned an identical value in
ell cities, based on quotations in the chain limited price variety stores
combined with their respective quantity allowances. This amount,
exclusive of sales tax where levied, was $5.70 per year for a fourperson manual worker's family at the maintenance level of living.
Specifications for the five commodities priced separately in each
city were fairly general, requiring primarily that weight or size of
package and brand should be noted, except that kitchen soap was
described as "white, hard milled, no caustic properties nor special
cleansing agent, medium size." Multiple units as well as single units
were priced where the former method of sale was common. Quotations were obtained, as for other commodities, from stores at which
industrial, service, and other manual workers of smell means trade. 411
Tal,#e 57.-Number of Commodities Priced and Used in Computin_S Costs of Household
Supplies, Furniture, Furnishings, and Household Equipment, 59 Cities, March 1935
Number or commodltle,i
Schedule
Priced
Used
Total. _____________________________________ -------------------------------71
1M
Furniture and floor covering _________________ . _________ ------------------------. _1----17-i----1;
liousehold equipment and olectrlcal appliances__________________________________
31
• 22
Cleaning supplies and sundries_------------------------------------------------12
1e
Yard goods and textile furnishings _______________ ---------------------------_____
g
g
• 5 of these were homehold supplies; the remainder, furniture, furnishings, and household equipment.
Prices or c_leanlng supplie.s and sundrie.s not used In computin~ the costs or household supplies and furniture,
rurnlshings, and household equipment were toilet soap (personal care) and kerosene (not listed In the quan~!~..!>.::id!ii'~?iother 4 are induded in the list or commodities for which an identical amount was
c1J!~
• The I I Items or household equipment priced hut n'lt used In computing the coats oUurnlture turnishln~
and household equipment for the +-person manual worker's family were commodities required for Clunilies
or different size or required under dilierent conditions. as, !or e,xample, where kerosene Is used for fuel anti/or
llfht Instead or coal or wood, gas, and ell'<'triclty. Some ol these prices can be used In studies to discover cost
d11Ierentials based on size of family; others, to compute cost relatives based on local consumption habits.
All accepted quotations were reduced to a rate-per-pound basis.
The arithmetic mean of these was taken as the city average for each
commodity in each city, and these averages were combined with their
appropriate quantity allowances in the maintenance budget. The
resulting annual cost of the five commodities separately priced was
added to the assigned value of nonpriced essentials to obtain the total
outlay locally necessary for household supplies. An emergency budget
for household supplies was not constructed, but its cost was assumed
to be 90 percent of the cost of the maintenance budget.
Furniture, Furnl1hln91, and HoUMhold Equipment
Prices of furniture, furnishings, nnd household equipment were
collected on four schedules (table 57). Specifications described the
"Cleaning powder, toilet paper, bluing, lye, and kerosene were also priced, but
quotations were not used in cost calculations, because identical values for the finit
four items are given in the quantity budgets, and kerosene is not included therein_
Toilet soap (personal care) and broom (household equipment) prices were also
collected on the same schedule.
49 See pp. 96--97.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES •
11 3
material, construction, and size of "inexpensive quality" merchandise.
Stores were selected for sampling, merchandise was priced, and quotations were edited for reasonableness, according to the procedure
used for other commodities. 60 In addition to the 49 commodities
separately priced in each city, the furniture, furnishings, and household equipment budgets for a 4-person manual worker's family list
over 100 items for which a total of $37 .25 was allowed as initial cost
in all cities at the maintenance level on the basis of quotations obtained
in chain limited price variety stores.
The arithmetic mean of all accepted quotations for each commodity
in each city was taken by machine and combined with its designated
initial allowance as listed in the quantity budgets. The total of these
costs, together with the identical amount allowed in all cities, constituted the outlay required to purchase a complete stock of household
goods. Annual replacement cost at the maintenance level was computed as 10 percent of initial cost; emergency level cost was calculated
as 6 percent of initial outlay.
RelUM DIIPOIGI
The costs of refuse disposal in the separate cities for the most part
were calculated from reports by the local health officers or officials in
some other departments responsible for this service. Minimum
requirements were priced except in a few places where annual costs
w~re based on specified schedules from which the allowances for a
four-person manual worker's family were computed. Where monthly
or weekly charges were given, annual cost was calculated from budget
needs. 61 The cost of refuse disposal was the same at the maintenance
and emergency levels of living.
UnspeclRed Eaentlal1
The dollars and cents allowed in all cities for unspecified essentials
of household operation (table 58) provide for such commodities as
To&le 58.-ldentical Annual Allowances I for Unspecifled Household Essentials:
Commodities and Services Not Separately Priced, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
Annlllll allowance I
Item
Maintenance Emergency
le Ye(
level
TotaJ ____ -- ____ - __ ----- - --- -- -- -- --- - • -- -- -- - -- ---- -- -• --- - -- - -• -- --• - ---
$3. 05
$2. 76
Commodities
_________
-------_ --- __________
---- ._____
--- ----- -- ------ _Servioeo
________
. ___________________
. __________
_______
. _________
. _.--_-----.. _______
I. 16
1.10
I. 66
1.00
1 Sales tax to be added where levied (appendix tables 15 and 16).
IO
See pp. 95--97.
The number of months' use of coal or wood, with complementary requirements for disposal of garbage.
11
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
114 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
writing materials, twine, glue, tacks, and similar odds and ends of
minor importance and small cost; also such services as postage and
telephone calls. No itemization of this allowance is necessary, but
its desirability is obvious.
Medical Care
The annual cost of medical care was computed from prices of a
small sample of the great variety of goods and services needed for
this purpose. The quantity of each item allowed per year was adjusted to represent average minimum requirements per 1,000 persons.
This method of cost calculation was used because only by observing
the need for care among a large number of persons of different sex
and all ages over a period of years could an estimate of requirements
be hazarded. From cost per 1,000 persons the outlay necessary per
year for the 4-person family of this study was computed, without
reference to the particular needs of the sex and age of its component
members.
Six sets of items listed in the medical care budget were priced
(table 59). Quotations for services and for eyeglasses and frames
were collected on one schedule and those for drug store commodities
on another. Specifications varied in degree of exactness with the
kind of items priced.
Tcr&le 59.-Number of Commodities and Services Priced and Used in Computing Costs
of Medical Care, 59 Cities, March 1935
NumlJ<>r of rommodities
and servit"es
Schedule
Priced
Used
Total______________________________________________________________________
29
20
Medical care ____________________________________________________________________ ,-----,1,..,-4-l----l-,-3
Physieinn_ ______________ _____ ______________________ ________________________ _
6
t 6
Dentist_ _____________________ -----------------------------___________________
3
3
Hospital..___________________________________________________________________
2
1
Nurse ____________________ ------------------------- __ ____________ ___________
Eyrglns.-ws and frnmr • __ .... ______________________________________________ .
l
2
I
2
Drugs, tuih•tries, end drug store sundries________________________________________
15
'7
t
Includes eye refraction which later was assigned to optometrists on the basis of data secured In the field.
as descrilJl•d in the tt•xt.
• Though pri"•d on the medical rare service schedule, the cost of eyeglassl's and frame was analyzed
with tlw cost or commoditi<'s pri<'t.'d in drug stores.
• 7 of the 8 drug store commodities not used w,•re not included in the quantity hudgets; toothpast~ was
assigned on identical amount in all cities in the personal care budget.
Physicians' and dentists' charges were obtained from general
practitioners and represent the usual fee asked from patients of small
means. Services inrlude physicians' office visits, day house calls,
obstetrical care, appendectomies, and tonsillectomies; and dentists'
filling,· cleaning, and extracting teeth. The schedule called for eye
refractions by physicians, specified as "simple examination for the
fitting of eyeglasses." "\\lien performed by a member of the medical
profession this service is usually in the field of a specialist whose fee
exceeds that of general practitioners. Families of small means
Dg1tzed by
Google
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES •
115
customarily have their eyes refracted by optometrists, and in many
cities in this study only optometrists' charges were recorded. It
seemed best, therefore, to use optometrists' fees for calculating costs
in all cities. In those in which optometrists' fees were not obtained,
$2 was uniformly allowed, as this seemed to be about the average or
usual charge for eye refractions.
The hospital services priced were beds in the cheapest pay wards
per day, including meals, general medical, surgical, and nursing care,
and clinic visits. Clinic visits were dropped from the quantity budgets
because this service is not always available, and its cost was not used
in computing the cost of medical care.
The fee for nursing care was supposed to be the usual charge per
visit by instructive visiting or other public health nurses. Private
duty nursing was outside the scope of this study. Not all cities have a
public health nursing service, however, and other provision for estimating the necessary cost of nursing care for a manual worker's
family was necessary in some places. Information obtained from
the National Organization for Public Health Nursing indicates that
costs pervisit for usual services in 34 of the 59 cities studied 62 ranged
from a minimum of 57 cents to a maximum of $1.23 in 1935; the mean
cost was 93 cents and the median, 91 cents. It appeared, therefore,
that if $1 per visit were allowed as the fee for nursing care in cities
where no amount was reported for this service, a representative
figure would be provided. This would cover the outlay necessary for
a public health nurse or would supply other kinds of nursing care in
cities where such 8ervices are not organized. 53
Quotations were to be obtained for inexpensive types of eyeglasses
and frames, without additional specification except that toric lenses
were not to be priced. One simple prescription, one antiseptic, two
laxatives, aspirin, a cough syrup, and a cold ointment were used as
the drug store sample. U.S. P. standard, size of container, or other
recognized specification described the merchandise called for. Prices
of these drug store commodities were obtained in chain, cut-rate, and
neighborhood stores, according to the procedure already described for
other commodities/' and city averages are representative of customary
local charges.
Fees for physicians', dentists', optometrists', and hospital services
were hand tabulated, and the modified median was calculated.
In cities where services of a fairly homogeneous group of practitioners
were priced, the average fee often was the usual charge; in cities
where offices in both residential and downtown buildings were visited,
61 No privately supported public health nursing service exists in 8 of the 59 cities
studied, and no information regarding cost per visit was available in 17 of them.
N In the cities without a public health nursing service no study was made to
ascertain what kind of care was avai:able.
6' See pp. 95-97.
Dg1 zed by
Google
116 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
a combination of the two sets of data sometimes produced an unusual
figure, but one representative of a complete cross section of the cost
of medical services locally available. The average price of eyeglasses
and frames in each city was calculated by the same method as that
used for medical services, since quotations were obtained on the
same schedule and were subject to the same limitations. For the
drug store commodities, machine calculated arithmetic means were
the city average prices.
Charges for individual items in the medical care budget were combined with their annual quantity allowances per 1,000 persons to obtain
the annual cost of a balanced list, and all intercity differences were
computed from these figures. The amount a 4-person family would
have to set aside each year as the cost of the maintenance medical
ca.re budget was four one-thousandths of the local cost per 1,000
persons. The allowance for medical ca.re in the emergency budget
is 90 percent of the cost of the maintenance budget and this amount
was included in each city.
Tianaporlatlon
The basic allowance of car or bus fare 66 in the quantity budgets for
a 4-person manual worker's family provides a daily round trip to work
for the man and to high school for the 13-year-old boy, plus an amount
for other necessary activities equal to one-half the total of these two
cost.a at the maintenance level, and to one-quarter, at the emergency
level. A work year of 306 days and the number of school days as
reported in each city were assumed.
The need for transportation is not identical in all communities.
Layout of the city, location of residential areas with reference to
industrial plants, schools, shopping and recreation centers, and the
like, as well as transportation facilities available are responsible for
customary use at any level of living. Attempts to get local estimates
of patronage of public transportation systems by industrial, service,
and other manual workers of small means in the cities studied were
not successful, and more arbitrary means of measuring intercity
differentials were necessary.
Two sets of data bearing on the need for transportation-population
and land area-are available for all cities. One without the other is
significant but not conclusive, and in combination they suggest a
basis for local transportation differentials. This combination was
made by multiplying 1930 population by land area in square miles
and reducing the results to such an index as would group the 59 cities
in approximately equal numbers. It is to be presumed that even in
the largest cities, with the most extensive land area, some men will
walk to work and some children will walk to high school, but it also is
16
The quantity budgets do not include an automobile.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 11 7
probable that the larger the population and land area the larger will be
the proportion who will need an allowance for transportation.
The percentage modifiers of the basic budget allowance of transportation in the separate cities were as follows.
96 percent: Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles,
New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, and St. Louis.
84 percent: Boston, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, San
Francisco, Seattle, and Washington.
72 percent: Buffalo, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City
(Mo.), Milwaukee, and Portland (Oreg.).
60 percent: Binningham, Columbus, Dallas, Louisville, Memphis,
Newark, and Rochester.
48 percent: Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Providence, Richmond, Salt Lake City, and Spokane.
86 percent: Bridgeport, Fall River, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Norfolk,
Scranton, Wichita, and Manchester.
14 percent: Cedar Rapids, El Paso, Little Rock, Mobile, Peoria,
Portland (Maine), and Winston-Salem.
1B percent: Albuquerque, Binghamton, Butte, Clarksburg, Columbia, Sioux Falls, and Tucson.
Several public transportation systems sometimes are found in a
given city, and they may charge different fares. The same system
may operate on a zone basis; may issue tickets or tokens, or passes for
adults or children, or both at a discount from the single cash fare;
or may issue transfers free or with a charge, or may issue none at all.
Thus, calculating comparable transportation costs in the separate
cities becomes further complicated by the necessity for specifying a
reasonable basic fare.
Were relative prices the principal consideration in this analysis,
they would be computed from adult cash fares. Inasmuch as its purpose is to represent transportation requirements in the total cost of
living, the appropriate charge is the lowest fare payable in each city.
This appears to be the ticket or token rate, but nothing necessitating
more than $1 outlay at one time was used in the calculations.611 Where
more than one transportation company operates in a city, the charge
on that system which appeared to carry the greatest number of passengers was used; the existence of zones and transfers was disregarded. 67
The fare in each city for each purpose specified was combined with
its budget allowance for transportation to work, to school, and for
other purposes, and the total cost of transportation was calculated.
This amount then was modified by the percentage differential assigned
66 Except that in Mobile a book of 30 tickets sold to school children for $1.05
was allowed.
37 Except that in Los Angeles, with three street railway and bus systems operating in zones with a variety of fares, the rates used were designed to secure a
representative cost picture.
Dig l1?ed by
Goog lC
118 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
to each city, as described above, to obtain the annual cost of
transportation.
School Attendance
An attempt was made to ascertain average requirements and costs
of public school attendance for a boy age 13 in the 9th grade and for a
girl age 8 in the 3d grade. School systems are not operated on an
identical plan in all cities and the 9th grade was found in both junior
and senior high schools. Cost calculations for each city were made on
the basis of the local plan. Technical, commercial, and other special
schools were not included. Items checked were books, stationery,
other supplies, and gymnasium equipment. It was assumed that laboratory and other special fees would not be required, that the cost of
school lunches was taken care of in the food budget, and that social
expenses must come out of the recreation allowance. Necessary car
or bus fares were provided for in the cost of transportation. The
same school attendance budget and prices were used for both the
maintenance and the emergency levels of living; hence, costs were
identical.
Information regarding school costs was collected from the boards
or departments of education in the separate cities, as well as from
schools in the neighborhoods where other cost data were obtained.
As far as possible, initial cost of equipment which might be used
longer than 1 year was prorated to measure annual cost. 68 Final
figures for the most part were calculated as the modified median of
separate reports, but in some cities data supplied by a central authority
were accepted as representative.
Recreation
The cost of recreation was computed from costs of the quantity
budgets for newspapers and motion picture theater admissions, plus
identical amounts allowed in all cities for certain miscellaneous needs.
Newspapers
In the maintenance budget a newspaper is allowed every day; in
the emergency budget there is no newspaper. Street sale is usual,
but in some places papers are delivered to the purchaser by carrier at
a weekly or monthly cost considerably below the street sale rate. 69 In
many cities there is more than one newspaper. The price used in
computing annual cost was the lowest at which the paper having the
largest reported local circulation could be obtained each day. This
as Instructions for use of the schedule called for net annual cost; i.e., "obtained
by deducting any refund from fees at the end of the year, sale of books, gymnasium suit, etc. If the latter is worn 4 years, only I year's cost should be
entered."
69 This system of carrier delivery is not to be confused with delivery by a. newsdealer; in the latter case the customer pays a premium for the service instead of
getting a discount from the street sale price.
Digitized by
GoogIe
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 119
was the carrier delivery charge in some places; in others, it was the
street sale price; and in still a third group of cities, it was the carrier
delivery charge daily and street or newsstand sale price on Sunday.
In three cities where no paper was printed on Sunday, prices of Sunday
editions of papers published in nearby cities were included.
Motion Picture Theater Admissions
One motion picture theater admission per week is allowed for each
member of the family in the maintenance budget; in the emergency
budget attendance once a month is allowed. Three different admission charges for attendance on Saturday are called for: night prices
for two adults, adults' afternoon prices for the boy age 13, and children's afternoon prices for the girl age 8. Lowest prices for the performances named were used in the cost calculations, unless these rates
were for special groups, such as Negroes or Mexicans, in theaters where
the different races were segregated.
Admission charges were obtained from downtown and neighborhood theaters patronized by industrial, service, and other manual
workers of small means. Some showed first run features; others
showed pictures of later release. Some offered stage shows, others
did not. Cost calculations were made from charges at neighborhood
theaters and at those downtown theaters whose price scales were in
line with the neighborhood theater prices. Where all theaters were
centrally located, an effort was made to differentiate between them
on the basis of entertainment offered, but in the smaller cities, for
the most part, all necessarily were included.
The arithmetic mean of accepted quotations was computed for each
admission specified above. These averages were totaled and multiplied by the number of admissions allowed per year in the budgets
for the two levels of living.
Organizations, Tobacco, and Toys
To the outlay necessary in each city for newspapers and motion
picture theater admissions were added the amounts specified in the
budgets for a four-person family to cover organization memberships
Tobie 60.-ldentical Annual Allowances 1 for Organizations, Tobacco and Toys:
Commodities and Services Not Separately Priced, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
Annual allowance 1
Item
Maintenance Emergency
le,·el
level
Total..__________________________________________________________________
$30. 40
$4.80
Organlrntlo118 _________________________________________________________________ 1_ _ _9__60-I--(,-)Tobscco and toys•- _________________________ ._. __ ... ___ .. ··-._._._. ___ .. ..•• -- :
'.al. 80
4. 80
• Sales tax to he added where levied (appendix tobles 15 and 16).
• !'-ot included in the emergency budget.
32592°-38-10
D (:]ii zed by
Goog Ie
120 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
and similar activities, tobacco, toys, and other leisure-time accessories (table 60).
Life Insurance, Church Contributions, and Other Contributions
Table 61 gives the budget allowances for life insurance, church
contributions, and other contributions. Except for insurance on the
life of the man at the maintenance level, which at death would leave
a small surplus over funeral expenses, the provision for insurance
covers the outlay necessary for burial, prorated to an annual basis.
Table 61.-ldentical Annual Allowances for Life Insurance, Church Contributions, and
Other Contributions, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
Annual allowance
Item
Maintenance Emergency
level
level
Total _______________ . _____ . ___ . ________________________ . ________________ _
~1.80
Life Insurance __________ . __ . ____________________ . ____ ... __ . __ .. __ ._ .. _._ .. ____ _ -----,40.40
Man _________________________ . ________ . ____________ ._._ .. ___ . __ . _____ . ___ _
23.00
Woman __________________________________________________________________ _
13.00
Boy age 13. ___________________ -------------------------- ____ . _________ .. __
6.20
Olrl •~e 8____ .. _____________ .. _________ . ____________________ . ___ . ___ . ____ ..
6. 20
Chureh contributions __ .. __ . __ . ________ ._. ________ . ___ . __________ . ______ . _. __
10.40
Other contributions. ____________ ... __ ..... _. ___ .. _..... __ . ______ .......... __ ..
6.00
1
$31. 20
20.80
7.80
i.80
2. 60
2.ro
10. 40
(')
Not Included In the emergency budget.
Life insurance premiums depend on the character and amount of
benefits, age at which the policy is taken out, sex of the insured, and
frequency of premium payment. Though industrial, service, and
other manual workers of small means usually buy their insurance on a
weekly basis, with relatively small benefits for the premiums paid,
the maintenance budget calls for an ordinary life policy on the whole
life plan, with benefits of considerably greater value for the man of
the family; the wife and children, however, a.re allowed industrial
policies.
There is little difference in premiums among the recognized companie8 for any specified type of policy, and the $23 per year included
for the man's insurance should pay for a $1,000 ordinary life policy
on the whole life plan, taken out at age 35. An allowance of 25 cents
per week for the woman in the family and 10 cents for each child will
supply death benefits aggregating approximately $900 if the policies
are taken out at their present attained ages.
In the emergency budget, both the man and the woman have
industrial policies calling for payment of 15 cents per week; each
child has a 5 cents per week policy. Benefits payable for these
premiums average about $700 for the family.
Church contributions are included in all budgets at the rate of 5
cents per person per week regardless of sex or age; $5 per year is added
in the maintenance budget for other contributions of various kinds.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES • 121
Taxes
Details of tax procedure as of March 15, 1935, were obtained from
local assessors and others charged with tax collection; taxes supposedly were payable in 1935. Every effort was made to get reliable
reports, but there were conflicts in the data obtained from different
sources in the same community, and recourse to statutes and manuals
did not always clear matters completely. Data which appeared most
nearly accurate as far as they could be checked were used in cost
computations.
For the present study the value of taxable personal property embodied in furniture, furnishings, household equipment, and clothing
was assumed to be $100 in all cities. Rates, percentages, and exemptions were applied with reference to that amount in computing personal property taxes. Capitation taxes were allowed in full for those
members of the four-person manual worker's family to whom they
applied.
In computing the amount of sales tax to be added to the costs of the
goods and services included in the quantity budgets, it was necessary
to ascertain which items were subject to tax in each city, and to apply
the proper rate to their costs. No two States included or exempted
the same items, and in some instances the laws were none too specific
regarding their exact application. Without going into an exhaustive
study, which was not warranted by the present purpose, the exact
scope of some of the laws, in all details, could not be determined.
No attempt was made in this study to use the bracket system for
the purpose of adding the sales tax to each dealer's price, 60 because
price comparisons between cities without the tax seemed the best
procedure, or at least segregation of the tax permitted an analysis
which considered it as a possible causal factor in intercity cost differentials. Moreover, in the absence of universally applicable brackets
in certain cities, no general rule could be applied on a bracket basis.
Instead, the amount of the sales tax in each city was computed by
applying the rate percent to the total cost of those groups of goods
and services on which it was levied, on the assumption that if the
base were large enough, the necessary consumer outlay would be
accurately measured.
eo See p. 89 for description of the bracket system. The tax on motion picture
theater admissions was computed as levied, because all admissions are not taxed.
Digitized by
GoogIe
Digitized by
GoogIe
Chapter VIII
CONCLUSIONS
THIS STUDY was designed to find out how much a 4-person industrial,
service, or other manual worker's family would need for self-support
at 2 specified levels of living in ea.ch of 59 cities in the United States;
to ascertain how much costs differed among the cities; to compare
costs at a. basic maintenance level with costs at one reduced at certain
points to meet the demands of emergency conditions; and to determine what circumstances were responsible for observed intercity cost
variations.
To answer these questions, new techniques were necessary. These
entailed establishing the contents of the levels of living priced; maintaining their comparability under varied conditions of climate and
size of community; and insuring that all the large number of persons
necessarily employed in collecting prices had the same objectives in
view. From construction of the budgets to analysis of the data
problems were presented for the solution of which there were neither
precedents nor analogies. Experimenting and testing were necessary
at every stage as the work progressed. Like the results of many other
investigations of social phenomena, the findings are indicative or
approximate rather than exact measurements. The quantity budgets
are generalized statements of average needs; judgments to some extent
necessarily entered into the specifications, and into the sampling and
pricing procedures used. On the other hand, the completeness of the
details insures a. reliability to the conclusions which might not be
justified were the findings built up from a less exhaustive analysis.
How far these findings for two specified levels of living in certain
cities are representative of other levels of living in the same cities or of
the same levels of living in other cities cannot be stated. Though these
questions were outside the scope of the present study, the limits
within which ascertained costs fall and the factors which seem to
account for observed variations suggest that some of the conclusions
of this investigation are of wider application.
123
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
124 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
The purpose of the present chapter is to summarize the principal
facts brought out in those which have preceded it, in order to work the
various threads into a consistent pattern and analyze any general
characteristics thus displayed. The validity of the findings is checked
by comparing them with the results of other studies 1 and by comparing
the cost of the maintenance budget and its distribution with expenditures by actual families of small means. Finally, certain conclusions
regarding methodology are presented for the benefit of those who are
interested in techniques or who may wish to make similar investigations in the future.
WHAT THE COSlS OF LIVING ARE AND HOW THEY VARY
The costs of support at a maintenance level of living for a 4-person
manual worker's family in 59 cities at March 1935 prices averaged
$1,261 per year, and at the emergency level comparable costs averaged
$903. The average difference of 28 percent between the two did not
vary greatly among the separate cities, and for all practical purposes
this ratio may be considered representative. Annual costs of the two
budgets were most alike for those goods and services where smallest
economies are possible, and they were least similar where psychological
rather than physical needs are involved or where certain commodity
substitutions can be made to achieve the same purposes.
Local differences in the costs of living were found to be relatively
small (appendix tables 2, 3, 8, and 9). The lowest cost of both the
maintenance and emergency budgets was about 10.5 percent less and
the highest was about 12 percent more than the average in the 59
cities combined. These differences amounted to $131 and $154,
respectively, at the maintenance level,' a total excess of highest over
lowest cost of 25 percent. 8 The variation between cities was $100 a
year or less in more than half those studied. Nowhere did the maximum spread, $285, equal the difference between the costs of support
at the maintenance and emergency levels of living.
The tendency toward similarity in the costs of the same level of
living is further emphasized when the cities in the present investigation are classified by geographic division or by size (table 6). The
extremes geographically at the maintenance level were found in the
Middle Atlantic States, where the group average was 3 percent above
1 No other study is exactly comparable with this in all respects, but certain
comparisons can be made.
1 All comparisons in this chapter are made with maintenance budget costs.
1 A measure of variation from the average which takes into account every
deviation plus or minus from the arithmetic mean is obtained by squaring these
deviations, totaling the results, obtaining the mean of the squared totals, and
extracting its square root. This so-called "standard deviation" is expressed as a
percentage of the arithmetic mean to obtain the "coefficient of variation." Table
62, p. 128, shows coefficients of variation in the costs of living at the maintenance
level by major budget groups and principal subgroups in the 59 cities, in
geographic divisions, and in size of city classifications.
D q1 1 ,ed by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 125
the average in the 59 cities combined, and in the 2 South Central
Areas, where the averages were 6 percent below. Within the groups the
costs of living for the most part were much alike, though they seemed
to be more nearly uniform in certain sections than in others. For
example, the spread from lowest to highest cost among the Mountain
cities was less than 5 percent; in the two South Central Areas and
New England it was less than 10 percent; and in the Middle Atlantic
Division the range between the extreme cities did not greatly exceed
10 percent. Wider cost variations were found in the two North
Central Divisions, especially among the West North Central cities,
and in the South Atlantic Area. Minneapolis, with its high rent
and fuel cost, ranking as the 3d most expensive city in the group of
59, is in the West North Central Division, however, and so is Wichita,
where the cost of living was next to the lowest among the 59 cities.
Abnormal housing conditions and high rent in Washington to a
considerable extent accounted for the wide spread between lowest
and highest living costs in the South Atlantic Area. The large outlays
necessary for practically all necessities in San Francisco raised the
average cost in the Pacific Division above the level which perhaps is
more typical of that section of the country.
The average cost of living in the largest places exceeded that in the
59 cities by less than 6 percent, and in the smallest it was not 2.5
percent below the average in the 59 cities. By analyzing the size of
city classifications separately, it appears that the narrowest cost
range was found among the largest cities, progressing toward greater
dispersion as size of city declined, except for the middle group. While
the average in the middle group as a whole fell just below the average
in the 59 cities combined, it was computed from extremes: Washington and Minneapolis at the top were the highest and 3d from the
highest, respectively, in the array of the 59 cities; Birmingham and
Columbus had lowest costs in their size of city group and ranked 6th
and 7th from the lowest among the 59. These contrasts resulted in
the maximum spread, 21 percent, in the costs of living among cities
in any one population group. A more representative average would
be in line with the range shown for the smaller cities.
'
The costs of all but a few essentials were high in the New England,
Mountain, and Pacific cities (appendix table 5); but rents were below
the average in these areas. Most costs were low in the Southern
cities,' especially in those in the South Central States. In the Middle
Atlantic and North Central States, on the other hand, a combination
of low costs of some items and high costs of others served to establish
the level for cities in these areas as above the average in the 59 cities
combined. The most notable characteristics of the cost arrays in the
'Washington, in the South Atlantic Division, pushed the average for that
section above its apparently more representative figure.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
126 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
three last named geographic divisions were the relatively high renta
and the large outlays necessary for transportation. This pattern is
typical of the largest cities studied, and 13 of the 19 with a population
exceeding 375,000 are in the Middle Atlantic and North Central
States. It would be difficult to say, however, whether high land
values often associated with large cities or the necessity for housing
which is more substantial than the average accounted for above
average rents. Transportation costs were higher in the largest cities
because more transportation is needed. 6
For no other budget group or subgroup except clothing upkeep
could cost tendencies be completely associated with eize of city (appendix table 7). 8 The outlays necessary for certain budget items,
notably food, coal or wood, household supplies, medical care, and
motion picture theater admissions, increased or decreased with size
of city through the three or even four largest city classifications and
were erratic in tendency as to the smallest places. Costa of the budget
as a whole declined with size of city, except that the averages in the
two largest city groups were practically identical. The inconclusive
relationship between size of city and costs of certain budget items may
have resulted from the choice of cities studied and may not be indicative of general tendencies. In order to cover all sections of the country properly in an investigation confined to 59 cities, it was necessary
to represent some areas by small cities. These are important in their
own sections of the country, but may not be typical of their size
classification because most of the country's cities with comparable
populations are in other areas.
All the values used in the comparisons just made include a sales
tax in the 18 cities where such a tax was in operation. The maximum
amount required for a sales tax was $25.20 in Louisville, or 2.1 percent
of the total cost of the maintenance budget in that city.7 The existence of a sales tax slightly increased the cost of living dispersion beyond
what it would have been had there been no tax, 8 and the ranks of
certain cities would be shifted up or down a few places in the scale
were the tax omitted. The average cost of living in the 18 cities
with a sales tax was $22.43 more than in the 41 cities without a tax,•
116-117.
Transportation cost makes up 21.4 percent of the average total cost of miscellaneous family needs and serves to move the latter in its general direction. Personal
property and capitation taxes seemed to increase as size of city decreased, but group
relatives are inconclusive because only 36 of the 59 cities reported such taxes.
'The rate was 3 percent but not every budget item was taxed.
1 This does not show in a comparison of highest and lowest cost cities, because
neither of them had a sales tax.
• In New Orleans there was a tax amounting to Sl.56 per year at the maintenance
level of living on motion picture theater admissions exceeding 10 cents. Thia
was not a sales tax and, for comparative purposes, New Orleans is included among
the 41 cities having no sales tax.
a See pp.
1
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 127
but the cost of living in the latter group would still have been $5.67
less than in the former had there been no tax.
The sales tax, however, for families of small means in certain cities
was equivalent to a large part of the amounts required for such little
luxuries as motion picture theater attendance, and it was more than
the cost of such necessities as clothing upkeep, gas, electricity, ice,
or household supplies. Sales taxes, moreover, are State-wide except
for the local excise in the city of New York and tend toward a certain
geographic popularity. Hence, they constitute an element to be
reckoned with as a cost of living factor in some places.
An influence toward greater cost similarity, on the other hand, lies
in the inclusion of $132.33 plus sales tax where levied 10 in the maintenance budget to provide for items whose costs are known to be the same
throughout the country, such as life insurance premiums, postage, and
telephone calls; or whose costs are likely to be uniform because the commodities can be bought everywhere in chain limited price variety
stores; or whose costs cannot be measured in terms of quantity allowances, such as church contributions, other contributions, and organization dues. These costs, which were carried as identical amounts
in all cities, averaged 10.5 percent of the total cost of living in the 59
cities combined, varying from 9.4 percent in Washington to 11.7
percent in Mobile. Without this identical allowance, the range in
the costs of living among the separate cities from lowest to highest
averaged 28.5 percent, as contrasted with 25.2 percent when it was
included. The similarity of costs which this 10.5 percent of the total
is designed to measure is as real as the differences noted for items
which were separately priced. The necessity for including them in
the budget, in fact, does tend to hold the costs of living as a whole to
a narrower range than would be found were these items not essential.
COSTS OF MAJOR BUDGET GROUPS AND PRINOPAL SUBGROUPS
The relative similarity of total living costs in so many cities when
these costs are measured by pricing one quantity budget everywhere
did not appear for its constituent items (table 62). Inasmuch as all
of these items are required in a balanced content of living, it is their
combined cost which represents the outlay necessary for support at a
specified level in each community; and all of them must be taken into
account in intercity cost comparisons.
The annual cost of each group in the quantity budget is a composite
of quantity allowances, specification factors, and city average prices of
the goods and services of which it is made up. The first two were uniform in all cities studied for most goods and services. Average requirements for a few items were excessive in some localities and inadequate
in others; hence, quantity allowances varied in designated ratios.
°
1 Comparable allowances in the emergency budget totaled $62.96 in the "A"
and "B" cities and $65.21 in the "C" and ''D" cities, plus sales tax where levied.
Dg1tzed by
Google
Tol,le 62.--Coefficienh of Variation in the Costs 1 of Livin9, by Major Bud9et Groups and Principal Sub9roups, 4-Penon Manual Worlcer's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
IUDIHNJ.NClll LJIIVJIIL
Geographic division
Budget group
1
59 cities
E ast
West
East
West
New
Middle North
South
North
South
South
Engl.and Atlantic Central
Central Atlantic Central Central
- -- ---
0
c.o·
;=.
i'i"
(\)
a.
IT
'<
C')
0
-
~
(v
Total cost of living .....•........
2. 8
5. 3
2. 8
_ _2._6_
Food ..••• •..••...•..........•....•••.. --3-.5----ro
Flour, cereals, and bread• .........
4. 4
5. 4
3. 3
7. 8
6. 7
3. 8
Milk and choose'····-··· · · · ······
Fruits and vegetables• ............
6. 3
3. 2
6. 0
8. 8
5. 0
Meat, fish, and eggs'· -···········
3. 0
FatS, sugars, and accessories t ____ •
2. g
3. 3
2. 4
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and per•
sonal care •..•.•.•....... ... ... _._ ...
6. 7
4. 7
3. 3
Clothing •........... .•... ........ .
6. 9
5. 2
3. 6
Clothing upkeep ........•.........
13. 7
9. 9
11. 0
Personal cure •. .....•.........••••.
7. 7
3. 4
3. l
Housing, Including water ...........•.
16. 2
ll.0
II. I
g_ g
Household opemtion .. ......•....... ..
13. 0
5. 5
Coal or wood ••.• •• •••• ••••••••..•.
39. 9
7. 3
28. 4
Oas ..•.•... .•.•......... ••........
53. I
9. 4
37. 2
Ice ..... . .•..•..........•..•.......
33. 4
6.0
13. 2
Coal or wood, gas, and Ice eom·
blned ...•. •...•••........ •.....
5. g
19. 3
~9
Electricity .•.........•••... .......
17. 7
16. 4
12. 7
Household supplies ••...... . .....•
10.3
2. 8
5. 4
Furniture, furnishings, and hou5ebold equipment. •...............
5. 9
4. 4
6.0
174.. 7
137. I
248. 2
Refuse disposal. ···-··········· ·· .
Mlsoellaneous ••... .......... .•.•. __ .•.
12. 2
6.4
9. 2
Medical care .. .. ••.•.•....•.•.•...
11.4
5. 6
8. 3
12. 5
6. 2
8. 9
Services'············· · ········
Drugs and appliances• •.....•..
6. 0
4. 5
3. 0
Transr,;rtatlon ..•.•• •.... ...•...••
56.9
26. 0
48. 7
Schoo attendanco •.....••....•••••
72. 2
124. 8
96. 8
Newspapers. •..••.••.•••.••.•.....
18. I
16. 2
14. 8
Motion picture theater admlssloDA.
H. 3
14. 6
12. 7
Tue.,• .•..•••••••..•..••••.••.•.••
54. 0
m .o
82. 7
---
5. 0
6. 4
Not 1, direct cbarce.
6. 2
4. 3
4. 7
5. 9
4. 5
1.6
4. 1
6. 2
3. 2
5. I
2. 4
7. 5
7. 2
4. 2
3. 1
5. 4
6. 4
4. 0
3. 9
II. g
,.9
4. 2
4. 8
6. 7
3. 9
16. g
5. g
5. 8
12. 0
10. 8
30. 0
40. 1
12. 4
19. 0
16. 0
4. g
3. 4
(•)
10. 9
14. 3
16.9
5. I
32. 4
47. 1
16. 5
10. 2
88. 8
18. 4
35. 2
22. 2
10. 2
27. 5
JU. 4
7. 6
4. 2
98. 6
16. 6
4. 9
5. 2
4. 6
a:i. 6
66. 4
18. 8
13. 9
70. 2
◄.
5
s. 3
7. 3
3. 2
6. 2
3. 2
18. 8
6. 9
32. 4
57. 2
20. 8
2. 6
3. 3
3. 3
4. 7
12. 3
3. 7
26. 3
49. 9
21.6
16. 4
15. I
6. 5
5. I
265. 7
12. 8
10. 7
Jl. 8
6.8
74. 6
69. 6
12.0
14. I
68. 9
Moun•
I.Bin
500,000 250,000 100,000 25,000
Pac.lflc 1,000,<m
to
to
to
to
or more 1,000,000
500,000 250,000 100,000
- - - --- --- - ---3. 0
2. 9
----ro -----nr ----r-f" - - 1-.9- - - 1 -.6-
• Include sales tu where levied ucept u Indicated (appendix table 15).
• Doee not Include IBlea tu.
I
Site of city classJncatfon, 1930
1.8
--4-.◄-
6. 4
2. I
6. g
◄ 4
1.8
10. 0
4. 6
7. 7
7. 7
2. 0
4. 2
4. 1
6. 3
5. 0
5. 0
15. 4
8. 3
.
5. I
--2. 43. 4
4. 8
◄. 2
3. I
3. 4
2. 7
2. 2
- - - - -5. 1
6. 4
3. 4
9. 0
5. 3
4. 3
4. 6
4. 7
7. I
5.0
9.6
3. 8
8. 3
2. 4
5. 6
8.6
2. 5
5. I
J. O
7. 3
7. 2
7.1
O. l
5. 6
6. 2
10. 6
5. 9
18. 8
14. 8
46. 6
40. 4
28. 6
20. 2
9. 2
6. 2
11.5
4. 8
20. 8
6. 7
7. 5
5. 7
5. 4
14. 1
8. 9
35. 7
33. 2
16. 9
8. 7
29. 5
40. 3
41. 4
5. 5
8
19. 2
22. 3
5. 6
19. 8
25. 3
3S. 8
8. 7
12. 7
32. I
41.9
49. 0
5. 3
5. 2
4. 2
14. 1
18. 0
6. 4
13. 3
9. 7
7. 2
4. 5
8. 7
2. 6
10.0
13. 4
8. 0
20. 2
17.6
8. 7
4. 8
(•)
3. I
146. 9
13. 6
10.4
Jl. 6
8. 4
a3. 1
49. 3
18. 6
10. I
51.9
5. 4
126. 2
9. 7
3. 4
65. 3
7. g
11. 3
12. 5
3. 4
so. 8
67. 4
12. 3
17. 7
(•)
5. 3
(')
4. 2
II.I
11.8
6. 2
9. 1
10. I
4. 1
86. 4
39. 7
(•)
12. 7
40. l
7. 1
6. 7
4. 4
6. I
l.9
80. 6
44. 4
16. 2
8.9
M.0
3. 4
)4.
----4. 2
2. 8
4. 5
----ro -----nr ~ ---rif" - u
4. 2
13. 9
110. 7
12. 3
6.1
180. 6
4. 8
117. 4
6.8
12. 4
13. I
6. 9
26. 0
22. 5
3. 7
IG7. 4
7. 4
9. 3
10. 6
7. 2
28. l
85. 9
48. 6
9. 6
11. 6
75. 8
18. 0
13. 1
84. 7
• Prloes were the ame In all oltl111 In tbJI posnphio dlvtalon.
• Exol111lve of alel tu.
• None payable.
8. 4
3. 4
5. 9
5. 8
10. 6
8. 3
5. 6
9. 3
7. S
9. 6
4. 6
14. 7
8.4
27. 8
53. 8
17. 4
6. 9
6. 4
17. 8
7. 4
12.9
14. 1
48. 6
47. 9
36. 0
12. 5
12. 7
9. 1
23. 8
10. 0
12. 1
7. 4
6. 5
133. 7
180. 3
6. 1
12. 3
13. 6
4. 5
27. 7
84. 2
14. 7
12.1
64. 3
6. 2
10. 6
12. 0
4. 3
50.3
68.0
15. 6
16. 1
67. 0
.....
"'°
•
00
~
0
.,,
C
:S
pz
u,
,0
"3
U!
CONCLUSIONS • 129
Some items required no direct outlay in certain cities because they were
supplied from public funds; some could not be priced everywhere and
substitutes were necessary; some were priced by specifications so broad
that, even with the same quantity allowances, identical values were
not necessarily obtained from place to place. All items priced met
local needs, however, and their costs represent a satisfactory measure
of requirements in the separate cities.
Wldat Cost Variations
The greatest spread between lowest and highest costs among the 59
cities was found for those major budget groups and principal subgroups for which there were no quantity allowances or for which
allowances differed and specifications were most general (table 62).
Refuse Disposal,, School Attendance, and Taxes
Refuse disposal, school attendance, and tax costs were included as
charged for a four-person manual worker's family of specified age and
sex composition, without definite quantity allowances. These costs
ranged from nothing per year to slightly less than 2 percent of the
total budget cost (appendix table 17). The householder paid directly
for his refuse disposal in some cities, and in others this service was
covered by the tax rate. Expenses connected with school attendance
depended largely on local policy with reference to supplying books
and other equipment from public funds. Some cities levied personal
property, capitation, and other direct taxes; others did not or provided exemptions sufficiently large to exclude families of small means.
Transportation, Fuel, and Ice
Wide cost dispersions for transportation, fuel, and ice were partly
attributable to differential quantity allowances. The number of
streetcar or bus rides provided in the budgets varies slightly with the
length of the school year in the separate communities but more
especially with city area and population. Eight times as many rides
were allowed in the largest as in the smallest places. Cash fares on
public conveyances in the 59 cities ranged from 5 cents to 10 cents
per ride, but the token or ticket rate did not show such a wide spread.
The combination of quantity allowances and fares payable resulted
in transportation costs which were more than 12.5 times greater
where most was required than where least was required. Transportation costs declined as city size decreased, regardless of fare, though
the differences among size of city groups were by no means uniform.
Rates themselves are subject to regulation by public authority with
reference to the local situation, and competition between public
carriers in most places has little to do with car or bus fares.
The budgets allow coal or wood as winter fuel and gas for cooking
and water heating during the months when fuel for room warming is
Dig t1zed by
Google
1 30 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
•
not necessary. As a result, several kinds of fuel had to be priced in
the separate cities for the same purpose and two purposes had to be
served.
The basis of gas cost differences among the 59 cities was threefold
apart from rates: namely, kinds of gas, their heating values, and
number of months' consumption allowed. The B. T. U. content of
natural gas is much greater than that of manufactured gas. 11 Hence,
less natural gas is required for a given purpose than manufactured.
Natural gas rates as a rule are lower than manufactured gas rates.
Differences, therefore, in monthly bills for gas to serve a specified purpose were very wide between cities where natural gas or manufactured
gas was used. Annual cost dispersion was widened still farther by
differential budget allowances based on climatic needs. As in the
case of mass transportation facilities, supplying gas usually is a monopoly and rates are subject to public regulation.
Not so many elements contributed to the spread in the costs of
fuel for room warming as of gas for cooking and water heating, and
the range was correspondingly less. Budget allowances of coal or
wood were adapted to the needs of four different winter climates,
and specifications were so general that they were met by a number of
different commodities. If, for example, wood was the popular local
fuel, its price was combined with the annual quantity allowance assigned to the climate group in which the city belonged; the same procedure was followed where bituminous coal or anthracite was most
frequently used for room warming. 12 Coals and woods could not be
reduced to common units of heating value, however, and for each fuel
priced a diversity of quality probably was obtained, depending on
local consumption. This circumstance may be reflected to some extent in relative fuel prices.
Competition among fuels for the local market is perhaps more
important than competition among sellers of the same kind of fuel,
but for all of them distance from the supply seems to be the outstanding factor iu price differentials. These differentials may be attributable partly to freight rates and partly to the fact that it does not pay
to haul the lower grades of fuel far from the places where they are produced. Wood prices seldom embodied heavy shipping charges,
because wood is used extensively for room warming only near the
source of its supply. Anthracite, which is perhaps of a more nearly
uniform grade wherever sold than either wood or bituminous coal, cost
90 percent more in some New England cities than in Scranton, the
See footnote 13, p. 50, for definition of B. T. U.
There were certain exceptions to this, in that quantity allowances were not
developed for gas or oil as room warming fuels. In the few cities where either is
the most popular fuel, costs were necessarily computed from the price of coal or
wood, whichever most nearly represented local use.
11
12
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
CONCLUSIONS • 131
center of the industry. 13 Gas rates also seemed to vary with distance
from the supply, whether this was oil fields for natural gas or coal
mines for manufactured gas, but purely local considerations also
entered into the rate structure.
For gas a relatively small monthly allowance and a low rate usually
were found together, and a relatively large monthly allowance and a
high rate were usually combined. Prices of anthracite, bituminous
coal, and wood, however, varied more nearly in inverse ratio to their
respective quantity allowances. Hence, annual costs of coal and
wood were less diversified among the 59 cities than annual gas costs.
The last among the budget subgroups for which differential quantity
allowances were used in annual cost calculations was ice, a commodity
of simple specification, locally produced, and sold for prices locally
determined. Allowances of ice in the quantity budgets are complementary to allowances of coal or wood, because, in general, refrigeration is required during the months when fuel for room warming is not
necessary. Ice allowances depend on whether its use is necessary
during 5, 7, or 9 months per year. The largest reported annual ice
cost was 3.7 times the smallest, but the highest price per 100 pounds
was only double the lowest. Differential quantity allowances accounted for the discrepancy.
The combined costs of coal or wood, gas, and ice were less widely
dispersed among the 59 cities than the outlays necessary for any one
of them separately. In view of the arbitrary character of the quantity
allowances, which are complementary as to period of use, it is perhaps
unwise to attribute too much importance either to separate quantity
allowances or separate costs as such.
Intermediate Cost Variations
The budget groups and subgroups whose cost dispersions were next
widest were those whose quantity allowances were identical in all
cities but whose specifications were general (table 62). Hence, considerable discretion was allowed in choice of the sample, local more
often than universal influences entered into their price determination,
or both of these circumstances played a part in establishing costs.
These groups were newspapers, electricity, housing, motion picture
theater admissions, clothing upkeep, and medical services. None of
them varied so much as the outlays necessary for the group of items
for which the dispersions were widest, but they differed considerably
more than combined commodity prices which made up the narrowest
cost range classification.
11 Anthracite was cheaper in Boston and Bridgeport, where oil is much used by
families of small means, than in Fall River and Providence, where alternative
fuels were not reported. In Manchester anthracite prices were as high as in Fall
River, though oil also was used. Bituminous coal was the most popular fuel reported
in Portland (Maine), but oil, anthracite, and wood were used to some extent.
Dig t1zed by
Google
132 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Newspapers, Electricity, Motion Picture Theater Admissions, Medical
Services, and Clothing Upkeep
Annual newspaper cost was computed from the price of that daily
having the largest local circulation, and price factors were local.
Local considerations also largely accounted for the charges reported
in each city for motion picture theater admissions, medical services,
and clothing upkeep." Cost differences for electricity resulted entirely
from the wide range and variety of rates. 16 These are subject to public
control like rates for transportation and gas; they reflect more nearly
local than general price making influences.
Hoo,sing
Specifications for housing necessarily were general in order that
they might be used in pricing the wide variety of dwellings which is
found the country over. Hence, it cannot be said that for a given
rent in one place identical accommodations could be obtained in
another. Reported rents were being paid in the separate cities,
however, to secure the standards of housing specified. Relative
rents seemed to depend almost entirely on the prevailing balance of a
combination of unmeasurable local forces. Obvious considerations
of scarcity, land values, and tax policies, of desirability connected with
neighborhood, type and age of structure, building material, conveniences, size of rooms, and of other circumstances which influence all
rents in normal times were supplemented in this survey by factors
connected with locally accepted working class housing. Where
typical wage earners' dwellings in a given city met specifications for the
maintenance level of living, reported rents can be explained as the
result of operation of the usual forces. Where typical working class
dwellings were substandard, reported rents were above the level
customarily paid. Thus, high rents may have reflected local fiscal
policies, a scarcity of acceptable housing, working class dwellings
above the average the country over, or accomodations superior to
those locally occupied by industrial, service, and other manual workers
of small means. In general, high rents were found in the largest cities
and in sections of the country where the most substantial housing and
equipment are necessary. On the other hand, if working class dwellings meeting all specifications for standard housing were plentiful,
they were obtained for less than the general average of rents. Lowest
rents for standard accommodations were reported for the most part
from cities with a mild climate, many of which are not far removed
from the source of supply of locally popular building material.
14 The allowance of an identical amount in all cities for cleaning and sewing
materials served but slightly to counteract the widely varying prices of ahoe
repairs and cleaning and pressing services.
1a See pp. 58 and 111.
D91 zed by
Google
CONCLUSIONS• 133
Narrowest Cott Variations
The greatest cost uniformity was reported for those budget groups
and subgroups which contain the greatest number of commodities
or for which prices were the same the country over, or both (table
62). An identical quantity of each was allowed in all cities, their
specifications for the most part were most definite, and their prices
were local variations of wholesale costs more or less nationally determined. These groups were household supplies; personal care;
clothing; drugs and appliances; furniture, furnishings, and household equipment; and food.
Household Supplies and Personal Oare
Prices of trade-marked and nationally advertised household supplies, such as soap and starch, are mark-ups from wholesale prices
which are identical over a wide territory. Retail quotations range
all the way from resale prices established by the manufacturer to
extreme cut rates, depending on individual merchandising policies.
The range in costs of these commodities, most of which were priced
without specifications, except that best sellers were to constitute the
sample, might possibly be narrowed somewhat were only identical
brands compared. Few brands have complete national distribution,
however, and even these are not equally popular in all sections of the
country. The cost dispersion for the household supplies group was held
within a narrower range than would otherwise have been found, considering the few items separately priced, by the circumstance that threetenths of the average group cost was an identical amount allowed in all
cities. This provided for materials which can be bought for the same
price everywhere at the chain limited price variety stores.
Personal care belongs in this group, from the standpoint of cost dispersion, largely because nearly one-third of the average cost was an
identical amount allowed in all cities. The stabilizing effect of this
common cost element counteracted to a large extent the fact that
more than half the total was composed of charges for local services,
and less than one-sixth for other commodities of national distribution.
Clothing; Drugs and Appliances; Furniture, Furnishings, and Household
Equipment; and Food
The budget groups whose combined costs were most uniform contained no services. These groups were made up as follows: clothing,
90 separately priced commodities, identical allowance $10.25 in all
cities plus sales tax where levied; drugs and appliances, 9 separately
priced commodities; furniture, furnishings, and household equipment,
49 separately priced commodities, identical allowance $3.73 in all
cities plus sales tax where levied; food, 44 separately priced commodities, 1 percent of their cost added for condiments. The identical
D (JI' 7ed by
Goog IC
134 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
allowances constituted relatively small proportions of the total costs
of clothing, furniture, furnishings, and household equipment, and they
served only slightly to reduce group cost dispersions.
Price variations for these commodities among the cities were as wide
as, or wider than, those shown for items with differential quantity
allowances; and within the separate cities articles presumably meeting
identical specifications were quoted at prices of comparable diversity.
Only for cough syrup was the individual commodity price range less
than the cost range for the budget group in which it belongs. The
relative similarity of the prices of drug store items, no matter where
obtained, results probably more from control through national distribution of relatively few trade-marked articles than occurs for any
other group of commodities in the quantity budgets.
Commodity prices were never all high or all low in any one city.
As was pointed out earlier, combination of the prices of a large number
of items permits a partial cancellation of extreme<J in the component
parts, the extent of which determines the average cost dispersion for
the group. The effect of balancing high prices for some commodities
against low prices for others is particularly evident for food. Costs of
this major budget group varied within narrower limits than any other.
This similarity of food costs as a whole results from relative price
uniformity for some commodities but a cancellation of extremes for
others. The range of quotations for the different subgroups suggests
that can and package foods may be standardized as to quality, meat
prices may be affected by national competition and shipping costs,
and prices of fresh fruits and vegetables may be dependent largely on
seasonal factors. In other words, in general, the first group showed
the narrowest price range the country over and the last showed the
widest. Indeed, the prices of carrots, cabbage, spinach, and apples
were more widely dispersed than prices of any other single commodity
included in any budget group. The factor of alternative specifications used in sampling many food commodities is more or less operative
in accounting for price differences.
The Budget as a Whole
Differences in service charges and other costs which for the most
part are locally determined apparently are more accountable for intercity cost of living variations than differences in commodity prices.
Service charges and other locally determined costs include what must
be paid to the landlord and the utility companies; to physicians,
dentists, and hospitals; to beauty parlors, barbers, and dry cleaning
establishments; and for refuse disposal, school attendance, newspapers,
motion picture theater admissions, and taxes; plus the amounts required for coal or wood and ice to obtain their budget allowances.
Taken together, the outlays necessary for these items differed nearly
6 times as much between the extremes among the 59 cities included
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 135
in this investigation as the amounts required for food, clothing, furniture, furnishings, and other commodities, plus allowances for items
whose costs are likely to be the same wherever purchased. Costs
which are determined largely by local conditions cannot be measured
so accurately as commodity costs, and it is possible that in some
instances their intercity range is overstated. The effect of their
greater dispersion on the relative costs of the budget as a whole was
reduced somewhat by the fact that they required slightly under twofifths of the average annual cost of living. The less varied commodity
costs, exclusive of coal or wood and ice, together with the outlays
necessary for life insurance, postage, and other essentials whose prices
are identical everywhere, required slightly over three-fifths.
Budget Cost Dlmlbutlons
The proportion of the total cost of living taken by each of the
major budget groups varied among the 59 cities with prices, quantity
allowances, and specification factors applicable in each city (appendix
tables 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22). The percentages required for food
and for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care at the same level
of living were much more alike from city to city than were the percentages required for miscellaneous family needs, for household operation, or for housing, in the order named. Even for food, however,
the largest share of the total maintenance budget cost required in
any of the 59 cities was 28 percent more than the smallest, and the
share taken by rent differed from smallest to largest by 86 percent.
Food, in general, required the smallest percentage of total budget
cost where total cost was highest and increased in relative importance
as the total cost of living declined. Housing required proportionally
more, and clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care proportionally
less, in the higher than in the lower cost cities. The proportions of
total budget cost required for household operation and for miscellaneous family needs seemed to have no relationship to the total cost
of living.
As compared with the average cost of the maintenance budget in
the 59 cities combined, the average emergency budget cost was so
distributed that relatively more was required for food, housing, and
household operation and relatively less for miscellaneous family needs,
with clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care taking a nearly
identical share of both budget costs.
The largest percentages of the total cost of living required by the
separate budget groups were not always found in cities where their
absolute costs were high in comparison with other cities, and vice
versa, but a tendency in this direction was indicated for rent, household operation, and miscellaneous family needs.
Because of the influence on budget cost distribution of circumstances
peculiar to each community, it apparently is unsafe to generalize too
32592°-3S--ll
D91 zed by
Google
136 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
positively with reference to the percentage each budget group requires
of the total cost of living. This is particularly true with reference to
local service group costs as contrasted with costs of commodities.
COMPARISONS WITH RESULTS OF OTHER STUDIES
The findings of the present investigation are not subject to absolute
tests of accuracy, but they may be compared with the findings of
other studies of budget costs for comparable levels of living and with
expenditures by working class families to determine how closely the
cost of a synthetic budget conforms with actual spending experience.
The first comparison is made with the results of a survey by the
National Industrial Conference Board; the second, with data collected
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Both studies were made at practically the same time as the present investigation. The report of an
investigation of relative international living costs is also available.
Quantity
Budget Co111 Compared
The National Industrial Conference Board studied the outlays
necessary to purchase a synthetic budget for wage earners in 69 cities
in February 1935. 16 The purpose of the investigation "was to measure
differences in costs in the various cities and not differences in standards. For this reason the same commodities and services were used
in the budget for all cities, except insofar as climatic or peculiar local
housing conditions dictated a different choice. The figures resulting
from the survey, therefore, show how much it would cost wage earners
to live in the various cities if they lived according to the chosen
standard."
Equipped with a quantity budget designed to "provide an adequate
allowance of the primary necessaries, such as food, shelter, clothing,
and fuel and light, as well as various miscellaneous goods and services," and questionnaires for pricing, the Conference Board secured
quotations "with the aid of manufacturers and chambers of commerce
and similar organizations in the cities studied." General specifications called for "inexpensive but a fair grade of merchandise" and
more explicit instructions where possible described the commodities
desired. "The cooperators were requested to take the questionnaires
to the stores," which they themselves had previously selected as representative of working class trade, "to ask the managers to have them
filled out, to collect them, and to return them to the Conference
Board. In cases where information could readily be obtained
by telephone, 17 it was suggested that the cooperators employ that
means. * * * After all the necessary questionnaires for a city were
received [by the Conference Board], they were examined for possible
18 National Industrial Conference Board, Conference Board Bulletin, December
IO, 1935, pp. 89-9.5.
17 As, for example, motion picture theater admissions.
Dig 11~ed by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 1 3 7
inaccuracies. Questionable data were followed up or rejected. The
average price of each item was calculated by the arithmetic mean
method" and weighted by its annual quantity allowance. These
values, representative of annual use, were totaled and the sales tax
was added where necessary.
The Conference Board's average for a 4-person wage earner's
family in the 69 cities combined shows a cost of living in February
1935 which was 19 cents per week greater than the average in the
59 cities combined required by a 4-person manual worker's family at
the maintenance level of the present investigation (table 63). The
Conference Board's list includes 32 places with a population of 25,000
Tol,le 63.-Average Costs 1 of Living, Works Progress Administration's Study, 59 Cities,
March 1935, and National Industrial Conference Board's Study, 69 Cities, February
1935
Item
W. P.A.
69 cities
N. I. C. B.
G9 cities
Average C011t or Jiving per week ........•....••••.•..••.•.•...•••...•...
Percent distribution or cost
Total..................................................................
Food........................................................................
Clothing....................................................................
Housing.....................................................................
Fuel and light...............................................................
Sundries•...................................................................
_____ ,_____
100. 0
35. 6
12. 6
17. 6
6. 1
28.1
100. 0
34. 3
12. 4
19. 3
7. 6
26.4
Cost relatives by geographic divisions
Average, all cities.....................................................
East.........................................................................
New England ...........•...............................................
Middle Atlantic ..............•..........................................
South ................................................................ _....•.
South Atlantic ......................................................... .
East South Central ..•...................................................
West South Central .................................................... .
Middle West .................•...•..........................................
East North Central. •.......••..........................................
West North Central.. .................................................. .
Far West .......•............................................................
Mountain .........••................•••......•.....••...••......•.......
Pacific .••..•................................•....•••••......•.....•.....
100. 0
100. O
1=====1=====
104. 3
101. 7
103.0
97. 6
99.8
93. 7
94. 4
97. 5
102.5
100. 2
100.9
100.G
101.2
Cost relatives by size or city
Average, all cities.....................................................
JOO. 0
JOO. O
1,000,000 or more ............................................................. 1===1cciosc=_6:c=l;c====
500,000 to 1,001,000.. .•..• .•. . •.•... •...•... .. ..• •. . .... ..•... •...•...•.......
105. 7
I04. 5
2-'>0.000 to 500,000...... .•..... .. . .....•.•... ....•. ... .•. . . ....•....•.. ... .. . . .
119. 3
99. 3
. . . . . • . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
98. o
99. 8
100,000 to 2.'>0,000............... .. . . .. . . . . .• . •.. . . . . .
25.rXJO to 100,000..... .•••.•.•. ...•.•.. .•••.•• ..•. .. ........•.•...... .•.... ...
97. 6
99. 4
10,000 to 25,000.... .. . . ...•• •... .. ......... ... . .. . . . ..... .. . . . ..••.. .. . . ... . .
96. G
1 Both studies mes.sure the costs or livinF for a family composed or a man, a woman, and 2 children under
age 14. The Works Progress Admimstmtwn's figures measure the outlays neressarY ror basic maintenanoo
lorindUlltrlal, servioo, and other manual workers: the National Industrial C'onrerence Board·s figures "would
provide an adequate allowanoo or the primary nemssarie.s for a wage earner's family." National Industrial
Conferenoo Board, Omfrrenc, Board Bulutin, December JO, 1935. The citie.s makin!! up the Conrerenoo
Board's list are only partially identical with those in the Works Progress Administration's list and include
II with less than 25,000 populntion, a clns.s not included in the Works l'ro!!ress Administration's study.
• Do not Include an automobile. The National Industrial Conrerence Board also computed costs to
Include an automobile.
Source: Works Progress Admlnistrntion, tahle 4 and appendix tahles 5, 7, and Ii; National Industrial
Conferenoo Board, Conf<renct Board Bullrlin, December 10, lll35, p. 90.
Dig lizf'd by
Goog Ie
138 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
or more which also were covered in the Works Progress Administration 's study and 28 which were not covered. It contains 9 places
where the population was less than 25,000. The Conference Board's
figures for the separate cities have not been published. The difference between the lowest and highest costs was 29 percent as compared
with 25.2 percent between extremes which the present study shows.
None of the extreme cities in the two series were identical. Geographic
and size of city groupings of the two sets of cost figures produced
averages which were much alike. There was also close similarity of
the percentage distributions of costs among the major budget groups.
Considering the differences in city coverage, quantity budgets priced,
and methods of collecting the data, the similarity of results is striking.
International Com of Llvln9 Compared
An international comparison of costs of living, which as far as possible
took into account "differences in nationa.l customs, consumption
habits, and price systems," 18 did not show such similarity of necessary
outlays as the American studies, which attempted to hold these factors
constant. The Intemationa.l Labour Office "estimated the cost of
maintaining in 1931 a standard of living approximately equivalent
to that enjoyed by a certain category of Detroit worker with a fa.mily
of a certain size and composition, which spent on an average a certain
number of dollars during 1929." 19 It was not "a question of determining what it would cost an American worker to live in different
European cities on the American standard" 20 but, rather, "how much
a European worker would need to expend if his general standard of
living were to be approximately equivalent to that of his Detroit
counterpart." 21 The spread in the costs of living as thus estimated in
15-cities, including Detroit, was 82.5 percent from low to high. 22
Quantity Bvclset Com and Expenditures for Uvlns Compared
In order to see how closely these estimates of necessary costs of
living agree with expenditures for living by real families, comparison
of the costs of the maintenance budget ascertained in the present
investigation may be made with expenditures by self-eupporting white
£amilies of small means in a 12-month period fa.lling sometime within
18 International Labour Office, A "'•ntribution to the Study of lmernaiional
Comparisom of Costs of Living, Studies and Reports, Series N (Statistics) No. 17,
second revised edition, Geneva, 1932, p. 218.
19 Ibid., p. 35.
18 Ibid., p. 7.
11 Ibid., p. 2.
See also, pp. 3 and 8.
22 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
See also Magnussen, Lcifur, "An International Inquiry
into Costs of Living: A Comparative Study of Workers' Living Costs in Detroit
and Fourteen European Cities," Journal of the American Statistical Assodaiion,
June 1933, p. 136.
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
CONCLUSIONS • 139
the years 1933-1936, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. :za
The 2 sets of data are available for 10 cities.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics studied incomes and expenditures
of wage earners and lower-salaried clerical workers without reference
to the standard of living they maintained, size, or sex and age composition, except that none were on relief and the chief wage earner
must have had at least 1,008 hours of employment within 36 weeks
during the preceding year. Families averaged larger than the fourperson group of the present investigation,34 and treatment of certain
budget items was dissimilar in the two analyses. 26
Reported expenditures by the lowest income group 28 in each of the
10 cities under observation were similar to estimated budget costs
in some respects and different in others (table 64). The average
cost of living in the 10 cities combined was greater by $10 per year
for a 4-person family than the average expenditure per year by a
family of 4.75 members. Even allowing for possible differences in
age and sex of constituent families, it is evident that the costs of the
maintenance budget would provide funds equal to or greater than the
13 The study was made in 55 cities.
Of the reports released up to May 1937,
11 were for places where the Works Progress Administration's study was carried
on, but in only 10 were expenditures classified by income groups. Williams,
Faith M., "Money Disbureemtmts of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in
Eleven New Hampshire Communities," Monthly Labor Review, March 1936;
"Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in Richmond,
Birmingham, and New Orleans," Monthly Labor Review, May 1936; "Money
Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers In Four Michigan Cities,"
Monthly Labor Review, June 1936; "Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers in Boston and Springfield," Monthly Labor Review, September
1936; "Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in Rochester,
Columbus, and Seattle," Monthly Labor Review, December 1936; "Money Disbusements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in New York," Monthly Labor
Review, January 1937. For the city of Denver, see Kaplan, A. D. H., Family
Disbursement& of Wage Earners and Salaried Clerical Workers in Denver, University of Denver Reports, Business Study No. 81, April 1936. Additional studies of
consumer purchases were made during 1936 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a
Works Progress Administration project in 32 cities, and by the Bureau of Home
Economics in 19 cities, 140 villages, and 66 farm counties. The results of these
studies have not yet been published.
14 Comparable "consumption units" were not calculated.
"Consumption
unit" is equivalent to the requirements of one adult male, computed for the
purpose of eliminating size and composition of family as a factor in expenditure
differentials. For method of computation in the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
analysis, see Monthly Labor Review, March 1936, pp. 558-559.
26 For example, life insurance was counted as investment by the Bureau,
whereas the quantity budgets of the Works Progress Administration list insurance
as a current charge. The Works Progress Administration's budgets make no
provision for carrying debts, a current charge in the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
expenditure data.
• Those with average annual expenditures per consumption unit of less than
$400 per year.
D91 zed by
Google
To&I• 64.-Annual Costs of Self-Support at Maintenance Level of Living, 4-Penon Manual Worker's Family, 110 Cities, March 1935, and Annual
Expenditures by Wage Earners and Clerical Worken in Lowest Income Self-Supporting Groups, 10 Cities, 1933-1936
I
fam il y
Total
Food
Avern£e, 10 cities: Cos t of li ,·ln~---· · ·· .... _..
Famlly ex\>"ndi tur e .... -·.- -.· ····· ...... . .
!\lanchester, N. 11 .: Costolh nn~ . ... . .. .. . .
Fam ily e.penrliture .. . . . •.....•..........
Boston, M ass.: Cost ol li,·in~- ·· · ··· ······· ··
Fam ily e,pend iture • ... . . . . . •• ..• •..... .
New York, N . Y .: Cost or livi n~- -··· · ·· ·· ··
Fam ily expendi t ure • ... .. . . . ... . . .. ..• ••
Rochester, N . Y. : Cost o!ll\· ing . . ..... .....•
Family e xpendi ture . . . _. . . . . .• ..... . ... . .
Columbus. Ohio : Cost or li ving_ . ... • •......
F amily eq,end iture .... .... ... . •.. . ..... .
D etroi t , Mich .: Cost ol li vini .. .. .. . ..... .. •
- - --
- -- -
- - -
- --
1no. o
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
35. 8
38. 5
36. 9
38 I
3 1. 7
40. 9
34. 7
42. I
Fs1.nily e.t pendl ture ' --·-- -·- - - - ······ ···
0
<g
r-i
~
0
'<
(')
0
~......
(v
R ichmond, \"a.: Cost ol livini .. . ........ . . _
Famil y expenditu re .. ___ .. . ... .. . . . . .. . •
Blm 1ingh11m , Al3.: Cost ollivi n~ . . .. ···- · · ·
F a m ily e., r nd it nre . __ .... . . . . . . . . . .. ..
N ew Orleans, u. : C' ost of liv in ~. · -- · ··---·F!lmily expendi ture . __... ... . .. . ........•
Seat tle, W ash.: Cost orli ,·ing . ... -. ... . . . .. . .
Fami ly expendit ure .. __. .. •. . . ... . . .... .
N umber
offam ilies
SO D.$ pe r
- - --
-
I. '.!69
i3
19-1
96
103
195
178
·-
72
l'.(!j
! Sil
-
112
number
or per-
4. 96
4. 00
$1 ,267
I, 2.l i
1,254
I . 327
1. 353
I , 35f.
1,3n
I, 407
I. 2S~
4. 51
1,21,f)
1. 00
4. 21
4. 00
5. 18
4. 00
5. 01
4. 00
J, 179
I, J3 t
I , 31S
I. 348
4. 00
4. i 5
4. 00
·1. j'J
4. 00
5. 23
4. 00
4. 56
4. 00
4. 60
4. 00
4 49
1. 2f,S
I. 23 1
1,169
I, 153
I. 233
l,(}12
I , 233
1,290
34. 4
34. 5
37. 7
3r;_8
3.1. 7
:IY. 6
3~. 3
37. 2
3S. 2
36. 2
35. 0
41. 3
35. 9
38. 1
C loth ing
and
rloth ing
upkeep
Per•
son al
care
llou s•
ing
H ouse•
hold OP·
erntion •
-- - - - - - - - - - - 12. 6
10. 6
12. 6
13. 3
12. I
9. 4
10. 8
9. I
12. 2
10. 3
13. 6
10. 4
13. 0
11. 7
13. 2
10. 4
12. 6
11. 8
12. I
10. 1
13. 0
9. 9
l. 9
2. 1
1. 9
1.q
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.8
I. 9
2. 0
2. 1
2. 2
1. 9
2. 0
1.9
2. I
2. U
2. 6
1.9
2. 5
2. I
2.0
16. 9
16. 6
14.!,
12. 8
19. 5
20. 3
21. 8
22. 6
Ii. 5
20. 8
W. 3
16. 6
IB. 8
14. 5
18.6
16. 6
14. 2
11. 4
16. I
16. 6
13. 6
13. 5
9. 8
12. 2
12. 0
13. 9
9. 8
13. 1
9. 3
9. 5
II. 6
13. 6
8. 2
12. 2
9. 8
JJ.0
9. 5
12. 3
8. 6
12. 9
8. 3
IO. Ci
10. 8
11.6
Furn iture,
furnis h•
ln~s. a nd
househ old
equipment
2. I
2. 6
2. 4
3. 8
2. 4
1. 6
2. 0
I. 2
2. 4
2. ;
2. 7
3. 6
2. 4
2. 6
2. 7
2. 9
2. 4
3. I
2. 4
1.9
2. 6
3. 0
!\Iedi- Trnns•
ports cal
tlon
care
All
Recre•
ntion other•
- - - - - - - -4. 1
3. 5
4. 0
J. 5
4. I
2. 4
4. I
2. 5
4. I
3. 0
3. 9
3. 0
4. 4
3. 0
4. 0
5. 0
4. I
5. 0
4. 3
3.5
4. 2
4. 5
5. 0
5. 6
3. 2
1. 9
4. 6
4. 2
5. 2
3. 7
5. 0
4. 2
3. 8
6. i
6. 2
6. 5
3. I
5. 8
5. 3
6. 9
7. 9
5. 6
6. 1
8. 6
6. 0
4. 8
6. 6
4. 7
6. 2
3. g
5. 7
5. 3
5. 7
4. 9
5. 7
5. 2
6. 0
5. 1
5. 8
3. 8
6. I
5. 6
6. 4
5. 2
6. 0
4. r,
5. 5
3. 5
5. G
4. 1
4. 7
2. 6
4. 6
2. 2
5. 2
4. 0
6. 0
3. 3
5. 8
3. I
5 9
3. 9
6. 5
4. 5
5. 6
2. 7
~- I
4.2
• Those with av,mge annual upeadlturee per COD9WDptloa ualt of leas than '400 per year. "Coasumptloa ualt" Is equlvaleat to the requirements of 1 Adult male, computed
for the purpose of ellmlaatlng alze and compotdtlon of lamll7 u a factor la espmdlture dlfferentlalll. For method of ('Qlllputatloa la the Bureau of Labor Statl!tlcs' aualysls, Ml8
Mtmt/11, Labor Ralt!JI, March 19311, pp. 658-MII.
• The budget groups are slightly d!aerent from thoee used throughout the analysis of the Worts Progress Admlnl!tntloa's lliluree, because thelatt,,r could be recombined to com•
pare with the Bureau of Labor Sllltlatlca' data.I but the reverse procedure could aot be 118ed. The cost of living flguree Include lnsunaoe, but expendlturee do not; expenditures
laclude Interest on debt, but the CO!lt of living ngures do not.
• E:rcluslve of furniture furnlahlngs, and ho11!19hold equipment, shown separately.
• Thia classlftcatlon Includes aeveral minor !tams In the :i studies, not Identical or sufflrlently •~cant to state separately.
• Weighted avlll'Blte of famJllea with leas than S3ClO and S30lr$tOO annual expenditures per oomumptlon unit.
Richmond, Blnnlncham, and New OrleaDJ,
Source: Coet or living llgures, appeadl:r tables :i and 17; famlly expenditure ~
1 Mancbester, Mtmll&lr L4bor Ralno, March 19:MI;
MontluJ Labor .RmnoJ_May 19311; Detroit, MOIIIAJr Labor Rmt10, IWH! 111311; Boston, Monllllr Labor Review, September 19311; Rocbester, Columbus, and Seattle, Moflllllr Labor Rni..,,,
December 19311; New rork, Mtmilllr Labor Rmt111, Jauuary IV37.
~
•
Percent d istr ibution vr cost of liv ing a nd fa mily e, pendlture >
Annual
cost or
ll..-ing or
expendl·
ture
A ,·ernge
C!t y and study
.....
~
0
.,,
r-
sz
_Cl
UI
,0
f"I
3
~
CONCLUSIONS • 141
amounts spent for self-support by families of small means in 1935.
The excess of estimated necessary costs of living over actual expenditures by larger families in certain cities may reflect superior purchasing habits or managerial ability, or the substandard conditions under
which some families are living. Expenditures greater than estimated
costs of living are accounted for in every city by families larger than
the one of four persons in the present study.
The distribution of family expenditures in these 10 cities was not
exactly like the distribution of maintenance budget costs. Agreement would not be expected in view of the fact that the quantity
budget was designed as a balanced plan, taking all the essentials of
living into account, whereas in practice families often economize on
certain necessities in order to permit greater expenditures for others
which meet their requirements better. Expenditure distributions
vary, also, with different relationships between funds available and
family needs. Thus, proportionately more of a given total must be
spent for the elementary necessities as the number of persons to be
provided for increases; and proportionately less must be spent for
these necessities by families of the same size as the amount of their
total expenditures becomes more liberal.
These relationships constitute an important consideration in any
comparison of budget cost and family expenditure distributions, 27 and
they serve to explain several of the observed differences between them.
In each of the 10 cities, for example, families averaged larger than the
4-person group whose costs of living were measured in the present
investigation. In five of the cities expenditures for living by these
larger families were less than estimated costs of living. 28 Either of
these circumstances may account for the fact that food required a
greater share of expenditures than of living costs, if exact ratios could
be worked out on the basis of comparable consumption units. In
addition, however, the maintenance food budget was especially
constructed to provide adequate nutriment at low cost, comparable
with allowances of other necessities on a minimum basis. Hence, a
smaller proportion of the total cost of living should be required for it
17 It might be assumed, because of the period covered by the expenditure studies
in certain cities and because considerably less than full time employment was
required as a prerequisite for including families in the sample, that current expenditures might have been reduced somewhat below normal. Analysis of the data
regarding relative financial positions at the beginning and end of the year indicates
that in all the cities, except New York, more than half the lowest income families
studied had increased their net assets or decreased their liabilities or both within
the year. In New York 46.9 percent were financially better off at the end of the
year than at the beginning and 7.7 percent reported no change. Monthly Labor
&view, March 1936, p. 563; May 1936, p. 1464; June 1936, p. 1753; September
1936, p. 792; December 1936, pp. 1609, 1612, and 1614; January 1937, p. 240.
18 No attempt was made to compare the results of these two studies in terms of
identical consumption units.
Dig t1zed by
Google
142 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
than the proportional expenditure by families of the same size and
with incomes equivalent to the estimated cost of living.
The expenditure for household operation proportionally larger than
the cost of the maintenance household operation budget seems to be
attributable to consumption not provided for in the cost of living
estimates: domestic service, laundry out, moving, expre.ss, freight,
drayage, safe deposit box, insurance on furniture, and interest on
debts. The extent to which any of these services should be provided
for in a basic maintenance budget for industrial, service, and other
manual workers of small means obviously is a matter of opinion.
Furniture insurance, for example, might be included were its cost
readily determined; 211 interest on debts would hardly enter into a
current cost of living estimate. Water also is accounted for as an item
of household operation expense, whereas in the cost of living calculations its cost was added to rent.
For furniture, furnishings, and household equipment, personal care,
and transportation the very slight excess of proportional expenditures
over proportional costs shown in the average for the 10 cities appeared.
in varying degrees in some of the cities separately, and in some proportional costs exceeded proportional expenditures. The relatively large
expenditures for transportation reported in certain places is attributable to automobile ownership. 80 The percents of families in the
lowest income group owning cars in the separate cities were as follows:
J1rcnitow,nin,
automobile
cu,
Detroit, Mich ___ "-________________________________________________
Seattle, Wash_ ___ __ ___ _____________________ ____ ___________________
Columbus, Ohio___________________________________________________
Birmingham, Ala__________________________________________________
Rochester, N. y _______ ____ __ _____ ____ _____ __ ___ __ _________________
Richmond, Va_ _ _ _ ____ ___ __ ________ _______________ ____________ ___ _
Manchester, N. H _ ____ ___ _____________________ ______ ____ _ ____ ____ _
New Orleans, La__________________________________________________
Boston, Mass_____________________________________________________
New York, N. Y _ _ _ __ ___ __ ______ _____ _____ ____ _____ __ __________ ___
56. 6
56. 4
52. 4
47. 0
34. 4
31. 0
27. 4
25. 0
6. 2
5. 7
Expenditures relatively greater than proportional maintenance costs
for certain budget groups just shown were counterbalanced to some
extent by reversed ratios for others. Average costs of the quantity
budgets for clothing and its upkeep, housing, medical care, recreation,
29 This item was omitted from the quantity budgets because its cost is fixed
by numerous variables even within a given city and amounts to very little on an
annual basis. Type of dwelling, its location, and the material of which it is built
determine the premium to be paid for fire insurance on furniture therein. For
the $100 valuation of personal property adopted in the present investigation for
the purpose of estimating taxes payable (seep. 121), in houses meeting specifications for this study, premiums would be less than $1 per year.
ao Monthly Labor Review, March 1936, pp. 561-563; May 1936, pp. 1457 and
1462-1463; June 1936, pp. 1744-1745, 1747, and 1749-1750; September 1936, pp.
784-786; December 1936, p. 1616; January 1937, p. 234.
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
CONCLUSIONS• 143
end all other items, 81 for example, took more of the average total cost
than comparable percentages of the average family expenditure.
Though there were variations among the separate cities for these
groups, comparable with those already noted for others, a larger share
of budget cost than of expenditure went for recreation and all other
items in every city, and for clothing and its upkeep in all of them except Manchester. In half the cities relatively more of the total
expenditure was assigned to rent than quantity budget cost distribution called for. Larger families, usually with smaller total expenditures, may account for this difference in rents; counting life insurance
as a current charge in budget cost and not in family expenditure explains some of the difference for all other items.
It has already been noted that family si1.e in relation to total expenditures influences the proportion of total outlay apportioned to
different needs and that exact comparisons between the results of
the present study and available expenditure data are not possible.
The evidence at hand suggests, however, where economies will be
made when the amount required for support of a four-person family
is stretched to cover the needs of a family with 4.75 members.
More than half the families whose expenditures were studied had
flush toilets, running hot water inside the dwelling, electric lights, and
gas or electricity as cooking fuel. 32 The proportion living in accommodations which met the superior standards specified in the cost of
living study cannot be told from the de.ta available.
Of the 10 cities only for the city of New York have expenditures for
medical care been made public. They show that a much smaller
volume of medical care is purchased than the maintenance budget provides and that clinic visits, at fees far below private practitioners'
charges, are made as frequently as are visits to a doctor's office.11
The small proportion of the tote.I e:,,..1>enditure allotted to medical care
in Boston possibly is to be explained on the same be.sis. Cities not
so well provided with public facilities for medical services may require
a larger proportional outlay for medical care from private sources.
From the comparisons just made, it is apparent that the cost of the
maintenance budget in 1935 provided somewhat more than lowest
income self-supporting families were spending in the 10 cities where
costs of living and expenditures can be compared. Average apportionments of costs and expenditures for various essentials of living are
reasonably alike, or at lee.st their differences can be explained. The
degree of similarity varied in the separate cities. These deviations
11 "All other" in table 64 is a classification which includes several minor groups
in the two lists not identical or sufficiently significant to state separately.
12 Monthly Labor Review, May 1936, p. 1458; June 1936, p. 1751; September
1936, p. 790; December 1936, pp. 1610, 1612, and 1615; January 1937, p . 237.
11 Monthly Labor Review, January 1937, pp. 234-235.
No information is available
aa to the volume or medical care received by these families without money expense.
Digitized by
Google
144 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
from the average reflect local peculiarities of tastes or needs which
cannot be accounted for in a synthetic budget. Any of these local
factors can throw the whole relationship of the separate values into
changed positions. Thus, if larger than average families must spend
more than the average for food and housing and if automobile ownership is not common, the entire spending pattern will be different from
that in which expenditures for food and housing are less than the
average, and automobiles are commonly owned by families of small
means.
COMMENTS ON METHODOLOGY
The study from which the foregoing conclusions were derived was
an experiment in measuring intercity differences in costs of living
through pricing a definite list of goods and services by specifications
which were uniform, in the main, in all places. Much was learned
in the process of carrying the study to completion which may be of
benefit to future students of the subject. Certain comments on
methodology, therefore, are of interest.
Uniform quantity budgets in all cities as a measure of working class
family needs at a given level of living, with minimum adjustments
for groups of cities, for the most part afford a satisfactory basis for
cost analysis. Without additional modification of a few quantity
allowances to conform with prevailing local customs, some costs may
prove to be too high or too low in particular communities. These
adjustments seem particularly desirable for ice in certain cities, and
for providing quantity allowances for gas and oil for home heating.
Were it possible to differentiate between various grades of bituminous
coal and wood, an improvement in cost estimates would result. That
irregularities resulting from not using such procedures are smoothed
out in the cost of living as a whole, and to a lesser extent perhaps in
some of the major budget group costs, is apparent through such checks
on the results of the present study as can be made.
It is possible that the food budget assumes too much interest on the
part of the housewife to obtain an adequate diet at minimum cost, and
that to supply requisite nutrition according to prevailing practice a
somewhat costlier food allowance is necessary than the maintenance
budget provides. At the same time, the clothing and clothing upkeep
budget may be more liberal than family expenditures for these items.
The household operation and transportation budgets when priced also
required smaller shares of the total cost of living than the percentages
which real families at a comparable economic level found necessary to
spend. Increased allowances for these items, however, might require
the inclusion of goods and services not called for in a basic maintenance
budget. Their absence is covered by the greater budget cost of recreation and all other needs. The medical care allowance in the budget
apparently should not be changed. Inasmuch as expenditures with
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 145
which costs for a four-person family are compared were made by somewhat larger families, these conclusions are necessarily tentative rather
than final.
If for any reason readjustments should be made in the quantity
budgets for pricing purposes, the entire list of goods and services
included for each level of living must be considered, because each
presents a consistent picture which can easily be distorted unless
adjustments are balanced at every point.
Analysis of the behavior of retail prices within a given city with
reference to all the merchandising and other local elements which
enter therein is no part of the present report. It is of interest, however, that despite the wide range of quotations for specified commodities, average prices in the separate cities when combined with their
quantity allowances produced group costs which seemed to be representative. All commodity prices except food 3• originally were
edited for specification conformity and general consistency, and the
arithmetic means of accepted quotations were calculated for all except
fuel and ice. 36 In six cities chosen to represent a variety of price
factors, these values later were recalculated in terms of the modified
medians of prices which had been edited to eliminate only articles
which the field agent reported did not meet specifications. Differences in group totals calculated by these two methods varied among
the separate cities, reflecting possibly a range in original editing
policies, but never exceeded 3.3 percent of the costs as originally calculated, and for three cities the differences were less than 1 percent.
The use of specifications as a means of maintaining comparability
of goods and services priced was an integral part of the technique of
this study. Until more exact descriptions are used for some of them,
however, it is not unlikely that a wide range of prices will be obtained
in each city and that these will not be for identical items among the
cities. Some foods are graded according to accepted specifications,
but such matters as degree of freshness in fruits and vegetables are
difficult to define. Pricing number of units in a range of sizes or
weights does not make for uniformity of quotations. Comparing can
or package and bulk sale prices results in different relationships than
would be found were the sample entirely homogeneous.
Consumers demand variety and dissimilarity in clothing, furniture,
furnishings, and household equipment. Merchants strive to carry
goods different from their competitors' lines which may be preferable
for a given purpose within the same price range. Materials, styles,
colors, and construction constantly change and reorders often are not
identical with original stock. The purchaser does not know how to
The Bureau of Labor Statistics compiled the retail food price data.
The modified median was computed for housing, coal and wood, ice, and
mPdical services for reasons explained on p. 104. See also pp. 109, 110, and 115.
14
11
Dq1
zedbyGooglc
146 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
ask for many commodities in terms of precise specifications, and frequently the retailer cannot tell him exactly what he is buying. The
assumption that prices obtained in this study were always for identical
quality, material, construction, size, or shape, therefore, is open to
question.
Some specifications were more exact than others, and some commodities had definite trade names which made identification easy.
Thus, for example, when given brands of food, drugs, cosmetics, or
household supplies were quoted in terms of a common size, weight, or
volume, there can be little question of price comparability. Certain
commodities of readily defined material, such as copper, iron, or tin,
or construction, such as riveted, welded, or nailed, which were labeled
in terms of linear, area, or volume measurements, could be recognized
and prices of identical commodities usually were obtained. Where
specifications depended largely on variations of such descriptions as
"part wool," "inexpensive quality," "well made," and similar abstractions, and where commodities were priced without specification,
except volume of sale or customary use, as in the case of bituminous
coal or wood, some household supplies, and some drug store items,
identical merchandise was not necessarily priced, though comparable
values probably were obtained.
A price range of several hundred percent for a given article in any
one city probably does not measure differentials for identical merchandise among stores in that place, but represents the spread of
quotations for what the dealer had in stock most nearly meeting the
specifications. No one quotation is necessarily typical, but the average of a group of them in a. city usually can be counted on to give a fair
statement of the price to be paid in the shops patronized by working
class families, for a commodity of the standard specified.
In the study of the costs of living in 14 European cities compared
with Detroit, the investigators attempted to maintain similarity of
standard by carrying to the different places samples of certain articles
of clothing for which quotations were desired. 30 It often happened,
however, that nothing similar to the sample could be found in European
shops; hence, no quotation could be obtained. The same situation
would arise in this country were a similar method used, for even at a
specified social and economic level different commodities satisfy the
same needs without standardization or uniformity.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has been pricing by specification since March 1935, notes that "the type of goods priced has been varied from city to city inconformity with the purchasing ha.bi tsof moderate-income families in the separate cities," and that differences in the
average costs of commodities from which its indexes of the costs of living
11
International Labour Office, op. cit., pp. 11 and 21.
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
CONCLUSIONS• 147
are computed "may be due to varying standards and purchasing he.bi ta
in these cities as well as to varying prices for goods of given grades." 87
Possible variations in the kinds of commodities sold are duplicated
for services. Motion picture theater admission charges furnish a case
in point. Prices at the same theater vary between adults and children, with the time of the performance, the day of the week, and with
seat location, but other circumstances influence prices when those
factors are held constant. How long has the film been released in
the city; i. e., what "run" is it? What other entertainment does the
vrogra.m offer? First-run features in downtown theaters command
the highest admission fees in the large cities. The cheapest theaters
in these cities, the so-called "grind houses," also are located downtown where, e.lmost on a 24-hour schedule, Westerns and other
films which never appear on the better known circuits cater to those
with least to spend for this kind of amusement. Many residential
centers have their own theaters where popular fare may be obtained
for less than the first-run houses downtown. A variety of tariffs
also prevails in these neighborhood theaters, depending largely on the
local age of the film. With all these matters to consider in pricing,
obviously the sample may vary considerably from city to city, and
average admission charges in each do not necessarily indicate price
differentials for identical programs, unless every qualifying factor is
considered. They do measure, however, what people are paying on
a certain date for a generic type of entertainment.
Rating physician~• and dentists' charges in terms of quality of
services presents a similar problem. If a working class :r--ractice is
consistently priced, the most comparable rates are obtained, but in
some places physicians cater to persons of several economic levels,
and reported fees may or may not be what they expect to collect from
patients of small means. Thus, their charges showed a wide range
from city to city and may not exactly represent the local situation in
some of them. As previously noted, however, a combination of fees
for several different services usually produced reasonable cost ratios
for medical care as a whole.
The International Labour Office suggested, as a result of its efforts
to measure international differences in living costs, that maximum
comparability would be secured by having a single group of individuals
supervise the work in all cities. This visiting commission of experts
would investigate each locality, and by using the same "standards of
appreciation" would be able to compare relative values. 38 Such a
method is time consuming and expensive. The results of the present
study suggest that it may not be necessary, if cost comparisons rather
17 Monthly Labor Review, October 1936, p. 1063.
The same note appears in connection with each write-up of the Bureau's quarterly index numbers.
" International Labour Office, op. cit., p. 5.
Digitized by
GoogIe
148 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
than price comparisons are required and if standards of living in the
separate cities are reasonably homogeneous. In a study of the costs of
a specified level of living pricing the goods and services which families
at that level buy, in stores and from service sellers that they patronize,
probably will produce results sufficiently accurate for the purpose in
hand even though specifications are fairly general. A large number of
price quotations will have to be obtained in each community, and the
local work must be done according to one plan and under one supervision. Precise measurements will not be obtained for every item
which families consume, and intercity price comparisons for certain
items may not be possible. For the cost of the budget as a whole,
however, the results are likely to be representative.
Price comparisons present a different problem. For these, specifications cannot be too exact or refinements of sampling too minute.
The more definite the specifications are, however, the fewer will be
the quotations which can be obtained in any locality for commodities
and services which exactly meet them, and the fewer will be the
localities in which these items can be priced. Specifications will
change over a period of years and probably will never be of general
application. Research looking toward the improvement of specifications in price reporting has been carried on for a number of years,
and changes are made as the utility of new descriptions is proved.
Were measurement of the costs of a uniform level of living in different
parts of the country or among cities of different sizes to awe.it the
development of universally applicable specifications for all necessary
goods and services, however, it might never be made.
The schedules used in the present study could be improved, especially those on which data regarding housing and other services were
collected. Such a conclusion is usual after first trial of a given method
of inquiry. A larger variety of schedules, each concerned with
fewer, more similar items and directed specifically to certain sources
of information, would be better than the few all-inclusive schedules
directed to a variety of sources which were used for some items in the
present investigation.
Certain changes in sampling are advisable, especially in sampling
services. With more definite descriptions of some items, prices can
be confined to those goods and services which clearly comply with
the specifications. This procedure will greatly reduce the work of
editing the schedules and will simplify the calculation of average
values. As long as enough items are priced to afford a field within
which extreme quotations will largely cancel, the device of getting
prices for the goods and services listed for a given level of living, in
the shops and neighborhoods where persons living at this level buy,
should provide a measure of costs adequate for all practical purposes
in a field where exact values cannot be obtained.
Dig 11~ed by
Goog Ie
Appendixes
1-49
Dg1 zed by
Google
Digitized by
GoogIe
Appendix A
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Tabk
Page
1. 59 cities included in the study of costs of living, March 1935__ ____ ____
xv
2. Annual costs of living, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
3
3. Costs of emergency level of living as percents of costs of maintenance
level, by major budget groups, 4-person manual worker's family,
4
59 cities, March 1935_________________________________________
4. Costs of living per year, per month, and per week, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935_ _________________________
5
5. Percent distribution of the average annual costs of living among the
major budget groups and principal subgroups, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__________________________
6
6. Average annual costs of living in 9 geographic divisions and 5 size of
city classifications, ratio of highest to lowest cost in each group, and
highest and lowest deviations from group averages, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, maintenance leveL _________
8
7. Changes in costs of living, by major budget groups, 32 cities, March
1935-March 1931-------------------------------------------·
10
8. Annual costs of food, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 oities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
13
9. Percent distribution of the average annual costs of food among the
principal commodity groups, 4-person manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935_ _______________________________________
14
10. Food commodity price ratios, 59 cities, March 1935_ _ ___ ___________
15
1 I. Annual costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care, 4-peraon
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935_ ______________ ____
23
12. Percent distribution of the average annual costs of clothing, clothing
upkeep, and personal care among the principal commodity and
service groups, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935_______________________________________________________
23
13. Annual costs of clothing, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
24
14. Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care commodity and service
price ratios, 59 cities, March 1935______________________________
25
15. Annual costs of clothing upkeep, 4-person manual worker's family,
27
59 cities, March 1935_______________________________________ __
151
32592°-38--12
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
152 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 OTIES
Table
PQf/e
16. Annual costs of personal care, 4-peraon manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935___ ______ __ ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ ______ ____ ____
28
17. Annual rents, 4 or 5 rooms and bath, 59 cities, March 1935_ _ _ __ ____
33
86
18. Monthly rents, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935_
19. Annual costs of household operation, 4-person manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935 _____________________________________ .____
41
20. Percent distribution of the average annual costs of household operation
among the principal commodity and service groups, 4-peraon manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__________________________
21. Annual costs of fuel, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
22. Annual oosts of coal or wood, 4-peraon manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
23. Annual costs of gas, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
24. Kinda of fuel priced in 59 cities in 4 separate climate groups____ ______
25. Relative quantity allowances and relative fuel costs in 4 separate
climate groups, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
26. Average prices of coal and wood in 4 separate climate groups, 59
cities, March 1935_ _ _ _______________ _____ ______ __ ___ _________
27. Monthly costs of gas, 4-person manual worker's family, classified by
kind of gas, 59 cities, March 1935______________________________
28. Annual costs of ice, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
29. Prices of ice per 100 pounds, 59 cities, March 1935__________________
30. Average prices of ice per 100 pounds in 4 separate climate groups, 59
cities, March 1935_ _ _ _____ ____ ____ ____ __ _____ ___ ______ ___ ____
31. Relative prices of ice per 100 pounds and relative annual costs of ice
in 9 separate geographic divisions, 59 cities, March 1935__________
32. Annual costs of electricity, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
33. Annual costs of household supplies, 4-person manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 193.',_____ ______________ ___ __ ______ __________ _
34. Household supplies commodity price ratios, 59 cities, March 1935____
35. Annual costs of furniture, furnishings, and household equipment,
4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__________
36. Furniture, furnishings, and household equipment commodity price
ratios, 59 cities, March 1935_ __ __ __ ______________ ___ _______ ___
37. Annual costs of miscellaneous family needs, 4-person manual worker's
family, 59 cities, March 1935_ ________________ ___ ____ __________
38. Percent distribution of the average annual costs of miscellaneous family
needs among the principal commodity and service groups, 4-person
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__ __ _______ _ ______ _
39. Annual costs of medical care, 4-person manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935 ______________________________________ . ____
40. Medical care commodity and service price ratios, 59 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
41. Annual costs of transportation, 4-person manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935 ________ • ________________________________ __
42. Adult cash fares and annual costs of transportation, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935_ _________________________
Dg1 zed by
Google
42
43
44
44
46
48
48
50
53
54
55
56
57
S8
59
61
62
68
68
70
71
73
75
LIST OF TABLES• 153
Table
Page
43. Relative car and bus fares and relative annual transportation costs,
classified by local consumption differentials, 59 cities, March 1935_ _
77
44. Annual costs of school attendance, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 55
cities, March 1935_ _ _ _ __________________ _____________________
79
45. Policy relating to furnishing free textbooks and supplies, 800 public
school systems, 1933___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ____ ___ ____ ________ ____
80
46. Annual costs of recreation, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
81
47. Annual costs of daily and Sunday newspapers, 59 cities, March 1935_ __
82
48. Annual costs of motion picture theater admissions, 4-pereon manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__________________________
83
49. Annual taxes exclusive of sales tax, 4-person manual worker's family,
36 cities, March 1935_ ____ ___ __ _______ ___ _ ___ ___ ____ __ __ ______
87
50. Annual sales tax, 4-person manual worker's family, 18 cities, March
1935________________________________________________________
88
51. Sales tax as percent of total cost of living, 18 cities, March 1935_ ____
88
52. Number of commodities and services priced and used in computing
costs of clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care, 59 cities,
March 1935_ __ __ __________ ___ _ __ __ ________________ ________ .
99
53. Identical annual allowances for clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal
care: commodities and services not separately priced, 4-person
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935___________________
100
54. Differences between rents reported by real estate agents and by
families, 4 or 5 rooms and bath, 59 cities, March 1935____________
104
55. 59 cities classified by 9 geographic divisions and 4 separate climate
groups______________________________________________________
107
56. Fuel allowances in 4 separate climate groups_______________________
108
57. Number of commodities priced and used in computing costs of household supplies, furniture, furnishings, and household equipment, 59
cities, March 1935_ ____ __ _____________ _ _____ __ __ ___ ____ ___ ____ 112
58. Identical annual allowances for unspecified household essentials:
commodities and services not separately priced, 4-pereon manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935__________________________
113
59. Number of commodities and services priced and used in computing
costs of medical care, 59 cities, March 1935____ ___ _____ __________ 114
60. Identical annual allowances for organizations, tobacco, and toys:
commodities and services not separately priced, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935 _________________________ .
119
61. Identical annual allowances for life insurance, church contributions,
and other contributions, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
120
62. Coefficients of variation in the costs of living, by major budget groups
and principal subgroups, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities,
March 1935, maintenance level________________________________
128
63. Average costs of living, Works Progress Administration's study, 59
cities, March 1935, and National Industrial Conference Board's
study, 69 cities, February 1935----"--------------------------137
64. Annual costs of self-support at maintenance level of living, 4-person
manual worker's family, 10 cities, March 1935, and annual expenditures by wage earners and clerical workers in lowest income self140
supporting groups, 10 cities, 1933-1936____ _________ _____ ____ __ _ _
Dig l1?ed by
Goog lC
154 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
APPENDIX TABLES
Table
1. Cities of 25,000 or more population, 1930, in the United States and
included in the study of costs of living, classified by geographic division and by size______________________________________________
2. Annual costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935,
maintenance level____________________________________________
3. Relative costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935,
maintenance level____________________________________________
4. Annual costs of Jiving, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, in 9 geographic divisions, 4-pereon manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935, maintenance level________________________
5. Relative costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, in 9 geographic divisions, 4-pereon manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935, maintenance level________________________
6. Annual costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, in 5 size of city classifications, 4-pereon manual worker's
family, 59 cities, March 1935, maintenance level_________________
7. Relative costs of Jiving, by major buget groups and principal subgroupe,
in 5 size of city classifications, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935, maintenance leveL _________________ ______ ___
8. Annual costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroupe,
4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, emergency
level________________________________________________________
9. Relative costs of Jiving, by major budget groups and principal subgroupe, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935,
emergency leveL ___ ______ ______ ___ ____ ____ _______________ ____
10. Annual costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, in 9 geographic divisions, 4-pereon manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935, emergency level__________________________
11. Relative costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, in 9 geographio divisions, 4-pereon manual worker's family,
59 cities, March 1935, emergency leveL_________________________
12. Annual costs of living, by major budget groups and principal aubgroups, in 5 size of city classifications, 4-pereon manual worker'■
family, 59 cities, March 1935, emergency level___________________
13. Relative costs of Jiving, by major budget groups and principal subgroupe, In 5 sfse of city cla■eificatfons, 4-penon manual worker'■
family, 59 cities, March 1935, emergency level___________________
14. Annual costs of minimum medical care per 1,000 persons, 59 cities,
March 1935_________________________________________________
15. Annual sales tax on costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 18 cities, March
1935, maintenance leveL _____________________________________ -
16. Annual sales tu on ·costs of living, by major budget groups and principal subgroups, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 18 cities, March
1935, emergency leveL _______________________ - - __ - - - - - - - - - - - 17. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, 4-pereon manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935, maintenance level___________________________
Dg1tzed by
Google
Page
156
158
162
166
168
170
171
172
176
180
182
184
185
186
187
188
189
LIST OF TABLES• 155
h~
Th~
18. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, in 9 geographic divisions, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, maintenance leveL _____ ___
19. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, in 5 size of city classifications, 4-person
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, maintenance leveL_
20. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, 4-person manual worker's family, 59
cities, March 1935, emergency leveL _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ __
21. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, in 9 geographic divisions, 4-person manual
worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, emergency leveL _____ . ____
22. Percent distribution of the costs of living among major budget groups
and principal subgroups, in 5 size of city classifications, 4-person
manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935, emergency leveL _
D qi' ,ed by
194
196
197
202
204
Goog Ie
Appendix 8
BASIC TABLES
To6le 7.--Cities of 25,000 or More Population, 1930, in the United States and Included
in the Study of Costs of Living, Clanified by Geographic Division and by Size
Geographic dlvtslon and •l•e of city
claBsiflC11tlon
All cltll'II In the United
States
58 cltll'II Included In
the study
Number
Population
Number
Population
Pe-ret'nt
oCpopuJa.
tion In•
eluded
United Statas ..•..••.....•..........
378
49,242, 8Tl
1511
30,011,692
ISJ.9
1,000,000 or more .....•.•.....•.••.•••••••••
500,000 to 1,000,000 ...........•••.••••••••••
2!,0,000 to 500,000.........•.•.••...••••••.••
100,000 to 250,000.•............••.. ·•••••·•·
25,000 to 100,000.•..•..••..•• - ••.••••••••••
6
15,0M,&M
6,763,987
7,956,228
6
15,0M,5115
6,763, 1187
100.0
100. 0
82. 2
25. 8
283
New England .•.•...•••••••.••••••••
8
8
19
6,538,086
12,917,141
14
13
1,927,089
717,976
M
4,467,4tlll
8
1,443,803
l
1
l
2
2
(I)
7!11, 188
252,981
261,990
147, 64-&
(')
1
1
I
24
511
(1)
7,540, 1166
(I)
42
(')
781, 188
252,981
1,466,630
1,956,666
Middle Atlantk ...•.......•.••••••..
76
15,499,1168
8
11,114,884
1,000,000 or more .•...•••••••••.•....•••••••
500,000 to 1,000,000 .••••..••••••.•••..•.••..
250,000 to 500,000 ...•.•.•••••••. ··••····• ...
100,()()() to 2[,0,000 ..•••.•..••.•••.•..........
2,5,000 to 100,000..••.•....•.•.••....••......
2
2
3
2
68
8,881,407
1,242.893
1,087, 184
I. 438,853
2,849,321
2
2
I
1
8,881,407
1,242.893
770,4r.9
143,433
78,662
Enst North Centrnl. ..•.•.•.•.•.....
9i
12,810,868
8
7,634,632
1,000,000 or more ....••.•••..............•..
500,000 to 1,000,000 •..•.•.•••....••.........
250,000 to 500,000 ...••••••.•••.•••.....•....
100,000 to 2!,0,000 .•••..•.•..••..••..........
25,000 to 100,000..•.•••••••.••.•.•.••.•.•...
JI
II
2
2
6
10
78
1,000,000 or more ..•••.••.•.•...••..••.
r,oo,noo to 1,000,000 .•••.•.....••.•...•....•.
to 500,000 .•••..••..••...•.••.•••.••.
25(),(X)()
l()O,(l()()
to
250,000 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2.5,(KJO to 100,000 .•.••••....•...•••••.•••.•.
West North Centml.. •.•.•..........
1,000.000 or more ...••.•...........•••••••••
500,000 to 1.000.000•••••••••.•••••••••••••••
2:.0,000 to 5()(),000...........•....•.........
HJO,!JOO to 2,50,000......................••..
25,000 to 100,000•.••........•......••...•..
27
(1)
1,000,000 or more .....................•....
f,00,000 to 1,000,000.•......•••..•••.•..•....
2f~I.OOO to 5(Xl,OOO......•••.••..............
100,,110 to 2.50,000 ..........•...........•...
25,000 to 100,000....................••.•...
2
2
3
1
4, 1145, 100
1,478, 6."8
l, 105,885
104, ll6U
(I)
7
2,100,637
(1)
3,482,012
(')
(I)
(1)
100.0
100. 0
17.9
7.6
7L7
100.0
100.0
70. 9
10. 0
2. 7
/.19.8
I
)00.0
100. 0
87.0
7.9
{')
I
& I
(')
6
18
821,llflO
1, 135, 708
600,9\l5
833,349
2
821, 9flO
864,102
325, 116
89,4511
41
3,826, 115
9
2. 180,018
1811,6
1
2
3
(1)
804,874
757,235
442, IS8
165,721
(')
100.0
100. 0
58.1
10.4
I
3
South Atlantic ......•••........•....
4. 945, JOO
1,478. 67R
1,651, 6-13
1,327, 7,57
3,407,680
'- e
32.4
(1)
(')
1
2
6
32
804,874
757,235
760, 58.1
I, 503,423
1
2
2
(1)
3
See footnotes at end or table.
156
Dg1•zed
hyGooglc
100.0
76. l
47.1
10. 7
BASIC TABLES • 157
ToUe 7.-Cities of 25,000 or More Population, 1930, In the United States and Included
in the Study of Cosh of Living, Clanified by Geographic Division and by Siz.-Con.
All cltlee in the United
States
Geographic d!v~ion Rnd sue or city
classlftcatlon
Number
Population
Number
Population
16
1, 1142,1176
6
1194, 570
East South CentraL.. _______________
1,000,000 or more ____ •••••••..•.••...•.•••..
li00,000 to I ,000,000 .••......•••..•......•...
250.000 to 500,000..•••.........••.....•.....
100,000 to 250,000.•....•..•••...•..•.•.....
25,000 to 100,000•.•..•....•..••.•••...••.••
!ll
ll
3
3
10
West South Central. ....•.•••••••...
1,000,000 or more ..••.........•...•..•.•..•
li00,000 to 1,000,000....•...••.•••• -·········
250,000 to li00,000.••...•••••••••.•.•••.•....
100,000 to 250,000.........•.•••••.........•
25,000 to 100,000•••••.•.•..• _•.••••••..•...
511 cltles included 1n
the study
26
)1l
ll
3
6
18
!!l
820,M6
379,466
442, 1144
i:i
2, l!07, 988
fl
1)
1,011,589
824,057
772,340
r'
I)
3
1
I
6
(')
(1)
Pl'roont
or populatlon In•
eluded
I
820, M6
105,802
100.0
77.11
15.4
68,202
1,381,078
i:i
3
2
1
I, Oil, 689
287,810
81,6711
5
626,736
I
1
3
fl
1)
287,861
140,267
1111,608
60,6
!1)
1)
I
53.0
(')
(1)
100.0
34. 11
JO. 6
72.4
10
727,281
I
I
8
(1)
(')
287,861
140,267
200,153
Pacific __ .····-----·---.·-------· ____
28
4,188,526
6
2,655,354
I
1,000,000 or more--··-·-·-·-·-·-··---·-·····
li00,000 to 1,000,000.••••••• -. ___ -···-· __ . __ .
250,000 to li00,000 .•• ····-····-· ____________
100,000 to 250,000. ____ . ----···------··-·-·25,000 to 100,000____ -··-·--·-· _____________
I
I
3
1,238,048
634,394
951,461
I
I
2
I
1,238,048
634,394
667,398
115,514
(1)
100.0
100.0
70. I
22. 6
Mountain ••••.•••••..•....••••••••.•
1,000,000 or more..•....•... ---········-···li00,000 to 1,000,000.... _.•.•.•.•••.. _•.... _.
250,000 to liOO,OOO ....•••...•.••• -····-······
100,000 to 250,000 .••...•. ---·······-········
25,000 to 100,000..• _...•••••••.. -· .. _•. ___ •.
r'
ll
4
Ill
r>
I)
512,358
852,265
(1)
I
fl
1)
100. 0
100. 0
33.0
(I)
63,4
t This figure represents the percent which the populatlou In cities studied ta, or the population In all
cities with 25,000 or more.
1 No city In thlll group.
Source: FlftuntA Cemm oftJ,e United State,: /93(), Population, Vol. I, pp. 14, 16, and 22-29.
D1g ti zed by
Goog Ie
Tol,/e !.-Annual Cosh 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
JUDITIIIU!ilCII LIIVIIL
T otal
cost or
Food
living
Clothing I Cloth ing
upkeep
Total
t - - - - 1 - --l - - - - l- - - - l --
Average, -~9 cities ... . .. . 1$1. 2fl0. 62 l$H 8 18
W nshin~to n ,n . c . . .
!-on Frnnc·is('(), t' 11l1 f. '
l\l inne.a polis , l\linn ...
N ewYork , N.Y. 1
Chleogo , 111. 1. ....... .
0
~
1"'
~
C')
0
a(v
I
$184. 35
I
I Personal
care
$145. 93
$24. 87
Furni-
~
n ishin g~.
and
ho useho ld
equ ipment
sz
Household operatio n
Housing,
Including
water
Fuel
Total
Total
- - l - ---1 - - - -l -- -l - --
$13. 55
Coal or
wood
ture, furIre
Electricity
Oas
Ho tLseho ld
supplies
1 - -- -1-- - -1- - -1 - - - - 1 - -- - ,- --
f $221. 89 l$l !i.1. 54 I $5i. 9R
$4i. oo
-
,0
22. 32
18. 37
17. J.I
17.45
32. 41
31.00
27.53
30. 26
::;j
16,1. 32
159.63
137.08
153.64
14. 00
15.82
10. Si
12.46
29. 31
T.l. 04
24.71
27. 35
270. 00
264. 00
300.00
240.00
179. 61
202. 13
15.1. 87
162.36
48. OS
108. 28
66. 21
73. 82
35. 03
101.68
,15.65
68.21
13. 05
6.60
10. 56
5.61
47. 117
18.14
19. 1<.1
19. 83
18. 56
18. 89
22. 08
17.92
M il wouke,,, Wis ... . .. .
l. 353. 34
B os ton . :\l oss .... .... ..... .. . I . 3t,2. 77
I. 348. 33
<'Je,·olan ,!, Ohio '-- - ·· ·· · ·· ·
.f-;t. Louis. ~-fo _____ __ · ------- - · I. 339. ,\.5
Petroit, J\-flch. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l. 3li. 53
425. 66
4M. 45
444. 40
448. 46
444. 01
2ifi. 15
16.1. 61
149. 0,\
168. 35
144. 08
158. 33
14. 29
13. 04
13. 46
11. 46
12. 77
28. 25
26.03
29. 14
23. 97
24. H
270. 00
264. 00
234. 00
270. 00
222. 00
176. 48
164. 29
142. M
127. 27
160. 47
92. R5
70. II
59. 11
44. 26
70. 25
85. 10
59. 76
M.3e
3ij, 01
63. 09
7. 7,\
10. :ir,
3. 7,5
R. 25
i . 16
12. 96
19. H
17. 3,\
!ff. 85
18. 69
18. 29
19. 85
11. 13
14. 33
17. 48
17. If>
19. 71
32. 18
32. 02
32. 47
28. 42
31. 26
148. 67
145. 25
146. 88
167. 23
133. 30
13. 69
13. 51
13. 38
12. 43
11.44
26.15
26. 61
146. 33
138. 90
1211. so
156. i3
100.AA
50. 70
36.60
46. 46
31. 85
38. 12
53. 00
14. 10
3. 75
23. 94
26. 70
2.1. 39
276. 00
256. 80
246. 00
198. 00
2.58. 00
21.61
20. 02
16. 85
35. 98
19. 44
19. 25
14. 37
18. 65
14. 48
19.99
19. 39
17. 49
21. 33
17. 62
31. 73
31. 83
29. 21
32. 23
29. 99
11. 76
16.26
11.64
12.58
228. 00
232. 20
240. 00
234. 00
271. 20
142. 86
173. 40
an
Mm
W . 16
8. 55
37. 6R
47. 52
59. 32
92. 45
10. 71
17. 89
35. 14
12. 96
15. 05
24. 53
19. 44
15.07
23 . .'i!l
28. 42
23. 87
25. 72
23. 34
15. 77
20. 45
18. 32
23. 4i
18. 93
18. 41
21.04
29. 85
34. 01
29. 54
28. 93
30. 15
14. 88
17. 17
21.82
16.IIO
12. 73
24. 65
26. 56
29. 32
25. 41
25. 68
225. 00
180.99
222. 00
210. 00
:a:H. 00
274. 28
184. 39
185.00
130. 76
83. 75
30. 62
70. 63
68. 75
30. 4g
9.00
21.08
8. 50
13. 75
10. 20
19.85
21. 89
23. 33
21. 53
18. 41
16. 79
23. 93
23. IK
19. ~7
18.12
30. 41
31. 64
36. 27
32. 16
30.63
Baltimore, Md .. . ...
448.54
448. 74
447. 52
442.07
4i4. 6,1
188. 51
1R5. 37
184. 21
206. 36
170. 13
I. 300. 65
I, 2911. 14
Al huq uerqno, N . l\le.x.'.
Philade lphia, P a . .. . .... . . I. 2117. 69
Bridgel,;'rt, Conn .. ..... .. .. I, 200. 35
Sioux alls, S. Dak .. _..... . 1,290.60
452. 65
485 . 68
447. 68
487. 51
423. 75
170. 27
192. 62
175. 62
181.43
100. 77
134. 93
147. 94
140. II
143. 14
152.36
Rochester, N. Y .. _.. ..... .. .. 1,287. 63
rue.son, Arlt.1 .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. I, 287. 25
Butte, Mont. ... .... . ....... .. I. 283. 69
Portland, Maine ........ .... .. 1,275.48
Peoria, Ill.1 . .. ............... -. I. 274. 30
442. 76
464. 09
448. 69
450. 00
448.89
181.09
188.98
214. 64
198. 44
141.56
145. 25
163. 40
156. 53
189. 21
150. 91
ro. 21
36. R5
49.13.1
65. 40
138. 15
•n
157. 00
208.08
101.95
179. 73
nn
~n
-~
M. ~
mg
~w
UI
$3 1. 10
208. 62
198. 49
172.67
193. 45
312. 39
311. 74
310.,12
308. II
I, 300. 86
p1
$18.82
459. 37
H 6.75
477. 22
4112.08
l.
l.
l.
I,
r-
$18. 68
l. 380. 87
1. :is; ,;9
1,375. 13
l.356. 11
Scranton , P a . .. ............ ..
Cincinnati. Ohio 1 ___ _ _ __ ____ _ _
Pitt.sburgh, P a . .
Los Angeles, Calif. '.
N ewar k , N. J . __ _
0
.,,
I s10. 98 I m . •o
-------=
= -142.-13- - ==
==
=:::=
==
==
=19.=
=12.=
=17.=
=30.12
=
1.414. 54 476. 34
179.T.l
12.98
24. 12
342. 00 146. 62
04.65
56. 80
7.R5
44
05
31
189. 02
210. 95
179. 50
195. 54
VI
00
•
Clothicg, clothing upkeep, and
personal care
t'ity
....
5.00
11. 52
12. 40
8. JO
13. 05
9.50
19. 44
18.14
47. 50
19. 44
18. 40
19. 83
2.i;,37
18. 05
rn. 83
19. 41
17. 36
0
m
12.M
11. 10
24. 62
23. 52
153. AA
147. 88
14.5. 71}
13. 50
13. 27
23. 80
455. 96
434 . 93
448.29
459. 55
181. 65
175. 46
182.40
180. 96
170. 82
142. 54
138. 70
144. 9.J
446. 83
432. 04
442. 77
180. 36
199. 74
193. 22
14.J. 67
150. 27
15 1. 59
4:!2.29
li2. 79
206. 00
160. 85
Fnll River, M ass .... . . . . ... .. .
At.lanta, Ga .... . ............. .
Richmond, Va . . . . ....... . .. . .
Buffalo, N, Y . .... .. .. . .... • . •
Omaha, Nehr . .. ... .......... .
1,271.M
453. i.l
I, 268. 22
1. 268. 00
46.1. 10
M anchester, N. H .... .
Norfolk, Va . .
. ... . .. . •. . .
Denver, Colo.• .. ......•.. ••
Kamas City, M o . .. . • . .•. • • •
ProYidence, R. L . .. ... . . . . . . .
l. 258. 26
443. 61
l ,2M. 03
I, 251. 38
463. 69
I, 246. 07
I. 24S. 42
l, 245. 26
I, 243. Jg
Din ghom ton, N . Y . ....... . .. .
Snit Lake C ity , U tah 1• ••••••
Seatt le, \V a.sh __ __
l, 261. 21
447. 07
441. 80
I , 243. 07
1, 233.:l-~
I, 233. Oil
-- -·· --
New Orleans, La..
.. ...
Spok11ne, W ash . .... . .. ...•
101. 48
1611. 33
100. 07
184. 95
184. 46
I, :!'28. 62
42(1. 71
I, 222. 18
I. 221. 72
I, 221. 40
I, 220. 20
I, 217. Ml
456. 34
435. 93
433. 22
-143.43
441. 03
Jarkson,·ille, Fin . . . . .. ... .... . 1,217. 27
H ouston, T ex ... .... . ... .. ... . I, 209.\ill
45.'l.67
172. 00
43 1. 07
41R 64
480. 26
464. 41
1~1. 12
177. 45
1116.80
184. 76
I. 188. 97
I , ISi\. 18
1,1 78. 70
I, 168. S.~
I, IC,6. 7S
451. 62
418. 28
188.08
El Paso , Tex .. . .. ... ... . ...... I. 1.53.58
Lit tle Hock , Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 139. 00
W ichi ta. K ans . . .... . .. . . . . .. . I. 131. 30
Mobile, Ala. . ...
.. .. . .. ..
I. 129. 8 1
Hl.09
H 3. 99
Wi nst on•Snlem. is. r. 1 •
P ortland, Ore~.. . .. . . . ... .. .
Memph is , T en n . ...
Louisville, Ky .1 • • • • • • . • • •
Oklahoma City , Ok ln. 1. .. .
I, 198.08
t!'dinna1_,oli!, I n d . .. .... . . . .. .
ol um b111, , .. C ........... . . . 1,192. W
CIH.rksburg , W. Va .• . . ...... . . 1,190.02
Dallas , Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Cednr Hopi<ls . Iowa 1 • •• •• • •• •
Columbus, Oh io 1 ·- _ _ ____ _ _ _
Birmingham . Aln . . . ... . . . . .
K non-ille, Tenn ..... . . ...... .
l
44-1. 25
446. 74
423. 23
426. 97
433. 40
179. 29
203. 75
lTJ. 15
178. 84
183. 20
162. 09
186. 04
170. 87
171. 71
lfi7. 67
172. 56
174. 32
165.00
154. 31
134. 71
147. 19
134. 47
176. 18
246. 00
235. 92
136. 46
154. :lS
Jf,()_ 46
150. 13
23.80
24. 33
210.00
15. 03
13. ,57
13. 00
11. 64
12.67
24.09
186. 00
238. 00
:.Jl.1. 00
108.00
216. 00
12. 43
24. 26
14. 34
23. 19
23. 51
22. 12
23. 60
15. 91
24. 57
15. 50
12. 01
17. 65
2tl.1 3
23. llO
28. 47
141. 16
162. 61
134. 65
142. 79
143. 25
12. 47
15. 11
13. 18
25. f>6
26. 03
2.5. 32
12. 24
23. 81
27. 37
137. 46
143. 23
13. 48
14. 34
135. 41
130. 97
14. 44
137. 19
222. 00
12. 58
11. 71
12. 33
2'2.01
23. 54
27. llO
24. 09
238. :D
60.88
11.60
II. 00
16. 3~
3. 2.5
7. 35
22. 85
ll. 95
9. IS
18. 00
10. :15
18. 00
11>1. 13
164. 87
l:!2. 07
13.1 . 28
62. 8S
49. 79
41. 85
50. 3 1
40. 17
33.90
22'2. (X)
209. SO
205. :_>fl
145. 46
39.M
36. 36
lll8. 00
210. 00
:Dl.00
153. 86
123. 08
58.
27.
b.5.
44.
24. fl,)
16. 8 1
20S. 92
158. 40
198. 00
22. OS
2lf>. 00
14. 59
24. 00
24. 9-1
23. 53
136. 68
12. 17
12. 38
13. 12
21. 91
201. 43
192. 00
167. 04
205. 80
132. 36
135. 34
140. 56
128. 79
12. 53
13. 71
12. 40
13. 21
22. 78
23. 52
19S. 00
174. 00
21. 36
165. 00
163. H
1-10. Oil
151. 76
12fi. S:l
125. 49
lf>6. 87
128. 21
128. l:J
138. 14
1511.10
125. 29
HR. 53
Jl2. 22
43
16
48
IS
zs. :n
28. 18
76. 96
41. 91
38. 40
48. 66
54. 61
32.
a.,
59.86
41. 76
23. 38
50.12
3 1.84
46. 19
18.80
17. 29
19. 91
16. 34
19. 49
15. 94
38. 32
108.00
17. 94
15. 03
50.00
5 1. 71
174.!IO
13. 65
16. 49
14. 19
6. 45
11. 50
S9. f/5
f,0. 89
"7.2'2
33. 73
69. ()2
11\X. 00
22. 68
15. ~9
JO. 01
4. 12
:J. l~
18. OR
rn. 49
16. 77
19. 44
15. 86
JM.9 1
165. 21
164. 911
131. 70
180. 49
228. 00
1!15. (I()
S2
17. 81
9. IR
63.00
,'vi.
17. ,\ 7
23. 33
Ii.Ml
18. 17
18. 53
74.50
ll2. 54
23. 33
73
19. 44
23.11.1
169. 12
179. 08
149. 70
19. H
27. 27
n
12.80
J,5. 12
132. 08
12. 42
23. 01
M.:lO
39. 00
6 1.93
52. 27
47. 20
IV2.IXJ
127. 61
148. 59
148. 93
134. 00
M . 18
68. 23
M.00
33. 00
72.:.0
43. 40
43.09
40. 75
24. 50
147. 93
76. 60
44. 00
M.:l8
1~). 4.4
zi. Ko
22. g;
22 57
36. 36
Zl. rn
15.0:,
25. OJ
:!'l. t\S
16. 49
28. 09
21.09
36. :rn
23.fi:l
16. 69
'I',. 54
18. 19
17. 71
20. 78
21. 57
17. 20
2'l. 98
28.93
30. 29
31.80
35.09
31. 71
29. :ll
34. 27
16. 49
17. 30
22. 24
15. .~
~'O. 78
16. 15
17. 50
JS. 25
30. 94
30. 89
30. 20
28. 29
32. 16
rn. 49
30. 72
2:l. 40
30. 42
20. 57
15. 17
16. 25
10. 35
8. 55
17. 37
If. 09
17. i9
29. 32
24. 30
2. 50
35. IO
3.1. 4~
19. 83
rn. 28
16. 10
lij. 95
33. 04
II. 25
16. 49
18. 17
12.33
17. 93
19. 79
19. 39
18. b.5
17. 6.1
28. 97
31. 60
32. 3 1
16. 93
66. 76
IO. 20
rn. 8.1
16.98
39. 16
28. 32
10. 08
29. 02
16. 4:1
20. cri
2'2. , :1
27. 24
21. 42
IS. 18
Ii. 57
17. 69
42. 50
12. JI
7.35
22. 36
23. 33
23. 81
19. 37
20.05
18.02
21. 96
30. 06
29. 39
31. 76
33. 4S
46. 93
19. 8-S
22. 87
25.00
54. 86
34. 78
31. 73
34. 10
31.00
28.99
2. 75
5.00
19.80
18. 18
15. 55
30. 42
17. 57
18. 02
18. 39
31. 19
28. 40
32. 99
30. 20
29.88
29. 23
31. 03
a:,
>
II)
0
rr
">
C)
U!
~
N
'1)
a.
-<
0
~
()
See footnotes at end of table.
a:,
r-
....•
VI
,0
Ta&/e 2.-Annual Costs of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935Continued
KADITIIN.UICJ: LIIVJ:L-«>ntlnued
Holl56hold opera•
lion-Continued
~
Miscellaneous
Reluse
d isposal
U ns peo!fled
essen•
tials '
Total
Medical
care
Transport&•
tlon
- - - - - - - -- - - - Average, 59 cities .... ··W ashington , D . C •. _.. _.. _•..
Ban Francisco, Cali!.• .. ·-··-·.
M lnneapolls, M inn ....... _...
New York, N. Y.•·· · ·--· ·--··
Chicago, Ill.1 ..... __... . • . ... __
0
c.o·
;=;c
,,-
(I)
a.
IT
'<
C')
0
-
~
rv
'SI. 60
$3. 06 S252. 67
$52. 32
$53. 00
School
attend·
ance
- • $6. 87
Total
News•
papers
7. 20
3.60
(')
(')
Milwaukee, Wis .-··· -·--·-·· ·
B oston, Mass.······ · ---- ---··
Cleveland , Ohio 1. - -· · --·. ··-.
St. Louis, M o. ·-- ---·-·-······
Detroit , M ich .•--· ·· -········ ·
(')
(')
(')
Scrnnton, Pa __ ._._ • ..... ...•..
Cincinna ti, Ohio•- · ·····-·····
P ittsburgh , Pa· -······-·----··
Los Angeles, Calli.I._···- · · -··
Newark, N. J ········ -· -·· · · ··
1~
4.50
Baltimore, Md .....••••••. ••••
Albuquerque, N . M ex.I .••••••
PhUadelpbla Pa ••• _••••.. _.. _
Brldge_ra>rt, 6onn .••• •. .• •.. ••
Slow: alls, 8 . Dal<. •• •••• ••••
(')
4. 80
3. 00
(')
(' )
(')
f~
12.00
Rochester, N . Y ••••••••••••••
TUC30nMArlt.I ••••.• • •• .•.• ••••
Butte, ont •••.•••••••• ·-····
~~
~~~111.~ -~~==============
{I)
(')
7. 60
Motion
o~rllli·
picture zot
ons,
theater tobaoco,
admls· and toys•
sions
Church
contri•
Life
Insur• butlons
other
ance 1 and
Total
contri•
butions •
J75. 18
$10. 84
=
$33. 80
38. 64
42. 22
33. 69
38. 75
38. 58
=
$30.55
30. 40
30. 92
30. 40
30. 82
30.82
$46. 40
$15. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
15. 40
16. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
- -- =
• $2. 54
=
c10l
~
=
60. 78
01. 85
71. 42
93. 31
8. 47
6. 26
I. 45
3. 04
86. 94
72.39
78. 41
80. 84
3. 05
3. 05
3. 09
3. 05
3. 09
275. 05
267. 00
316. 41
314. 32
295. 61
44. 51
55. 30
69. 21
49. 54
68. 34
76. 14
61. 74
101.52
118. 44
82. 08
11 . 28
1.88
10. 60
(')
14. 06
78. 19
84. 22
83. 39
81. 77
79. 23
14. 66
14. 56
14. 66
13. 20
13. 00
33. 23
39. 26
37. 80
38. 17
36. 20
30. 40
30. 40
31.02
30. 40
31.02
46. 40
46. 40
4.6. 40
46. 40
46. 40
15. 40
16. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
(IO)
2. 77
(10)2. 77
3. 05
3. 09
3.05
3. 08
3. 05
263. 01
28 1.93
306. 20
304. 95
237. 22
68.01
41. 82
64. 52
. 65
4.07
(' )
2. 49
4.00
83. 36
7g 64
81.62
79. 27
80. 74
11.44
11. «
14. 56
10. 60
14. 56
41. 51
37. 18
61.94
40. 20
g4.50
106. 26
101.30
37. 75
36. 78
30. 40
31.02
30. 40
30. 92
30. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
8. 94
(" )
2. 00
(11)
1.00
3. 05
3. 07
3. 05
3. 05
3. 05
306. 87
216. 24
296. 25
235. 45
100. 81
44.04
67. 66
43. 02
66. 15
61. 41
115. 49
12. 67
106. 06
43. 74
10. 94
1.69
0. 40
1. 00
. 72
(')
83. 86
73.82
84.38
73. 04
71.00
11. 44
7. 80
ll. 44
8. 84
8. 84
42. 02
35. 20
42. 54
33. 80
31.82
30. 40
30. 82
30. 40
30. 40
30. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15.40
16. 40
ii
62.83
61.31
6.1.90
12. 33
6. 65
8. 14
73. 61
82. 66
62. 84
58. 85
10. 82
0.60
6.00
18. 66
78. 11
74. 86
10. 92
10. 40
11. 06
18. 00
10. 40
32. 29
41.65
35. 75
31. 40
32. 14
30.40
30. 71
30. 40
30. 40
30.82
46. 40
48. 4~
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
16. 40
16. 40
16. 40
15. 40
16. 40
8. 05
8. 07
3. 06
3. 05
8. 07
257. 79
232.45
226. 07
237. 44
1>31. 16
60. 08
43. 80
28. 51
20. 70
73.36
36. 66
31. 15
(IO)
Ul
!")
"l
64. 28
M. 12
56. 29
57. 42
2. 00
~
' $1.10
272. 27
286. 42
269. 38
298. 21
s. 14
UI
,0
--
3. 08
3.05
3. 07
3. 07
1.81
ffi
Personal
property
7. 80
13. 80
8. 40
8. 84
11. 44
f'"l
(10
~
r-
- - - - -- -
- -- - - -
--- --- --- --- --- =
-- - -3. 76. 81
68. 91
71. 44
05 270. 34
1. 35
(')
0
Tax.es •
Recreation
City
....
g
•
IO
")
1.81
3.14
f'l
IO)
'")
rn
(''.~
f"'')I. 60
(11)
('2. 22
1.60
6. 22
6. 00
7. 36
3. 80
2. 00
4. 36
3. 80
(1 0)
Fall River, Me..ss ...••.. .. .....
Atlanta, Oa . •...•..• .. .• ••..•.
Richmond, Va ... . .. . . • . . .. ...
Buffalo, N. ¥ .... .... • ..... . . .
Omaha, N eb.-. .. . . . . . . •. ... . . .
(')
(')
(•)
(')
1.00
Manchester, N. II . . . .. . .. . . . .
!'lorfolk, Va .. ... . .... . . •... . •.
Denver, Colo. 1. . . . .. . . . . • .... .
Kansas C ity, M o . .. . .. . •• .• ..
Providence, R. I. ... . . . .
(')
(1)
Binghamton, N . Y ... ... . ..•. .
Salt Lake City, lltnh 1• • • • •••
f;enttle . Wash . . ....... . . . . .
(')
!'\·ew Orleun:s, La.. .. ______ , .
Spokane, W llSh . . . . ... . . .. • . .•
W inston-Salem , N. c.,...... .
Portland , Oreg .. . . .. . .. ••.•.•
Memphis, Tenn .. . . . . . • . .•..
Louisville, Ky .1
. . . .. .. •••
Oklahoma City, (Jkla.1... •.. .
Jackson ville, Fla . . . . . ... . .. . . .
H ouston , T ex . .. . . . .. .. .. • . . . •
lndianapolls, I nd ... . . • . . •• • . .
Columbin, S. C ...... . • . • . .••
Chu-ksb urg, W. \" a.' ..... . . . .
Dnllns, T~• - . .. . • .. . . . . . •.•...
Cedar Raµkl s, Iowa' ···· · •• ·
Columbus, Ohio '· · ··· ·· · • · . .
B!r mln~ham , Ala . ... . . . . .. •..
Knoxville, 'fenn ..... ... .. .. . .
E l P aso, Tex .. . . .. . . .. • . . . .. . .
Little Rock, ArL... . . .... •• . .
\Vichi ta, Kans ... . _
Mobile, Ala .. . .. ... ... . . . ... .
31. 46
3. 05
3. 05
3. 05
3, 05
228. 05
253. 34
2311. ;2
2H. 00
51. 24
53. 4~
M . 23
W . 1()
52. 49
39. 92
89. 2S
3. 05
241. 65
4/j.0l
.'18.32
49. 89
5{. 116
56. 52
51. 35
M. 78
39. 69
35. 82
;4, 84
.I. 11
95. 63
41 . 33
11. 37
1.56
83. 13
72. 68
81 , 26
e2. 33
67. M
11.68
53. 95
75. 47
Y7 . 78
4 1. 21
rn. 50
87, 18
1.02
I. 6.1
3. 80
4. 29
73. 67
79. 02
20. 97
10.'.!2
3. 05
242, ;1
3. 05
232. Tl
150
3. 07
3 (J()
3. ()()
3. 0.1
3. os
2S2. 20
286. 10
2211. ;o
(')
3. 0.1
3.07
1233.
00
251.00
(')
12, 00
3. 0,\
3. 0.1
3. 05
264 , 40
2'~. 30
2-10. 46
3. 0<J
3. 0.1
3. 05
214. 50
2-~. 77
M.9.",
411 .•'>(I
6Y. !14
200. 11;
!,;\ , ~>\l
2.'l◄ .
40. 7 1
.iO. il
61. 24
59 . •15
39. [>3
c•)
(')
fi.00
(•)
(>)
8.00
(')
(')
(')
(' )
6.00
(')
I. 2.1
('>
(')
I')
2. 50
(')
I. 45
(')
3, ft'J
3. Oil
3. 05
3. 05
3. 0.1
3. 05
3. 07
3. 0.\
3. 07
2-12.
1'5
n
233. 78
263. 80
259. 00
195. ;g
'2'l2. 32
Zl-1. 77
2 11.5.1
20
M. 93
56. 65
51. 82
,\2. 46
61',. 10
r,,_ 26
52 78
n..12
40.9-1
55. 32
49. il l
45, 86
◄ 5.
3.00
3. 0.1
3. 05
2.'i6, 00
zn. ~9
50. 25
3. 05
:1 . 0.\
193, 72
Zll . 2"2
38. 46
53, 55
3. 0.1
3. 0.1
21 8. 411
2"25. 7,\
50. 08
2'2!,,
78
-4i. 78
5 1. !!4
30. 9 1
66. f.S
65. 21
8. 75
9. 20
35. 96
24. 84
44. 46
61. 49
32. 14
17. 11
16, 46
26. 24
20. 93
(' )
7. 13
7. 75
2 .04
• . 32
1.00
7. 78
77. 36
70. 44
73. 82
70, 13
69, 40
73.
23
67. 0G
11. 66
ti~. 46
68, 98
73. H
78. 97
11..\()
;9. 38
7. 00
Y. 7J
;4 _81
69. k2
74. 39
~- 48
7. [)0
9. 40
11. 14
21. IY
12. 2f1
4. 86
R, 94
10. 25
8. 50
1.114
1:1. 17
14. ,,o
20. !, 1
71. 17
69, 82
35 . .12
11.H
10. 40
7. 81'
II. 44
10. ◄ 0
11. 44
JU. ◄ O
13.00
7. ~o
11. H
W.t;◄
30. 40
30. 40
4/l. 40
46, 40
3b. 62
30, 40
4tl, 40
2K W
2s. 60
30. 40
30. 40
46. 40
46, 40
41. 29
31. 88
37. 44
24. 13
26.00
30. 4-0
30. 40
30. 82
30. 40
30. 40
46.40
30. 40
46. 40
3 1. 62
33. 07
39. ;g
30. 82
30. 40
30. 40
30. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
1:1. 00
-n. 04
2X. 18
32. 34
:Ii. 54
35. 78
31. lrl
:10. 40
46. 40
4fi. -tO
4ti. 40
4fl. 40
46. 40
15.40
46. 40
4fi, 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
I.I. ◄ 0
I.I. 40
).\. 40
I.I. 40
15. 40
46. 40
4fi. 40
46. 40
46. ◄ 0
46. 40
15. ◄ 0
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
46. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15, 40
10.
9, 36
40
13. 00
10. 40
10. 40
26. 26
I
:10, 40
:11 . 02
W.0 1
34. 01
30. 40
30.06 1
30.W
30. 37
2-'< . 60
W.40
30, 40
30. 40
30. h2
32. 55
:10. 40
10. 40
2K 00
8, :12
'Ii. ~,
30.94
27. 66
30.82
65. 86
67. 22
4/l, 40
42. 22
G7. 22
71. 74:
&<. 46
70 91
70. II
46, 40
15. 4-0
15. 40
15. 4-0
15. 40
15. 40
14 . 56
10. 80
10. 20
8. s-1
10, 40
;o. 18
70. 75
◄6, 40
46. 40
15. 40
15, 40
15. 40
15. 40
l.'i. 40
7. 80
10. ◄ O
10. 40
i . 80
9.
00
7. 80
10. 40
I
31.02
30. 40
30. 40
32. 71
30, 40
30. II
Zi . 66
26. 42
30. 40
30. 40
30. ◄ O
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
15. 40
J.t40
15. 40
lf>. -10
15. 40
6.20
8. 00
,\. 20
(" )
'")
i. 20
5. 80
4. 20
1 00
3. 00
2, 20
5 00
300
(" )
( It)
3. 20
2.80
(" )
3. 62
2. 45
(")
( ")
("')
3. 62
2. 45
-,
"'~
~
()
C
0
oa
~
~00
300
(~
(")
M
M
4. 44
4. 44
( ")
(")
3. 45
(iO)
(")
(iO)
1. 00
(I ~
3. 45
(")
I. 00
(" )
◄ . 00
2. 16
(")
2. 00
3.00
5. 58
2. 00
5. 00
(")
(")
2. 16
( ")
(")
( 00)
2. 58
( ")
(" )
3. 50
( It)
4. 00
(It)
(")
(")
(")
2. 73
3.00
6. 73
3. 50
8. 13
(I')
(")
(")
3. 45
2. 13
. 45
v
·.!:..•
M
M
1 I nclude sales tax where le,·ied (a ppendix tab le 15) .
' Bull~e t nllowan{-e identical in all cities, plus sales tax where le,·ied.
' F.xclu.sive ol sales tax.
• Though onl y 18 rities had a direct charge !or refuse d isposal, an avernge !or 59 cities is used in order to balanre the table. The IS-City average is $4 .00.
1 Though only 55 cities had a direct charge !or school at.tendsnoo, an aver age !or 59 cities is used in order to balance the table. The 55-city average is Si.37.
• Though taxe.s were payable la only 36 cities, an average !or 59 cities is used in order to balance the table. The 36-city average is $4. 17.
'Though personal property taxes were psyable in only 22 cities, an average !or 59 cities is used in or der to balance the table. The 22-dty average Ls $2.00.
• Though capitation taxes were payable in only 25 cities, an average for 5V cities is used in order to balance the t able. The 25-city a,·erage is $3.40.
• Not a direct charge.
"None payable.
Nor11.--0wlng to the neceaslty for roondtnc numbers In computing av....-, there are llllaht discrepancies between~ totals and the IIUIDs or their component ltema.
(I ~
(10)
(I~
~00
( IO)
(")
2. 00
300
300
2. 00
5 00
350
4. 00
M
3 00
4.00
3 50
~ 00
(" )
300
a,
)>
sa
n
-I
)>
a,
r-
c:1
....0-•
.....
Tobie 3.-Relative Costs I of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
K.lINTIIIUIICII LIIVJIL
•
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and
personal care
Olty
Total
COllt of
living
Food
Total
Person&)
Clothing Clothing
upkeep
care
Household operation
Housing,
including
water
Fuel
loo
Total
Total
--- --Average, 59 cities:
Amount .....•... .. $ 1,260. 62 $448.18
Percent . . ________ .
100. 0
100.0
Washington, D. c ____ _____ .
San Francisco, Calif.I ___ __ __
Minneapolis, Minn _________
New York, N . Y.1. _________
Chicago, Ill.' _____ ______ _-- . -
0
c.o·
;=;c
i'i"
(I)
a.
CY
'<
C')
0
-
~
rv
=
- - - - - - - --
$184. 35
100.0
$145.93
100. 0
$13. 55
100. 0
$24. 87
100. 0
103. 3
116. 7
80.2
92. 0
97.0
117. 9
02.6
99. 4
110. 0
- -95.8
-=
112. 2
110. 3
110. 1
109.1
107. ~
106. 3
102. 5
97. 4
106. 6
103. l
97.2
113. 2
107. 7
93. 7
104. 9
97. 4
I 13. 3
109.4
93. 9
105. 3
Milwaukee, Wis _. ___ ____ --Boston. Mass .. ______ _______
Cleveland, Oblo 1______ _____
St. Louis, Mo_. _.. ______ --- .
Detroit, Mich.I __________ ___
107.4
107. 3
107. 0
106. 3
104. 6
95.0
104. 5
99. 2
100. I
90. I
111 . 8
102. 5
114. 4
97. 4
106. I
112.1
102. 8
115. 4
98. 7
108. 5
105. 6
96. 2
99.4
84.5
94. 3
Scranton, Pa ___ __ ____ __ _.. · Cincinnati, Ohio 1____ ___ ___ _
Pittsburgh, Pa ___ _______ . .. _
Los Angeles, Calif.I____ ____ _
Newark, N. J ____ _________ ._
104. I
104. l
104. 0
103. 8
103. 2
JOO. I
100. I
99. 0
98. 6
105. 9
102. 3
100. 6
99. 9
111. 9
92.3
101. 9
99. 5
JOO. 7
114. 6
91.3
Baltimore, Md _______ -··-- __
Albu~uerque, N. Mex.1_____
Pbila elpbia,/a--• -•____
--Bridgeport,
onn __--_• ___
Sioux Falls, S. Dak_. ___ ____
103. 2
103.1
102.9
102. 8
102. 4
101. 0
108. 4
99. 9
108. 8
94.5
92. 4
104. 5
95. 3
98. 4
103. 5
Rochester, N . Y ---·--··---Tucson?lrtz.1 _••••• __ __ _____
Butte, ont __ ··-·------·-·Portland, Maine.----· ----·Peoria, m .1 ••••• --·-·······-·
102. l
102.1
101 . 8
IOI. 2
101. 1
98. 8
103. 5
JOO. I
98. 2
102. 5
116. 4
107. 6
102. 6
100. 6
100. 2
t221.89 $153. 54
100.0
100.0
$57. 98
100.0
------ =
Coal or
wood
Elec•
trlclty
Oas
Furniture,
Bou.s&- furnlsblng:;,
bold
and house•
supplies hold equip•
ment
- - - - -- - - - - -$47. 00
100. 0
$10.98
100. 0
$22. 40
100.0
120. 9
74. 5
216. 3
118.4
146.1
71. 5
118. 9
60. 1
96. 2
61.1
86.8
214. 2
81.0
88. 5
88. 5
------ =
$18. 68
100. 0
$1 8.82
100. 0
64. 5
W. 4
IOI. I
ll8. 2
95. 9
92. 0
118. 6
97. 6
91. I
92. 7
96. a
104. ~
102. e
88. 6
97. 3
---
$31. 10
100. 0
154. l
121. 7
119. 0
136. 2
108. 2
95. 5
117. 0
131. 6
101.5
105. 7
Ill. 5
82. 9
186. 8
114. 2
127. 3
113. 6
104. 7
117. 2
96.4
98. 3
121. 7
119. 0
105. 5
121. 7
100. 0
114.0
107. 0
02.8
82. 9
104. 5
160. 1
120. 9
101.9
76. 3
121. 2
181. I
127.1
117. 8
76. 6
134. 2
70.6
94. 3
34. 2
75.1
65. 2
57. 9
86.8
77. 6
75. 2
83. 4
97.9
106. 3
50. 6
76. 7
93. 6
91.l
105. 3
103. 1
92. 2
104. 7
103. !
102. 9
104. 4
91. 4
100. !
101.0
99. 7
OS. 7
91 . 7
84. 4
105. l
107. 0
96. 3
107. 4
102. I
124. 4
115. 7
110. 9
89. 2
116. 3
95. 3
00. 5
82.4
102. I
104. 8
87. 4
86. 6
63. 6
85. 6
112. 8
77. 9
98. 9
67. 8
81. I
112.8
128. 4
34. 2
45. 6
104. 9
ll2. 9
96. 5
89. 4
75. 2
160. 6
86. 8
103. 0
76. 9
99. 8
77. 5
135. 8
100. 2
103. 0
02.9
113. 3
93. 6
102. 0
102. 3
93. 9
103. e
96. 4
92. 5
101. 4
96. 0
98. I
10-1. 4
86.8
1:11. 0
85. 9
92. 8
111.2
94. 8
114. 3
96. 0
103. 4
93. 9
102. 8
104. 6
108. 2
105. 5
122. 2
93. 0
112. 9
00. 0
102. 9
135.5
101. 3
83. 4
95. 9
124. 8
175. 8
106. 7
80. 1
101.1
126. 2
196. 7
77.9
97. 5
73. 8
118. 9
86. 5
79. 8
156. 9
57. 9
86.8
86. 8
80. 6
131. 3
96. 6
84. 4
109. 5
97. 3
124. 7
100. 6
97. 8
111. 8
06. 0
109. 3
95. 0
93. 0
00. g
97.0
99. 5
112. 0
101.
103. 4
109. 8
126. 7
161.0
121. 8
93. 9
99. I
106. 8
117. 9
102. 2
102. 9
101.4
100. 0
94. 6
91.9
123. 6
117. 9
117. 1
120. 1
120. 6
85. 2
160.0
89. 2
136. 6
142. 3
70. 2
178. 2
65. 1
150. 3
146. 3
82. 0
192. 0
77. -l
125. 2
92.Q
81.0
212. 1
86. 8
82. 2
106. 3
117. 2
124. 9
116. 2
88. 6
98. 5
89. 2
127. 2
123. 1
106. 6
98. 3
97.
101. 7
116. 6
103. ~
98. 5
a
...
0,
tO
64. g
a
~
0
..,
C
s
~
UI
,0
~
~
~
rr
()
0
r:£n
114. 7
MS. 9
100.5
II-~. 0
97. 8
132. 1
138. 3
70. 2
8.l. O
131. 8
129. 5
105. 6
108. 4
149. 2
29. 6
00. 9
86. 8
101.5
121. 7
86. 8
63. 4
124. 9
94. 0
\)5. 3
74.1
88. 3
JOO. 8
JI U
95. 5
I 12. 4
117. 7
87. 6
89. I
95. 3
96. 6
102. 1)
109. 6
99. 7
93. 2
96. 9
83. 8
IOi. 3
9 1.9
89. 2
97. 3
Ii i . 2
97. 5
92. 8
86. 0
110. 1
147. I
100. 9
00. 2
8 1. 4
128. 5
154. 3
92. 3
91. 7
86. 7
134. 0
11 6. 6
137. 7
83. 6
5S. 7
J().I _ i
86. 8
105. 5
iO. 8
67. I
71. 2
124. 9
95. 3
97. 2
99. 2
122. 3
99. 9
9 1. 9
105. 8
86. 8
103. 6
96. 6
94. 5
102. I
93. 0
97. 4
100. 9
107. 6
l07. 4
106. 4
110. 0
81. 5
49. 7
!Oil. 6
00. 6
83. 6
172. I
94. 3
172. I
86. 8
101. 8
162. 3
104. 5
IO I. 3
123. 0
120. 8
80. 6
133. 9
88. 3
110. 4
114. 6
91. 4
122. I
102. 2
11 2. 8
117. 6
103. 4
105.0
98. 7
58. 2
119. 0
li4. l
94. 9
114. 5
102. 8
87. 9
75. 7
89. 2
78. 4
103. 2
1().1 . i
IO I. 8
9.'i. 8
I IO. U
94 . 2
71 4
100. 0
114 . 5
92.5
100. 2
l07. 4
86. 0
86. 8
94. 7
10'>. 4
85. 9
i2. 2
86. 8
68. 2
85. 5
72. I
200. 6
98. 3
77. 4
IH. 7
9 1. 2
37. 5
211. 0
125. 4
162. 3
10.'i. 5
74. 5
123. 0
112. 9
ui;. 2
92. 0
l II . 5
97. 2
90. 3
92. 8
94. 2
98. 2
92. 8
b9. 8
IO I. 4
w. a
105. 8
106. 6
86. 6
9 1. 0
88. a
\1-1. 7
111. 0
96. 9
98. a
89. 2
114 . 6
90. 6
89 . 2
80. 5
100. 2
BO. 7
91. 2
98. 8
82. 4
100. 8
46. 8
95. 7
76. 2
43. 8
[,3_ I
304. 9
J().I , 5
3., . 8
\19. 9
42. 3
48. 7
114. 3
77. U
221. 3
22. 8
135. 8
5
156. 7
88. 5
I JO. I
8 1. 2
9 1. 5
JOii. 3
10:!. 2
9:1. 1
87. 4
IO I. 8
102. I
92. 5
9.l. 7
91. 7
107. 7
89. 8
91. 4
911. 8
8.~. 7
100. 1
100. 3
94. 6
SS. I
97. 3
90. 8
86. 5
75. 3
92. 7
8 1. 7
108. 7
83. 5
83. a
90. 0
48. 6
132. 7
72. 3
f,6, 2
83. 9
36. 0
142. 0
&1. 3
60. 3
b8. 0
102. a
92. 9
25. 0
9 1. 8
195. I
129. 5
73. 3
89. 4
IOI. 5
8 1. 2
91. 0
93. 6
!>4. 6
s 9. a
90. 7
92. 7
96. 3
88. 3
92. 4
IO I. 2
9 1. a
97.
94 9
85.
92. 5
IO I. 7
8 1. 6
95. 4
92. fl
94 . 2
5.'i. 8
103. 2
72. 0
90. 4
5.l . 2
11 6. 7
46. 7
11 0. 3
66.
45. 5
180. 3
99 8
81. 2
69. 4
135. 8
101.3
l03. 3
W. 8
98. 6
99. 0
103. 9
9 1. 9
103. 6
100. 3
100. 1
105. 7
92. 3
105. 3
IO I. 3
W. 9
81. 9
llll. 6
97. 9
105. 8
M anchester , N. Il . . . .... ...
Norfolk, Va ..... . .... .. . . . . .
Denver, Colo. ' .. ...... ... . . .
K8DS8S Cit y, M o . . ...... ....
Providence, R . I. . .... . .. .
99. 5
103. 5
10 1. 7
97. 0
100. 0
102. 5
98. 5
95. 2
98. 9
98. 2
92. 7
97. 7
95. I
99. 3
100. 9
92. I
110. 9
JOO. I
103. 0
85. 9
93. 5
99 i
9 7. 8
108. 4
104. 8
113. 7
11 2. 3
98. 5
109. I
100. 9
94. 0
11 0. 2
91. 7
11 7. 4
114. 4
88. 6
130. 2
97. 3
110.
9:l. 9
97. 0
99. 4
96. 7
11 1. 4
92. 3
Y7. 0
99. 3
98. 8
98. 8
98. R
Bing hamton , N . Y . ... . . --Salt Lake C ity , Uta h 1. . .. ..
Seat tle, Wa.s b ..... .. . ...... .
New Orleans, La .. . .. .....
Spokane, Wash ... . . . .......
118. 6
98. 6
97. 8
97. 5
98. 8
96. 5
95. 2
W ins ton-Salem, :-:. C . 1•••• __
P ortlan d, Oreg . .. . .... .. .. ..
Memph is , Tenn . .. .. .. . . ...
Lou is ,·ille, Ky ., ..
Oklahoma Cit y, Okla .' ..
97. 0
96. y
96. 9
00. 8
!lfi. 6
101. 8
97. 3
\Ill. 7
118. 9
118. 4
1ackson \'llle, F la ...... .. ... .
Houston, Te.x _.--- -- --· - ·· ·ln<llanapolls, I nd ... ...... ..
Colum b ia, S. C ...... . .... .
Clarksburg, W . Va., .. . ... .•
911. 6
96. 0
95. 0
!>4. 6
102. 3
911. 2
ll.1. 6
l Oi. 2
94. 4
103. 6
Dallas, T ex. . . ... ...... .. ...
Cedar Ra pids, Iowa 1 _ • • • • ••
Colum bus , Ohio , ......... ..
Birm ingham , Ala ... . . . . . . . .
Kn ox\'ille, Tenn . ... . .. . ....
94-. 3
94. I
93. 5
92. 7
92. 6
100. 8
93. 3
El P aso, T ex. . .. .. . .. ...... .
Little Rock. Ark ... .. ..... . .
Wichita , Kans _ .. . ... . .. .. ..
M obile, Ala ...... ...... ....
9 1. 5
00. 4
80. 7
89 . 6
98. 4
99. 1
95. 3
0
'<
100. 0
110. g
106. 3
94. 6
IOi. 3
100. g
100. 6
100. 6
100. 0
99. 8
..·-
~
N.
IXl. 0
94. 6
95. 7
95. 7
9i. 8
F all R iver , M ass . .. . .. .. ....
Atlanta, Oa •.. · -· · · ··· ····· ·
Richmond , Va . . .. . . .. .. .. ..
Buffalo, N . Y . . . .. .. ... . . ...
Omaha, Nehr----- · -- ··· · ·· ·
See footnotes at end of table.
n s
00. 4
99. I
99. 7
94. 4
00. 7
5
93. 8
118 .,
96. 3
00. 5
100. 2
87. 9
IO'l. 0
m ,. 9
n .1
92. 6
51
93. 2
94. 5
89. 0
95. 2
97. 6
,t ~
9 1. 6
61
87.
9
i8. 4
i4. 4
73. 7
85. 8
77. 4
67. 7
n.
9
I
88. 3
88. 3
83. O
111. 2
ss. 3
U7. 2
66. 0
96. 0
94 . 0
124.91
IZ7. 4
103. 7
94 . 0
IOI. 9
94. 2
110. 2
9 1. 9
II S. 2
85. 8
93. 0
97. 0
98. 8
\19 . 5
99. 3
97. I
90. 9
86. 3
10.1. 4
100. :1
94. 3
107. 6
106. 2
90. 2
9 1. 5
8,, . 6
106. 0
l05. 2
103. U
118. 6
0:1. 7
114 . 0
106. 5
95.
05. 8
8 1
97. 7
93. I
IOI. 6
103. 9
91. 3
106. 1
97. I
96. 1
94. 0
W. 8
;
"
►~
SQ
Ul
....o-•
w
Tobie 3.-Relative Costs of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, -4-Person Manual Worlcer'1 Family, 59 Cities, March
1935-Continued
~
M lsoollaooous
Recreation
City
Refuse Unspecl•
disposal fled essen• Total
tials •
Medical
care
Trans•
porta•
tioo
School
atteod·
aooe
Total
--- -
- - - - - - - --
News•
pepers
Motion
picture
theater
Organl•
r.atlons,
tobacco,
a<lmls· and
toys 1
s lons
Church
cootrlhu•
Life tloosaod
Insur•
COD·
once' other
Total
trlbu •
tloos •
Washington, D. C ........ ... .
Sao Francisco, Coli!.' .. .......
Minneapolis, Mino ...........
New York, N. Y.t ............
Chicago, ill.' . . •.. .......... ...
0
c.o·
;=;c
i'i"
(I)
a.
CY
Milwaukee, Wis ... . .......•.
Boston, Mass ..•............
Cleveland, Ohio' · ...........
St. Lou'Js~o .......... . ... .. .
Detroit,
ich.' .. ..• ... . .... ..
0
Scranton, Pa ...•.... ..........
Cincinnati, Ohio'··· ··· ·· ·· · ··
Pittsburgh, Pa .... ... .........
Los Angeles, Cnlll.' ... . . .... ..
Newark, N. J. •. ••.• . ..•..... .
rv
Baltimore , Md . .•. •.... . . . •.••
Albuquerque, N. Mex. 1•••••••
PbllMlelph taC Pa •••.• .•..• • ...
Brldgep::rt, onn. ...• ••• .•• ••
Sioux a.lls, S. O ak ..•••...••.
'<
C')
-
~
Rochester, N . Y ...••••.••••••
TucsonMArlz. 1• ••• • ••••••• •• •• •
Butte, ont •••••••.••• • ••• . ••
Portlanfu Maine •. •••••.••••• •
Peoria,
·'····················
•S1.oo
100. 0
- --
$3. 06 $2.52. 67
100. 0
100. 0
I'"'
Penooal
p r operty
<'(' l
300.0
i:i
(')
320.0
['')>
800.0
!:l
C.00.0
(I)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- =
112. 6
132. 4
19. 7
102. 2
72. 0
107.0
$33.80
100. 0
$30.65
100.0
$46. 40
100. 0
$15. 40
100. 0
• $2.M
100. 0
90.5
101. 2
119. 5
100.9
100. 9
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
I::l
------ --- =
7
=
$1.10
100.0
123. 3
91.0
21. 2
4<l 2
115. 7
96.3
104. 3
107. 5
n.s
81.6
105. 6
90. 7
90. 7
IOI. 0
90. 7
101.0
l<ll.9
105. 7
125. 2
124. 4
117. 0
85. 1
105.8
ll3. 2
94.. 7
111.5
141.l
114. 4
188. I
219. 5
152.1
16"- l
Z7. 4
152. 7
(')
204. 7
104. 0
112. 0
110. 9
108.8
105. 4
·134. 4
13"- 4
134. 4
121.8
120. 0
98. 3
116. 2
111. 8
112. 9
104. l
99. 5
99.5
101. 5
90. 5
101. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
123. 6
78. 7
(")
109. 1
(10)
90. 7
101.0
90. 7
100. 7
90. 7
100. 1
111. 6
121. 2
120. 7
93. 9
110. 9
79. 9
104. 2
114. 8
99. 3
74. 6
175. 3
196. 9
187. 7
70.0
9. 5
69. 2
(')
36. 3
58.2
110. 9
105. 9
108.6
105. 4
107. 4
105. 6
105.6
134. 4
97.8
134. 4
122.8
110. 0
108. 5
111. 7
105. 9
99. 5
101. 5
90.5
101. 2
90.5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
352. 0
~•)
8. 7
(10)
39. 4
90. 7
84. 2
110. 0
82. 2
107. 3
214. 0
23. 5
196. 6
81.1
20.8
24. 6
136. 8
10. 5
(')
Ill. 5
98.2
112. 2
97. 2
99. 7
121. 5
85. 2
117. 2
93_2
77. 9
94. 6
105. 6
72.0
105. 6
81.6
81.6
12"- 3
104. 1
125. 9
100. 0
94. l
99. 5
100. 9
99. 5
99.5
99. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
r:i:~ r:i"l
99. 7
100. 3
00. 7
90. 7
100.3
102.0
92. 0
89. 5
94.0
91.5
101. 0
117. 2
120. 1
112. 5
83.9
118.4
22. 9
20. l
62. 8
82. 2
118. (
Q4..6
88. 2
97. 9
110. 0
103. 9
IX). 8
97.6
100.8
116.0
110. 4
120.0
96.0
95. 5
122. 9
106. 8
03.1
90. 5
100. 5
99. 5
00. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
(10)
244. 0
(10)
236. 2
289. 8
181. 8
396.4
H0. 6
345. 5
100. 3
90. 7
90. 7
98.3
53.2
14. B
Z70. 2
~ffo
JZ7. 4
05.1
")
71. 3
63. 0
I $1.44
100. 0
~
z
~
UI
,0
"3
~
107. 8
113. 4
106.6
118. 0
94.. 1
170. 2
132. 4
172. g
c•i
200.0
• $6.87
100. 0
$10.84
100. 0
122.9
103. 5
107.6
109.8
90. 7
100. 7
90. 7
100.3
100.3
(')
$53. 96
100. 0
1
~
- - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --lH.3
124. 9
90. 4
114. 6
114. l
(')
480. 0
233. 3
(')
(')
('
(')
$52. 32
100. 0
$75. 18
100. 0
0
..,
Taxes•
Average, 50 cities:
Amount . .... ...... __
PeroenL .•.. ..... - - -
~
•
IUIXTSNANC& LSV&J,--CODWIUed
Household opera•
tioo-Cootinued
....
!ll!
l ~I
285.5
(11)
138.9
164.5
t>
10)
251.8
(")
Ill!
10
146.5
5(1/j.5
!::i
620.8
(10)
138. 9
(")
69.4
11!1
i::i
277. 8
208. 8
(")
F a ll R l\"~r , M11."I! . . .. . . . . ••••• .
Atlanta, <la . ... • . . . .•. . ... ....
Richmond, V a .. •••.. • . . ....••
Bu !Jalo , N . \". ..... . .. . . • .....
O mah a , N ebr .•..... ...•. . . ...
122. 2
M. 3
110. 8
ii. 4
99. 5
99. 5
100. 9
99. 5
1()5. 6
76. 0
09. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
96. 5
329. I
222. 7
2-10. 2
H. 8
ZJ. 7
;,5_:1
62. 4
116. 0
97. 4
98. 0
105. 1
89. 2
134. 4
99. i
94. I
81. 6
00. 0
124. 9
qJ, 6
97. 8
117, i
ii .7
99. 5
100. 9
99. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
(")
(")
911. 5
100. 0
HJO. O
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
150. 2
l:!:l. 5
01. I
9 1. X
Oi . 3
105. 0
105. 6
00. 0
\16 . 0
96. 0
96. 0
120. 0
80. 0
83. 4
95. i
105. 9
!Cl.-~
90. 5
911. 5
IOI. 5
100. 2
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
99. 5
02.9
99. 0
!tl . 7
00. 0
100. 6
AA. 9
0 1. 7
89. 9
x-1, 6
911. 5
90. 5
90. 5
90. 5
100. 9
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
ICO.O
00. 5
100. 0
101. ,1
100 0
00. U
(')
(' )
(')
100. :1
92. 3
W. 4
IOI. 6
118. I
95. 2
106. 9
108. 3
ll9. I
100. 3
126. 3
21.fi
100. 0
139. 9
181. 2
:Ii'. y
129. 6
113 . .I
110. 4
73. 3
109. 2
il7. 3
I OI. 9
IZl. 6
14 1. 6
136. 8
162. I
308. 4
IO I. 0
8-1. 9
99. 3
W. i
W. 7
IOI. 0
V-1 . 7
IOI. 9
533. 3
100. 0
102. 4
103. :1
100. \I
00.1
(')
OR i
11J. i
W. 7
!X~ i
IIX). 3
92. .~
100. -~
100. 9
83. 2
120. X
10.~. i
16. 2
17. 0
r).,
(' )
400. 0
l' J
!>l . :l
(' )
( ')
Jlir mingham , A la .... . .. ... . . •
K noI\·Hle, T onn .. ___. . . ... __ _
I ')
F, I P a.<o, T ex . . .. . ...•. . •. .••
L itt.le R ock , Ark . • .... .. .. . . •.
W ich ita, K ans . .. . ..... .. •... •
M obile, Ala . .. . . .... .... . . ....
f~. ;
tn . .~
K.'3 . i
110. :I
166. 7
11J , 7
OU. i
\XI. i
\Ill . 7
( ')
ii .~
AA. 0
1m . :i
101. 0
w. i
l•J. 7
(' )
%. 7
l(H . I
IM . 9
IO I. :1
~o. 2
76. i
88. 3
AA [,
89. 3
77. 8
96. 9
;g_2
lffY. ;
lt--►7 .-1
114. 6
61\. 6
411. 0
178.:\
70. i
87. 5
91. 3
\16. 1
82. 4
1:10. 2
114 . 0
59. 6
12t 7
s;. o
i 3. 5
102. 4
OS. i
99. 1
3 1. i
30. :,
48. R
38. 8
149 . 2
ZS. 2
191.;
211. I
298. 5
no
114. 1
93. 4
~o. 4
9,'i , 4
UI. I
94. 3
93. 3
Si . 6
80. 4
RI\. 4
120, 0
00. 0
00. 0
I ll.I
72. 0
96. 3
\lfl. 0
k5 . 7
76. 8
00. 0
00, 0
X2. ,I
9 1. -~
81. 8
72. 0
88. 6
72.0
00. 0
8 1. 8
78. 2
00. 8
89. I
09. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
Oil.-~
9'J. 5
100. 0
1()(). 0
JOO. 0
100, 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
99. 5
99.5
99. 5
99. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
IOO. O
(")
272. 7
174. 8
ffll. 6
('')
(" )
135. 8
313.6
(")
(")
39. 4
(")
(")
(" )
] ,17. 5
85. 0
(")
(IO)
(")
i8. 7
118. 1
219. 7
78. 7
196. 9
(IO)
( ")
137. 8
157. 5
(" )
11 8. 1
265. 0
137. 8
320. 1
(10)
135. 8
196. 4
234. 5
!I')
(")
("/
(")
(")
(")
248. 2
(")
19:l. 6
(")
40. 9
1
0
n
105. 6
00. 0
120. 0
72.0
'l'l. 7
110. 6
00. ;
108. I
82. 9
00. 2
29. 7
62. 9
99. 7
D allas, T ex. ... . ...... ·- - · · • .
<' ~dar Rapict s, Iown 1 ___ ____ _
r:£-
24-4. I
315. 0
204. 7
('' )
14.6
74. 4
113. 2
165. -~
(<)
(')
Tli . k
(" )
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
7:t ff
f><l. 4
138, i
Iii. 2
76. 6
(')
400. 0
200. 9
254.5
(" )
142. 5
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
91. 8
76. 4
28.1. 5
228. 3
99. 5
99. 5
99. 5
09. 5
00. 5
W. 7
~00. 0
( ")
(")
IM. I
Si. 7
lM. 4
83. 7
84. 6
(' )
00. 7
09. 7
1Kl. 7
(" )
96. 0
72. 0
105. 6
96. 0
ll2. 8
B inghamton, N . Y. ........ . ..
tlalt Lake C it.y , U tah• . ..• . •••
~eat tle, Wash •.......... . .•...
Nel\· Orleans, Lu. ... _. ____ ____
Spokane, W ash .. . ..... ... .• . .
200. 0
200. 0
Columbus, Ohio l ______ ~- - ----
0
09. 7
96. 1
\Ill. 7 .
91. 9
100. 3
111. 7
1>9. 7
11 3. 2
<")
1:ll!. 0
347. 2
208. 3
105. 6
93. 7
98. 2
93. 3
92. 3
(' )
Io:I. 8
74. 0
1115. 5
108. J
97.0
200. 0
:181. 8
102. 9
-"K. 3
Oi. 3
95. 4
97. 6
108. 0
118. 1
11)1. i
JOO. 0
Clark s burg, W . Va.l ____· · ··- -
()
00. 7
99 . 7
W. 9
102, 2
97. 0
( ')
(1)
Columbia, S. C .. .. __ ______ _..
-<
(')
66. 7
00. 3
100. 3
M, 9
lO!i. 4
95. 7
09. 7
Mancheswr, N . II . ... • . •• •. ..
N or folk, Va •.. ...... . . .. .. . . . .
D enver, Co lo .•... . . ...••• . ••••
K amm.s C ity hMo ..•........ ..
Pro \•i<lence, . L ___ . __ . ___ . . .
Jacksom·ille, Fla . ....... .... .•
H ou.ston, Tex .•• • •... ... ..... .
Ind ianapolis, I nd .. .. .. ..•... .
~
rr
!lll. i
09. 7
('
('
W ins ton-Salem , N. !'.••.. ••• ..
Portland, Oreg ..••...• . .••....
M e mphis, Tenn ......... ... •• •
Lou is,·ille, Ky .• . • ........... . .
Okla h oma Cily , Okla. •. . .. . • . .
~
N.
('l
Include sales tax wbere levied (a p pendix table 15).
Budge t allowance ide ntica l in a ll ci t ies, p lus sales tru: where le\" ied.
E i cJusi\'e or salC\5 tax.
• T hough on ly 18 ci t ies had a direct r harge for refuse dis posal , an a verage for 59 cit ies is u sed in order to b alance the ta ble. The 18-clty average Is $4.90.
• T hou gh only 55 c it ie..s h ad a di rec t char ge for srhool a tten dance, a n average for 59 r itles is u sed In order to b alance the table. The 65-dty average is $7.37.
• T hough l!"e-s were p ay a b le In on ly 36 citie-s, on a verage for 59 cities is used In order to b ala nce t h e table. The 3&-clty average Is $4.17.
' Though personal p roperty taxes were pa yable in only 22 cities, an a v erage fo r 59 cities is u.se<l In orde r t o b a lance the table. The ~
ty a vera ge is $2.96.
• Though capitation taxes were payable In only 25 cities , an av erage fo r 59 cllies is user! In orde r to b alance t be table . The ~lty a,·erage is $3.40.
1 1' ot • di rect c ha rge.
11 None payable.
20!. 3
<"l
( IO
( ")
( ")
r>'')
(")
(IO)
6U. 4
(IO)
m .s
t>
")
138. 0
208. 3
208. 3
138.0
347. 2
243. I
'n7. 8
( ••)
20!!. 3
:l77. 8
243. 1
416. I
( ")
:D!. 3
m
►
!,!!
n
1
1
1
-4
NoTL-Owln1 to the necessity for roundlnK numbers In compuUnc avenpe. then are lllcbt dlacnpanc,lea between csiain totals and the 1U1D1 of their component Item&
0,
VI
►
m
rm
Cl)
....•
Tobie 4.-Annual Costs I of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, In 9 Geographic Divisions, 4-Person Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
f"I
~
Geographic divlSlon
(Q
,,-
;c.
(I)
a.
IT
'<
C')
0
-
~
(v
East North West North South At·
!antic
Central
Central
East South West South Mountain
Central
Central
New England
Middle
Atlantic
T otal cost ol living _----···-·---·-·-············
$1,200. 62
$1,282.67
$1,298.68
$1,292. Z1
$1,262. 73
$1,258.32
Food ....•.• ·--·-·--·····················- ·-··· ······ ·
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care •.. .... ..
Clothing __ · ······ ···· --····· ·-··· ···· ····· ··· -···
448. 18
463. 93
453. 37
«2. 21
435. 16
461. 66
◄36.
184. 36
146. 93
13. 65
24. 87
186.48
146. 82
13. 73
24. 93
179. 69
1(2. 39
12. 70
24. 60
1113. 02
Hl3. 06
13. 23
20. 74
186. 23
148.31
13. 02
23. 29
176. 66
140. 19
12. 65
Housing, Including water ._ ... . .•.• . •. ··-·-····-· . ...
221.80
221. 00
247. 88
236. 20
Household operatlon _-····· .... ····-····· ..... .•.. ...
Fuel. .. •. .. · - ···--·--··-············· ····· ······ ··
Cool or wood_ .•• _._ ..•... ... .. _......• . ......
Oas .. ·-·· ······ ·· · ··-·---·-··········-···--··
Ioo ...• --·· · - ··· · ··- ·-···················--·····-·
Electricity·-·········-·· ..• . ·-·· ..................
Household supplies ..• ·- .•. •••...... ..... .•...... .
Furniture, furn ishings, and household equipment.
Refuse dlsposal .....• -···-················· ····· · ·
Unspecified essentials•. - -· ········ · ··- · · · ······ ·
M lscellaneons . ___ • ·-- .. ____ .• _•... _.•. • __••...•...•..
Medical care__ ·--- . . . _. ___ ...•• _••••• _.. __ ......••
163. M
67. 98
47. 00
10. 98
22. 40
18. 68
18. 82
31. 10
11.50
3. 06
172. 00
76.90
64. 72
12. 18
18. 68
21. II
19. 23
31. 37
I. 76
3. 05
151.n
61. 68
62. M
9.05
18. 46
20. 01
17. 95
30.16
252. 67
62. 32
63. 96
I 6. 87
75. 18
10. 84
205. 88
52. 91
33. 80
240. 07
M . 38
41.08
1.87
76. 74
11. 79
34. 65
30. 55
46. 40
15. 40
r 2. 64
1 1. 10
II 1.44
46. 40
16. 40
4.20
2. 37
1.83
~!~~':J ~~~-~ :::: :::::: :::::: ::::: :::::::::::
0
Avenll(e,
59 cities
=raa:~~ce:: :::::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::
RecreaUon. __ • •........... . __ .•..••.••...... . _-·.
Newsp&pers. -· -·-·-···· ·······---· · ···-····-·
Motion picture theater admissions .••. _. __ .•••
Organ!r.ations, tobacco, and toys • ...•. ·-. ·- ••
Life lnsuranoo •··-·- · -·· ·- · --·----·----······-·--Church contrlbuUons and other contrlbullons •-··
1
Taxes - --- --··-·-----··---··- -··· -----· · ••• · · ···Personal property __ .. ------------·----·-----Capitation.--·-··--.···-·.·-···--------··-· --
30. ◄0
. 56
3.05
65.83
3. 91
79. 93
12. 22
37. 20
30. 45
46.40
15. 40
1. 49
(I)
1.49
~
•
IIU.INTll:MAMCII: llVll:L
Budget group
_._
Pacrnc
0..,
r-
<
z
$1,190.41
$1, Zll. IJ.I
$1, Z16. 33
00
440.18
453. 08
441. 37
173. 24
136. 50
12. 93
23. 81
105. 66
152. 10
17. 02
26. 4R
203. 78
161. 62
14. 94
Zl. 33
VI
,0
23.83
171. 91
135. 67
12.82
23.52
229. 00
231 . 87
1113.62
109. 70
212. 04
193. 68
VI
147. 48
60. 64
64. 35
6. 19
18. 26
15. 88
18. 45
31. 28
(')
3. 07
161. 87
72. 39
64. 77
7. 62
16. 62
18. 03
18. 39
29. 89
3. 60
3. 05
147. 26
62. 65
38. 69
16. 86
24. 16
17.90
17. 31
31. 62
. 67
3. 06
134. 77
44. 20
31. II
13. 09
22. 33
17. 01
17. 47
30. 70
(1)
3.06
134. 67
36. 93
169. 05
68. 47
46. 74
11. 73
28. 15
22. 10
22. 25
33. 76
1.2ft
3. 07
100. 33
64. 75
39. 10
15. 65
35. 87
111.21
22. 00
32. 31
273. 30
49. 31
73. 39
250. 79
50. 05
60. 90
5. 90
70.43
9. 56
30. 42
30. 46
46. 40
15. 40
1. 71
1.14
• 67
240. 99
246. 10
48. 78
47. 07
242. 62
24L.41
58. 97
32. 92
6. 57
208. 17
58. 37
67. 74
6.07
75. 18
11. 08
33. 50
30.61
46. 40
15. 40
9.98
n .oo
12. 09
34. 13
30. 82
46. 40
15. 40
I. 79
1.41
, 38
51.58
42. 78
8. 08
73. 64
9. 94
33. 09
30. 62
46. 40
16. 40
3. 22
. 89
2. 33
$1,181.40
11. 68
71. 91
10. 40
30. 98
30. 63
46.40
16. 40
3. 87
l. 07
2. 80
26. 83
9.10
25. 15
20. 76
18. 38
29. 64
I. 75
3. 05
49. 58
45. 59
8. 73
73. 33
9. 40
33.50
30. 44
46. 40
15. 40
3.60
. 113
2. n1
n .82
10. 79
36. 31
30. 71
46. 40
16.40
3.33
2. 63
. 80
6.0◄
3. 06
(')
i:i
p
f"I
3
m
:.>
~
~
I
f
.,.
"'
1 I nclude salM tax where levied (appendix table 15).
• Though only 18 cities bad a direct charge for refuse dL,po..,,I, an s,·ernge ror 59 dtla, "'tLSC<I In order to balance tbe table. The 18-cUyaYerap Is SUKI. The averaps ror the Pographic divisions are ha.sed on tbe tot11l n umber of cities in e11eb dh·lslon included in this s tudy .
• Not a direct charge.
• Budge t allowance identical in all cities, plus sales tax where levied .
• Though only 55 l'lties hsd a d irect charge for school attendance. 11n sverlll(e for Ml cities Is used In order to balance the table. Tbe M-clty anraae la $7.37. The averaa• roe the
geo~T,~\~~i~~~•~1: ~c
on the total number of cities in oocb division induded In th is study.
1 1
' Though ta.,es were pays h ie In only 36 cit les, sn aven'l(e for Ml cities is used In order to balance the table. The ae-cltJ averace la '4.17. The a.....-aps I« tbe _,-apblo dlvlalom
are hsse<I on the total number of citle.s in each div ision indu,led in this study .
• !',one payahle.
• Though 11('rsonal property ta.,e., were Jl6YRhle in only 22 rities, an s,·erage for 69 dties is used In order to balance the table. The 22-clty avenge la 52.118. The averac• roe tbe
geogra phic divisions are base,! on the total number ol cities in ea,:h division Included In this study.
" '!'hough ropltarion t,,...s were psyahle in only 2.5 eil les, 11n sverage for 59 dties Is used in order to balance the table. The 26-clty avenge la '3.40. The averaps for the p()ll'Bpblc
divisions are based on the totw number or cities In e11eh division included in tbi:! study .
NOTZ.-Owlng to tbe necessity for rounding numbers In computing averac-, there 111'8 alight dlserepanclM between oertaln totab and tbe sums or their component ltema.
~::sed
m
)>
0
SD
'°""
"
0.
m
r-i
m
"'
-..;:
L)
0
-
~
(v
-4
)>
r-
Ul
....•
....
0,
Ta&le 5.-Relative Costs 1 of Livin9, by Major Bud9et Groups and Principal Subgroups, in 9 Geo9raphic Divisions, -4-Person Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
00
•
JU.llfflllf.\NCII LIIVIIL
Average, 58 cities
Amount
~
N.
~
rr
'<
()
0
r:£n
New England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
Wllllt
North
Central
Booth
Atlantic
East
South
Central
Wllllt
South
Mountain
Central
PIIOlllo
$1,ll!IO. 112
Food_----------------------------------_
Clothing,
clothing upkeep, and per90nal
care ____________________________________
Clothing __ . __________________________
f-tS.18
100.0
100. 0
101. 7
108. Ii
103.0
101_2
102. Ii
98.7
100. 2
97.1
1111.8
108.0
113. 7
97.3
94.4
118. 2
100.11
IOI. I
10L2
gs_ Ii
~!~::!f ~~~:::::::::::::::::::::
!Sf. 36
lfll.93
13. lili
:H.87
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.11
JOO.II
101.3
100. 2
117.11
117.11
113. 7
118.11
!Of. 7
]Of. 11
117.11
107.11
100.11
IOI.II
100.11
93. 7
1111.8
IMI.I
112.11
1111.8
113.8
112.11
94.11
94.11
llf.O
113.11
1111.4
1111. 7
1011.1
!Of. 3
1211.11
110.11
U0.7
110.2
109.U
Housing, including water ________________
221- 811
100. 0
1111.11
111.7
IOI!. Ii
103. Ii
llK-11
87.8
IIO.O
116.8
87.a
Household
operation __ ----------·------Fuel_ ________________________________
Coal or wood ____________________
1113.M
117.08
47.00
10.118
22. 40
18.68
18.82
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
112.1
132.11
137. 7
110.11
83. 4
113. 0
102. 2
118.8
!OIi. 2
111.8
82. 4
82. 4
107.1
116. 4
118.1
!Of. 4
IUl.11
1111.4
81.6
811.0
118.0
106. 4
l:H. 11
137.8
811.4
73. 7
U8. Ii
117.7
116. 11
II0.11
78.1
144. 4
107.8
116.8
112.0
87.8
76. 2
M.2
87. 7
112.0
117. 1
82.11
112. 3
Ill. I
117.7
110.1
100.8
1111.4
1011.8
126. 7
118. 3
118.2
110.8
94. 4
83. 2
142.11
1110. I
811.8
117.4
31.10
' I. IIO
3.06
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 11
116. 7
1111.7
IMl.11
37.3
1111. 7
118. I
:MO. 0
1111.7
IOI. 7
44. 7
100.0
100.0
1111.3
116. 7
1111.7
!<II.Ii
Sf.0
100.3
108. U
3311.0
100.0
2112.117
112.32
113.116
•6.87
711. 18
10.84
33.80
30.116
411. 40
100_0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
116. 0
lCXl-11
76. 1
27.2
102.1
10!.8
102.2
1111.11
100.0
106. 2
101.1
122.0
1111.11
106.3
112. 8
110.2
1111. 7
100. 0
108. 2
94.3
1311. 0
1411.3
llrJ.6
111.11
100. ~
100.11
100.0
1111_3
116. 7
112.11
85_g
118. 7
88. 1
90.0
1111. 7
100.0
1111.4
OS.II
79.3
117.11
117.8
111. 7
117.11
W.11
100.0
117.0
93.2
87.2
170.1
116.11
116. 0
111. 7
W.11
100. 0
118. 0
94.8
84.6
127.1
117.6
811.8
1111.1
W.11
100_0
1111.11
U2. 7
111.0
H.11
108. 11
1111.11
107. 4
100.11
100.0
106.1
Ill.II
1211. II
73.8
100.0
102. 3
1111.1
100. 2
100. 0
111.40
'2.M
t I. JO
II 1.44
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11111.4
2,11.11
12'1. I
100.0
as. 7
(')
108. 6
100. 0
70.6
128. 2
211.4
100.0
&7.8
lCXl.11
311.11
100. 0
1211.8
80.11
1111.8
100.0
162. 4
117.8
194. 4
100.0
141. 7
84.11
1811. 4
100.0
131.1
230.0
116.11
lee ___________________________________
Electricity __________________________ .
Household supplies __________________
Furniture,
furnishings,
and house____________________
hold equipment
Refme disposal ______________________
Unspecified essentials•--------------Mlsoellaneoua ______________________ -_____
Medical care _________________________
Tranar::,:tlon ______________________
Schoo attendance ___________________
Recreation ____ - --________ -- __________
Newspapers ___ -----------------Motion picture theat« edmwlons
Orpnjzatlona, tohaooo,and toys•Life lnauranoe •--- ------- ---- -------Church oonlrlbatioDI and other oontrlbatlona •. - ------------------ -- -Tues•-·--·-----·-------------···--·
~~~-:::::::::::::::
0
...,
C
Total oost ofllving ________________
Oas ______________________________
0
Percent
~
OflOll'&phlo dlvlalon
Budget group
....
°"
100.11
(')
-100.3
1111.2
1111.7
111. 1
112.8
118. 7
(1)
IOI!. Ii
100.0
('!
('
('
sz
.P
~
Q
::!
UI
1 Include stiles tax where levied (appendix table 16).
1 Though only 18 cities had a direct charge for refuse dl!l)081\l, an avera~e for 6Q cities Is ~ed In order to balance the table. The 18-clty n,·era«e la S4 .IIO. The aven,cea for tbe
geographic divisions are based on the total number or c!Ues In 81\Qb di vision Included In tbla study.
• Not a direct charge.
• Budget allowance ldru1tlcal In all cities, plus sales tu where levied .
1 Though only 65 cities bad a direct charge for school attendance, an average tor 69 cities Is wed In order to ba1anoe tbe table. The 66-clty av_...e ta $7.37. Tbe av.,.... for tbe
geograpblc dlvWons are based on tbe total number of cities lo each division Included In this atudy.
• Exclusive of sales tax.
1 Though taxes were payable In only 8G clt18!1, an average for 6Q cltles Is wed In order t-0 b&lanoe the table. Tbe 36-clty .._....1s S4.17. The avlnlPI ror the 11901111Pblc dlvlalona
sre based on the total number of cities In each wvblon Included ln this study.
• None payable.
1 Though per!Onal property tues were payable lo only 22 cltlM, an 1\Verage for 611 cities Is used In order to balance the table. The 2'l-olty avenp ta '2.INI. The averap11 ror the
geographic divisions are based on the total number or cities In each division Included In this study.
11 Though capitation t.axes were payable In only 25 cities, an average for 69 cltlM Is wed In order to bnlanoe tbe table. Tbe ~tty avenge ta $3.40. Tbe av.,..... for tbe geographic dlvWons are based on the total number of cities In each division Included lo this study.
N o-n.-Owlng to the DeOellllfty for roundln1 numben ID oomput1D1 avlnlPI, tbae are allsht dla<npauclee between IStalD lotala and the IIWlla or their oomponent Item■ .
a,
0
<O
;c;.
N
CD
0.
~
►
la
">
a,
,-
0
UI
~,._.,
'°°'
0
(v
•
.....
170 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 OTIES
Tcrf>le 6.-Annual Costs I ol living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Svb-
9roups, in 5 Size ol City ClassiRcations, -4-Penon Manual Worlccr's Family, 59 Otin,
March 1935
X.illfflUUJIC& LJ:VllL
Budget group
Total 001St ofllvlng ••• •• •
Food . ... .. ... ... . ... ... ... . ..
Size of city claasUlcatlou
A:,
.!II cit
11,280. 112
448.18
1,000,000 or
more
800,000to
1,000,000
280,000to
II00,000
100,000 to
280,000
$1, 1111.112
$1, Ri.03
$1.2111. ell
$1,Zl6.05
$1,2311.21
'64.111
448.M
tl6.68
'46.17
'5111
188. 71
161. 28
12.0t
211. 42
1111. 71
162. 113
13.08
311.00
17'11. 85
142. 22
13. 26
24.38
UK. 16
14& 12
13. 112
24. 42
IM.111
lKDII
14. 7'11
25.111
H0.00
:Mll.00
218. 63
218.32
207. 01
1114. 72
161. 27
.!11.39
61. 90
7.411
21.0II
111. 21
18. 73
14&46
63.90
K38
11.62
2:l 14
17.M
1$1. 1111
as. 11
44.411
13.66
21.28
111. 26
18. 70
lM.n
II0.1111
47. 81
1132
26.14
21.17
111. 71
30.116
1.84
80.M
11.48
1. 71
3. 06
11.911
2.41
I.OIi
221 • .,
211.000 to
100.000
ClothlDc, clotblnc upkeep,
1111d pencma.l mre ..•..... . ..
Clotblnc •••• ••••••••••••••
Cloih~ upl:eep ••• •••••••
Penona care ..•.••••••...
BOIIIUll, Including water·-· ..
Bomebold operation ••••••••••
Fuel .•....•.••••••••••••••
Coal oc wood •••••••••
Ou. ....•..•.•....•.••
Ioe ........................
auc.......
Eleotrlalty•..•••.•••.••.•.
BOUll!hold
J'umlture,
h~,
lllld bomebold eq p-
ment. ..................
BefuaedlsJ)OIIIII •• • .•.. ••• .
Unspeeltled -tlals ' •• •
Mlloellan"'IUI ... . .... . . .......
Medlealcare ... . .. .. ......
=r:::tton •••.. ••.••.
Sch
tendance ... . . ...
a-tlon ... . . . .... .... ..
Newapapen .... . ... . .
Motion picture th•
ter admllllona •.....
Organl&&tlom, tobllooo, and toys • •...
LIie Insurance• • •••. ......
Church contributions and
other contributions • . . ..
Tuea• ........ ..... ... ...
Penonal property ....
Capitation.•.... .. • .••
UK.16
146.1111
18.M
K.87
221. 811
168.M
67.118
47.00
10. 118
2:l40
18. ell
18.82
31.10
11. IIO
ea.11
M. 62
8. .!II
21. 411
18. 00
18.111
80.111
18. 27
3.08
. 90
3.08
2112.811
66. 03
2111. 62
62. 78
811. 1111
3111. 27
t,O. ell
IMl.40
•11. 87
7~. 18
10. 84
90. 84
4. 41
80. 42
11. 08
4.48
81. 211
13. 62
73. 31
10. 311
11.99
233.68
62.08
37. 17
11. 13
71.0II
10. OIi
33.80
38.M
37. 21
32. 63
32.48
11.14
30.66
411. 40
30. 80
411. 40
80. 54
411. 40
30.62
4&40
30.47
411.40
80. 57
tll.40
16. 40
'2.M
• 1. 10
• 1. 44
16. 40
16. 40
• 74
• IIO
16. 40
2. OIi
.111
1. 18
16. 40
.311
16.40
4.00
1. M
I.OIi
252.117
62. 32
63.1111
(')a. 07
.as
(11)
UM
aaa
1. 44
1. 811
63.111
17. 62
9.111
74.44
10. 7f
1411
1 Inolude sales tax where levied (appendix table 16).
• Thouch only 18 cities bad a direct charge for refllN d i s ~. an averap for 611 cities ls used In order to
bllJanoe tbe table. Tbe ls-city averaice ls '4.90. Tbe avenaea for the me of city groups are bued on the
tocal number of cities ln eaeb group Included In this study .
• Not a direct charge.
• Budget allowance Identical In all cltlea, plua salee tu when lev ied.
• Tboolb only 66cltles bad a direct charge for ICbool attendllllce, an avenge for 1111 cltlell ls used In order to
balance the table. The 66-clty avenge la $'7.37. The averages for tbe size of city groups are bued on the
total nnmber of cltlea In each group Included In this study.
• E1clualve of sales tu.
r Tboucb taxes were J>IIY&ble In only 1111 cities, an average for 511 cltlea Is 1l9ed In order to balance the table.
Tbe 111-dty averatte Is 54.17. Tbe avengea for theslse of city EfOUps are baaed on the total nwnber of cltlel
In each group Included In this study.
• Tboogh penonal property taxes -were payable In only 22 cltlea, an average for 611 cities Is uaed In order to
balance the table. The 22-clty average Is 52.1111. The averages for the size of city groups are bued on tbe
total number of cities In each group Included In this study.
• Though capitation taxes were J>IIYable In only 26 cities, an average for 511 cities la used In order to balaDee
the table. Tbe 26-clty average Is '3.40. Tbe avenpa for the size of city groups are baaed on tbe total nnm•
ber of cltlea In eacb group Included In tbls study.
11 None payable.
Non .-Owlngtotheneceasltyforroundingnumbenlncomputlngaverages,therearesllgbtdlscrepandea
!Mtween certain totals and tbe sums of their ~-omponent Item•.
Digitized by
Google
BASIC TABLES • 171
Toltle 7.-Relative Costs 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, in 5 Size of City Classifications, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
II AINTJ:N ANCII LJ:V EL
A verare, 511 cities
Slr.e of city classlftcatloo
Budget group
Amount
Percent
1,000,000
or more
S00,000
to
1,000,000
250,000
to
li00,000
100,000
211,000
to
100,000
to
250,000
--- --- --- --- --- --Total cost ofllvlog _______ $1,200.112
Food___ --- ---- -- --- -- --- - -- -- -Clothlnl, clothlnl upkeep, and
penooal care _________________
Clothing ___________________
Clothloi
upkeep
____ -----·Persona care
_______________
100.0
105.6
105. 7
-4-48.18
- - -------101. 4
100.0
100. l
184. 35
145.93
13.55
24.87
99.3
118.0
117. II
99.4
99.4
100.11
99.11
100.1
100. 5
118.2
100.3
99.3
!OIi. 2
101. 2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102. 4
103. 7
88.8
102. 2
104.0
104.11
00. 5
104.6
117.11
117. 5
117.8
98.0
Housing, lnclodlog water _______
221. 811
100.0
108. 2
112. 2
118.5
118.4
113.3
Houaehold operation ___________
153.54
57.118
47.00
10. 118
22.40
18. 68
18.82
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 8
108. 8
118.0
78. 2
115. 8
118. 5
102. 4
110. 4
68.2
114. 2
811.8
99.5
115. 4
113.0
117. 1
100.1
100. 2
114.11
124. 3
115. 0
103.1
119 3
107.3
105. 1
101. 3
121. 3
112. 2
114. 4
105.1
31.10
11.15()
3.08
100.0
100.0
100.0
117.0
(1)
100.3
119. 5
122. 7
100.0
118.2
80.0
100.0
101.2
118.7
119. 7
102.8
lt\2.0
100.0
2112.117
52.32
115.11
105.2
168. 4
M.2
107.0
102.1
115. 4
103. 4
100.9
166. 7
M.2
108.1
124. 7
123.1
101. 7
117.5
114. 7
112.4
119. 5
11.87
75.18
10.84
100.0
100.0
100.0
100·0
100.0
100.0
811. 2
117. 2
113-2
87.11
102. 5
32. 5
144. 2
119. 0
119. 1
33.80
100.0
114.1
110.1
116. 2
116. 1
98.0
30.M
46.40
100.0
100.0
100.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0
119. 7
100.0
100.1
100.0
15.40
2. 54
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
14. 2
32. 7
100.0
48.8
117.3
34. 7
100.0
100.0
131. l
130. II
131. 2
100.0
157.5
140.0
170. 8
Fue'----------------------Coal or wood ___________
Oas __ --------------- --Ice_____ -- --___
------------ ---- -Electricity
- _________
Household supplies ________
Fumlture fumlshlogs, and
Re'f=~=~I!'_~-~~~=::
U mpecllled es.seotlala • _____
Miscellaneous-. ________________
MedlCBI care_-------------Traosr;;tatton
_____________
Schoo
attendance--------Recreation
_________________
Newspapers .. __________
Motion picture theater
adml.ssk>nl----------.
Orpoizatlom. tobacco,
and toys•-----------Life lmuraooo '- ___________
Church contributions and
other contributlom •- ____
Tues•--------------------Personal property ______
Capitation ____________ .
53.116
I
1
1 1.10
1 1. 44
116. 4
100.5
(")
114_4
88. 7
118.11
114. 4
116.11
82. 3
82. 7
81.9
68.11
1 Include sales tax where levied (appendix table 15).
I Though only 18 fitles had a direct charge for refuse disposal, an average for 59 cities Is med lo order to
balaooo the table. The l!kity average Is S4.IIO. The average., for the size of city groups are based on the
total number of cities In each group Included lo this study.
• Not a direct charge.
' Budget allowaooo ldeotlCBI lo all cities, plua sales tax where levied.
• Though only 65 cities had a direct charge for school attendance, an average for 59 cities Is uaed lo order to
balance the table. Tbe 6/kllty average Is $7.37. Tbe averages for the size of city groups are based on the
total number of cities lo each group Included lo this study.
• Exclusive of sales tax.
• Though taxes were payable lo only 311 cities, an average for 59 cities Is uaed lo order to balaooo the tabl~.
Tbe 311-c!ty average Is $4.17. The averages for the size of city groups are based on the total number of cities
In each group Included lo this study.
• Though personal property taxes were payable lo only 22 cities, an average for 59 cities Is uaed lo order to
balance the -table. The 22-clty average Is $2.116. The averages for the size of city groups are based on the
total number of cities In each group Included lo this study.
• Though capitation taxes were payable lo only 211 cltlea1 an average for Ml cities Is uaed lo order to balaooo
the table. The 26-clty average Is $3.40. The averages ror the size of city groups are based on the total
number of cities lo each group included In this study.
11 Nooe payable.
NOT&.-Owiog to the necessity for rounding numbers lo computlnl( averages, there are slight dlscreJ)8ncles between certain totals and the sums of their component Items.
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
Ta&le 8.-Annual Costs 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
"°•
J:lfl:BOICNCT LJ:VJ:L
C' lothlng , clot hing upkeep, anrl
personal caro
City
T otal
cost or
11\·ing
H ousehold operation
- I - ,- -Forn i
T otul
c 1oth iug
l
Cli it hiug:
upkee[t
I'
\\,'Rt.er
I
F uel
llous ing,
iueludiug
Pcr_sunal
care
--
--1
T ota l
T otl\l
c ual or
woo<!
I
011,,
ke
E lectrlrlty
House-•
hold
~uppli fl_i
Furni ture,
furnish ings, and
hom58hold
O<l Uil)·
ment
A n•ra~c, 59 t:itlt's _..
\\' ashln g1nn ,
n.
C . . . ..
~1hmraµo lis . lVlin 11 ___
Sfln FrnrH:i~<·n , C' ulir. 1..
New York. N. Y.1 __ __
C'hica~o. 111.1 . ___ _____
~
rr
'<
()
0
r:£n
1. ll 13. ~,,
1. 01:i. f;S
l . !~1112
1•~2. 11
356. 9-1 1
f/7 2. .W
3.'l4. 77
3,,2 21
3:,\1. 2-1
34\i. JG
124. ~4
13V. 52
144 78
120. Ot\
13-1. 1i
Vi . ,, 1
110. 4V
114. 71
\J.1 . 2.\
105. &l
111. \JO
12. 13
11.\. flf,
HY.?. 60
11.2/l
11. 80
~I II
10'2. 1\.1
10. 06
970. fi-1
91.H. ;1
a21. E~4
:!37. ,\9
958. 4,>
9.56. ,1s
9-17. 57
:Jt9. 43
:i:; ; \13
3i6. ~ }
H1 . s:1
144. Y7
131.30
124. fo l
1:14. 9 1
Detroit , Mil'h. •.. _.... .. .. .. .
Sioux F a lls, :, . ll•k . ... ... .. ..
Los Angeles , l ':,lif 1 _ . __ •
C in cinna ti. Oh io 1 • • . . . . . • ..
Scranton . Pa ___ _____ _
1J 1t . no
'J3~. 27
H~5. b.5
11:i:i. .'1,i
~i2. 21
33'.!. O.J
~-lilwo ukee, \\' is . . . .
~
N.
- · --
Bos ton, ~fa..ss . .. . ... . .
St. Loui'i , )'{o. - ···- --- Albuq_uerque. K. \ I ex .1 _
( 'le\reJnnd , Oh io
0
I_$12S.05 I $1 00. 23 1_ $11.o.~ I. $1c,. Y3
- - - ~ - -- - -- - --- - - - --
$~. 27 $.140.30
1 __ • .
Butt,,, Mont. .... . .. ... _.... .
P ittsburgh , l'a .. .. .. .. .... .. ..
Balti m ore, J\l d .. .... ......... .
R och(•ster, 1'. Y . .. .. . . ..... ..
P h iladelph ia, P a ..
Port land, Maine .
N ewark, N . J. .. .
Bridgeport, Conn .. .. . .. .... ..
Tucson, Ariz.I .. .. . . ... .. . . . .. .
Peoria, lll, t ...... . . ........ .. . .
Y32. 11
9:JO. 4->
n2n. 71
9'15. 16
\i24. 5n
\12 1.94
\l'.!O. 54
\120.39
11'.IO OS
11,:l. 30
1·
11.
13.
12.
9.
4-1
81
17
;,.<
10. 72
I
25S. 00
17.90
16. Zl
17. 57
204.00
'1:!'2. 00
lhll. 00
14. 11
17. ,\0
17. 74
lfi. 8~
l!\. 44
18.14
1:35. 72
n:i. n
1os. ng
104 . .r,3
3:lti. 11
112. ·17
12'3. 52
l:!\I. tJ6
11-1. 7.)
iOO. 05
1111.2.1
10. 85
13. 51
11.00
11. fi 7
11. 44
16. 1~
15. 2l
Hi. i' '. !
rn. -'>0
16. 3.~
:i17. 07
330. 73
3• 0. i7
3:1:1. 12
3 ,0. 87
1.\0. 60
127. 74
18. 91
11. .'i3
lU. 2 1
13. 51
10. 2:J
17. 62
J.i ~ J
121. 8 1
114. 13
100. 68
91. 11'2
97. 41
lltl. 04
343. 46
138. 03
1 ,8 04
125. 40
131 14
1:1 1. 03
106. 87
\12 OU
ll7. 95
119.52
111-1. 21
:l-11 . 42
3!i0 3.~
3113. 25
3,-,6 83
3,2. 08
I 17. 27126 \l'J
---- --- ---
ms. uo
I;,. Zl
32~1. 30
339. Ii i
$ 167. 79 $12 1.84 1 $1&.80
1:.. 29
I
20111()
177. m
198. tl(I
204 . ()()
lSJ. 20
1!18. [)(I
205. 211
147. 00
193. l,I)
2ll7. 00
165.00
IS. IS
183. OU
JH. 0IJ
16. 07
15. 55
16:l. OIJ
l 'l0. 110
14. 00
9. 77
II. 02
16. 25
156. on
l\J'l. 01)
17-1.00
U. 27
10. 35
JI,. 47
11. 25
l fl. 18
16. 53
rn:;. oo
20!(2"
...,.....
11 5. vs
166. 33
14 5.63
12•1. 14
129. 9S
14 1. 98
111. YO
l~.fi l
W . 07
138. 63
53. 33
I
---$38. 60
$10. H
---
~R. 08
87. 76
2S. 71
45. 00
57. 57
7. 25
tl. 20
12.33
9 . fJO
:,. 20
80. OI
72. 84
48. 94
45. 19
7. 20
3. 75
58. 17
48. 67
V. SO
3/i, 83
2S. 18
7. 65
10. 00
9:l. 116
41 0 1
54 . 6\1
62. 77
oa
:n . ;5
50. 4r,
85. fill
• 42. :u
41. 07
41. 05
11:l. SO
31. 35
37. 32
4 1.
12',, 09
170. 16
124. 4,;
108. 31;
52. 92
79. 46
6. 5-1
f>. 20
10.
so
28. 40
3. 75
13. 25
$ 18. 07
--- ---- 16. 20
15. 12
39. IJS
16. 52
16. 52
10. 80
14. 46
16. 20
14. 04
~'II. 2"
15. 57
lfi. 20
21!. \IS
l n. 6U
IS. Ill
68. 11
59. 81
8. 30
rn. 20
2\!. 50
48. 12
79. 88
45. 41
21.
5. 00
14. 0-1
40. 27
71. 63
37. 00
7. S5
K 25
7.-1.5
ll.!JO
15. 12
Ill. 80
1.~l. 0/\
111. u:1
126. 67
5-1. 45
126. 15
60. 23
141. 62 '· 42. 1:1
32. 4 1
100.\12
5S. 13
42 75
◄ ~- 2~
21. ll·l
2:1. 23
12. 80
15. 3 \
11. 70
II. 95
W.20
17. 19
II. l ij
147. 05
II~. 91
1 I 1. 41
117. 15
107. 97
so
$ 14 .52 1
10. 05
15. 33
15.12
18. 2 1
14. 05
13. 65
8. 76
1,\. 33
$W.\l4
- - - - -- 15. ;,/!
18. 07
!fl 53
IY. 14
20. U~
19. 45
15. 43
15. 71
16. 52
18. 16
l !\. H
17. H
17. 84
15.f,3
19. 3 1
19. 48
rn. 22
o.,
17.
20. 41
10. 77
18. 70
21. 13
H .6S
17. 7'I
16. 53
10. 92
11. 2s
14. 3 7
19. 19
17. •l,\
19. 31
17.W
19. 04
20. 80
15. 74
16. 411
15. 11
2 1. 76
17. 53
17. Yl
18. 24
17. 72
17. 3i
14. 85
II. 2.5
16. 05
11. 25
1~. 93
17.04
17. 37
lY. ·11
13. 05
39. !\9
rn. n2
17. &I
15.~
rn. 57
lfl. !\2
14. M
21.M
Ht3 1
W. 20
$1 ~. 66
18. 71i
18. 0\1
19. 10
19. 29
l~. 00
Ii. 30
IK. IJ\1
I~. :11;
~
0
..,.,
r-
sz
p
UI
,0
"'=1
c:l
Atlanta , Oa •. •.• . ••.•. •.• . •...
R ichmond, V s ..... . . ..... . .. .
Om&bs , N ~b r . . . .....•.. . •. . ..
Builslo, N . Y .. ...... . .. ..... .
Kansas City, !\I n ... . .. . ... •.•
Oil. 25
347. 39
~IO. 36
\JOI!. ii
33i . !<S
120. 21
!r.!. J(l
llH. X-1
100. 1n
8!I0. 8S
3311. \l7
:133. 11
338.t,1.S
IZ'<. 00
12.'d3
IOI. 55
100. (,()
3.17. 15
33:1. Ii
312. 02
331. 8\1
3~. 2.1
131.85
143. 51
122. 09
1mw
127. 78
IOI. 30
110. ~
l\l an chester, N . Jr . .• • .•.• . ..
~•JRO\#
MH. 0-J
~9 1. 57
~00. 81
,t~O. fH
Senttfo, \ Va:,:h ___ ·· ········-···
Denver, C'olo . 1 • • •• • •••• •• ••••
8Sli . .'jX
3:l9. 91
~.24
133. 62
127, 64
F11ll Ri w r. l\la.'1:' ...• ...•. . ...
Spoka1w, \\' ash ..
N orfolk , , ·~. .... .... . . . . . . ..•.
Snit L ukt1 C ity, l ' tah
1 ______ _ _
llU I. i2
116. 70
13 1. 00
9. iY
11.03
12.61
II. 74
10. 21
11.~I
13
15. ~2
l.' i.6i
14. 62
1;;.
1~9. (Ml
10.'I. 32
l~l. V'.!
12"!. 12
I 1\1 fl()
I Ill. 111
103. (\S
ISi. 20
IM . 00
150.00
:Ill. ll.l
47. XII
57. !ii
S4. 311
JS. :IS
27. ~ I
32.. ; o
.~I. 04
5 1. 35
11. 13
15. U5
2. 05
32.:ll'.(
Ul YI
2'.?. 7:4
II. 83
rn. 20
6.00
12..13
6-1. 111
r,i. trJ
/,ll 46
,\:t 25
40. 23
3fi. 6()
42. 00
10. s.~
I i . 70
13.!\6
M. 42
rn. 20
18. YO
fill. i5
IL $5
34
]IJ.~.00
17. 2'<
15. 05
lfi.'./8
15. 52
132. ()(J
17M. 00
144. 00
13~. 37
14~. 16
119. 3V
12'.J. Ii
J;ll'.(. (k)
143. 1'1
121;, 00
l,I 0. 00
lfl2. (l(J
119. 40
147. 00
1:i':?. 2r1
l lCI. ~I
13 1 V7
1:1:1. ns
4I
I 03 . 0-!
2.~. w
27. 5;
l ~. 7j
l'.? 4. :?fl
l(ti. ll-1
1,0. l~'i
18 03
171. 00
168. 00
157. 20
40. ;.;
2t1. 4Y
30. 43
15. \Kl
IS.fi t
161. so
157. U:.?
1:11! 02
H);I. O'J
91. !<S
110. fl 7
II. 21
15. 30
12. rn
14 04
1)1(\l(I
1:1. 3fi
101. 1,.1
0\1. \J ;}
lll . :.?'i
113. 23
J:l.lfi
12. 40
11 40
13. H
10. 7'1
1'.;;l-"
lo. 24
15. Ill
97. 20
97. UI
10. ;u
11.3,
II. 23
II. 10
10. ft6
o.~. 13
1~. 7S
)fl,
50. ·11
i"1. no
6. 00
19. 70
I0. 00
10.W
14, 13
1-1 . 84
J:I. 2<J
15. IO
12. :J3
11.UI
14. 37
111. :H
19. O◄
20. 4d
17. 3!1
16. 15
14. 70
17. 30
17. 08
20.09
20. ., ,
20. ,)fl
15. 5'1
18. 70
16. !i2
21.05
17. :17
12. 33
1:1. :?11
17. 23
17. 37
I~. fl0
Ii . ~4
IS.O:l
I
Pro,·idence, H. !. . . . .... .. .. . .
P ortland, Oreg . .. . ....•• ... .
Kew Orleans, I.a --- ··•· - •··
8:'-5. 17
8~4. ~I
"1!2. 80
331. 04
3•W. i 5
334. 07
331.30
Binghamton, 1' . Y . ... . .. . . .
M emphis, 1'enn . ... _.. . . ..
Oklaho ma Ci ty. Okla• ..
\\"in sto n-Ss lt•m, N . c .,... .. .. . .
L ouisville. K y .1 _ _
i;;~. 10
b7i . Zi
874. 17
S73. 04
335. 71
:!:'12. !,3
3:19. 00
Jl ouston . T ex ....... .. . . ... . .
Jn cksonville, Fin
I nd ianapolis, Jud .. .•. . . ......
DalltL5, Tr, .. .. .. ......... . . .
Clnrk s hu rg, W . \"n .•. _..... ••.
Cedar Rapid s, lu\\ a 1 _ • ••••
Columh io , S. C ... . . . .... • . • .
Knoxville, T enn __ . . _.. .. .. . .
Co lumhu s_, Oh io 1 • • •• • ••• ••• •
B irrniughum, Ala
_.•... . . . .
El P a.so. Te< . . .. .. ... .. __. .
L illie Hock, Ark __ ...... . .. .
.Mobile. Al n .. .. . ......... . . . .
\\"ichita , h illl.' L _____ _ ____ .. .
0
~
See footnotes at end of table.
11 7 . (i9
14:1.4~
120. 37
124. 8 1
Y3. 94
YS . .SO
:142. 05
s;1. ,v1 337. 98
119. 15
127. f>S
l:?4. 23
12J. ~7
-..,;o_zs
377. 94
1"2ft. or,
ht\8. 5;
859. lH
31\l. 30
343. II
l'.!O. 71
122. b2
11 :1. 32
87. Vti
35.>. 40
127. GS
102. 00
o. 117
318. 5fi
300. 21
120. ,;.i
114. 40
l lY. 35
127. 81
llti. 89
102. 02
12. j j
b9. 2(\
10. -1·1
11. i5
11 7. 5:?
120. 32
113. SO
122. 46
91. -17
\!3.2\1
87. 12
b.'>I. \I~
h,.1"1'.?. g;
M9. 35
!H4. 02
1;44.37
S-l-0. RS
~I.S. bl
S:12. 05
hl9. 97
S14. 92
W\I. G4
:u-1.s;
32H. 74
340. ll5
336. ~3to. 31
3-10. IS
3:IO. 35
323. Ii
I
I
n11
~s 43
03 W
IJ:I 05
113. 3;
IOI. 2,,
U:!. H;
97. ~>()
11. S~
1:•. 62
10. SI
10. ◄ fl
IU. NJ
10. ~fl
1:/../,0
11. 67
Ill. O,
15. 07
16. 82
15. f,(1
1.s.m
1.1. 15
14. 00
17. 10
14_r..1
15. ii
15. 8.'i
14. 7t;
1·1. 23
lfi.10
1.1. 42
15. 19
14. 53
14. i,1
H . 2-'l
I
159 00
IS0. 00
1:,6. 00
l f,5. 00
147. 00
11 5. {12
117. 50
1:.?':!. ~
l()'J. '2i
9S. i i
!If,. 45
4!1. !12
42. 70
62. 25
n
3,U;o
33. :13
,S-l ,'i'.?
rn. 91
:1:1. 31
!il. 33
45. ,-..i
32. If,
:14. 37
,'II . Ml
33. 73
3; _0~
17. ~if1
S. 42
:I0.30
13. 22
13. U
3(). 30
IY. 50
10. ; 5
H .S4
~ - !'1 -t
9 . 3(1
" -3 1
2. 00
20. 79
10. 20
19. ;o
2'2.95
:?:UI
13. 91
3. Sl.i
13. 50
20. IO
9.8 1
31. 23
24. :n
IX. U~
37. S4
13. f\0
16. -IS
i .80
10. 71
11 :U1
19. 06
18 . 17
18. 56
17. 59
20. 25
12. :13
I.\_ 9 -1
14.M
18. SJ
15. 48
16. 20
II. 5V
l d.41
15. 67
16. Oi
15. 7~
18. I'
15. :ZS
14. f,3
IS ii
19. 2\1
16. 01
17. S2
Ii. U5
17. ~9
Ii. 38
JU. 8.1
17. 45
18. 11,
20. 0!
IUJ<J
2. ,)()
2S.35
19. 50
1-1 . 47
24. I~
Hi, 5i
15. 33
12. ~I
12. 33
1-1 . :JV
110.85
us. 15
65. 44
JS. 07
43. 11
56. 26
15. 75
22. 46
0. 18
22. 32
20.65
13. fl9
2\l. 2.1
I.I. 15
13. r,t1
I~. :!3
H . 13
3:1. :Ill
)II, &\1
101.n
32. H5
30. 86
'.!3. 41
2.•I()
l:!/,. (J.I
0. 24
IS. 94
~ 2~
14. 1:1
153. 00
13:,. OU
l:?7. 44
123 00
l:!:l.36
IIS. 3·1
I 1:1. 47
117. IM
45. ll-l
27. 00
36. 08
4U . S:,
11.06
7. 00
18. S4
2,;_ 35
34. 88
20. 00
Ii . 54
44 . s.s
s uo
I~. I}!
15. 15
I
12. M
Ill. 0:1
17. M
~'U. 02
)5. 48
153. 43
1.IO. 00
15i . SO
14-1 . 00
133. 12
I IU. US
19. 41
17. 92
13 . .'1'1
17 {)7
1:1. o.s
19. 41
14. 4(l
15. 92
16. 70
I.I. ~7
19 0
)S, H
19. 79
19. 39
17. 04
];, 31
18. 04
IY. 19
14. 13
ltt. 4 1
rn. 5!">
18. 02
16. 22
17. M
tr.. 22
18. 1:
17. Y3
a:,
)>
SQ
"'
"')>....
CJ
c::
a-
.....
w
;:;
a.
.Q"
0
(v
~
....•
Ta&le 8.-Annual Costs of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
193 5-Continued
~
•
KK.ltRGJtNCT L.ltVIIL-COntlnued
"
U m1 ~_•bo) ,l Ollf'ra -
~
:,_t iS<."l•lla n1•i,us
in ued
t tnn - f'() nl
I
( ' 1t )"
t n~pPd1
Hd 11 ~·
flet i
di!_- Jlc1~ l
P_S...1--l'H-
Tota l
I TransMe<l iml I portn c.~re
tion
tials '
A\1 ,rng1·, !i!1 l·it1cs _
\ \·w-. hh1 ~ t n n , l >. (' _ ____ _ ____ __
Minrwa pol is, ~ l it111 • .
~trn Fr ·Hl<' i:•-co, c ~ll ,f.1
0
;i_
~
'1)
C)
0
0
-
00
(v
,\I)
(')
3 5/l
7. :.?O
'.\.",,,,. Y 1,rk , ::'\. Y . 1•
Ch h-i,,~o. lll. 1___ __ _ _
(' )
(' )
\ Jil wa u kt" '• \\"Is ______ _______
C lc \'t'l trn d , O h io I _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _
Boston , \l ass ____ ____ __ ____ ___
S t . Lo u is, .\1 0 .. . . ... . . ... .. . . . .
A. lhuqw •rq ut•, ~ . l\ l ex. 1_ ____ __
(' )
ll t~crnit , :-OlicJ1. 1____ __ ___• • • .• • .
~1v11x Fil lis , :-- . 1>:,k .... .. . . . . . .
(' )
12. 00
Q.
~
• $1.
(')
(')
:l . (10
4. 80
I ~
- -i--
$2. 76 _ $ 145. :JO
i.,
Ii,\. 211
77
1"4. ,\0
1511. ,;;,
17H. 2S
Port la nd, M a ine •
N owlU"k , N . L . . ..
Brid gepo r t, Crum . . _.. . . _• •• ..
T U{'S()O , A riz. 1• •
. . . . . . . ..
Peoria, 111., .... . . . . ... .... . . . ..
7. /j(I
J.!!8
13:1. 40
127. 46
13 1. 50
125. 47
l :IO. 17
52. 96
46. 75
23. 76
31. 46
llO. 53
36. 4.~
M . 18
39. 50
10. 28
24. 80
2. 7!i
(')
2. 75
2. 77
2. 77
{' )
10. 50
9. 0 2
8.~. 55
91\. 24
5.1. 25
88. 3S
(')
(' )
84. f\()
,\ I. 4,5
9-'I. 7U
10. 56
,'il. 56
49. 0 7
39. f,3
47. 55
38. 71
2. 75
n. 2.,
r..:J. 2(J
122. 33
184. 08
183. 26
149. 00
l TJ.0 1
2. 7.5
1a . 72
12. ,\,\
14. 6/i
13. SI
11. 28
2. 75
(' )
I. :J.\
tl.1 . 4,\
118.
9.
8-1.
78.
33.
(')
$7. 80
40. Oil
.\4. 08
37. 63
52. 2 1
2. 75
2. 75
- --
$ 12. f,1
.w. 52
179. 23
100. 33
l~. 82
l f,5. 2tl
140. 03
.52. ,\ 1
46. 27
T otal
- -- -
Ti . 76
/jll. 6/i
~I otion
p icture
theater
wlmissions
' $/l. 87
- -- -
.') I. 67
51. 80
2. 7,5
(' )
School
ntt rnd -
X. 47
I. 4.\
3. 04
!Oil 8 7
(' )
4. ,',()
P itts lmrgh, P n _.
Balt imore, M J . . . .. . . . ... .... .
R ochester, N . Y .. . . . . . .. . . .. ..
P hi h1dclµh b , I'• ·· · ·
l')
-C?. 32
115. 98
B u tt e , !\-f on t. •. .. . . . .. .. . . . . ...
1_ •• .
,r,; _8 ,)
59 . .'\4
7fi. 5[)
4V. 82
44 . 59
')
(' )
C rn d nrrnt i. Uh Jo
~
161. ,\ 9
lll3. 25
lflO. 21
Scra n to n, P a . _______ ___ ___ __ __
.\TB!(•lt•~-. , C t1 1i f.l . . . •• ••• • • • •
r,;1.112
4S. 71
2. 7.\
2 7:-S
2. 75
2. 7~
2. 77
2. 7~
2. 75
2. 78
2. 78
2. 75
Lo:-.
158. 8.1
75
; ,..;
__!:'7__fl"_
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
R r-erl'at io n
a nco
(')
v. 40
40
11
42
RJ
14. 06
(')
2. 49
4. 07
55
. 65
6 ..50
(' )
1. 60
5. 65
1. 00
6. 06
4. 00
. 72
8. 14
18.M
....
.......
-
-
L ir(\ in-
T oha.c."<">
and
tc, y s
'T'ax,~s
I
SU l"ll0(.'t_\ I
J
T ota l
J
----- - - - - - - - $-1 . R.l
$20. 80
$10. 40
- - - - -- •- - - - - - - - 10. 41)
4. 140
20. SO
8. ~2
10. 40
20. SO
4. HO
7. 7.S
211. 80
20. SO
l:l. SO
9. 74
8. 94
8. \JO
4. 92
4. 00
4. 00
12. 47
13. r,7
13. SIi
13. fi t
13.02
7. R7
8. 72
9. Of\
8. SJ
8. 12
4. 1,(1
4. 9-1
4. HO
4. 80
4. 90
20. IIO
13. 07
12. 14
13. 63
13. 52
14. JS
8. 12
7. 3 4
8. 71
8..),~
9. 58
4. 94
4. 8()
4. V2
20. 80
211. 80
13. 05
13. 26
14. 50
12. 25
14. 62
12. 00
13. 06
12. 60
14. 411
12. 31
7. 4l
:.l). 8()
20. 80
20. 1;0
20. 1<1.1
20. 80
10. 40
10. 40
10. -IO
1. 81
=
: $ 1. 111
20. XO
8 . 25
8. 46
9. 70
7. 45
9.82
4. XO
4. 80
4. 80
4. MO
20.80
20.80
20. 80
20. 80
20.80
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
7. 26
8. 26
7. 80
4. RO
10. 40
Ill. 40
9.59
4. 87
4. 90
20. 80
:.?(J. 80
20. IIO
20. IIO
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
(" )
8. 94
6. 00
2. 00
( '' )
f'l" )
7.36
1. 00
('')
6. 22
3, 80
"3
::
c:l
(")
t>
")
1.81
(" )
1. 60
1.60
(" )
~
(" )
(" )
20. 80
20. 80
")
("
s;,
·- - - ·
("
4. 80
4. 80
4. 80
t'"l
Pf' rso nnl
3. 14
(" )
2. (XJ
2. 77
(" )
4.\H
4.80
- -• $2. .'\4
sz
pro 1k•r t y
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
IIJ. 40
10. 40
20. 80
J
C
C hurrh
con t ri·
h u t io n s
0
..,
3. 14
("l
2. 77
(10)
f')
lfi)
(" )
2. CO
(")
t>
"l
i::;
00
D
("
4. 36
6. 22
3.80
00
00
Atlanta, Ga ____ __ ____ ____ _____ _
Richmond, Va __ _______ __ ____ __
Omaha, Nebr __ _______ -· - · -· -- _
Buffalo, City,
N. Y l\lo
-- -- -____
--···
· ·· __
·· -__· _·
Kansas
_____
(')
(')
1. 00
(')
3.00
2~
2~
Fall R iver, l\fas.s _. _
Spoka ne, Wnsh ____ _. _. _. • __ . •.
1'orfolk , ""· --- --- -------- - ·- - ·
Salt Lake C it y, t:rn h ' --------M anchester, N. TI _______ ___ __
(')
2~
2~
12. 00
(')
(')
1•)
i"oottle , W ash .. .. __ __ ____ __ _ .
l>euver, \ olo. 1 ____ _ ___ _ • _ _ __ ••
l'ro vi<lenoo, R. I. __ .. ___. . __ ..
Portlan,I, Ore ~-- -______ __ • ___.
N e w Orleans, La . • . ·· - - --- · -·
(' )
I.
6. IJO
(')
Rln~ham ton , :S:. Y . ___.• .. •. _
(')
(' )
~fe.mphis. Tenn . . . . --- - ·- -•
Oklnhorrm City, O kin. '
\\' inston- Salem , ~ - C. 1
· - --•
l,ouis,-iuc, K y. I___ _____ __ ______
I
Tious tQn, Tex _. __ .. __ __ __ _____ .
Jncksom ·i!Ie, Fla . . __ _____ ___ __ _
Indianapolis, Ind ___
Dallns, Tex .. . . . ... . . . . .. • •.. .
Clarksburg, W. Va. ' ·· -- · · · ··
Ced ar Rapids, Iowa 1 • _ . _ . _ • • __
Columt,ia, S. C ·-· · · - ···· · ·-- -K noxv llle, T enn ______ __ ___ __ __
Colnmh tlS , Ohio' --··--· - ··-· ·
B ir mingham, .-\In __
____ _
El P nso, Tex ..... ____ __
Li ttle Hock, Ark __ -· ·· - -· .•.••
l\l obile, :\ la .. _ - · -· · · - · -·······
Wichita, K ans ___ _
0
~
N.
~
O"
-<
()
0
r:£n
so
3_(10
S. 00
(')
2 ~
2n
2n
2n
2TT
2n
2~
149. 85
136. 54
48- 14
43. 74
33. :16
7. 13
11. 64
46. 11
138. 73
164. 65
182. 47
43. 21
48. 60
7. 75
4. 32
13. 02
11. 40
45. 118
74. 40
79. 70
2. 04
11.37
11. 33
10. 37
6. 84
8. 22
6 . 60
6 . ,'\3
5. 57
122. ;2
46. 11
69. 49
45. 95
26. 21
(')
4. 29
13.00
10. 86
5. 11
12. 16
12. 19
14. 33
lt0.18
130. 07
lt4. 79
131. 71
46. 21
1,0. \IX
34. 34
29. 85
44. 9,\
44. 90
33. 08
154. 80
165. 7,1
46. 64
2TT
62. 90
62. 37
2~
2 ~
2 ~
129. 7,'j
15.1. Nl
l~I. 12
4\l, 30
44. 8 1
3·1 .H
r.s. ZS
81. 48
2~
2 ~
2 M
1'.?'2-3 1
! ,'>:!. 95
t:H . :I~
,\0, 34
2 IB
(')
2n
11,. 9:J
IH. 89
(' )
2. i .'i
2, ; .~
2. i ,1l
l.'iS. i :\
130. 14
1{11.fH
.•,o. Stl
47. 21
47 96 ·
4.\. M
46. i 5
36. 64
9 . 74
.11. 03
32. 94
17. 48
49. 63
"'·
,I.I. ,17
2."l. i fi
2. ; s
1:r1. 711
ti.On
2. 77
126. 3 1
,; [_ ,',(}
53
:m.1 1
H . .',6
4tt. 7K
1. 2,,
2. i7
2. 75
2. j ,1
113. fl
100. ~
129. r,3
2. 78
1211. , S
2. 75
150. 64
2. j j
2. 751
2. 7.1
1. 75
97. 86
t2fi. rn
130. Ill
123. &1
(')
(' )
(')
(')
(')
<')
(')
2 . .'iO
( ')
( ')
1. 4;,
,'>-1. 34
1.02
1.00
20.80
20. 80
9. .'\3
4. 80
7. 63
. 74
12. 211
13. 10
. 46
. 20
10. 32
11.18
.:.H
11. 60
13. 61
. 116
n
11. 74
12. t;,;
II. 9.\
12. 31
I I. 50
. X5
. ! .\
• t1l
. 60
9.
7. UO
9. 40
12. 2.;
-II. 2,
3/l. 84
45_ 23
20. 70
7. 211
2R. 78
11. 14
R. 50
41. 2 1
43. 01
37. fl,\
51. 24
10. 25
34. 62
14. 26
13. 72
20. 80
4. 80
4. 80
4. 9a
II. SO
21. 19
17. 4S
21. 87
4. 80
7.36
7. 30
14..14
7. 67
46. 1\11
4,) , 07
8. 20
6.06
16. so
7. 50
29. 9 7
4ii. 20
20. SU
20. 80
20. 80
20. 80
12. 43
13.•H
4. 811
s. 94
I. 94
13. 17
20. 5 1
14. SO
l ,i. 98
20. 80
4. 80
4. 80
4. 80
I. 63
7. 78
I. ,\6
S. 4S
3. SO
111. 80
II. 30
U!O
4. 80
8.04
. 00
. 50
. 18
. 94
11. ,">8
11. 8 1
ii. IS
11. JS
11. 94
. ll8
. 01
12. 35
. 38
43
. 14
II. 75
. 55
. 05
10. IJO
. 10
II. Ill
.38
8. 00
5. 20
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
(" )
3. 62
10. 40
IU. 40
(" )
(" )
6.20
20. so
20. 80
10. 40
10. 40
6. 80
4. 44
10. 40
7. 20
4. 811
4. 00
4_so
4. so
4. 80
20. 80
20. 80
20. 80
20. 80
20. 80
10. 40
10. 40
JO. 40
10. 40
10. 40
(")
(" )
2. 45
(" )
3. 45
4. SO
4. 80
4. 85
4. 94
4. 94
20.80
20. 80
20. NO
20. 80
20. 80
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
(" )
4. so
4. /\(]
4. so
4. RO
20. NO
20.60
20. SO
20. 80
20. 80
10. 40
10. 40
l t•. 40
10. 40
10. 40
20. RO
20. 811
20.80
20. 80
20.80
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
0. 73
("')
3. 00
20.80
20.80
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
10. 40
3. ,II)
R. 13
3. 45
(" )
i . \JO
4. !lO
U!O
·I. XO
4. 94
4. so
4. 80
4. 80
4. 80
4. 80
20.80
20. 80
4. 00
(" )
3. 00
5.
2. 20
3.
t>
")
3.62
,.
4. 20
)
2. 80
4. 44
3. 20
("l
("
2. 45
r>
")
(" )
('•)
4.
(" )
I.
(" )
(")
2. 58
(" )
(" )
4 00
3.
(")
4.
(")
(" )
(" )
3. 00
2. 00
5. ,">8
2. (KJ
2
(" )
(" )
('•)
(" )
3.W
")
")
(")
3. 45
I. 00
2. 16
,\. 00
t
2. 16
(")
(" )
2. 73
(" )
(" )
(" )
2. 13
.u
(" )
' Include sales tax where levied (appendlI table 16).
• Budget allowance Identical In all cities, plus sales tax where levied.
• Exclusive or sales tax.
• Though only 18 cities had a direct charge ror refuse disposal, an average for 511 cities Is 11-1 In order to balance the table. The 18-dty averap la suo.
• Though only 66 cities had a direct charge ror school attendance, an average ror 511 cities la 11-1 In order to balance the table. The M-clty average Is $7.37.
• Though tax111 were pa:,able In only 3G cltiee, an average ror 69 cities la 11-1 In order to balance the table. The ~ t y average la SU7.
'Though per,onaJ property tax111 were pa:,able In only~ cltl111, an average ror 511 cltl111 la 11-1 In order to balance the table. The 22-clty average Is $2.911.
1 Though capitation taxes were pa:,able In only 25 cities, an average Cor 511 olt1111 la 11-1 In order to balance the table. The :115-clty averap Is $3.40.
I Not a direct charge.
" None pa:,able.
Non:.-Owlng to the necessity Cor rounding numbers In computlnc averalltlS, there era sllcht dlllcrepancl111 between -taln totals and the sums or their component Items.
c••>
3. 00
2. 00
3. 00
3 . 50
5. 0
4.
2. 00
4. 0
(••)
3. 00
3. 50
6. 00
3 . 00
(" )
a,
~
("\
-4
>
a,
r~
•
.....
...J
V,
To&le 9.-Relative Costs 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
IIIIIIROIINCT LIIVIIL
....
°'"•
n
C lot lung, l'iothi.ng u pkeep, aw l personal
e:.1re
C ity
Total
cost o r
u,·!ng
Tiousing,
Clul lliug
T o lul
A,·errwt' , .'.'.9 dt ies:
:\ruuun t __ . .. . ___
Pt•r L•(m t . . . .. • • ...
, Yn.shin::::t o11 , D. C' __ __.
~finneapoll ~. ~I inn . _. __ ___ __.
~an Fn\nd seo. (' ali f.l . . ... . .. .
New York, N . Y .'--------·
Chlcil~O, Iii. '·· · - -· · · •···-· - •·
0
~
N
'1)
a.
rr
-<
C)
0
~
()
]\.1ilwnuktie, \\" b. _. . .... . ... . .
C le \'dnn<I, Uhio 1. ___. ___ __ __ _
Boston, 1'.1·,.ss. ___ _ .... ___ . .. _
St. Louis , I\fo ___ ____ ____ __ ____
Albuciucr<Jue, N. Mcx.' . -· ·· · -
D etrc.it . l\lkh.' -· .. · ··-·- .. · • ·
fiiou x Fnlls, S . Duk. . . .. . . . . ..•
Los Angnles, C' nlil.'-·--- -· ·-· ·
Cincinna ti, Oh io' -- - -- - - -- -- -•
8cranton, Pa .. ______ ____ ___ ___
Bu tte, l\font. _
Pittsburizh, Pa· - · ·· · - · ·- - ----Baltimore, Md _.... . .... .. .. ..
Rochester, N. Y ..
Pniladelphia, Pa .
C lotl1i11 ~
upkeep
PerSDoal
caro
ing
wuter
---- ,-1~-, - ,- .$W3. 2; $:HO 30
I()(). 0
ltJl U
-= =
112. 3
111. 2
110. S
108. 7
107. i
104. \I
107. 5
106. 8
1116. l
105. 9
104. 0
94 . 5
104. 5
103. 9
m,. ~
w:t :>
$!'/'<. 0.1
It) ! . 0
I
23 1
~17 (I
1m 11
I 13. I
$11.
!(Kl ll
il7 3
l JO. :.!
11 -1.•I
00.:1
1Iri. 2
;'\t), Ii
110. 2
== ~
Jil2. 4
v:i.
~
!H . 0
10:!.0
ll'l.X
105. ti
110.
l 1:1.
l lf2.
97.
105.
5
2
5
3
4
111. 6
11 5. 7
l02. 4
9,, . g
102. 4
1112. l
9-t S
lW . 11
11 3.
106. 0
104. 1
11 1. 3
l!XJ. 4
lfl'l. 4
91. :1
l t:I. 7
101. 5
02. 6
1()4.0
111-\. 4
102. 8
100. 1
12"2.3
Si . 6
1 I.I. 5
123. 4
159. 2
97. 0
85. 9
110. 6
08. 3
97. 5
1m1
\15. 1
100. 9
\17. 6
lll3. 7
97. 6
\Jli. ~
HI-I. :!
103.2
98 8
IJ\l. s
!()(). 3
100. 8
114. 5
IJ\l. s
101.0
103. 2
102.0
ll i . i
113. 9
1().1. 0
1111.0
09. 8
100. 5
102.6
102. 4
102. 4
100. 1
97. 9
100. 2
91. 6
llll. 2
95.1
\11.7
97. 2
05. 8
107. 8
112. 2
106. 6
103. 6
1(~1.11
"8 1
$101.
!ti). 0
=-=~==--=•=
Portland, M aine . ... .. _.. _. .. .
102. 1
100. 9
l'Tewark, N . 1. . . . · -········ · ··
Brtd~eport, Conn._ .. .. . ___ .
Tucson, Ariz .I .. . __ . . . . ..... ___
Peoria, 111. 1. ... . . . . . . . . . _ •••• ••
101. 0
1(),1. 7
101.9
IOI. g
ltl6. 7
104 . 0
IOI.I
100. 5
!18. 0
102. 4
103. 0
01. 0
\17. 7
00. 3
104.0
99. 3
M. 7
\!8. 2
9ti. 3
113. 7
86.1
125. 4
82. 3
92. 7
128.n
114.6
-
- - --------
Total
Ice
T otal
- -- ---
Coal or
wood
}'. lec·tric•
!t y
Oas
1(1\1.8
111. 4
106. 0
Yti. 9
~
V5. 7
102. 0
IOI. 6
103. 7
102. 6
103. 4
121. ti
1()5.•\
llX. O
121. fj
11 )8. (I
100. 1
107. 3
93. 0
IH. {
103. 7
08. 3
124. I
11(,. 5
\II. ~
lllu.3
Sl.3
1 13. 8
If,!. 0
wri.9
121. 8
17.1 . 5
U\i. i
102. l
8\i. 0
93. 4
J:I(). 7
81. 2
188. I
ll6. IJ
125. 0
72. Y
81. fl
71.0
37. 0
03. 7
75. 4
98. 6
136. 9
205. 5
8 1. l
n-t 5
10;. 4
91\. 5
37. 0
85. 3
73. 5
130. 7
139. 6
60. 5
98.6
163. 7
154. 7
63. 4
1()4.2
185. 3
HXJ.3
11\J. 2
;:i. -I
85. I
86. n
8-1. 2
meut
-------
- - --
U7. t.i
118 .6
9 1. 1
y•> ...
102. 6
-·'
97. 3
91. I
96. 8
mt.2
tlS. 5
103. 1
1115. 3
92. 2
124. 7
10\J.3
S:!.4
81). 8
160. 6
89. 4
96. 5
101. I
l 13. 8
HH. 7
111. 8
113. 3
103.0
106. 2
100. 5
8/J.8
119. 6
75. 2
79. 8
102. 3
81.0
110.5
97. 3
89. 2
57. 0
98. 1
100.0
126. 2
82. 2
119. 6
115. 4
l :l3. 7
80. 0
11-1 . 5
105. 6
93. 6
MIU
8fi. 8
80. 8
212. l
OtU
SK. 6
IIMI. I
12U)
H5.3
Ill-I. 0
103.5
llfo. 2
82. 8
111 . 6
123. 4
81\.3
150. 4
110. 6
12-1. 9
117. 9
lifl. 4
- -\J2.0-
74. 2
12/l. 7
gs. 2
64 . 5
tlO. l
94.0
f,0. 3
!lij. l\ll
100. 0
105. ti
61.1
57. 0
$M. l>I
IIKl.11
---
Rfi. 8
i 5. 2
156. 9
113. 1
i;.~.r.
and
household
103. 5
10-1. 4
102.9
91.4
81. 9
40. 3
77. 4
81. 4
73. 5
91.-1
120. 8
liOlL'-6-
hold
suµpli<.s
F urnitn re, fu r•
nishings,
rqu i1>-
---- --- --- -
$;18. f,6 $1U. M $18. r,7
$1-1. .12
$1 5 . 93
$ 11;; ;11 l\ ~I .<·I $-18.,;,J
100. 1)
HKI. 0
Im. 11
ltXl.11
1<'10. II
11~ 1. IJ
11 ~1. fl
JIXJ. 0
=
=
==---=
===----'-==·-----·:: . __
--=== :-==-----=
l.j,;J _S
9 {), :l
!09. 3
11 9. 2
71. 5
~9. 2
\lfi. ll
ll<i.8
v.;_ f3
J:i#i. 5
?27. 0
ti l.l
8 1.11
105. H
ll o. 0
1\1"2. 5
111. -t
121. Ii
IW . .\
7-1 . 3
121. 6
21-1 . 2
Ill-I. I
84. l
12.1. 4
1:12.3
101.9
112. l
116. I
88. 5
IO I 0
95. 6
110. 3
106. 7
148.IJ
51. 3
&l. 5
\Hi. 7
!:!8. 6
Jlli. 3
l\l.'i fi
Vil 2
10·2. 7
!fJ . 3
llO.;
Fuel
ia r lu<I•
Foc,<l
~
Hou..~hold open1tion
7i. 5
75. 2
77 . 7
98. 9
77. 5
123. I
92. 9
116.IJ
103. 6
102. 3
10'2.0
116. 6
0:1. 9
00.0
97. 8
95. 0
103. -I
00. -1
03. 0
07. 8
127.2
ltll. 7
110. 3
OK 5
0
..,
r-
<
z
;,
UI
,0
Q
::!
c::
100. 9
100. 8
100. 1;
\J\I. 8
lll2. l
\J\l. 3
119. 6
Fnll R iYer, l\fass .. ·· · ·- Spo k ane, W 11sh .. - . .... .
N or fol k, Va .. . ... . .... . . .. . •..
9'J. 4
Salt Lake Ci t y, Utah
08. IJ
\JS . •,
Atlanta, Oa__ __·····-······ · ..
Richmond, V R-- ~------ -- - --- Omaha, Nebr ... . .. .... .. . •.
Buffalo , N . Y . _... .... . .... • ..
K ansas City, M o . .... -••..• . •
1 • • • • •• •
Manch es ter, N . 11. • .. . ...
\J\l.
98. 7
n
lll3, 0
112.1
IITT .l
110. 6
100. 6
9.5. 4
102. 3
110. I
YO. 8
V4. 7
110. 4
V7. ,>
~- ;
94. 3
12'.I. 2
102. 6
114 . 5
1110. I
7~. 7
II~\. l
11:l. 6
I IV. I
1112. :1
118. I
112. 4
M.O
102. 2
&i8
9i . 4
82. 2
Hlf'1. O
118. l
I 10. 7
104. S
96. 0
113. I
W.5
102. 8
11:.. 6
75. I
89. 4
H4. 6
%.S
10,, . .\
us. 3
7 1. 2
87. 6
110. 8
109. 2
s-1. 6
': }fl.I
\17 H
9~. j
11:1. 1
IUO. 0
U7. tJ
101. \l
11(1. I
il!l. I
113. 5
107. 7
9-t.
B in~ham ton , N. Y . .. .
9 -;' , '.!
~,,,;,; _i
9i. 1
97. i
\JIU
(11.l. 11
VO. 7
100. 5
5
tn3
~7
96. 2
90. 4
l(Jl. 3
~5
~y
107. t1
~ 3
113. i
1110. I
n s
~ 8
lCiti. 2
~II . 0
. . . ...
t,t).
9rt :!
gr,_ 1
v:i.~
1m.s
\II. V
11 2. 1
\J-1. 0
J l:l.O
w. 7
09. 7
Ul. 0
u:t 7
na
~3
~I. CJ
~ 2
~I
W7
~ o
~,
~o
~ u
Bee footnotes at end of table.
11\1. 0
1.12.
U4
Ul. !!
0
~- tj
u.r,. ti
I
I H. ll
l Jfi. 7
10:i . 3
148. 8
94. 7
108. 6
157 . 1
!08. .,
101. 5
8.12
171. 2
00. 9
Si. 7
127. 6
8H. 9
88. 9
13:J. 2
83.0
100. 0
10'.!. 0
~·,. 1
Ht,. 1
107. 5
H6
~
so u
S\l 4
!l:J. 0
IUO. 8
58.0
10'.l, fi
73. 4
liS. 3
111. 7
i>l. 0
47. S
l(J.\ _ 2
St( ti
9:J.3
105. 8
102. I
10.,.6
24. 7
129 ..5
88. 5
90. 5
73. :I
15ti, 7
81. 2
6li. 9
~ u
101. 9
8.1. 2
105. fl
SJ 1
mo
114 6
135. 8
IOl. :,
77 . .1
8S. I
!JO. 9
5
77. 5
7
~lfj-
42. fi
145.6
79.8
fiO. il
114. 1
rir,.3
!/0,
73. II
45.
1:9. 0
Vt?.8
~G.
IO~.'.!
! Iii.
411. 3
HA I
I
I
\)\l.8
81. 2
13., X
6H. '4
m1. 6
Y7. 4
89. 9
118. 2
133. 7
9 1. 4
119. 5
04 . ·
1n -1
84. 9
94. I
85. H
9 7. 1)
102. 2
\J'J. 3
00. 9
9l. 9
113. 0
98. 8
~7. I
00. ~
Sli. 3
94 . .5
l00. 3
XS. 2
84. II
105. 2
!l'J. I
100. U
\13. I
ltlft :!
93. 3
103. 0
S5. fi
9 1. 0
9S. 6
':.13. 7
117. 3
63. 6
V7. 3
101. 5
I
96.6
123. 7
10,i . 6
s». 4
Yl. I
IUI
80.
U3.
[il .
Sfi. 8
30~. U
101. 0
7G. 0
71. 3
04. 5
112. 8
711. ~
3 4. 9
52. 0
97. U
35 •)
220. I
SI i.
11 8 . 6
1111. 6
i 9. 8
10:t ti
:l-t 7
UL 2
Ill. 8
!10. 2
91.\I
110. 4
9\l. 9
H . .5
40. 7
95. 3
'J I ,,
100. 8
122. l
5
9 1.
JS. I
f>8. I
n:ii
110. 0
84. U
l Oti. tJ
111. t)
78. 0
91. I
111.i 2
97. 3
CJ:?. 4
!Ill. 7
93. 0
ll~\. 5
123. 0
125. 4
Sil. 3
f"!. 4
~I
~6. 8
91. 7
!II . 8
28. 6
205. 0
U 4. 1
UL 3
lll!l. fi
113, 2
!OS. 4
6.S . .'i
78. 7
1-(7. ~
V5. V
!:IS. 5
YI 0
~O. fi
OG. i
91i.6
\1[1. 3
114. 1
lfl!J. :i
101.\)
102. 0
89. I
146. 4
91. •I
SY ·I
\IS S
87, 6
Ill. 0
7t,. ~
US. U
71. 3
48. 5
\J\l. 5
U:?. 11
SH. ;J
~4. ll
~J.S
76. 3
97. 3
01. .,
162- 3
i O. !!
71. 2
162. 3
104. 5
107. -~
87. U
VJ. -~
86. 8
IOI . 3
105. 5
101. 8
8G.8
83.0
IM. 9
101. S
~I
B 2
~5
~
107. 0
IIH. l
79. 2
102. fl
11:0. 0
llHO
Ui . l
l1:1. II
137. 7
103. 4
87. li
93. •l
10.S. ti
ft:!. I
!~l S
!J0.2
b!J. fl
13 1. ·I
I IS . 7
98. 6
V4. 0
93. 2
99. S
211. l
r,o. 2
&!. II
IOI. !!
~
s:1. 8
~V- 8
:18. 0
~7
100.
9 t. I
~u;_ 4
1:12. "
Ill. 3
78. O
10 1. 5
12 1. 7
63. 4
8 tl. 8
67. I
148. 4
f,S_0
y,_:i
~5
89. ,,
sv. 7
~,a. ;
100. R
'1
\H.J
100.,,
111-1. l
9fi 0
9.5. g
94. 4
~l:t -1
108. 5
132::
~ !1
S,J_ 7
SI. I
g t_ s
111. l
\13. ,r,
\J3. J
V3. I
9':! ,1
i O. 2
!J8. 0
118. 7
U3.. 0
l-\t). 4
J\l,•mphb , Te nn . .. . . . .
O klahoma Ci t y, Ok lo. 1 •• •• •
\\'ln~ton -Sak m , X . C . 1
L ouisvillP, K y .1__ _____ __ __ ..
1()4. 4
88. 9
IU(l. 2
Y~- 2
'Ji. 7
h l.6
\JI! 3
98. 4
V7. 4
98. 2
0
r:£-
O'J . I
\f i . 9
112. II
~S. 4
01.8
9-5.0
Ui. 7
W ichita, Kaus . .. .
()
t¼. 9
vs. ~
9.'i.U
F.I Pasn , T<·x. .
L lttk !t ock , Ark .
l\l obi lc , Ala . ..
.
0
liXl.4
Porthm d, Ore~- . .
.
•
1'ew Orle1111s , La_ .... . .. . .. .
<"'ul u mt,us , Ohio 1
B inuingham , Alu ..
-<
98.0
\~I. 9
~.n
K no:n•illP, Tt'n n .
rr
mJ . 11
112.0
1
Y.5. 0
!Ox. 4
IU8.0
Seatt le, W nsh . . . . .... __. . .
Dl•nvt~r. Colo-1 . . . ___ .. . .. .
P ro,•idencc, n. L _. __ __. . _
C eda r Hnpid s, l ow!\ 1 _ _ ••
l 'olumhia , S. C . •. . · - · ·· ••·
~
IOO. 4
Ill!\. 2
117. 9
91. 9
104.fi
ion. ti
101. :1
\l'J . (I
ili. 3
111'1. l
Houston , 1'1,x. .. .. . . . .. . . ...•
J ncksoaville , F la .. ..... ••
lll di11napo lis, In,L _. .. . . .. .
D ,,llas . 1'1» ... ... . . . . . .•.
C l11rksburg, \\". Vo. 1 .. .• •
~
N.
I)
82. 4
Ul. 1
103. 0
1no. o
1no. 7
11 9.6
132. s
Y7 . 3
I l'.1. 0
i
l tt_l. 4
\H .3
101. r,
IU7. r,
1011. 1
10:l.O
9 1. 3
100. 5
Vf1. 8
97. I
Yi . 7
9;l. S
ll!l.8
ur.. I
94. U
a,
►
VI
">
a,
r-
m
•
......
...J
...J
Ta&le 9.-Relative Costs of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935Continued
•
J:KJ:B01:NCT U:VJ:L---rontlnued
Ilnus{'hnld o pe rntl, m~ \o n ti nued
Hefu ,e
<'it ie.:-. :
Amou nt_ ____ __
Percent. . __. _
\l' a•hin gtnn , )) .
I
$ J. ,;()
llX.l . iJ
'.!'.13 3
\j\j
San Fra ncisco , \ulif 1
New York , 1'. Y.• . .. .. ...... .
l~. O
r1 1
lf'tl ;
~
."-l bw1uerqne, :'\ . ~le x.
3~~). 0
0
Det roit , M lch . 1 • • • • •
Si om Falls, S. P uk . . .
Lo.s Angele.s, C alif.1• . • •
<' incir.no ti , Oh io 1 • • •••
Scranton , P3 •.
0
af'i)
I
HXJ. 0
$2. 7f,
M inncnpolis. 1\1 inn
CJ
L)
M •<llcnl
I
ca re
1
B ut.t o, J\ l o n t ......
P itt sh ur~h, P rL
Ba lti more, ~f d _ ..
i 'l
(' )
:!00. n
(' )
~ -0
(' )
(' )
<')
- i-$ 11~ 30
I(' . 0
0
11
3
121.' , 6
T otnl
theat er
131. 4
170. 2
91. I
100 . 0
$12. f..J
HX). 0
II ,2
ll . 0
111
I~
114 .
2 19.
23.
lfl-1. 1
152. 7
27. 4
(' )
136, 8
-=1-=
OR. 3
11 1. 8
116. 2
112. 9
104. 1
99. 4
102. 3
W. 4
99. 4
101. 4
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
103, 4
00.1
107, 0
107. I
113, 8
104. I
04. I
111. 7
110. 0
122. 8
102. 3
l!\l. 4
10 1. 9
102. 3
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
103. 3
105. 0
11 4, 7
99. 4
\lll. 4
99, 4
11\l. 4
.,
oi, ·
8 .2
2
II . 7
120. I
104. 2
!14. 2
tot. 0
82. 2
:IO I
100. 9
2 14. 0
11 8. 4
100. 6
!M. 6
(' )
21. 6
82. 2
14 . 6
11 5, 7
105. 8
108. 5
124. 3
95. ,\
12.1. 11
I .8
112. 5
52. H
8~. 2
95.
~
03. 1
111!.3
70.0
107. 3
11 7, 2
81. 1
68. 2
JO. 5
118. 4
!03.
00. 7
)I).\ . 0
100. U
114. 5
122. 0
270. 2
07. 6
96. 1
\j\j
6
\J'J. 6
I();
P or tland , J\l nl ne •• . ••••
..
Newur k, N . J . .•
• . ... ... . 1
Brldue.por t , Conn . . . .. . .. .. ..
mo.o
\I\!. 6
\I\!, 6
W. 6
JOO. 4
JOO. 4
.,
8 .7
00 . 6
M. 4
8V . 6
83. 0
22 9
55. 2
59, 2
9, 5
1
Persona l
propert y
Capita tio n
w.o
31
-
$ 10, 40
108. 2
109. 7
107. 7
103, 1
109. 2
204. 7
(' )
36, 3
99. ll
"°
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1.'i2. 1
20. 3
187. 7
175. 3
7-1. 6
lllO. 7
$20.
11\1. •I
101. 9
101. 4
1()1. 4
I l l. 5
98. 3
114. R
79. 9
110. 9
5
- - - - - --
09. 4
123 . 4
6' ll
12 , 9
II 7
9 .0
·1
T o t ~l
1
91H
124. 9
114 . 6
li t 1
99. 4
11 6. I
109. 5
100. i
\l'J. f,
l(XJ. 7
.4
tlons
IOO~
.8
13
I
l
,\
Taxes
--
ron l,ri hu-
100. 0
85. I
ll:J. 2
105. 8
94. 7
110. 0
I
insuranee 1
C hurd 1
111 . 3
IQ:
~~J
Toi,M·ro
and toys 1
L il•
II K). 0
HI. 7
r,
n2. 1
I
0
.,,
r
sions
,~ ti
0\1. fl
llMJ. 4
IOU 7
(' )
>
I\Iollon
p ict ure
- -- • - --- ·- -108.
-11
172. 9
R ()(' he.s tor, N . Y . . . . . . . • • . . . .
P hlladeli,h iu , P a . •
f' )
11 2. 6
103. 5
122. 0
107. fl
' $6. 87 1
!Oil. s
12fi . 1
Ptoria, Ill.I .. ... . . . ... . .... .. ..
=
$H. 97
11 ~.I. 0
10; . 8
12,
TUC'llOO , Arlt .I .. ... . . ....... .. .
$47. 08
100. 0
123 . 4
11.l, 6
(' )
H.{'trea t ion
---- - - - - - --
IJ)) . j
.3
~00. ()
(')
t ion
100. l
! Of'
(' I
(•)
po rl u·
School
a ttend ·
ance
91. 0
123. 3
2 1. 2
H. 2
ll\l. R
tl'J fi
(' )
Trun~-
admls·
11\1. 6
?\.hl wrmk Pe., \ Vis . __ . __
Cleve In n<! , Ohio 1 . •••
B os.t o n . ~l :1.s.•L
St. Lou is , ~lo _ .. _ .
'<
Tut
(' )
1·)
~
N.
tlr ,t
e.s sen·
t ials 1
I
I
=
<' .
C' h lt-a ~o . I ll. • .. . ... . . . . .. ••
0
I
~
~1i~l lirnrou~
;osp('ci•
dispos.s l
A \"CTl\f:!:0 , hO
I
---1-1
( 'ily
.....
...J
00
I(~) . fl
~
4
$2. :..-1
100. 0
=--=·=
IIKJ. IJ
100. ll
100. U
100. 0
100. 0
(' ' )
(")
(" )
(" )
' $1. 10
IOU. 0
<
(''"l
<"\
(")
(" )
123. 6
285. 5
(" )
(")
( ")
100. 0
l<XJ. 0
100, 0
100. 0
100. 0
( JO)
6.1. 0
( ")
(" )
352. 0
(JO)
( ")
(ID)
(ID)
100. 0
100, O
100. 0
100. 0
100, 0
236. 2
i S. 7
181. 8
( JO)
11\H
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
11\1, 4
l(KI. 0
W. 4
l (XJ O
0
100, 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
l00. 0
)II().
100.0
( ")
( ")
( ")
1&1.5
("
(" )
911.4
100. 8
IOI. 4
'$ 1.H
100, 0
7 1. 3
78. 7
101!. l
( JO)
91H
sz
_c,
(" )
f''
")
25 1. 8
( ")
145. 5
i::i
(")
:IX!l. 8
396. 4
3R 4
(JO)
(")
244. IJ
149. 6
(" )
5115, 5
346. 5
( JO )
138. 0
(")
(" )
( ")
( ")
( ")
( 1' )
fi:IO. 8
277. 8
138.9
<"l
("
(" )
21}'1. 3
60. 4
t
")
")
Q
:::!
~
~=: ~~~:: : : : : : : : :
~=:on1,\;;.:::::::::::::::::
!~1111. 7
(')
Kamas City, Mo ••••••.••..••.
mo
Fall RlverWMass •...•..........
(')
gro,~•va~::::::::::::::::
Bait Lue City, Utah• ......•..
Manchester, N. H ...•..•...•..
Beattle, Wash .•.••..•.......•.•
Denver, Colo.• •.••..........•.•
Provldence R. I.. .............
Portland, 0~ •..••....•.•..
New OrleaDB,
•.......•.•....
Binghamton, N. Y .•.........•
Memphis, Tenn ...............
Oklahoma City, Okla.• ........
Wln5ton-Balem, N. C'.• ........
Louisville, Ky.• ••.••......•.••.
Houston, Tex ..................
Jackaonville, Fla ...............
Indlanafells, Ind ..............
Dalla\ ex ....................
Clark., urg, W. Va.• ...........
Cedar Rapids, Iowa'······---Columbia, 8. C ................
Knoxvllle, Tenn ...............
Columbus, Ohio •..............
Birmingham, Ala ..............
El P890,Tex ..................
Little Rock, Ark ..............
Mobile, Ala._ .................
Wichita, Kans .••.•••.•••.••.••
800. 0
r:i
. (')
100. 0
mo
400.0
(')
i:i533.3
(')
(')
(')
!:!
400.0
r:i
83.3
1)
ltl6. 7
(')
(')
96. 7
W.11
W.11
W.11
W.11
W.11
103.1
114.0
116.6
113.3
126.11
102. 2
117. 9
91.8
97.0
118.1
117. 3
74. 0
108.1
JM.6
177. 2
103. 8
112. 8
62. 9
29. 7
lM.6
112.1
103.l
II0.2
89. 7
82.1
!rT. 7
106. 4
84.11
83. 7
71.4
w.,
W.4
W.4
W.4
W.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
W.tl
W.6
W.6
100. 4
W.6
84. 5
96.6
89. 6
911. 7
90. ti
97.9
lllll.3
97.tl
108. 3
116. 4
M.3
7tl.4
1111.4
100.0
73. ti
(')
62. 4
74.4
14. 8
14. ti
102. II
8tl.0
96. 2
96. 6
113.4
106. 1
77. 7
114.3
113.tl
122. 2
W.4
W.4
W.4
101.4
W.4
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
W.tl
100. 4
W.6
W.6
911. ti
l()tl.6
114. l
811.3
105. 9
124. 7
W.1
108. 0
104. 7
114. 7
100. 3
1311. 9
138. 7
7tl.6
129.tl
181. 2
23. 7
us. 2
22. 7
123.6
M.3
118.4
107.1
86. 5
811. 6
110.7
117. 8
110.8
7tl.ll
83.4
117. 7
W.4
101.4
W.4
W.4
W.4
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
W.tl
W.6
100.0
100. 7
100. 7
84. 2
lOtl.0
112.6
81.2
W.7
IOtl.9
101.9
96.9
W.3
77.8
21.6
113. 5
73.3
38.9
110. 4
240. 2
!Ill. 2
ltl7. 4
150. 2
11111. 7
115.1
117. 1
UXl.7
88. 6
107. 7
1:14.11
115. 7
106. 9
so. 0
111.1
W.4
W.4
100.4
102. 3
102. 3
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
W.tl
99.6
W.6
W.tl
100.4
1111. 2
89.tl
104. 4
112.1
87.0
100. 9
109. 6
83. 2
114.tl
106. 7
123. 6
67.3
1:.l.8
1111.tl
17.0
HI.ti
101.9
13tl.8
178. 3
308. 4
112.9
100.1
114.tl
97.6
91.0
88. g
100.6
91. 7
lltl.3
84. ti
W.4
W.4
W.4
W.4
101.4
100. 4
W.6
W.tl
100. 7
W.6
78. 2
89. 2
89.3
103. 7
lrT.tl
78. 2
lltl.l
!rT.6
91.3
4tl.0
ltl.2
69.tl
82. 4
114. 0
70. 7
162. 1
123. 7
130. 2
149. 2
91. 7
93. 6
88. 6
IIO. 0
94. 6
86. 7
811.11
81.8
82. 6
111.6
W.11
911. 6
W.6
911. 6
tl7. 4
86.8
89.tl
86. 2
73. 6
102. 4
911. I
115. 7
31. 7
30.6
38.8
48. 6
28. 2
1111. 7
298. 6
211.1
117. 7
113.0
8tl.3
88.6
lltl.8
811. 1
78. 2
81.8
1111.0
116.0
~.7
m1
200. 0
142.6
~:3211.:i
244.1
381.8
(")
(")
228. 3
174. 8
283.6
264.6
403. ti
2110. II
(")
(IO)
i•O)
IO)
lltl.6
l
~:~
222. 7
~
rr
'<
()
0
r:£n
208.
t>
ID)
138.
(")
m
(10)
'ZTT.
!:~
rO)
(IO)
(IO)
136. 8
313.tl
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
(II)
(")
(10)
10)
(")
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
118. 1
78. 7
219. 7
137. 8
llltl.9
101. 4
W.4
Ull.4
102. 3
Ull. 4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
167. 6
78. 7
265.0
(IO)
(")
118.1
")
W.4
W.4
911. 4
W.4
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
167.6
(10)
311.4
86. 0
(11)
137.8
3:.l. I
136. 8
(")
t
11)
llltl.4
(IO)
(11)
234.6
(IO)
(")
248. 2
f'l
(II)
1113.tl
40.11
(10)
0
~
N.
147.
(IO)
Include aa1es tax where levied (appendix table !ti).
Budget allowance Identical In all cltlee, plus sales tax where levied.
Exclusive of sales tu.
• Though only 18 cities had a direct charge for refuse dlspmal, au average for 611 cltle9 Is med In order to balance the table. The 18-clty average la SU0.
1 Though only 66 cities had a direct charge for achoo! attendanoe, an average for 611 cities la used In order to balanoo the table. The 611-clty average la fl.37.
• Though taxee were payable In only 311 cities, an average for 69 cities la used In order to balsnoe the table. The 36-elty awl'llllfJ la $4.17.
'Though personal property taxes were payable In only 22 cities, an avenge for 69 cities Is used In order to balance the table. The 22-clty average la $2.96.
1 Though capitation taxes were payable In only 25 cities, an average for 69 cities la 11.!0d In order to balanoo the table. The 26-dty average la $3.40.
1 Not a direct charge.
11 None payable.
1
1
1
Non.-Owlng to the necessity for rounding number& In oompotlng averaaies, there are alight dlaorepancles bet,reen oertaln totals and the lllllD8 of their oomponent Items.
10!
(11
277.
1111.
(")
:ni.
138.
208.
243.
147. 2
'ZTT.
138.
'ZTT.
(")
DI.
243.
4ltl.
208. s
(")
co
>
!a
('\
-4
>
co
r-
~
•
.....
...J
,0
Table 70.-Annual Costs
I
of Living, by Major Budget Groups and PrinciJ:t Subgroups, in 9 Geographic Divisions, 4-Person Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, arch 1935
J:llllBODCY LZVII.•,
Avera~e,
59 cities
Hud i:ct 5Z ruup
T ot,il cos t of living ___ _____ ___ _____ _____ -- -- -- - -1
Q_
()
0
~
-n
P acific
0
..,,
,-
sz
$024. 36
tl)2S. 07
$0 10. 88
$899. 2.,
~"48. 80
$855. 37
$9 15. 16
$9 20. 48
342. 07
335. 20
331. 80
347. 50
332. 80
336. 97
348. 74
339. 27
~
124. n8
97. 72
11. 00
15. 90
133. 43
10.5. 12
11. 37
16. 94
120. 3 1
102. 10
11. 99
15. 2 1
122. 15
95. 96
10. 99
15. rn
118. 95
92. 5X
II. 23
15. 15
120. RS
9:l. 87
11. 49
15. 52
137. 07
l05. 38
14. 96
16. 73
141. 57
lll 53
13.02
17. 02
Ill
,0
15. 93
128. 119
Wl. 3 1
12. :IX
16. 10
l! qu~ing, including wntcr . _. ____ __ _____ -- ·- _-· ·· · -. ·- _
167. 79
!f,6_00
184. 88
178. 80
173. 55
176. 20
148. 62
152. 70
161. 04
145.68
Hou.,,.eholil operntion . .. ______ ____ _____ ___ ____ . . ___ . . .
F u~L. - -- - - ·· ·. · · -- -· - ·. -- -~ -- - · ·· ·· ·· ·· · ··- - ·-·-
121. R4
48. RO
38. fi6
JO. 11
18. 67
14.-52
16. 94
137. 32
M. i l
120. 24
5 1. 2·1
42. 70
8. 4,5
15. 39
16. 05
16.16
11 6. 20
50. 46
44. 72
5. 74
15. 22
12. 38
16. 60
120. 70
tt l.01
54. 28
6. 73
116. 38
20. 13
13. 70
15. 58
106.15
30. 36
2l86
8. 50
20. 96
16. 00
16. 54
133. 46
13. 77
106. 48
3i. 71
25. 40
12. 32
18. 61
13. 26
15. 73
38. 53
10. 47
23. 46
16. 70
136. II
46.63
32. 00
14. 62
20. 80
12. r,3
20. 00
19. 88
18.82
I. 75
2. 75
18. 09
. 56
2. 75
18. 77
18. 4 2
(' )
2. 76
17. 78
I. 75
2. 75
20. 25
I. 26
2. 76
19. 39
5. 04
2. 76
133. 22
48. 94
34. 23
1.87
12. 77
141.85
138. 67
62
37. 99
8. 73
12. 54
7. 73
4. 8 1
134. 86
53. 07
157. 84
52. 53
27.44
56. 45
6. 57
13. 25
4. 80
20. 80
10. 4-0
152. 49
47. 62
54. 86
3. 91
13. 41
8. 60
4. 81
20. 80
10. 40
5. 07
12. 58
7. 73
4. 85
20. 80
4. 20
1.49
20.80
10.40
3. 33
F:lect ril'ity ___ __ _______ ___ __ ______ __. _. _. _.. __ _..
Household supplte.s . _.. _.. . . . _. _. ___ . _.. . __. _..
F urn it ure, fur nis hings , sn it househohl eQu ipn1ent __ ____ _·----- ···· . . . .
o.,
128.
100. 2.1
18. 66
Refuse (l ispo.saL ___ ___ ______ . : :: : : : : :: : :: :: :: : : :
Unspccille<.I cs,enti als •- . . . ___. . __.. __. .. . .. __ _. .
'1.
;)0
2. 76
14,5. 30
Misccllnncowi_ ___ _____ ___ .. . _. _. · · - .. -- - · - -· . __ --- --Melliral rAire . __ .. . ___ . • . ·· - · - • • · __ . - -- · •··· -·
T rnnsportatiou . _____. ___ _. ____ . ______ _. _. ____ . ___
School attc· □ d anct•. __ . . _. __ . . . _. _. _.. __. . . ... . . ..
Recreat ion_. ____ . __ ___ __ ___ ___ _______ _________ ____
M ot ion picture t heater ad m issions__ __ . _· --- · -
uro T~~ic:~~
-~~::'.'::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
C hurch contributions • . . . ·-·_ . . ··- -·· . _· - .· --·· . .
Taxl :;,"i'~fl~~~~i~rt:~: : ::: : : ::: : : ::: ::: ::: : : :::::
---
ll. 88
Cl o..,_ - • . -• --. -. •. --- --..• . . : : : :: : ::: ::::: : :: :
Ire ____ _________ ___ ____ ___ __ _. .. ___ ___________ ____
c:r
--<
IEa.st
Nort h \wes t :-.orth l South At- IE ast South !WestSouth I Mountai n I
Cen tral
!antic
Central
Cent ral
Central
347. 05
Coal or w ood ____ __ ___ ___
'I)
J\l i<ldle
Atlantic
$01 2. 27
Personal enre __ __. ____. ____ . __ ____ . _... __.. . -~. . .
N.
I
340. 30
<'!ot bing ... . __ _. ______ .. __ _______ _· - · ... ____ . . . .,.
f'lothing u pkeep_ .. ___ . ___ ______ . _.. __. . ____ __..
0
New England
$003. 27
c'lathin g, clothing u pkeep, nnd p<:rsonnl rare ______ __ _
~-
~
Cleogrnphic d ivision
I
I~"
I
47. 08
44. 97
• 6. 87
12. 63
7. 80
4. 83
20. 80
10. 40
' 2. 64
• 1. 10
to 1. 44
53. 4:J
II. 28
15. 57
16. 41
17. 3 1
7. 97
2. 37
1.83
(')
I. 4g
(' )
2. 77
161. 28
44. 38
6 1. 15
9. 98
12. 77
7. 88
4. 90
20. 80
JO. 4-0
I. 79
1.41
. 38
14. 19
16. 55
44. 58
20. 92
14. 66
17. 03
3. 60
:2.75
18. 97
146. 44
45. 05
50. 75
5. 90
11. 83
7. 02
4. 8 1
20. 80
10. 40
137. 02
46. 42
I. ii
I . 14
. 57
. 67
2. 76
35. 65
8. 08
12. 46
7.64
4. 83
20.80
10. 40
3. 22
. 89
2. 33
43. 90
39. 23
11. 68
11. 98
7. 15
4. 83
20. 80
10. 4-0
3. 87
1.07
2. 80
«.
10. 40
3. 60
. 93
2. 67
49. 00
8. 38
4. 87
2. 63
.80
20. 80
10. 4-0
(')
(' )
(' )
0
:::!
rn
1 lnclll(!e snles tax where lo,~ed (nppendix table 16l.
1 Thoui:h only 18 cities had a d!r<>ct c1"irgc for re fuse disposal, an nv,,rage !or 59 cit ies ls u"4'd In order to halnnce t he table.
Tbe 18-elty average Is $4.90. Tbe aver&JIN for tbe
1:eogrnphic ,11\•isions are base,! on tho totn l number ol cities In cnch di vision includNI In this study.
• Not a di rect charge.
• Budget allowance identical in nll cities. plus snles tax whern levied.
1 Thou~h o nly 5.> c.itl.-s hud a d irect chnrg" for school attendance, an a verage for 5'J cities is usro in order t o balance t he tahh,. Tbe M-clty avel'llll9 ls $7.37. Tbe averares for the
~eogrnp hic d ivisions arc b = <i on the total n umher a l cities in each d ivision include.ct in this study.
• E xcl usive of sntcs tn, .
'Though taxes we.re pu yabte i n o nl y 36 cit ies . an avernirn !or 59 cit ies is U Sl'•J In order to halanc,,, the t able. Tho 3f,-cit y a,·crnge Is $4.17. The averages for the ceographlo divisions
are b:l.' iPd on t ho total n umbt•r of citie~ in each <l h,ision ioclutfod in th is s tudy.
• None payshle.
• Thou ~h p<"r$onal prnp('rly Imes were pnya hle In only 2:? cities, an awra!?t' for .'f.l citlr,s is used In onln to hnlance the tahle . Tho 22-clty average is $2.96. Tbe averaps for tbe
ge~rsphic di,·i~ions anJ b11sNt on t hfl total numbt1 r or cities in £'-Sch div loG\lon inrludt•tl in this study.
" Thouvh rapitation ta,os w<•re payable In only 2S cities. a n average for W cltie,< is usNi in onh-r t o hnlunce the table. The ~IY average Is $3.40. The averages for the geo!tl'aPhlc d ivisions nru base<! on t he tot al number o r cities in each division includod i n this studr.
Nou.-Owlng to the neoeeslty ror rounding numbers in compotlnc averages, there are slight dlscrepanclea between certain totals and the IIWDS of their component Items.
•
a,
0
~
N.
~
rr
-<
()
0
~
-
("')
>
!!!
n
-I
>
a,
rm
VI
....•
....
CIO
To&le 11.-Relativ• Costs 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, in 9 Geographic Divisions, 4-Penon Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
"'
Average, 59 cities
I
0
;,;
ro
O.
~
LJ
Q
0
OQ
-
rv
I
Percent
~
Geographic division
I
E~rnd
"
F.a.st
k~/rl"~l~~ I Central
North
~~~
West
North
Central
,
ii7~~~,
'
East
South
Central
I
West '1
South Mountain , Pacific
Central
~I~~
· · » • • ··· · ·
$1!03. 27
100. 0
100. 8
99.6
94.0
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
340. 30
HJO. O
102. 0
lllO. 5
98. 5
9i. 5
102. 1
97. 8
1111. 0
102. 5
1111. 7
.. . . . . . . .. . .
C loth in ~. C'lothing upk eep, an,! 1~•rsonal rare ..
Clo t h ing.... . . . . . .
. • . .. .. • .
l'lothing u pkeeµ . .
..
. . •• .••••. .
i'erso1rnlcare .... . ...
•• ... ••..•••• . •.. . . ••
128.
100.2:l
11. !<8
15.93
o.,
100. 0
ltxl.O
HJO. O
100.0
100. 5
100. 1
103. 4
101.0
97. 4
97. 5
93. 1
101. 0
95. 4
92. 9
Hll.U
100. 9
95.5
95. 7
92..,
95. 3
94. 5
95. 0
94. 4
93. 7
00. 7
119. 8
104. 2
104. 9
95. 7
Hlfl.3
97. 4
107. 0
105. 1
125. 9
105.0
110. 6
111.3
109. fl
106. 8
Hou.sing , inclwlin~ " 11ter ..
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. . ..
167. 79
100. 0
9R. 9
110. 2
106. fl
10.l. 4
JO[,. O
88. 6
91. 0
96. 0
86. 8
Householdopernti on . . .....
••.•..•• . ••• •.. • . . • • . . ..• . . .. •..
Fuel. . . . .
. . . . . . . • ..
•• • •
Coal or worn I... ..
.. . .
.. . . . . ..
O as . . . . . . . .. . . .
. •••• . • • · • · • · · .. · ••
lee. ......
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . .•.•.
Ele~l r ici t y. . . .. .. .. . . . . ........ . . .... . . . .. .
. . • ..
H ousehold s up plies ....... .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .
Furniture, furni shings, and hou.se hold e•1uipment. . . .
•.
Heruse disposal. . . .... . ... ... . . .. ....... . ..... .. .... . . . . .. .
.Unspecified esse ntials •.. . ... .
... . . .. . . . ... . . • ... . .
121.84
48. HO
38. 6tl
10. I ◄
18. 67
14.52
II!. 94
IM. tl<l
• 1.50
2.76
IOO O
100. U
100. 0
l(K). 0
100. 0
IIK). 0
IIJO. o
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
112. 7
1:!2. fl
138. 2
Ill. 2
83. 4
11 3. 0
102. 2
100. 0
llfl.7
119.:
98.7
105. O
l lO. 7
83. 3
82. 4
110. 5
9S. 4
96. 9
3i. 3
911.6
95. 4
103. 4
115. i
56. 6
81. 5
85.2
98. O
100. 6
(' )
100.4
106.5
125. 0
140. 4
66. 4
i3. 7
97.7
97. 7
116. I
240. 0
911.6
95. 5
91. 4
77. ◄
144. 6
107. 8
94.3
IOI. 7
H.7
100. 0
8i.4
77. 3
65. 7
121. 5
1111. 7
91.3
92. 8
98. 7
(' )
l~. O
87. 1
62. 2
.56. 5
8.l. 8
112. 3
110. 1
97. 7
95. 3
116. i
119. 6
109.5
100. 4
119. 7
103. 3
125. 7
115.0
118. 2
108. 5
84. 0
100.0
111.7
9,U!
82. 8
144. 2
160. I
86.3
lli. 4
103. 9
336. 0
100.1'.
J\IJS('ellaneous . .. . ... .. . . . . . ... .• . .. • . .•.• . . •••••• . .. . . . . •••
Medical care.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . •. . . ... . . . ••
Trans portation.. . .. ..... . . .. . . ...... ..... ... . . .... . . .. . .. .
School attendance.. ... .... ............. . .. . ..... . . . . . . . . ..
Recreation . . ... . . . . . ....•...... ••. ..... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Motion picture theater admissions.. .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .
145. 30
47. 08
44. 97
1 6. 87
12. 63
7. 80
100. 0
100. 0
100. o
100. O
100. O
JOO. o
91.,
103. 9
76. I
27. 2
IOI.I
102. 2
101.0
101. I
122. o
56. 9
100. 1
110. 2
111.0
94. 3
136. O
145. 3
101.1
JOO. 9
100.8
95. 7
112. 9
85. 9
93. 7
00. o
94.3
98. fl
79. 3
ll7. 5
98. 7
97. 9
9, . 6
93. 2
87. 2
170. I
94. 8
91. 7
95. 4
94. 8
84. 5
127. 1
99. 2
99. 1
92.8
ll2. 7
61. O
95. 6
104. O
107. 4
108. 6
ll I.fl
125. 6
73. 8
911. 6
99. I
1::8
JOO. O
l~:~
100. O
131.1
230. o
65. 6
Tolul rns t orliv iug.. . . . . .
F ood. ... . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tQ
Amou n t
LtreTi:u~C:~d_t~y~.'.·.·::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: 4::
10. 40
property...................................... "I.
•2.I. 446410
Church contributions•. . ... . . ... .. . . ... . .. . . . .... . .. . . . . . ..
Taxes• ..... . ....... .. ....... .. ... .. . . . . . .. .. ........ .. . .. .
Personal
Capitation.... . . . . . ... .. .. . . ..... . .... .. ..... . .. . ... . ..
7
Jg:J
100. O
100. o
100.
100. 0
o
1:i
100. O
165. 4
215. 5
127. I
(IC)
"°•
ll:llllOJ:NCT LJ:VJ:L
Bud get group
.....
1::z
100. O
fill. 7
(')
103. 5
l&U
100. o
70. 5
128. 2
26. 4
Q2.
o
1::i
100. o
l~:g
JOO. o
67. 3
103. 6
39. 6
126. R
80. 9
161. 8
92. 4
:::go
100.
152. 4
07. 3
104. 4
141. 7
84. 5
185. 4
l::~
100. O
!')
'l
')
0
'Tl
r-
sz
p
UI
,0
Q
:::!
rn
Include sal,•s ta, where le\' ied (appendix table 16).
• T hou~h only IM cit ies h11<l a direct charge for reru.oe dL,posal, an average for 611 cities Is used In order to balance the tahl•. The JR-city average ls $·1.110. The averages for the geogra phic div isions are ba.sed on the total number of cities In each division Included In this study.
1 Not a direct charµ e.
• Bud~ct ollowa noc hleotira l In ell cities, plus 111111'5 tax where levied.
1 Thouµ h only 55 citie~ h ~d "direct charge lor school attendance,_ an average for59 cities Is used In order to balance the table.
The 155-clty average Is $7.37. The averages for the
gcoµrapb ic di\'isinns nre based 0 11 the total number of cities In each wvislon Included In this study.
• Ex(·lu ~i ve or sulP"- ta_,.
'Though ta,cs were pny• hl• In only 36 cltie,,, an ave111ge for 59 cities Is used In order to balance the table. The 31k:lty average Is $4.17. The averages for the geographic dlvi•
sions nre hast'<.! on t he total nu mber of cities in each division Included In this study.
None payable.
• Though personal property taxes were pnyable In only 22 cities, an average for 611 citle, Is u.oed In order to balance the tabl•. The 22-ility average is $2,116. The averages for the
geographic divisions are based on the total number of cities In each division Included in this study.
00 Though capitation taxes were payable In only 25 cities, an average for 59 cities fs used In order to balanoe the table. The 25-elty average Is $3.40. The averages for the geo•
graphic divisions are based on the total number or cities In each division Included In thla study.
Non.-Owlng to the necessity for rounding numbers In computing averages, there are slight discrepancies between certain totals and the sums of their component Items.
1
"'
"°
g
•
r
•~
°
1
"'
.,.
,..
a,
0
)>
~
!:!!
er
)>
C)
,,,r-VI
....•
N'1)
a.
-<
0
~
-~
(')
n
-I
a,
00
w
184 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
TrrlJle 12.- Annual Com 1 of Livin9, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Sub9roups,
in 5 Size of City Classif'ications, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, March
1935
J:IU:ROICNCY LICVICL
Size or city classlJlcatlon
Budget group
Average,
59 cities 1,000,000 500,00011) 250.000 to 100.000 to 2.~.000 to
or more 1,000,000 500,000
250,000
100,000
---- - - - $8&1. 29
$884.88
------338. 78
34-4.94
Total ccst of living ............•.....
$903. 'TT
$91,1. 82
$951. 29
1897.50
Food •••••••••••••••...•.••••••••••••••...
340. 30
343. 41l
338.611
338. 09
Clothing.....•.......•...••.••••..... .
Clotblni,: upkeep •. ....•.• • ••.•• • .• . ..•
Personal care •••.......•.••.•••.•.... .
128.05
100. 23
II. 88
15. 93
130.85
103. 92
10.48
16. 45
132.114
UH.80
II . 38
16. 48
124. 96
'l'l. M
11. 63
15.67
Housing, Including water_ ..... .... .......
167. 7ll
179. 40
187. 50
IM.00
1116. Sll
157.811
Household operation •.•.•••.••••••.••... . .
Fuel.. ..•...........•••.••••• ••••• ....
Coal or wood . ...... ..... ..... ....
121. 84
48. 80
38.66
10.14
18. 67
14. 52
16. 94
123. 10
52.91
44.96
7. 96
17.88
14. 42
17.02
119. 68
40. 49
42. 46
7.03
17. 58
12. 59
16. 8a
115. 89
45. 31
36. 45
8. 811
18. 45
13. iO
Ul.44
121. 77
49. 04
36. 32
12. 71
17. 73
14. 75
16. 83
131.48
51.112
39.63
12. 00
18.66
11.50
2. 76
18.10
18. 57
1.84
2. 76
18. 32
. 90
2.76
18. 89
I . 78
2. 75
Ul. lll
172. 80
153.57
45. 61
55.33
6. 99
l'.l.33
7. 61
4. 83
:lll.80
10. 40
2.09
.91
I. 18
130. 82
48.87
30.97
6.13
12. 31
7.50
4.82
:lll.80
10.40
3. 33
120. 48
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and penonal
eve......•.•.•.......... . . •. •••••••.••. .
Oas..•..•....•...•.•..... ..... ....
Joe ........••• •• ••.... .•• •. . ••. ..•••...
Electricity ..........• • •• .•.. •.•• •...••
Household supplies ...• ••• .. •••. •. ....
FumltUJ'e, furnishings, and house•
bold equipment .••..•. •.. . •••••• ••. .
Refuse disposal. ...........•.•......•.
Unspecl1led OS8111ltfals • ..•••••••.•.....
Mlaeellaneous ...•. .•. ..•..••••.•.••.......
Medical care ..•.. .•. .. ..••.•.• ••••• ...
=rar::~~tie_-_-.-:: :::: :: ::: ::::::
&!creation .... . .... .....•••.......... .
Motion plctUJ'e tbeateradmlssfons.
Tobacco and toys• ... . •. ..........
Life Insurance• .... .•• . ...•• ... •• .....
Church contributions• .••••.••••......
Taxes• .••............. •.••.• •••••... .
Personal property .....•.•.••..... .
Capitation .........• • .. •..• •. .... .
146. 30
47. 08
44. 97
• 6. 87
12.63
7. 80
4. 83
al. 80
10. 40
I 2. 54
I 1.10
1 1.44
(1)
2. 77
174. 118
49.53
75. 70
4. 41
13. 79
8.90
4. 89
:lll.80
10.-IO
. 36
.36
(")
47.60
74.96
4. 48
13. 42
8.59
4.83
:lll.80
10.40
1. 24
. 74
.60
128. 13
100. 30
11.98
16.85
l.H
1.89
128. 57
119. (Ill
13. 01
16. 87
:/0.95
HI. 7ll
17.80
2. 43
2. 76
-18.27
14. eo
9. 91
12. 411
7.M
4. !14
:/0.80
10. 40
4.00
1.54
2. 48
• Include sales tax where le\"ied (append it table 16).
• Though only 18 cities hnd a direct charge !or reltu1e disposal, an avers,e for 69 cities ls used In order
to balance the table. The 18-city avera~o is $4.\IO. The averages for the size or city groups are based on
the total number ol cities in each Kroup included in this study.
a Not a direct charl(e.
• Budget allowance Identical in all cities, plus sales tax where levied.
a Though only 56 cities had a direct charge !or school attendance, an average for 69 cities Is u:!ed In order
to balance the table. The 55-C'ity a,·ern1:e Is $7.37. The averages for the size or city groups are based on
the total number or cities in each group included in this study.
• Exclusive ol sales tax .
1 Though ta,es wore payable In only 36 cities. an averMe !or 59 cities Is usod In order to balanoo the table.
The 36-city ave rage Is $-1 .17. The averages !or the size or city groups are based on the total nwnber of
ci!ies In each gruu11 include,! In this stu,ly.
• Though personal pro\MJrty to xes were payabla In only 22 clll••· an n-rerMe !or 59 cities Is us.ed in order
to balance the table. T 10 '.ll-city ave,,.~e is $1.\Hl. The an>rnges for the size of city groups are bt>sed on
the total number o! cities in each group included in this stuuy.
• _Though capitation tares were puyable In only 25 el ties, an a-rerntl(e !or 59 cltios Is used In order to balance
the table. The ~ity a,•en,ge is $3 .40. The a,·erages for the size o! city groups are based on the total
number of cities In each group included In this study.
"None payable.
NOff! .-Owing to the nec,,sslty forrnun dlng numbers In romputlng a.-erages, there are slight discrepancies
between oertain totals and the s um, of their component ite1us.
Digitized by
Goos Ie
BASIC TABLES • 185
Tal,#e 13.-Relative Costs 1 of Living, by Major Budget Groups and Principal Sub
groups, in 5 Sii.e of City Classiflcations, -4-Penon Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities,
March 1935
JlllJIROJ:NCT LJIVJIL
A veraae, 611 cltlea
Budaetlll'OUP
Amount
Peroent
Bise of city clusl4eetlon
1,000,000 r,oo,oooto 215(),000to 100,000to 26,000 to
or more 1,000,000 r,oo,ooo 215(),000 100,000
--Total COit ofllvfnl •••••..
IU()3.'rl
100.0
106.4
106.8
119. 4
118.0
D7.8
Food_. ________ -----·---·-- .. - .
340.30
100.0
100.9
119. 6
1111.4
1111.11
101.4
128.06
100.23
11.88
16.113
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.2
103. 7
88.2
103. 2
103.11
104.11
96.11
103.4
D7.II
D7.4
D7.9
118.4
100.1
100.1
100.8
1111.6
100.4
119. 6
lOll.6
!Ill.II
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and
pe8i':i~:::::::::::::::::
Clotblnf upkeep.--····-···
Pel'llOna care___ .• _•.. _._ ...
Houalng, Including water .•.. __
1117. 79
100.0
1011.9
111.7
118.8
118.11
94.1
Homehold operation ____ •.•....
121.84
48.80
38.1111
10.14
18.Q
14.62
111.94
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
108.4
1111.3
78.4
96.8
1111.8
100.6
118.2
101.4
109.8
1111.8
94. 2
811. 7
1111.6
96.1
112.8
94.3
87.4
118. 9
94.4
D7.1
!Ill.II
100.6
113.9
126.3
96.0
101. ti
1111.3
107.11
106.8
102. 6
118.3
112. 2
115.0
106.1
18.1111
I 1.15()
2. 711
100.0
100.0
100.0
D7.0
(I)
100.4
1111.6
122. 7
100.0
118. 2
Cll.O
100.0
101. 2
118.7
119.11
102.8
1112.0
100.0
146. 30
47.08
44.117
I 6. 87
12. tl3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
120.4
106.2
ll!B.4
114.2
109. 2
118. 9
100.11
168.7
M.2
1011.2
106. 7
116.11
123.1
101. 7
117.11
90.0
119. 6
118.11
811. 2
D7.6
82.11
102.6
32. 6
1«.2
118.8
7.80
4. 83
20.80
10.40
'2.64
1 1. 10
11.44
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
114.1
101. 2
100.0
100. 0
14. 2
32. 7
110.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
48. 8
67.3
34. 7
116.2
100.0
100.0
100. 0
82. 3
82. 7
81.11
116.1
1111.8
100. 0
100. 0
131. 1
130.9
131. 2
118.0
100. 2
100.0
100. 0
157.6
140.0
1711.8
Fue(. __ . ____________ ...•...
Coal or wood __ ........
Ou.---------------....
Ice. _____ -- -------- .... -- -- .
ElecUtclty. ___ •• _.• -- ....•.
HoWll!hold supf!es. ------Furniture, furn lngs, and
~=:~~~~-n:_e_~~::::
Unspecilled esaentlala •_. _.•
M1-llaoeoUII .. ---------·······
Medical care-·--·--·-·-····
Tramctlon .••• - •......
Bchoo attendance •• -._ .. _._
Recreation ......• __ .•.•....
Motion picture theeter
admissions ...••• __ •..
Tob8COO and toys• .....
Life lnsuranoe • _•••. _.....•
Church contributions•-····
Taxes•-------·-···-·-······
Personal property __ ....
CapltatioD--------··-·-
(")
I Include sales tax where levied (appendl:t table UI).
• Though only 18 cities bad a direct charge for refuse disposal, an average for 6CI cltlee Is oaed In order to
balanoe the table. The 18-clty average Is $4.90. Tbe averages for the size of city groups are baaed on the
total number of cities In eecb group Included In this study.
1 Not a direct charge.
• Budget allowance Identical In all cities, plus sales tax where levied.
• Though only 65 cities bad a direct charge for school attendanoe, an average for 1111 cities Is oaed In order
to balance the table. The 65-clty average Is $7.37. The averages for the sir.a or city groups are baaed on the
total number of cities In eecb group Included In this study.
• E:i:cluslve of sales tu.
t Though taxes were payable In only 36 cities, an average for 59 cities Is oaed In order to balance the table.
The 36-clty average Is $4.17. The averages for the size of city groupll are baaed on the total number of cities
In each group Included In this study.
• Though per!IOnal property tax.es were payable In only 22 cities, an average for 6CI cities Is oaed In order
to balance the table. Tbe 22-clty average Is $2.911. The averages for the sir.a of olty groups are baaed on the
total number of cities In eecb group Included In this study.
• Though capitation taxes were Jl6Yable In only 26 cities, an average for 611 cities Is uaed In order to belance
the table. The 25-clty average Is s:uo. The averages for the size of city groups are baaed on the total
number of cities In eecb group Included In this study.
" None J)6yable.
Non.-Owlng to the necessity for rounding numbers In computing averages, there are slight discrepancies between certain totals and the sums of their component Items.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
186 • COSTS OF LMNG, 59 CITIES
TalJle 14.-Annual Costs I of Minimum Medical Care per 1,000 Persons, 59 Cities,
March 1935
City
Total
Average, 69 cities_-------------------------------------·
Spokane, Wash_.-----------------------------------------·--·
San Francisco, Calif.I_________________________________________
Butte, Mont. _________ ---------------------------------------Tucson, Arlt.I________________________________________________
Los Angeles, Calif.I___________________________________________
Cleveland, Ohio
I_-------------------------------------------.
Services
1
Dru!!!' and
appliances 1
SI, 247. 34
Sl3,0'III. 01
s11, 831. ,rr
l=====l=====,I=====
16,624.49
16,069.47
15,709.50
15,327.21
15,0?0.86
14,802. 74
15,257.24
14,783.111
14,429.25
13,97ft. 76
13,SOG. 76
1, '11',7. 25
I, 285. 86
1,280.25
I, 350. 411
1, ~14.. 11
13,393.44
1,409.30
I, 109. 25
I, lM. 75
I, 321. 49
l, 246. 25
Scranton, Pa _______ . ________ . ___ .. _____ .______________________
1::
ffi::
14,585.49
14,602.60
It
g~ :':
13,264.00
~i~=~rt~:-~~~:•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
lt ~: !:
lt~::
1,327. 711
New York, N. Y.I____________________________________________
14,072.711
lll,864. 311
i~~~,~~nfne~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Detroit, Mich.I_______________________________________________
Jacksonville, Fla ____ .. __ ... ---------------·-·---·------------·
Salt Lake City, Utah•-·-- .. ____ ·-----·----------------·----·Denver, Colo.I ________________ ·-------------------------------
14,315.00
14,161. 75
14, 1211. 40
13, 2/i6. 25
13,137.00
12. 836. 00
12,841.14
1,234.46
I, 178. 00
1,325. 75
I, :188. ll6
:I:i'!ra':::~n?N1'.11v-:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
lt :t :l
Boston, Mass ___ ----·----------------------------------------13,839. oo
Clarksburg, W. Va.I__________________________________________
13,8211.03
lt ~::
12, 1120. 00
l, 208. 41
1,175.00
1,135.50
1,219.00
1,289.03
Providence, R. 1-------------------------------------·-------Pittsburgh, Pa________________________________________________
Minneapolis, Minn___________________________________________
Little Rock, Ark ___________ ... ____ ----------------------------
Atlanta, On______________ •.• _______________________ . ____ ._____
13, ~ 44
13,630.11
13,630.75
13. 387. 75
13,370.91
12,442.44
12,463.36
12,150.00
12,158.00
12,095.16
I, 252. 00
1,166. 75
1,380. 75
l,ffi.75
Memphls, Tonn_-----------------------------._______________
13,322.211
12,120.00
:~~~~T~~-~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Orleans, LI'-------·--------·-------------·_______________
l~: ~: ?g
13,113.89
l~ ~: ~
12,036.64
1, 3l2. 25
Winston-Salem, N. C.I_ ---------------------------------·---Mobile, Ala ____________________ ----------------------------·Seattle. Wash _____ . _____________ ... __________ --------·---··--·
Sioux Falls. S. Dak___________________________________________
Kansas City, Mo ____________________________________________ .
12,987.211
12,985.14
12,960. 50
12,956.00
12,852.19
12,836.65
11,633.06
11,787.311
11,670.00
11,700.00
11,506.19
11,498.40
Fall River, Ma.ss ___________________________________________ ..
Richmond,
__________ ·---------·--------------------------Norfolk,
Va Va
_______________________________________________
.__
12,809.211
12,807.36
12,765.40
11,667.60
11,609.36
11,603.40
Buffalo, N. y ___________________ ·------·------------. ________ .
Oklahoma City, Okla.I ___ ---------·------------------------·-
12,688.39
12,677.61
11,536.64
11, an. 00
1,141.75
1,198.00
1,162.00
1,151.75
1,300.61
Knoxville, Tenn ________________________________ ·-----------·Wichita, Kans. __________ ·------------------__________________
Manchester, N. H _________ ·--·--------. _-·------------------Portland, Oreg _________________________ . __ .. __ .. __________ .___
St. Louis, Mo _______ . _____________________ . _____ .____________
12,562. 75
12,619.89
12,472.67
12,301.31
12,386.46
11,280.00
11,225.64
11,170.92
11,071. 56
11, 193. 21
l, 282. 75
1,294.211
1,301. 75
1,319. 75
1, 1113. 211
Dallas, Tex___________________________________________________
Omaha, Nebr_. __________ -----------------------·-- .. _________
Birmineham, Ala _________ ------------------------------._____
Cede.r Rapids, Iowa t ________ --------------------------------·
Columbus, Ohio•- __ .. ··---·-.-----------------····------·---
12,376. 56
12,001. 75
11,945.61
11,463.64
11,445.52
10,944.56
10,770.00
10,777.36
JO, 148. 35
10,166.00
1,432.00
1,231. 75
I, 168. 25
1,315.29
Milwaukee, Wis______________________________________________
Baltimore, Md ________ ·-··· .. _·------- - -------···____________
Peoria, IIJ.t_. ·-----------------·----------------- ... __________
Indianapolis, Ind _______ ----------·---------------____________
Phlladelpbia, Pa __________________________________ ------------
11,127.66
11,008.67
JO, 972. IX)
10,881. 25
10,754.44
9,915.66
II, 954, 92
9,770.44
9,521.00
9,633.44
1,212.00
1,063.75
1,201.M
1,360. 25
I, 121. 00
Cincinnati, Ohio•--_-----------··-··---------·--·--· . ________
Columbia, S. c __________________________________ ·····------Louisville, Ky,1 _________ .... ·-----------------· ... ____________
El Paso, Tex __________ ...... _-----------------------··-----·_
10,454.49
JO, ~1 .•54
10,178.42
9,610.30
9, 11e. 00
8,955.04
8,934.44
8,409.80
I, 338. 49
I, 278. fiO
), 2-13. 98
l,:al6.50
Newe.rk, N. J __________ _______ ·--·-----· ______________________
12,MO.OO
I, 27S. 75
1, 155. 211
1,229. 75
1,077.25
l,3M. lll
I, 1117. 75
1,290.50
1,256.00
1,346.00
1,338.25
I, 279. 52
1 Include sales tax where levied. Medlen I care costs tor a 4-person manual worker's family at the maintenance level of living were compuood 1\8 4/HKIO ol the costs shown In this table. By definition, emergency
budget medical ca.re cost is 90 percent of mainteuanco budget cost. See appendix tables 15 and 16 for amouut
ol sales tax for a 4-persou family.
• Includes physicians, dentists, optometrists, hn,spltals, and nu'""•·
• Includes eyeglasses and frames, propriete.ry medicines, and prescriptions.
N OTl!:.-Owing to the neces.sity lor rounding num hers in computing averages, there are slight discrepanCleS
between certain totals and the sums of their component items.
Dg1tzed by
Google
Tol,le 75.-Annual Sales Tax on Costs of Livin9, by Major Bud9et Groups and Principal Sub9roups, '4-Person Manual Worker's Family, 18 Cities, 1
March 1935
JIAllff&IUIICJ: LJ:VJ:L
-
I C lothing,
rlothing upk l'f.'JJ, and p~r.;onal
Household n{l('ratio n
:I I L•cclls nrous
eare
,,
City
I
.s
.::
,,.
8
.;
'O
-
8
-A vem ge,2 59 cities ... $0. 14
Louisville, K y ..... •. .... . 2.1. 21)
1)1•troit, l\[ich .. . .. ___ ___ __
0
~
1"'
~
C')
0
a(v
A lbuquorqu\ N. Mex ....
Cl,weland, 0 lo .. .. _. . ...
Sa n Francisco, CaliL •.. ___
C'olum hus, Ohio ... . ..... .
Los .~ ngeles, C aliL .. .. . ..
<'lneinnall , Ohio .....•.. .
\\'inston-Snlem, N. c _____
Cedar R apl<.ls, Iowa .••. •.
Ch irngo, Ill .. ... .. . .. .. . .
Sult L l1k 1t City, Utah ....
Prorin. 111. . . .• ... . . . .... ..
C larks hur~. W. \'a.. ..... _
Den v,•r, Colo ...•. • ...... .
Tucson , Ariz .. ... . . . .. . ...
Oklahoma City, Okla ..... .
Nf'W York. N . Y
- -- -
23. iii
20. 25
20. 08
19. 85
JO. 15
10. OS
18. 88
17. 25
16. 95
!fl. 06
15. 52
15. .12
I.,. (IS
13.1)6
JI. 9.1
7. 60
fl. 49
...
s
0
t"'
-- --
."
:a
a::
-"'
0.
::,
""
:a"
" "
-- -C
C
·~
Fuel
0.
~
§
0
I'.;
.,_,.,
--
=a0.
;l
8ii:
~
"
~
--
30
30
...
t"'
-- --
!'
0
0
.c
.:.
~
•
.-
-- -
- - r--
-oJ
s~
.c "
a::
~
~
'"":.~-;" ~.!3
~ ~ g s -~
~
°B
'3.,
Hl'<-'reation
""
"
~
"
~
.9
'O
.:.,
.,8.
...
~
"3.! g "i:,
c~ j
;:I
u
8 3 _g -s .c
.c
~E~ 0
"
e
0
.§
;.,
rr.,
...
...
~
...
~
" ... ~3 ...
::I
C.i
-- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - -- ~
.;
0
"C
gj
0
$2. M $1. 16 $1. 04 $0. 02 $0. 10 $0. 01 $0. 94 $0. 34 $0. 31 $0.03 $0. 17
---12.92 .I. 17 4. 16 ~ ~ ~ 3. !jJ T47 1.35 ~ ""79""
12. 93 5. (13 4. 61
. 05
. 37
(' )
4. 62 2. 05 I. 83
. 54
. 21
9. 52 3. iR 2. llO
. 32
. 56
3. 27
. 95
(')
. 7-1
. 21
. 69
(I)
9. 97 5. 32 4. 00
3. 70 1.61 I. 61
. 51
. 36
(' )
. 05
I I. 20 4. 37 4. 03
. 0-1
• 30
(')
3. 42
.86
. 86
I. 17
(')
• 5,q
10. 09 4. 75 4. 34
3. 28 I. 14 J.U
. 05
. 37
(')
. fiJ
10. 78 4. 42 4. 08
('
3. 17
.88
• 04
. 30
. 93
(')
9, 85 4. ll4 4. 23
(')
3. 50 I. ~5 I. 35
.05
• 36
(')
. 58
8. 41 4. 51 4. 11
.05
(')
3. 46 I . Ii I. 17
. 35
(')
. 82
. 19 3. 21 I. 51 I. 31
8. 20 3. IS 2. 9 1
.03
• 24
. 32
.20
9.00 3. 28 3. 01
(' )
. 03
. 24
3. 15 I. 45 I. 3-1
. 39
. JI
R. 3S 3. 40 3. 12
. 03
(')
3. 20 I. 19
. 24
I.OJ
. 45
. 18
!PIO 3. 23 2. 9ti
.03
. 24
. 08 2. .,3
.80
. 60
. 20
. 39
(I)
9. II 3. 39 2. 90
I. 92
. 24
. 45
. 25
. 45
. 39
(')
6. 56 3. JI
2. 84
. 03
. 24
. 31
(' )
2. 73 I. 03
.8.1
. 18
(I)
fl.Sil 2. 36 2. I.I
2. 22
. 56
. 46
. 02
. II
. 70
. 19 1
4. 37
I. 56 I. 42
. 02
. 13
(')
I. 34
. 39
. 3fl
. 03
. 27
( ')
2. 98 2. R9
.•13
. 24
(')
3. 02 1.30 1. 09
. 21
. 39
c•;
'O
d
~:,;" ~
il
~
0
-
,o'O
~-~] ::l
30
.
$0.07 $0. 13 $0, 22 $0. 01 $0, 37 $0. 05
~
. 51
. 48
•. 04
' · 03
'· 04
' . 03
•. 04
'· 04
. 36
. 35
. 44
--:-Kl ~ ----:ti4
. 57
. 46
. 57
. 91
. 67
. 05
.54
. 54
. 94
. 52
. 57
.50
.38
. 34
• 41
. 36
.36
.39
. 39
. 12
. 21
. 43
. 35
• 18
. 34
. 36
• . 03
. 711
. 0-1
.02
.04
.03
- 04
.711
.03
. 93
.90
. 62
. 04
. 04
• 59
.02
. 69
• 60
. 02
2. 77
I. 19
3. 6S
J.09
- 85
1.04
, 70
.90
. 87
2. 18
. 57
.02
.54
.88
.66
. f\7
. 47
. 02
.02
. 02
.02
. 28
.54
.0 1
. 02
.33
. 51
. 65
. 62
. 51
-:-Ii"" ( I )
(' )
.1 5
.86 $0. 25
(')
. 16
• 12
(')
(')
. 15
. 12
.15
. 16
(' )
(' )
(' )
. JO
(' )
. 10
. JO
. 10
. 1n
.10
.08
. 01
.00
$0. 05 $0. 27
--:ar. 41
.08
. 31
. 21
. 26
. 06
. 12
.09
. JO
(')
. 06
(I)
( I)
(')
(' )
. 02
.36
. 14
. 15
/1)
(I)
. 12
. II
(')
.03
2. 29
. 62
2. 50
. 62
. 52
. 62
. 52
. 62
. 62
J. 98
, 42
• 42
• 42
• 42
!<)__._12_ $0.1
I. 66
7
2
{')
.~2
2. 08
. 42
2
~2
(')
(')
c•;
('
(')
(')
I. 56
1-l
(')
(I)
.42
(' )
. 31
. 21
. 42
(' )
(')
(')
.·'
.f2
.!,2
. ~ ,2
.f 2
.4 2
. 42
.4 2
- 42
. 42
. 42
.3
.~
. 42
• Less than $0.~.
In addition, New Orleans had a local tax of I cent on motion pictun theater admilslona exceedln11 10 cents. It amounted to SI .M per year. ThOllllh this tax was not a salell
tax, it is included in the average for the total cost of living and for motion picture theater admiaslons.
• All averages In this table are based on 611 cities rather than on the number in which the tax was levied, in order to account for the tax In the Ml-city averap total cost ofllvlng
and averages for the aeparate budget groups.
• No tax.
1 Includes llllles tax on acceeaoriea only; energy is not taxed.
N OT&.-Owlng to the Decel!l!ity for roundina numbers in computina averaps, there are sllllht dl!crepancles between certal11 totals and the swna of their 00mpo11ent Items.
1
CICI
)>
!l?
">
CICI
r-
~
....•
OC)
.....
Tcrf,le 16.-Annual Sales Tax on Costs of Livin9, by Major Budget
Groups and Principal Sub9roups, "-Penon Manual Worker's Family, 18 Cities,t
March 1935
Clothing, clothln~ up-
City
.5
:,
,.~
:,
§'
I
E
;;
0
E-<
"
,;
]
...
0
E-<
- - - - --_g_2'!__ !()82
0
:g
N
ro
0.
CT
'<
()
0
~
-n
~:::;
8. 95
6. 71
5. M
:1. ;jf,
4. f.8
(' )
I. f>6
I. 10
2. Ill!
;;
C:
l
.
;;
.,
]
I
Fuel
C.
0.
...
e0
,;
e:
".
·.:
;:;
C
e:
:l
~
... ..- ~ -~- - v- 0 --- - ~--- - 26 $0. 03 $0. 14 $0. 06
$0. 02 $0. °'~ $0. 01 $0. 74
11-.~ -f f
0
C
<,
C,
:,.
1:!
-- - - --
$0. 72
A,ernge, 1 59cltie., . .. _!1. TS
J.011is ville , Ky .. ..... . . 1 1-:-IF ~~4 3. IH 2. M
IJelroit, !l[ lch .. __ ___ __ .. IT . 1;1
U. lli 3. 54 3. IT
i . KY 3. 75 3. 3~
l'le\'e.land, Ohio _ .. ... .... ) ,\. 12
~-.\9 3. Ill 2. so
l°'un Frnncisc-o, f'aliL .. _ . 14. ,2
37
.
H
~- 01 3. 32 2. 95
l'uluwbu.s, Ohio.---- -· · · · ·
:.¥;
.
H
T. 39 2 1\5 2. 01
Alhuquer(Jue. N . Mex_ .
i . XO 3. 28 2. 9 1
H . IS
( "incinna t l, Ohi" . .. ..
8. 20 3. 10 2. ~)
. H . fl!<
Los Angeles, C oli !. ...
3. 111 2 "-1
fi . UM
W inston- Salem, N . C . . . 1:t ::'ti
11. ll.\ 2. 32 20!l
Chim go, Ill .. . • - ••. . .. . ... II.If.!
C' ('flnr Rapids, Iowa __ __ __ 11. 87
Ii. 25 2 2.,
2. 00
fi. ; 1 2. 2S 2. 04
l'L'<lria, lll . . _. .... . . .. ... . J I. 5i
2. 42 2. 17
>'nit Lake City, t.:tnh . ___ I I. 54
fi. 42
6. 9T 2. 4'.! 2. IO
f'Jnrksbur~ . W . Va _ .. . . .. II. 16
JJ enver, Colo . ••••• • __ ____ 9. S6
5. 2'l 2. 20 1. 00
Tltl:son. Ari• · -· ····-- · · · ·
I lklshomn <'it)', Okin .. _.
New Yor k, N. " -· · ·· · ··-
2"
"
B
1.4 7
. U7
I. 85
$0 28 $0.
----:-4if
.0-1
. 04
.03
. 04
.'.!!;
. lH
. 00
'()4
.ua
.m
.03
. 03
. 20
.03
. 02
.01
. 03
. 33
.33
. 2T
. 33
. 36
. 32
. 2T
.31
.22
. 21
.21
. 22
'22
. 21
. 17
. II
. 22
!
Household operation
u
~ 2.IHI T.Tif
3. 7 1 1. 73
(' )
2. &8 I. 32
(')
(' )
. 70
2. 60
2, 50
. llU
(' )
59
2.
. 82
(' )
2. 70 1.00
(' )
. 77
49
2.
(')
(I)
.118
2 72
(')
23
I.
2. -~2
. 19 2. M 1.28
I. U.\
. OS
.114
2. .',O
. 119
(' )
. 32
I. 43
(')
2. II
.tH
(')
(' )
(I)
(1)
I. 75
1.05
2, 40
. 40
. 33
I.OT
1.08
I.M
I. 32
. iO
.90
. fi2
I. OIi
. 77
.08
1.13
I. 10
. 46
. 82
. 32
. 67
. 37
.30
.88
~ ~
. IQ
. 43
. 45
. 42 • . 03
.98 •. ro
')
. 49 •. ru
(')
r>
. 20
. 5i
. 49
. i3
i;1
'""
0
.c
~
0
i::
"c
--5iE ~o'"
::,.C 8
~"§°8
~ "' c"'
'a~
::,
'-C o
...
::s-.C
--:.ir
. 52
. 51
~
.55
. 57
. 49
. 4;
. 49
. 57
.H
. 40
. 37
. 47
•.m
. 51
. 47
• . 03
. 45
. 28
.31
. 36
. 18
. IS
. 17
. 27
. 29
' 3-1
. 32
. 37
.36
. 34
• Ji
.32
• . 02
. 27
. ;15
. 41
(I)
. Oil
. 15
. 36
. 32
.10
. 30
• 10
. 17
.26
.09
,(\J
. 50
. 23
. 19
. 32
]~
~ -~
i!;
::,
3C
E-<
"~
1i
~
~
-
"
0
s.
~C
e
E-<
. 35
.1>6
.,'1-1
. 39
• 37
. 28
. 17
. 32
.
--
-:-00 Too 73 ~
.03
.03
. 03
.03
.02
. 03
.m
. 03
.02
. 02
. 02
. 02
. 02
.02
.02
.0 1
.02
. 09
. 60
.H
(' )
. 15
. 09
(')
(' )
(')
$0. 21
(' l
(' )
( ')
(')
'64
. 09
. 09
. 21
. (ll!
. OIi
.OIi
. 07
. 01
r>
'44
• 54
1.64
. 40
. 211
. 37
. 24
.M
. 33
. 34
. 26
. 17
. 18
. II
.H
. i7
. 14
. II
. 14
. ll6
fl
')
(')
(')
(1)
(')
.
"'C
-:,
<.,
:I)
G>·-
c:.C ~
o~ --
0
~~
~ ~
• 14
. 41
. 31
. 14
.2 1
. 12
. 12
. 06
.00
.06
. 10
. 36
.02
. 14
. 16
. 12
. II
. 03
§~
.,s
;:: "' 8 .g
s i3~
E-<
E-<
- -03
- - - - $0.
$0.01._
. 26
. O!!
-:,
~~
;.~ § ~
.:;;
8
.c
0
.,,
Recn>ation
C
"
$0. 12 $0, 13 $0.01 $0. 10 $0. 04
•.m
(')
1l
.,~
~
~
M lscel!aneous
- - - - -- -- -
.118
.32
. 27
. 32
. 37
<'(Il
--::is
(')
)'')>
.u
(')
. 58
. 48
.H
. 12
f'l
')
--
$0. 03
~
. 14
' 14
. 12
.H
. 10
.H
. 12
.u
(')
. 10
(')
. 10
. 46
. 36
. 10
. 10
. JO
. 10
. 10
(1)
. 10
'10
• JO
. Oi
(')
. 07
.05
. 10
(I)
(')
. 05
. 10
t,:i
.H
. 10
• Leu than IO.OOII.
In addltlon 1 New Orl11111111 had a local tu or 1 cent on motion plature theater admlaalona uceedlns 10 oenta. It amounted to ae centa per :,w.r. Tboush thla tu was not a II.lee
tu, It la lncludea In the aveniae ror the tolal ooet oCllvlns and ror motion picture theater admllllo111.
1 All avera&IIIS In tbla table an baaed on 611 clllel rather than on tbe number In wbicb the tu wu levled, In order to account Cot the tu In the 611-elty avenae tolal coet or llvlnc
1
and avera&M ror tba •peraU budpt ITOUIJl1
co
•
IIMIIBODCT LIIVIIL
k oop, and persona <'are
....co
No tax .
• Includes alee tu on IICCllSIIOries only; eoeru la not tu.eel.
NOT1.-0wl111 to tbe Decll!llllty ror roulldlns numbe11 In computing averasee, tben1 are 1ll1bt dlacrepanclel between certain totala and the allDII of their component llema.
I'"'
sz
p
u,
,0
0
::I
c;
Tal,le 77.-Percent Distribution of the Costs 1 of Living Among Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, -4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
JU.J.NTJ:N.LMCJ: U:VJ:L
Total cost of - !living
Clothing, rlothlng upkeep, and
nous•
ing, includ•
.Food
<' ity
Household operation
pnrsonal caru
Amount I P,•rcen t
Tot a l
C loth•
ing
C'loth• 1P er.· onal ing
care
water
fng upkc..p
Furn!·
turo,
Fuel
! Cl'
Tot.nl
Total
Coal or
woo<l
Oas
- - --A verage , 59c it ies . . .. . .. . ..... .. $1,2f>0. 62
~
(v
0. 9
1. 0
l. 1
12.n
W.11
0. 8
3. y
2. 6
7. 3
4. I
11. 4
0.Y
24. 2
19.4
19. 0
21. 8
17.7
4. 5
14.:l
1.7
2.1
1. 7
1.8
2. 0
12. n
11. I
12. 4
I.I
I.II
1.0
2. 1
I. 9
2. 2
I. x
l. 9
0
19. 5
17. 4
20. 2
16. 8
2. 0
2. 0
1.8
2. 0
:.!. 0
21. 0
19. ti
18. 8
I.I. I
19. 8
1. 8
2. 2
I. H
2.0
1.8
17. 5
17. 0
18. 5
:s. 1
21.1
17. 5
17. 2
16. 4
16 0
21. 5
100. U
31. 5
34. ,
3:!. 0
IS. 2
Cinci nnati , Ohio 1 _ _________ __ ___ , _ __ _ I , 3 11. 74
Pittsbur~h. Pn . .. . . . . .. . . • . • . •... •. •. I, 310. 52
Los AnJ?t•lcs, Calif.1 . .. • . ••.• • • • • • . .. . • 1, 308. II
1\'t•wa rk, N . J __ ______ __ .. __ ___ ___ __ __ I, 300. 81i
0
10. 0
11.9
11. S
tiilwuukee, ,vis-- - -- · ·· -·· · ·- ·· ··--- - 1. 35.1. 34
Sernnton , Pa._ . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. _. . .. . . I, 312. 39
0
3. 7
12. 11
Bos ton, .M a..,;;,,;; __ _____ __ ___ • ____ __ . ____ _ I, 3.12. 77
Cio\'elnnd , Ohio 1 . . . . .. . . . _ _ • _ • ••• ••• l ,MS. 3:1
St. Lou is , M o . _...... ... . . ••• . .. . ___ . I, :JJO. 55
D et roit , 1\'fich .1 ________ ____ _____ _
I, 317 . ..".:J
~
4. 6
3:!.7
3:1. 1
31. ,\
34. 7
34. 2 1,
Ch icago ,IU.• . . . .... . . . ......... . . . . .
a-<
12. 2
17. 6 I =
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.u
l\l in nea1x1 1is, l\llnn . . . . .. •..•• . .. • . . . .
l\'ewYork,N.Y .> ... ................ .
0
2. 0
1, 414.54
1. :189. 87
1,387. 79
1.375.13
l,351i.ll
W nsh ington, D . C . .. .• . .. . . . . .... . . ..
~an Francisco, Cnli.1. 1. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'2r-i
1. 1
3S.fi
B alt imo re, Md ..... _. ... .. . . ... .. .. . .
Albuquen1ue, !'..Mex .• . .. · · ·- ·· •· · · ·
Philadelphia, Pa .. . ... .... .. . . . . . . . . .
Bridgepor t, Conn ___ .... __ _. .. __ . • _.
Siou x Falls, S . lJak .... .. .. . . . .. ... .. .
I , 300. 65
I. 2!19. 14
1. 2'J7. 6~
1. 296. 35
1, 2!1(). 60
I. 287. 63
R oches ter, N . Y .. .... . .
Tucson, Ariz.I ______ ______ __ __ . __ . . . __ l,2lS7.25
I, 283. 69
Butte, M ont. . . .. . .
P ortland, M aine_. _ . . . .
I. 275. 48
l'euri u, 111.1 ... .. . .... .... ..... . . . .
See footnotes at end of table.
1,27-t . :ro .
lllU. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
IIJfl. 0
IOO. 0
100. 0
JOU. 0
JOU. 0
100. 0
33. ,\
3:l. 7
:H. 2
34.3
34. I
:!3.8
36. 4
1_
H. fi
15. 0
14. :1
14. 0
15. 6
13. 4
H.9
10. 7
0. 9
1.U
14. 4
14. I
14. 1
15. 8
13. I
I I. 4
11 . 1
11. :1
12. 8
l(l. 2
1. 0
1.U
1.0
1. 0
JU. 4
11 .:1
100. 0
100. 0
32. Y
13. 1
14. 8
13. 5
11. 0
14 . 8
100.0
IIJO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
34. 4
36. 1
14. 1
14. 'j
35, 3
l!i . 6
14. 8
:is. o
3!i, :1
_
12. 0
34. 8
:~;. 4
R 4
a, ..1
100. 0
1(1(). 0
100. IJ
- --
11.s
100.0
16. 7
HI M
u. u
0. 9
1 :i
0. (l
11. 0
11.8
1.0
11.0
I. 2
I. 9
I. 3
1. 7
2. I
11. 37 1
12.
12. :!
11.S I
I. 2
I. 3
1.0
2. 3
2. U
2. U
2().
House• furnish•
logs, a nd
hold
tric~uphouse·
it y
piles
hold
equipmrnt
-- - - - - - ·- - F.ft,c.
3. 5
7. 8
4. 'J
5. 4
fi. 8
5. 2
4. 5
3. 3
5. 4
3. g
3. 8
2. g
3. 8
5. 0
4. 5
:t 7
4. 3
5. 7
7. 9
4.
7. 0
21
6. 2
6. 5
J. 3
I
5. 0
o;
l. 8
I. 5
I. 5
2. 5
0. 6
0. 9
o. 5
0. 8
o. 4
I. 4
3 5
I. 3
1.4
). 5
0. 9
1. 3
I. 4
1. 6
]. 3
1. 2
1. 6
1. 3
I. 2
1. 3
2.1
2. 3
2. 3
2. 0
2. 2
0.6
0. 8
0. 3
1.0
1.4
I. 3
I. 3
]. 4
I. 5
0. 8
1.1
I. 3
I. 3
1. 5
1.4
I. 3
1. 5
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
2.1
2. 4
1. 5
1. 5
). 3
2. 4
2. 4
2. 2
]. 6
1.4
2. 5
2. 3
a,
I. 4
1.8
I. 5
1.4
1.6
2. 3
2. ~
?a
2. 3
6. 2
4. 4
4. 2
2. 7
4. g
0. 5
I. 4
2. R
3. :;
2. 5
2. 9
4. 0
1. I
u. 3
0. 4
0.9
1.0
1.6
1. 5
I. 5
l. I
I. 4
3, 8
2. 9
0. 7
U8
0. 6
1.0
0. 7
:t 7
4. 'j
7. 2
6. 5
2. 4
5, 5
U1
o. 6
0. 7
I. 6
0. 7
1.1
0. 8
J.3
2. 8
1. 5
2. 0
I. 4
I. 2
2. i
1. 0
I. 9
1. 1
I. 5
I. 5
I. 4
1. 2
1. 6
I. 4
3. 7
I. 5
I. 4
1.6
I. 5
l. 7
1. 8
1. 7
I. 4
1.3
l.Q
1.8
1.6
I. 4
2. 2
2. J
2. 4
2. fi
2. ~
2. f
2. 4
">
a,
r~
•
.....
co
,0
To&le 17.-Percent Distribution of the Costs of Living Among Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Persan Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935-Continued
KADITJ:IUNCE LJ:VJ:L-«>Dtlnued
f'ity
F oll Hi,w, Ma.ss . ...... • ..... .. ..
At !Bnt a , Un . . .. . .. ... ... . ... . ...
Hic )HlltHHI. \'a .
.... .• . . ......
llullalo, K. Y . . .
.. ... . . .. .......
Omaha , Kcb r .. . . . ........ . ........ .
0
,1.2;1.51
I. 2C8. :n
1,268. 06
1. Zfll.21
I, 2SS. 2fi
:l! an,·hes rer, K. JL . .. ........ ....
l, 2,>-1 . 03
Korrolk, \'a ... . . .
. .... . . .. . . I , 251. :!ii
llenver. C'olo.1 ___ . . . __ . _. ____ . _ __ __ 1. 246. 0i
K a nsas f'it y. i\!o . .. ........ ... ..... I. 24,t42
~
P ro"'ide nt.-e , H . L ........ . ....•.. . . . . 1, 245. 26
"
~
Bin~hamton, 1' . Y ....... .... ........
!-'1<lt L uk~ Ci t y, 1'111h t ... . . .. .. ......
t'eattle. W ash ........................
0-
'<
0
0
-
~
n
I. 243. 19
I, :l-13. 07
1. 233. 35
!\'ew Orle11ns. La.............. . . .... .. I. 23:1. Oll
f' pokaue, W ssh .................... _. _ I. :!'.!8. 62
W ins ton-Salem. N . C.I .............. .
Port land, Orrg . ... . ............ . .... .
!\!em phis, T e.nn . . .. ... . ..... .. ... ... .
Louis ville, Ky ,1... ... . .... .. ... ..... .
Oklahoma City, Okla.•... ... ..... . .. .
l,?22. 18
I. 221. 12
I. 221. 40
Jacksonville, Fin . __
IIou.ston, Tex . . . . .
I, 217. 27
1,:.m. 00
lndiaoapo li!-t, l m1 . . .. .
l,W. 20
I, 217. 80
I. 198. 08
C olumhiR. s. C: ••. •• •••
I, 192. 60
C'lark, burg. \\' . Va• .... ... .. ...... . .. I. 100. 03
I Prrc,·n t.
Total
M7
15. I
~3
M. O
13. 4
15. I
14 . i
l(~).0
M3
14 . i
100. 0
U.J. O
IIJO. 0
IIJO. 0
100. 0
~ 9
MO
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. ll
100. 0
1m.o
17. 5
19. 4
IH. fi
16. i
11. ◄
11.0
11.6
11. R
10. 8
I. 2
I.I
I. I
0. 9
1. 0
I. 9
I. g
I. g
14. 8
10. 0
~ o
14.5
14. 0
14. 6
14 . 5
13. 7
KO
14 . 6
II.~
12.8
12. 3
II.I
13. 1
1.0
I. 3
I. 3
1.0
I. 4
11. 6
n. 4
11.0
11. 7
II. 8
1.0
I. 2
I.I
1.0
1.0
11.3
11.8
II. 3
11.0
12. 4
I.I
a5
~4
~I
M.7
na
~7
&7
&4
a 2
K 2
lt6
K6
Ml
•a
~o
16. I
).'> . i
14. 0
16.8
H. 7
16. 7
14. 2
14. 7
!.tO
14. 2
14. 9
14. 8
14. 0
16. 5
I. 2
I. 2
1.0
1.0
Fue l
Tota l
Total
\.g
1. 0
I. g
1.9
1.9
0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1p
1.0
0. {I
I.I
I.I
I. I
MO
MO
100. 0
HXJ. 0
100.0
Hons•
ing,ln·
clud•
ing
8 rsoaal water
r.aro
12. 2
10. 6
12. I
II. i
I I. 7
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
) (XI.
I
C loth•
Cloth• ing up•
ing
keep
l.R
I. 9
2. 0
2. 0
2. 1
1.9
18. 0
16. 4
15. 11
17. 4
13. 8
10. 7
12. 2
12. 0
12. 0
0. I
3. 5
14. 4
12. 0
II. 5
6. 7
5. 5
4.9
09
09
I. 5
1.8
1.8
I. 4
I. 5
I. 3
I. 3
03
2. 2
I. 5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1. 2
1. 6
1.9
I. 3
I. 2
I. 3
1.9
I. 4
I. 5
I. 5
1.8
I. 5
I. 4
1. 6
2. 5
I. 3
1.6
2. 3
2. 4
1. 8
1.8
I. 2
2. 6
2.8
2. 0
2. 4
2. 3
07
3. 3
5.1
05
09
4.0
0 8
07
I. 5
08
I. 5
1.6
I. 8
2. 9
1.9
1. 8
I. 3
I. 4
I. 7
I. 7
I. 4
1.9
1.9
I. 3
0 8
03
03
2. 3
1.7
1.3
I. 4
I. 3
1.7
I. 4
1.8
I. 3
I. 4
I. 5
I. 7
I. 3
1.4
1.7
I. 3
I. 4
I. 6
I. 4
1.7
18. 3
12. 5
15. i
13. 3
13. 6
13. 4
4, 8
4. 9
4. 7
2. 7
5. 6
14. 7
2. I
2. I
17. 0
13. 0
18. 2
13. 4
13. 4
10. 8
10. 9
2. 2
17. 2
16, 9
12. 0
3. 2
1.8
I. g
2. 3
2. 0
2. I
16. 3
17. 4
16. 8
16. 6
16. 1
12. 6
IIJ. 3
II. 6
12. 7
10. 7
4. 8
5. 2
4. 0
3. 4
4. 0
2 2
4. 6
4. 2
3. 2
1.9
4. I
3. 3
2, 7
2. 6
3. 7
2. 9
2. 0
I. 3
3. 9
3. 6
I. 7
2. I
1.9
.,
06
.5. 7
3. S
3. 8
2. 5
2 2. 5
I. 4
I. 4
3. 5
6.0
2. 7
I. 4
I.I
I. 3
1. 2
14, 2
2. I
lro
o ...
Elec•
trlc•
lty
Furn i•
ture,
Housc- !uraish·
hol<l
lngs , anti
SUP·
house•
plies
hold
equip·
m ont
4. 7
10. 6
JO. 7
5. 2
2. 6
3. I
4. 0
13. 6
16. I
Coal or
wood
5. 2
4. 4
2. 3
2.0
~
Houst'hol rl operation
persona l m ro
Food
.\mount
"
C lo thing, rlothing upk ef'p, and
T otal cost or
li,·ing
....
8
•
28
09
07
I. 9
03
3. 0
I. 9
I. 4
2. 3
l. 9
2. 5
I. 4
2. Q
I. 7
20
1.6
2. 4
2. 3
2. 8
2. 5
2. 6
2. 5
2. 5
2. 3
2 6
2 6
2. 4
2. 8
2. 8
0
...,
r-
<
z
p
UI
,0
,.,
3
~
Dallas, Tei ...•...•.•.••••••••••••.•..
Crdar Rapids, lowa '···········•···· ·
Columhus, Obio '· · .•...••••••••••• . .
Jllrmingham, Ala .•.•.• . ..•••••••..•• .
I, 188. 07
1,1811. 18
1,178. 70
l, 168. 85
Knoxville, Tenn ..........••••.•....• 1,166. 75
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
38. 0
35. 2
37. 7
38. 2
36. 2
13. 8
15. 9
16. 7
H. 6
14.7
10. 7
12.6
12. 6
11. 6
11.7
l.O
1.2
1.0
1. l
1.1
1. 9
2. l
2.1
2. 0
1.9
18. 2
17. 0
18. 3
14. 2
17. 7
IO. 6
14. l
10. 9
11. 0
IL8
El Paso, Tei ... .... .. ......•...•••.••
Little Rock, Ark ... ••. • •• •...•• ••..• .
Wirhita, Kans ................••• .... .
Mobile, ... la ......•......•..... . .... . .
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
38.3
39.0
37. 7
38.4
14. 6
15. 2
15. 4
H.6
11. 6
11.9
12. f
11.4
1. l
1.2
1.1
1. 2
2.0
2.1
I. II
2. 0
18. 9
15. 3
If. 6
14. 5
13. 6
11.0
13.0
12. 5
1,163.68
1,139.06
1,131.30
1,129.81
2. 3
6. 6
3. 6
3. 4
'- l
4. 8
2. 8
6.~
3. 6
u
L8
2. f
1. 4
1. 7
l.0
1.8
1. f
1.6
1.0
1 6
L6
1. 7
1.8
1. 6
l. 6
1.6
2. f
2. 7
2. 7
2. 4
2. 8
1.0
0.6
0. 4
1. 8
1.9
1. 8
I. 4
2. 7
2.0
2.1
I. 7
1.8
1. 7
1. 8
1. 8
1.6
7.8
2.6
2. 8
2. 7
fl. 0
6. 6
8.f
2. 6
2. 3
0. 11
o. 2
0. 11
3. 8
2. 2
f. g
1.8
Bee footnotes at end of table.
a,
0
co·
;c;c
N
CD
a.
CY
'<
0
0
-
~
(v
>
5':!
">
-f
,,,~
VI
-•
,0
To&le
17.-Percent Distribution of the Costs of Livin9 Amon9 Major Bud9et Groups and Principal Sub9roups, -4-Person Manual Worlcer's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935-Continued
ll.lDITIUUJfCII LIIVJD.-COntlnued
1 lous1~holcl o()(' m·
t ioo-('ontinuetl
("\
I
Ii
M iscella neous
Recreation
"itr
H e!US<'
<lisi-,sal
I
\ "nspeci•
llt•d cs•
I
T otnl
I
M ~llml
care
sentrn.l~ 1
I
T ra ns• \ Sctuml \
~rts•
ntten,1·
t 1on
TotR.l
trnrP
I News•
PIii'<'~•
A vera~e. r,v rtt ies . . .. ... 1
\-Vns hi ngton , D. C • .•••. . • . .. .
~ti ~I. F nrnd~eo , ( '.al H. l __ __ __ __
~tmrieapolls . ~l mn . . . . .. .. . .
l\ewY urk,l\".Y ,1. .
•. . .•.
(' }
l\lllwaukee, W is .. .. . . . . . . .
Hoston, l\la.s,;_ . . . . .. . . . . . . .•. .
1•)
<'IC\'t.>land, Oh io 1 _ • • • • • •• ••• •
8. t , Lou iR, l\.1o. __ _____ __ ____ ___
N-
IJetruit , J\l ich . 1 •
a.
~kranton . Pa__ __ __ ___ __ _______
0-
( 'il.H·i nnnli , Oh io
er,
-<:
C")
0
-
~
(v
0 !,
0.3
('l
• • • • • • • • • • •• •
1' 1
(' )
0. 2
(')
(' )
(' )
0. 2
20. 0
•. 2
4. 3
0. 2
0. 2
19.fi
10. f\
4. tl
3. Y
:t 7
0. 2
0. 2
IU.6
4. 1
.~. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0 .,
ti_fi
IY. fi
Zl. 4
IJ. 2
19. 3
(' )
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
2:l. 6
rn. 6
2'l.9
IS. 2
15, 2
3. 4
4. 4
3. 3
4. 3
4. 0
8. 9
1.0
8. 2
3. 4
0.8
R ochester, N . Y ... ...... . ... .
1
1 ~~ -nM~~t _"_":: : ::::::::: : ::
Portland, Maine .. .... . . . ...•.
P eoria, lll.' · ••· · · .•.• . ••• . . •• •.
(')
r>0.0
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
(' )
0. 2
20. 0
18. 0
17. 6
18, 6
18. 1
4. I
4. 8
4. g
4. 6
3. •
6. 0
1. 0
0. H
2. 2
2. 3
0. 9
')
3. 3
3. 3
3. 3
:1. 4
;l. 4
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
3. 4
3. 4
3. 4
3. -~
3. 5
I. I
I.I
I. I
I. I
I. 2
3. .,
3. 5
3. 6
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
2. 3
2. 4
2. 3
2. 3
2. 4
3. 6
3. 6
3. 6
3.6
3. 6
I. 2
I. 2
I. 2
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
3. 6
3. 6
3. 6
3. 6
3. (!
1. 2
1. 2
I. 2
I. 2
I. 2
I.I
0. 8
I.I
a. s
a. s
0. 1
0. 7
0 1
0. 1
6. 4
5. 7
6. 5
6. 6
6. 5
0. 9
0. 6
0. 9
0. 7
0. 7
3. 2
2. 7
3. 3
2. 6
2. 4
0. 4
0. 6
0. 5
0 6
I. 6
5. 7
6. 3
6. 1
6. 9
6. S
0. S
0. 8
0.9
1. 0
O. H
2. 5
3. I
2. S
2. 5
2. 6
.
3. I
0. 3
7. 2
(' )
0. 2
0. 3
2. 9
( ')
6. I
6. 0
0. \l
I. 2
==
2. 3
2. 4
2. 3
2. 4
2. 3
I.I
Baltimore, Md .. .... . . . . .. .. . .
Albuq uerq ue, N . M ex .1.... ~- •
Philadelph ia( P a ... . .... . . •...
Bridgeport, con n . . . ....... . . .
Slow: F alls, S , D ak . . . . .. . . ...
2. I
2. 2
:.!. 2
3. 2
2. 8
2. 8
2. 9
2. 8
ti. 2
,. ,
;==
3. 7
0, 9
8. X
6. 2
8. I
2.•
6. 4
6.1
6. 2
6. 1
6. 2
6. 2
Church
oontrl•
h utions
and other
Tot a l
oontrl•
hutions •
- - - - -- '-- - 2. 6
2. 2
2. 2
0. 8
(')
18.3
21. :,
Bn~J
2. :1
2. 9
2. 8
2. 8
2. 6
fi. O
0. I
4. 0
7. 5
2:U
0. 4
'.!sions
~•:,~~~
Or~an i•
utions,
tobacoo,
1Lnd toys•
I. I
I.I
I.I
1. 0
1.0
o.s
2'l. 4
2
5. 8
ti. 9
0. 2
0. 2
U
,\. 7
[1 . 6
0. 2
0. 2
(')
(' )
M otion
pict ure
2. 7
:t I
2. 4
2. 9
~ y
4. 2
(' )
( ')
New!Lfk , N .J . • •• .• ... . .. •• • ••
0.3
U. 11
u ..~
=
0. 9
0
"Tl
T axes •
L ire
insur-
0. 6
1. 0
O. tl
O. IJ
O.~
3. 3
4. I
4. 4
:1. 7
4. 4
:i:u
=
5. 9
f) . 4
fi . 3
:.. 2
20. 2
:i:l. 4
Lu~ Angeles, Culii.i_-~~:::::: ::
0.5
2l . 9
u ·•
1_ _ _ ________ _
1
0, 1
U. 2
4. 4
a. 2
4. 2
4. 6
4. 0
l'itts burgh, Pa.
I
-~ 1- 1 - ~ - -- - -
- - - - - - ·- - - -- - - - - -~------=
l" >
U.:.!
IU. 2
4. 2
:,. I
0. 1
Ch icago, 111. 1 •••••• • • ___ _ _ ___ _
0
12·
• 0.1
I~
:.?. 2
2. a
2. 3
2. 3
2.•
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
I. 2
I. 2
-- - -
•o. 2
(" )
/ 00'1
'"l I
("
0.
r
P ersonal C a11i ta•
p ro perty
tlon
~G')
- -- - - - ' 0. 1
(I r.I )
( Ui
(" )
<"l
(")
0. 1
0. 1
(10)
0. 2
(" )
(" )
0. 7
(10)
0. 2
(10)
0. 1
(11)
t)
10~
10
0. 1
(11)
0.5
0. 6
0. 6
0, 3
• 0. 1
(" )
0. 2
(10)
(10)
0. 2
0. 2
sz
(1•)
(")
(" )
f''1, ,
(Ii )
0. 1
(10)
t>
I IJ)
0, 7
(")
t
t rit >
10)
10)
(11)
")
10)
0. I
(10)
0. 5
0. 2
0. 4
0.3
0. 2
( 11)
0.1
10)
10)
10)
i::i0. 3
0. 2
(")
UI
,0
("\
3
V'l
'"
F all R iver, l\fass ••. . .. ... • .. · 1
Atlan ta, Oo .... . . . . .• . . . .••..
R ichmond , Vu- - ···--· · - · ····-·
HntTtllo, N . Y .. ...... . . ••• . •
() muho, 1'ebr . ..... . . . • .. • . .• I
(•i
M anche.,ter. N . 11 ......... .. ,
Nor f,Jlk, Va ~- · ........ . . _.•
l>t~11 ve r, C olo.' . ......... .. . . Kansas C ity , :-1.... . .. . . .. ...
l' ro,·ideote, IL I. . . . ... . . . . . . .
( •)
(I
('J
0. 3
Binghamto n. N . Y . . . . . . .... . .
~l\lt Lake C it y , Utah 1... ... . .
Seuttle, \\"ii.sh ... • . . .. ......• •
l\: e w Orleu ns, La __ __ __~· · · -· ·
SJ)CJkune, \\'ash . -- ---- -·· · ·· ·
C.
~
C')
0
~
( \)
II. I
0.
0 2I
o, 2
I
:i
:.,z. t,
0. :1
?'l. lj
I~. 4
o. 3
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
f>•)
('l
('I
1.0
u. 3
('/
f>ullas, Tex . .. . .. • .. . .
l'edar Hapids. l ow~ 1 •. • • • : • : :
C ulumhus, O hi o 1__ --· - •· ·· · ·
UirminJ?han1 • .\In . ... . .. ..•. .•
K noxville, T en.r1.. _..
( ')
n. 3
0. I
(')
c( •;'
0. :1
fJ, 3
0. 3
F. I PtL'-0 . Tex . ..... . . . • .... .• . •
Lilt.le Ho,·k . Ark . ... . • ••••.• ..
(')
· •
• ·
•
.... ... ..
...
u. 5
(')
(')
0. 7
0 3
0. 3
0 3
0. 3
11,:J
0, ;!
(•;
('
(' )
0 . !i
0. 2
0. 1
(' )
0. 3
ll. 3
0, 3
ll. 3
o.:l
20. 2
21. -I
:!4 2
Ill. ij
:ll . O
lU . V
I!/ 3
21. ~
:l l. j
Hi . 4
IH. 7
HI. 7
17. 8
19, 4
22.0
19. ti
0 . :{
Hi. 7
Ill. !1
0 :1
II. :1
, ~. 3
20 0
0. 3
0. 0
,\. 6
5. 8
,\. ,\
5. 5
0. 8
0. 6
0. U
0. 8
4. (I
4. I
·1. .'i
4. I
4. 4
3. 2
2 y
(I. I
0 4
fi. ti
f1 . S
0, 9
0. 8
fl, 0
0 r,
fi.
~
3. 3
0, 9
0. 1
,I 0
,\. 5
1.0
4. ,\
4. ti
4. 2
4. 3
:,. I
0. 9
4. 3
I. 3
4. 3
I. 7
3. k
IS. ti
17. •\
,,
''I
21. ·l
6. 1
0. 6
0 I\
0. 2
0. 3
4. ()
4. 0
Hl. 4
I~. n
I
25
u 1
3. I
7 I
4 ii
◄. 0
4. 2
Ii . 9
20. 0
IK. ii
2 l. 7
JU, l
0. 3
Jack sonville, F lo .•• _
ll o ustou , T ex .. . • . _. __. • ~ ~ : ::
lntl ianapoH~. Ind .. .. . ~-· ·•···
Co lum hiu , 8 . C' _.• •• • _. __ • ·- ·
Clnrkshur~ . \\". V a.1.•• __ _. ••
\\' iehitu , K uns ... •
~
(' J
(')
l\l o blle, Aln .. . . .
~N
0 •)
0. 2
o. 3
tl . :l
(• 1
\ Vi n1-·t on -Sa lem. ~ - C .l . ... • a.
Porl lun d, ()reg . .•..... . . .• .• ,
l\lem1Jhl~. Tenn . ... . ...
Louis,·Ule, K y. 1 •
Oklahoruu C it y, Oki!; :,: : :. : : :
•H ••• •
0
0. 1
(')
, .
ti. 1
, .9
3. 4
,r,_ 7
4. I
4, 4
3. 3
.1 . 0
4. 2
3, 2
4. 7
4. 4
3. fj
:i 4
4. fi
2. 5
5
4. 2
a. u
3. 0
4. I
4. 3
3. 3
4. 7
4. 4
4. f)
4, 9
.s.
fl ..•
0. 7
0. 8
3. 0
2. I
3, S
5. 3
2. 8
I. !"1
I. 4
2. 3
1.0 ,
( ')
2. 4
2 :,
:l.f>
2. 3
1. 2
1. 2
:!. M
2. 4
I. 2
2. ?
'.! , ..
2. 4
3. 7
:1. i
2. 8
2. 3
24
(), 6
3. 3
2. 6
3. 0
I. 0
0. 9
21
i.0
J. 2
0. I
0. I
0 3
0 3
5. 9
6. 0
6. 4
5. 4
0 9
0, 8
0. 7
0 !,
0. 8
0, j
5.0
0. 9
:ti
1.2
I 2
:J. 7
I. 2
I, 2
I. 2
2. ,\
3, 7
3. i
3. 7
3. 7
1. 2
2. 5
3. 7
I. 2
3. 4
2. 5
2. 7
3. 2
2. I
2, 4
2. 5
2. 5
:.!. 5
2, .,
3. 7
3. 7
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
2. 2
2.3
2. 6
3. I
2. 9
2. 5
2. 4
2. 5
2. 5
2. 8
2. S
2. 6
2. 5
2. 4
2. 5
3. 8
3 8
:l . 8
2
2
2
2
3
I. 3
I. 3
2. 5
3. 8
3. 8
3, 8
:i. 8
3. S
I. 3
.I. 3
I. 3
2. S
2. 5
2. 5
2. 6
2. 0
3. S
3. 8
:1. 9
3. 0
3. 0
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I. 3
I. 3
o, r.
0 , fi
0. 4
("J
(I t )
( ICi )
(" )
o.n
0. 5
(" )
0. 3
0. 2
(" )
( ")
0. 1
5. U
0.9
0. 0
1. 0
0. 9
0. 9
6, 5
I. I
0. 6
fi. 2
0. 8
tl, 8
u. 9
5. &
ti. 2
G. 0
.,. y
0. 0
0. h
I. I
0. 9
0. 9
2. 4
6. 0
[1, 9
5. 7
fi . l
5. 0
0. i
0, 0
0. 7
u. 0
0. 9
2 2. 4
2. 4
2. 6
2. 4
2, 6
2. 6
2. 6
2. fl
2.6
:1. 9
3. 0
3. 0
◄. 0
4. 0
I. 3
I. 3
1.3
(")
tl.l
11. 0
5. 8
5. y
0. 7
2. 8
2. 6
2. 4
2. 6
2. 6
2. 7
2 1
4, 0
4. I
4. I
4. I
I. 3
I. 4
I. 4
I. 4
0, 3
0. 7
(" )
61
I. S
1. 0
0. 4
0. 8
0. 9
ll. 7
0 2
I. 2
I.!, 1
1.3
U. M
0. 7
0. y
'
.,
2:1 1
•Less than 0.06 percent.
Incl ude sales tax where Je.,.ied (appt'ndix tuble 15).
• :S:ot a rlirect charl(e .
10 :-,.rune 11syaLle.
Bud ~et al.lo w tmce ide.n tical in all c.itie:; , 11Irn: sales tu.t where le,·ietl .
Exclu.s.i\ie or sales t at.
• Though only I~ citie.< had a direct rbari:e fo r refuse rlis posul, a n owrni:e for 59 cit ies is used in order to halanoo the tuhle.
• Thou l( h o nl y f>5 cities had u d irect charge for school attendance, an ave111j1e for 59 rities l<
lo order t.o baiaooo tbe table.
'Thou gh tax es were payab le in only 36 cities, a u a\:erage for bY dties is used in orde r to balance the t ab le.
'Thoui:h 1,er.;onul propert y t,ues were payable in only Z2 cities , ao 8\'erlll(e for 5Y cities is tLsed io order to balance t he t able.
• T hough capitation taxes were pa)·ab le In only 25 cities, an average for 5Y cities is used in order to balance the toble .
1
J
1
IL"'"'
I
'
3
3
3
3
3
0, 3
0. 2
(" )
6. U
ti.!.
IJ .
0, 3
0. 2
(" )
(" )
0. 3
0. 2
(' ")
0, 2
0. 2
ti. 5
0, 2
0. 4
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
0. 0
II. 3
0. 4
U. 2
(•• )
(")
(" )
(" )
0. 4
0. 3
o. 2
0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 4
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
''')
(")
(")
f'l
IO)
("~
("
( ")
(")
0.
('•)
(•' )
(" )
(")
0. 2
0. 3
(" J
(IOJ
(")
0. 2
0. :.I
( ")
(")
0. 2
U. :.I
0. ~
( IO )
(")
(" )
(" )
(")
(")
0. 2
(")
.
0, 2
("I
u. 3
0. 3
0. 3
(")
0. 3
0.
'
0. 3
0. 5
(' ")
o. 3
a,
)>
!:!!
"
>
a,
6i
....•
"°w
Tol,le 18.-Percent Distribution of the Costs I of Living Among Maior Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, in 9 Geographic Divisions, -4-Penon
Manual Worker's Family, 59 Cities, Morch 1935
....
'°.,:,.
•
Jl.lllffliN.lllCli LliVIIL
('\
~
Geographic di vision
An•ragr,
,W cit iP:-
Hwhn·t ,::-roup
'.',;ow En glund
I AMid
dle
tlan tic
~
1
Ea.st ::-.:orth w est North l South At- 1 East South lW•~s t South
Central 1 Central
Ian tic
C,•ntral
C,m tral
~fountain
Pacific
0
..,
sz
r-
Tola! ("ost of li\'in g- : .\ m ou nt ___ ___
Prrcent . . __ _
$1, 2!\0. 62
100. 0
F ood ____
:is. 6
Clnrhin~. clothing upk,'<'p, and Jl('rsons l ca re• __
14. fi
'<
()
0
r:£n
, 1. 292_27
IUO. 0
100. 0
1
I
$1. 262. 73
100. 0
----
Illf•n t . ____ _ __ ____ . . .... __ ___ _ .... ... ... ........ .
R,•rus<' d isposal ' -·--· - _____ _--•- --· ___ ___ . __. . ___ _
1- nspecilled <·ssen tials •-. __ _
M l.scdlnneous. ___ __ __ ____ . . __. . . .. . . _.
Med ical1:i,re .• . .. ---· -······ __ ___ __ _
2. 4
0. 1
0. 2
0.1
o. 2
20. 0
18. 7
4. 2
3. 2
0. 1
6. 1
0. 9
2. 8
2- 4
4. 2
Transpo rta tion _. . __ . ______ ______ _
School attendanee "- _____ ______ ___ . ___ ______ _. . ..
Recreation ____ . . ___ . .. . . __ . . · --- ·- - - - - - . ____ __
Newspapers ____ ____ ___ __ _____________ . • .
M otion picture theater admissions ..• . ... _. ..
Organizations, tobacco, nnd toys• . .• .... ____ .
Life insurance• - ____ .. __ . . . . ___. .. _____._ ... _. . ..
Church contributions and other contribution• •--_
Taxes • 1• •• - · · •.•• _ .• · · - - .
~:~~~~o~r~~~t-~ _·:::: : : : : : :: : :: :: :
I. 5
2. 5
::::::::::I
4. 3
0. 5
5. 9
0. 9
2.6
2. 4
3. 7
3. 6
1.2
0. 2
0. 1
0.1
I. 2
0.3
0. 2
0. 1
'C)
15. 4
12. 0
u,
,0
2.1
16. 0
12. 7
I. 2
2. I
18. 2
18. 4
16. 4
16. 8
16. 7
15. 2
12. 8
II. 7
II. 3
5. 7
5. I
2. 9
II. 4
3. 7
2. 6
1.3
1.1
1.9
I. 4
I. 9
I. 4
1.4
0.8
2. 1
I. 7
I. 5
13. 3
4. 7
3. 8
0. 9
2.2
I. 7
I. 7
13. 3
4. 4
3. 2
I. 2
2-8
1.3
I. 7
2.3
2.4
2. ,\
0. 1
0.3
2. 7
0. 1
0.2
2.5
0. 4
o. 2
20. 7
4. 1
4. 0
1.0
6.1
0. 9
2. 6
2. 6
3. 9
1.3
o. 3
0. 1
20. 4
21. 0
4. 6
5. 3
0. 4
5. 9
0. 9
2. 6
2. 4
3. 6
I. 2
0. 3
19. 0
4. 7
2. 6
0. 5
6. I
0. 8
2.9
2.4
3. 6
1. 2
0.3
0. 1
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. I
2. 4
H ouse.lwld su pplif•~ -- - ___ __ . __ . ____ .. __ . __ __ . . .
}~urnit ure , furnish ings, ttr11l ho usehold equ ip-
34. 5
H.R
100. 0
m3
II. 7
4. 8
4. I
I.fl
I. 5
35. 6
11.4
48
43
Q5
1.4
1.2
I. 4
JO. I
13. 4
6. I
0. 7
I. 4
I. 5
1.,\
M9
II.I
1.0
1.9
17. 2
I. 8
I.,\
$ 1. 276. 33
JOO. 0
$1,271.84
100. 0
14. 6
II. 5
I. I
2. 0
17.6
0. 9
•u
$ 1. 190. 41
14. 0
12. 2
(Jn..,;;_ - - . -- - - --- - . . .. . · ···· - - · --- ---- - -- . •. . . .
!('(' ___ __ __ ___ _______
--- -- ---··- -· · · ·-- · · F.lectricity. ___ . __.. ___
. __... _.. . __ .... .
JOO. 0
I
14. 7
11.8
I.I
1.8
Housing, including watt.•r. __
5. 2
0. 9
$1. 18 1. 40
U9
11.8
1.0
2.1
H on&"hnkt orx-rnt ion _. __
Fur,J. __ ___ ___ _______
4. R
100. 0
I
M7
2. 0
3. 7
$1. 258. 32
K4
13.8
10. U
1.0
1.9
JI.,\
I. I
I
M3
H. ,\
II. 5
I.I
1.9
C oa l ur wooc.i ___ ___ __ _
~
rr
$ 1. 298 ..\8
M9
~:t~';;~~r :;rr~'.~'~'--_-_::: :: :::::_::: ::::::::: :::::
~
N.
100. 0
--
I
M2
( 'lolh in.~ - - - - - -- -- . - ---. - . ---- - -- - - - -. - - - . - . - .. - -
0
$1. 282. 57
o. 2
20. 5
4. I
5. 0
0. 3
6.2
0. 9
3. 0
2. 3
3. 6
1.2
0.1
(')
0. I
~
Q2
m. 1
LS
~7
QS
~9
Q9
2.6
2.4
0. 6
1.3
I. 4
I. 5
o. 3
0. 2
19. 9
4. 0
4.8
0. 5
5. 6
0. 8
2-4
2. 4
L6
3. 7
I. 2
1.2
0. 1
0.1
.
QI
QI
.
4. 2
1.4
I. 5
2. 5
0.1
0.2
2- 6
19. 2
4.1
3. 4
0. 6
5. 9
0.8
2- 7
2. 4
3. 7
I. 2
0. 3
0. 1
o. 2
( ')
0.3
II.,\
I.I
2. 0
3. I
2. 3
4. 2
3. 8
0. 7
6. 2
0. 8
2. 8
2. 6
3. 9
1.3
1.3
(')
(')
(•)
D
:!
~
•.ta than 0.05 peroeot.
Include aales tax where levied (appendix table 16).
.
• Tho111h only 18 cities bad a direct cbarp for refuse dlspoeal, an avel'lllle for 69 cities ls uaed In order to balance the table. The peroenta tor the geographic dlvlalom are averapa
tor the cltlee In each dlvlalon Included in this study.
• Not a direct charge.
• Budget allowance Identical In all cltlell, plus l8lee tax where levied.
• Though only Mel ties had a direct cbarp for school attendance, an av111'819 for 69 cltleo la uaed In order to balance the table. The peroenta tor the 11'8011'11Pb!O divisions are averapa
for the cities In each division Included In this study.
• Exclusive of sales tax.
'Though taxes were payable In only 36 cities, an avera&e for 69 cities ls uaed In order to balance tbe table. The percents tor the pograpblc dlvlalona are averapa for tbe cities In
each division Included ID this study.
• None payable.
• Though personal property taxes were payable In only 22 cities, an average for 69 cities ls used In order to balance the table. The percents for the pocraphlc divisions are avenges
for the cities In each division Included In tbls study.
JO Though capitation taxes were payable In only 25 cities, an av81'11118 for 69 cities ls used In order to balance the table. The percents for the geoerapblc divisions are averape for
the cities In each division Included In this study.
1
m
>
i.a
("\
0
co
N.
""
(l)
a.
rr
'<
0
0
a(v
....
>
r,,,
...•
m
V)
'°
V1
196 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
Ta'1le 19.--Percent Distribution of the Costs I of Living Among Major Budget Groups
and Principal Subgroups, in 5 Size of City Classifications, -4-Penon Manual Wodcer's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
JUIK'BNANC■
Budptpvup
Lliv.t.
Siu or city clusl&attou
Average,1----,-----,----,.....--....,.--69 cities 1,000,000 IIOO,OOOto 21!0,000to 100,00CUo
or more 1,000,000 II00,000
SII0,000
Total OOllt of Jiving: Amount ........ $1, 211(). 62 $1,330.112 SI, 332. 03 $1,261.118
100;0
Percent. •......
100. 0
100.0
100.0
l,23a.06
33. 7
3A. 6
111.1
14. 2
1L4
O. ll
LIi
14.4
11.4
1.0
2.0
14. 4
11.4
I.I
LIi
14.11
11.8
1.1
2.0
- -U.6- - -34.-2
Food .••••....•.•.••....••..........••••••
Clothing, clothing upkeep, 1111d pen10ual
care ••••••••.•.•.•••••.••••.........••••.
Clothing.••••.•••••••..•.....••.......
100.0
...
$1,DI. 25
100.0
16.0
1L8
L2
2.0
~=~~~::::::::::::::::::::::
14. 6
11. 6
1.1
2. 0
llouslng, Including water_ ................
17.6
18. 0
18. 7
17.6
17. 7
Ul-8
Ho1198hold operation .••.. _.... _... __ .. __ ..
Fuel ••..•••................•......•...
Coal or wood •••.•........••••••.•
Ou...............................
12. 2
4.6
3. 7
O. ll
1.8
1.6
1. 6
11.6
4. 7
4.1
0. 6
1.6
L4
l. 4
11. 3
4.6
3. ll
0. 6
1.6
1. 2
L4
11. 7
4. 3
3. 6
0.11
1.8
1.4
1.6
12. 4
4.8
3. 7
1.1
I. 7
1.6
1.6
13.4
6.0
1.11
Ll
2.1
L7
LIi
2. 8
2.3
0.1
0. 2
2.4
0.1
0. 2
2. 6
0.1
0. 2
2.8
0.2
0.2
22.0
4.1
6. 8
0.3
6.0
0. 8
2. ll
2. 3
3. 6
2Lll
4.0
6. 7
0. 3
6.1
1.0
2. 8
:II.II
4. 0
6. 3
0. 8
6. ll
0. 8
2. 7
2. 4
3. 7
18. ll
4.2
3. 0
0. 6
6. ll
0. 8
11.0
4. 4
3.8
0.11
2.8
2. 6
3.8
L2
1.2
0. 1
0.1
1. 2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.2
0. 3
0. I
0. 2
1.S
0.3
0. 1
0. 2
Ioe....................................
Electricity_ ......•..•••.•••••••••••••.
Household su~es ..••..••••••••••.•.
Furniture, fur
111111, 1111d houaehold
equipment ....••..•...•...••...•..•.
Reruae dlsJ)OtlSI • •..........•••...•.••.
Unspecified essentials• •••••.•.••..•...
Miscellaneous ...•••••.•••.•. _... _....... _.
Medical care .....•..••.••...•.•....•..
=r::n:!'3!1nciei:::::::::::::::::::
Recreation .•••.•.••••.•...•...••.•••••
Newspapers .••••••....•••••..•.•••
Motion picture theater admissions .•
Organtzatlom, tobacco, and toys•.
Life Insurance •. _. _" ... _. _............
Church contrlbutlom and other con•
trlhutlous ••••.•..•••..•.....•....••
Taxes''·········-·····················
Personal property• •..•..•..•.•.••.
Capitation • ••••.•...............•
2. 6
0.1
0. 2
:11.0
4. 2
4. 3
0. 6
6. ll
0.11
2. 6
2. 4
3. 7
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
(I)
0.2
•
2. 3
8.6
(")
2. 8
2. 6
L4
0.8
11.0
• Less than 0.06 percent.
1Include sales tax where levied (appendix table 16).
1 Though only 18 cities had a direct charge for refuee disposal. an average for 611 cities Is uaed In order to
halanoe the table. The percents for the size of city groups are averages for the cities In each IJ'OUP IDclnded
In this study.
• Not a direct charge.
• Budget allowance Identical In all cities, plus sales tax where levied.
1 Though only 66 cities had a direct charge for school attendanoe, an average for 68 cities Is uaed In on!.- to
balance the table. The percents for the size of city groups are averages for the cities In each ll'OUP In•
eluded In this study.
• Excloslveofsalestax.
1 Though taxes were payable In only 311 cities, an average for 69 cities Is uaed In order to balance the table.
The peroents for the size or city groups are averages lor the cities In each group Included In this study.
• Though personal property taxes were payable In only 22 cities, an average for 6U cities Is uaed In order to
balance the table. The percents for the size of city groups are averages for the cities In each group In•
eluded In this study.
• Though capitation taxes were payable In only 26 cities, an average for 159 cities Is used In ordw to balanoe
the table. The peroents for the size of city groups are averages for the cities In each group lnoluded In thla
study.
"None payable.
Dig lized by
Goog Ie
Ta•le 20.-Percent Distribution of the Costs 1 of Livin9 Amon9 Major Bud9et Groups and Principal Sub9roups, -4.Penon Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935
s111:aGD1CY UVSL
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and
personal care
Total cost of li¥ing
rtty
Food
Amoun t
l r_rC(•nt
1
Total
H ousehold operation
Housing,
includ•
Cloth• Cloth ing Personal 1in g water
Total
ing
upkeep
care
Fuel
I
T otal
Coal or
w ood
Ice
--- ---- --- A verage , 59 C'ities ___H•• - - -- - -
S-903. 2i
100. 0
- -- - - -- -
W ashington, D . C' .. ... ... ........ I. 013. 98
M inncapoli<. Minn .. . • . . •... .. .. . 1. 013. 1,li
San Frnncisco , Cali f.I __ ___ __ __ ___
K ew York , N . Y.• .• . . .. ...•• . . • ..
!'hlc:>go, m.• .............. ........
0
f;:;
1, 001. .12
982. 11
972. ,';\)
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
IIJO. IJ
100. 0
3;_II
- -3.'>. 2
33. I
3:,. 2
36. 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - II.I
H. 2
1. 3
13. 5
1.8
18. 6
5. 3
4. 2
I.I
- -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - =
12. 2
9. fi
1.1
2.~. 4
1. 5
11 . 5
5. 3
4. 6
o. 7
13. x
10. g
11. 5
I :?. :!
1.4
I. 2
1. 0
I.I
1. 5
1.8
I. 7
I.~
I. .~
1.8
1.8
I. fl
1. g
14. /\
16. 4
14. 5
12. 7
13. 4
9. 3
4. 1
5. 5
ti. 5
8. 7
2. 9
4. 5
6. 0
0. fi
I. 2
1.0
0. 5
s. 2
7. 5
4. 7
5. 0
3. 0
3. 3
0. 7
20. 7
21. 3
19. l
1-t. 6
I I.fl
13. 5
JO. 4
H.;
H .8
21. g
15. 7
'20. 7
22. 2
13. 7
I~. I
13. 3
11. 6
12. 2
ti. 3
15. 7
16. 4
13. 8
13. 7
15. 4
11.0
IO. 5
20.•
:n. 6
3.'>. u
rn. s
fl. 5
10. g
:i.1. 2
3~. O
3fi. 4
It. 6
11. f>
964. 71
4,'i
gor,_ 48
947. 57
100. 0
100. I)
100. IJ
100. 0
100.0
1. 2
I :!. 0
IO. '
1. 2
I. 2
39. 7
15. 0
13. ,
13. 0
11. 2
10. 3
10, 8
I. ,5
Cinc innati , Oh io '--- - ------- - - - - - Scranton , Pa ___ __ ______ _______ __ __
9HOO
938. 27
9~5. 85
935. 54
932. 21
100.0
100.0
100. 0
1110. 0
100.0
:J5. 2
3~. 1
:s5. 9
311. ,;
3tl, 7
H. 3
14. 2
15. 2
13. 7
13. 8
1 I. 5
11. 2
12. 2
IO. 7
10. S
I. I
1. 4
I. 2
1 .,
1 .,
Butte, l\loot .. . . . ..•• . . ...... . . • ..
Pill..sburgh , Pa._ . ..• . •.. .... . . . . ..
Balt imore, Md . .. . . . .... . . . . . .. ...
HO<!hester, N. Y · - · · ·· · ····· ··· ••Philadelphia, Pa . . ...... . . .... .. . .
032. 11
030. 45
926. 7L
92~. 16
U24. 5tj
11:0.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
:11. 3
rn. 2
12. 3
10. ~
10. 0
IO. 5
IO. 4
2. 0
I. 2
1. I
1.5
I. I
J.6
1. 7
1.7
17. 7
10. 7
18. 8
Ill. 2
10. 5
U21.
920. 04
M 1
920. 39
920. 05
9 13. 30
100. 0
100. 0
1(1(). 0
100. 0
100. 0
I I. 6
9. 9
10. 6
10. 8
11. 4
1.6
I. I
I. 2
1. 7
I. 2
1. 8
1.8
1.8
1.8
I. 8
16. 0
20. 0
18. 0
17. 0
2"2. 8
l\·liiwnuk~ , W is . .. . .. ... • ... . ....
Cleveland, Ohio• . • . ... .. . . .. . .. . .
Roston , Mass ... .......•.. . . ......
St. Lou is, Mo . ... . ... ...... .• .....
Albuquerque , N. Mex . 1 •• •• •• • • • ••
o;o. 64
Detroit, M irh.• . · · · · ··· ·· · · ·· · -·· ·
i'ioux Falls , S. D ak ... .. •• .. . .. . . .
Los An~eles, Cal if.• . ... .. • ........
!)[~.
3.1. :1
:l6. 3
13. ,
3f1. 7
;!6. I
12. 7
36. 8
13. 7
13. 2
I.I
Li
I.fl
l.M
l. S
1. 8
l. 9
1. 7
IS. 5
21. 0
IS. 3
IO. 6
12. 0
15. 9
11. 7
5. 1
fl.
0
3.8
4. ·I
U. l
4. 4
4. 4
4. 6
7. 3
3. 1
5.2
8. 7
5. 0
5. 6
8. 4
3. 2
4. 0
3. 2
Electricity
Oas
0. 4
1.0
0. 8
I. 1
0. 7
0. 7
I. 2
o. 4
I. 4
o. g
6. 4
2. 6
4. 4
i.8
4. 2
0. 8
6. 3
1.4
4. 6
.5. 2
2. 7
2. 5
I. 3
I. 3
1.9
1.0
0. 5
0. 8
0. 0
House-
hold
supplies
- - - --- ---2. 1
1.6
1. 9
1.6
1.5
4. 0
I. 7
I. 7
1.0
I. 5
I. 5
1.9
1. 4
1. 5
I.II
2. 0
1.6
1.1
1..~
I. 7
1.5
3. 1
l. 4
0. g
l.6
1.1
I. fi
1. 8
1. 9
1.6
2. 0
2. 2
1.6
I. 6
l. i
1.9
3. 2
1.8
I. 9
1.8
1. 2
I. 2
1.5
2. 0
2. I
1.9
I. 7
I. 5
I. e
I. 6
I. 2
1. g
1.6
1. 2
I. 7
l. 5
2. 2
I. 7
1. 7
). 8
1. 8
4. 3
1.8
1.0
2.1
1. 9
I. 7
1.4
I. 8
I. 8
2. 3
l.6
J. 8
- - - --- - - --
). 6
LY
).8
I. 6
1. 8
11)
0.
0-
-<
C')
0
~,.....
(\)
Portland, M aine . ... . . . . . .........
Newark, N. J •.. .. .. . ..••• • • • . ..•.
Bridgeport, Conn . . . . .. . . .... .. ...
Tucson, Ari z.I . . . ...... . ...... .. . . .
Peoria, 111.1 . . . . •. .. .. .. . ... .. . . . ...
See footnotes at end or table.
37. 2
:Sil. i
31( -I
38. 7
37. 7
15. 0
12. 8
13.
14. 3
61
14. 4
7. 7
5.9
6. 5
4. 6
3. 5
a:,
)>
~
-4
)>
a:,
rm
Cl)
-"'•
,0
Table !0.--Percent Distribution of the Costs of Living Among Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, 4-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935-<:ontinued
11:KJ:BQJ:NCT U:VJ:L-ilODtinued
C lothing, clothing upkrrp, a nd
persona l care
Total cost or li ving
( ' ity
A mou nt
I P ercent
T otal
•n 11
$Ui l.2l>
HX I. 0
\HU. :1,;
100.U
YOS. 71
VO L i:.!
SW. St)
IU0. 0
1m. u
nn
Fllll Hi\'er, Mass ....
~ pok::rne, \V u.sh . __
.\i'or-Colk , V i1_ __ _____ _ - - - - · · •--:<alt Lake C ity, U tuh 1
M 11nchcstl'r, N . 11 . .
hUS. t.rJ
8 \J-1 , 0~
)jlJI .'1 7
l!Xl. 0
l<MJ.U
n o
n2
~H Iii
m1. u
~3
~3
~3
Se,utle, W :ish .... .. .
Ui:>11 n ~r. C ulo.1 ___ _ . .
Pnw idt'ntoe_, H. [ __
P nrt lund , Oreg ___
New Or leans, La.... __
S.~t:),,°'\
8.-..',. l l
1mo
&3
C')
Ringhnm ton , K. Y ..• .
0
8i8. 10
Sii . 'li
okh1homa C ity , Okla.I .. .. . .. . .
.-\ llnntu, <•u
Hkhmond . \ ' tt __
o m ahn, N ebr ______ _
ll u flillo, l\.Y
. ...
Ktt nsas l'ity , Mo ...
0
~
N
'1)
a.
rr
-<
~
()
;\l em phis , Tenn . .
\\.' lns ton-Salem, N. C,I ___ . ____ ___ _
Louis YilJC, K y ., ... . . _..... .... . . ..
Houston , T ex ____ __ ___ , . .. . . ~-- - · • ·
Jaeksom ·ille, Fla .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .
lndianaµo lis, I nd . .. ...... . .... ..
Da llas, To, ... .. . .. ...... .. . ..... .
C larksburg, W . Va.I ......... .. .. .
8'.iU t,4
8-~I.S. 17
SS.t ~ I
kS2. ><U
874. 17
Xi3. Ol
87 1. 62
81'i9. 23
I;&!, 57
859. 04
853. ll8
852. 87
100. U
1m. o
llXJ. 0
IIXI 11
I(MJ, 11
II)). U
IOU. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
n 4
a N
Clot h- 10 Jot hing
in~
u pkeep
12. 8
14. 5
l·I. 2
10. I
IL J
I I.I
14 3
11.:I
I I. 2
1:1. Y
I~ . 7
H.i. I
13. 7
I I. 7
12. ,\
I.I
I. 3
I. 4
I. 3
I. 1
1.4
15. I
14 . 4
1:1. 3
~8
~ 5
I!). 2
13. ll
12. 8
~I
37 7
II. 2
13. 6
14. r.
:1. 0
3. 4
II. 4
l .'l. 4
7. '2
!fl. 2
J:l. 4
14 . 5
HJ. I
6. 5
ti. 0
4. 6
16. 2
15. 5
14. 2
14. 9
18. 3
12. 0
15. :1
tr,. 1
6. 3
r,. r..
fi. 0
5. 7
4. 3
3.
5. 7
5. 7
8. I
5. fl
4. y
7. I
4. K
3. 2
f)
4. I
4. 8
6. 8
3. 6
I. 8
I. 7
I. 7
IO. 6
1.5
I. 2
1.8
I. 2
I. 3
I. 3
I. 3
I. 2
19. 5
1.8
rn. 2
14. 2
11.8
2. 1
18. 0
18. 1
18. 5
13. 2
15. 0
11.0
3. 8
I. 5
I. 4
I. 5
I. 3
1.2
I. 7
]. 7
2.0
]. 7
1. 8
18. 3
2. 7
5. 9
18. I
19. 4
II . 3
14. I
12. 7
II. 5
.~. 3
2. 11
4. 4
I. 6
17. 2
11.3
2. 3
2. 0
II. 3
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
&7
~3
13. 9
10. S
10. 8
10. 3
12.0
15. 0
4. 2
6. 1
I. 3
14. 5
13. 3
11.0
13. 3
13. I
13. 2
1. 5
~6
41. S
Coal or
wuod
I. 4
100. 0
•3
19. 9
Tota l
1. 7
1.9
I. 8
1.8
1.8
w.u
I:l . ·1
l ti. i
17. 3
11. 7
F.lectriclt y
Ice
II. :1
14 . 2
14 . 2
14. 3
18. 7
14. 8
Fuel
T otal
II. 8
~8
R I
I. 7
I. N
20. 0
0
..,
IO. 3
II. 2
10. 5
II. 2
II.I
II. 2
~N
20. (J
17. 3
l H. 7
1. 0
I. 8
I. 6
1. 5
-4
I. 7
I. 7
1.9
12. 4
I I. 2
~5
20. 7
1. 7
IU. tt
8
1. 6
I. 7
I. 2
14. 4
) f1.
IP ersonal
ri ng w a l er
care
:1. 9
5. U
:1.1
2. I
Cl as
1.7
0.8
(J 3
0. 7
I. 3
1. 5
I. 4
I. 8
I. 4
I. II
1. 2
2. U
I. 6
0. 9
I. 3
2. 0
1.0
I. 2
I. 7
I.I
1.8
2. I
2. 2
2. I
1.8
1.9
I. 4
I. 5
1.9
20
1. 8
J.G
1. 9
2. 3
l. 'j
2. l
I~
2. 2
1.3
1. 5
:.?. u
I. 5
:1. 4
2. 2
20
1. 5
22
2. 0
2. :1
I."
s
2 3
I. 8
1.7
I. 9
1. 8
1.8
4. 7
I. I
I.
3. 0
3. 5
3. S
4. 4
I. I
0.3
2. 4
0. 4
2. 2
2. 6
2. 7
I. 6
I.I
2. 3
3. 6
0. 9
2. 9
2. 2
I. 7
2.8
1.9
I. 3
I. 2
1.0
I. 7
1.8
3. 4
I. 5
5. S
o. 3
Household
sup plie~
r
sz
p
I.G
2. 1
:.!. 5
1. 2
4. I
6. 2
4. 8
i
•
~
H ousehold oporntion
Ilousing,
includ -
F ood
....
1. 6
1.4
1.8
1. 9
1. 3
1.4
1.8
1.8
1. 5
1.4
I. 7
I. g
2. I
1.7
2. I
UI
,0
0
:::!
rn
Cedar Rapi~. Iowa 1•••••••••••••
Columbia, S. C . •• . ••.• • •• . . . •... •
Knoxville, Tenn .•••.• •• •..•. •... .
Columbul!, Ohio• .••.• ••••.•••••. •
co Birmingham, Ala •••.• •• ••••••••••
840. 88
835. 81
Little Rock, Ark . • .. •• _•••.• •... ..
Mobile, Ala. . .. •••.. . .. •• •. •..... .
Wichita, KIUll! .•. • .• • •••.•• •••• •••
s1g_97
814. 92
809. 64
g El PB.!O, Tex•....•..••••••••••••••
....f
849. 35
SU. 92
SU. 37
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
37. 5
42. 8
38. 7
40. 6
40. 6
15. 4
13. 6
14. I
16. 3
14. 3
12. 0
10.e
11.0
12. I
11.1
1. 6
1. 3
l. 4
l. 2
1.3
1.11
I. 7
1. 7
I.II
1.8
18.1
17. 8
18. 7
17. l
16.3
16.8
14. 2
13. l
11. 7
12.1
7. 7
4. 6
6. I
4. 0
3,g
8.8
1. 11
2. 7
3. 7
2. 8
I. I
111
14
0. 3
1.1
1. 8
3.6
1.8
2. 0
13
1. e
1. 8
l. 7
1.1
1. 7
2. I
I. 7
1.11
2. 0
1.11
8.12.05
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
to.II
41.6
40. 7
311.8
14. 1
14. 7
13, g
111.1
11. 0
11.4
10. 7
11. 11
1.3
1. 6
l. 4
1.4
1.8
1. 8
1.8
1.8
18. 4
16. 4
111.e
16. 2
H. 11
110
13. 11
14. 6
6.11
3. 3
4. 6
8. 3
4.3
2. 4
12
11.8
1. 3
0. 11
2. 3
0. 8
a. l
2. 2
1.8
2.1
2.4
1. 7
2.0
2.2
2. 0
2. 0
2.0
1.8
Bee footnotes at end of table.
m
0
·~
,~
,'1)
=i..
~
()
0
a-n
>
SQ
">
m
6i
....•
~
Ta&le 20.--f>ercent Distribution of the Costs of Living Among Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, '6-Person Manual Worker's Family,
59 Cities, March 1935-Continued
Hou!-ehold oµe, rut ion - C' on
Furn!·
t url.', fu r-
C ity
I
HP<"rl'Dtion
I
I
'I'
]
otal
I
M0<llcal
cure
T ransportation
Sl'liool
AIJ OO
T nttt l
Wushiugton , IJ . C . .. .
'.\linneapolls, '.\! inn .. .
:-:on Franciseo , Culif. 1_.
r-;ew Y ork , ~- Y .• .. . .
t 'hicugo, Ill .I .. . .. .. . .
M ilwaukee, Wt, ... .
Cleveland, Ohio• .. .
0
:§_
~
'°a.
~
C)
0
0
-
00
(v
..
I
········1
. ...
Bo:-i t.un , ~·l ass . .. .. .
:1
I S
I. g
I. 9
I. i
I g
'..!. 0
2. 0
2. 0
I
•0.21
0. 3 1
lfi. 1
li. 2
15. 4
(' I
0 3
0. 3
0. 3
0, 3
0. 3
{•)
(' )
0, :i
{' )
0. 3
U. i
(')
{')
0. 3
0. 3
16. 6
20.1
15 7
5.o l
5. 2
4. 8
5. 8
5. 2
5. 3
5. 9
7. 5
4. 2
6. 1
8. 0
0. 3
4. I
5. 5
5. 2
4. 7
5. 5
fl . 5
8. 8
5. 4
IO. 3
1.1
1.1
0. 2
(•)
1.0
o.:l
0. ii
IJ. 3
12. 3
0. 3
19. 0
10. 7
19. 9
Ii. 5
15. 1
5. 6
4. 9
7. 2
5. 8
4. 0
5. 6
9. 0
8. 4
3. 6
13. I
19. 7
19. 8
16. 1
18. 8
6. 1
5. 3
4. 3
5. I
4. 2
1. 0
9. 5
10. 4
5. 8
9. 6
14. 5
13. 8
5. 7
5. I
5. 5
6. 0
2. 6
3. 4
4. 0
I. I
2. 7
I. ~
:.'! . 2
Detroit. Mich.I ... . ... . ..••• ..
~io ux Fulls, S . l> ak . . . .. ~ ..... _.
Los Angeles. C alif.I ... .. .. .
Cincin nat i, Ohio •. ... .
Serunt on , Pa __ ____________ __ _
2 0
I. II
:.?. l
2. 0
Bu tte , M ont. . . . .. .. .......... . .
P ittsbu rgh, Pa . . .. . ... •.•••.... .
Baltimore, Mel . . . •.. . .. .. • ... . ..
Roche.ster, N . Y .. . ... .... ..... .
Philadelphia, P a . . ••... .. ...... .
2. 3
I.~
(')
(I.a
ll. 3
l.9
2. 0
l. 9
(')
(')
(')
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
Por tla nrl, Maino .
N ewark, N . J. . . . .. ..... ..... . . .
Drid~epor l, Conn .....• • •• . . .•••
Tucson , Arb.• ...• •... .•• •.. .....
Peoria, Ill.I ••••• •• • •• ••• . •.•.... .
2. I
2. 0
1. g
2.1
0. 8
(' )
(')
(')
(')
0. 3
0. 3
o. 3
0. 3
2. 0
16. 0
18. 4
(')
I. :l
(')
(')
(')
()_5
3
(), 3
0. 3
0. 3
(l.
o. ~
:IO. 0
H.4
13. 7
14. 1
----
5. 11
0. :J
f.-:t .. Louis, ?I.lo ... . _ . . . . . . . ..
Alb uq uerque, N . Mex 1 • •• •• ••• •
2. 0
I,\. 7
I
4. 3
LO
picture
thea ter
admls·
sions
• 0. 8
1. 4
0. I
0. 0
0. 8
1. 4
I. 2
1. 5
1. 4
I. 4
0. 1
I. 2
0. g
---0. 9
0. 7
1. 0
0. g
0 9
L ile
T obaero
and
insu r•
r-
l' hureh
ron t ri•
ance , hut ions '
Total
( op l
- - - - - - - - - -- - - 0.5
- -- 0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
2. 3
I. 2
--- ---2. 1
1.0
2. 1
LO
2. 1
1. 0
l. I
2. I
2. I
1. 1
1. 3
I. 4
1. 4
I. 4
1.4
0. 8
0. 9
0. 9
0, g
0. 9
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
2. 1
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
1. 1
I.I
1.1
1.1
I. I
I. 4
I
0. 3
--(")
("l
("
("
u. 2
0. 3
(")
0. 2
0. 3
(")
0. 3
0. 4
0. 1
I. 5
1. 4
I. 5
0. 9
0. 8
1.0
0. 9
1. 0
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
1.1
I. I
I.I
I. I
1.1
0. 7
1. 4
1. 4
1. 6
I. 3
1. 6
0. g
0. 9
1.1
0.8
1.1
0. 5
0. 5
0.5
0. 5
o. 5
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
2. 2
1. I
1. 1
1.1
1.1
1. 1
0.6
0. 2
( ")
(10)
1. 3
1. 4
0. 8
0.0
o. 5
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
1.1
1.1
1.1
0. 8
0. 1
(11)
0. 7
0. 4
1. 5
(•)
I. 3
(')
0. 2
0. fl
0. I
0. 7
0. 4
0. 1
o.v
1.4
1.6
2. 0
1. 3
o.v
1.1
0. 8
0
..,
T axes a
~f otion
attend•
meri t
,\ w,ra~r . 5Uci t ics
~
Miscella neou s
·· - -•-
linspee!·
nis.hings,
and
Refust'
Oecl
house- d isposal e -s._",('11 •
ho ld .
tlals'
C(IUip·
8
•
llllllBOJ:NCT Lll:VllL-OODtinued
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
I.I
1. 1
(!O)
0. 2
(" )
(" )
1.0
(IO)
Persona l
prope rt y
t~fl~~
---- --0, I
---(")
1
f'l" )
(!O)
I
0. 2
--(")
(")
(")
(1 0/
0. 2
( !OJ
0. 3
fO)
{")
(")
0. 3
(")
(")
0. 2
"l
0. 2
t)
JO)
r)
'°)
(")
(")
(" )
( JO)
('')
0. 2
(")
0. 4
0. 2
(")
(' ' )
(")
t
")
It)
0. 5
( ")
("l
0. 7
0.'
1. 0
0. 3
0. I
t
")
")
sz
p
VI
,0
r"I
3
rn
Atlantn, On ..••.. . . .. .. . .. . • . .. .
R lrhmornl, Va .... • . . • . ... . . . ..
Omaha, Nehr . . .... . ____ _______ .
Buffulo, N . Y .. ... .. .. . .. .. . . . . .
K ansas City, J\lo . • ... . . .. .. . . __
Fall R iver, M11s.s . . . •. . .. .. .. •. . •
~pokane, W ash . . ... ... .. . . .. ...
l\ orfolk, Va ..... .. . . ... . ... • . •. .
!'al t Lake City, t · 1a h ' · - · · · ·· • . •
l\.fanche.ster, N. II .. . . ..... . . .. .
N'l)
a.
c:r
"<
C)
0
~
-n
('l
(•
0. I
(' )
0. 3
0. 3
o. :1
0. :J
o. 3
0. 3
2. 3
(')
2. 0
1.:1
('J
t •)
(" \
Seattle , W a.<h . .. • . ... ...•.... • . .
Den\'er , t'olo.l ....... . . . . . .. ......
Providence , H. I. . . .. .. •.. . . _...
Portl11nd, Oreg . . .. .. . •.. . .... . . •
Xe w Orle,nn:-.. La _________ ___ ____
:?. I
2. 2
(' )
0. 2
2. 1
0.:1
:!. 0
('l
0. 3
!l. ;l
0. 3
11. :1
0. :1
Binghamton , X. Y . . .... . ... . ...
lllemphis, T enn . ... . . . ...... . ...
Ok la homa ('i ty , Ok]11.1 . • . •. .• • . •
\ V inston-Sulem , 1'. C 1_ __ • _ • • ••
Lo uis ville, Ky .1 _______________
'2. 2
('i
0. 3
:?. I
( IJ
II.;{
1 __ . . _ .••••
Cl
I
~- :l
Houston, TC'x _______________ __ __
J acksom·ille, F la •. . .............
Indiauapolis, I nd ..... .... .. . . . .
Halla,;, f ,u .. . ........ . ..... .. ..
C larksburg , W . Va ., . . ........ .
e5·
2. 1
:!. 2
1.9
2. 1
1. 0
2. 0
2. "
2. 1
l.U
0. 7
( ), \ j
2. I
('l
0. 3
O3
II. 3
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
IJ. 3
5
15. I
1i. 3
H\.
IR. 4
20. 4
5. 3
5. I
4. S
5. I
5. I
13. fi
I.I. 7
1-1. i
JP., 2
fi. i
,'), 2
H.j
5. (J
I i. 5
I~. 6
M. i
Ii. ,r:,
21).
5
14. 0
17. -;
15. 4
13. 6
5. 1
r,_7
~ ~, I
.l.
5. 3
~. :!
8. 0
2. y
3. 8
0. 8
0. 9
lU
0. 2
I. 3
(')
3. 7
0. 5
0. 6
0. 1
0.1
:i. 3
5. 0
0. 2
1.l
11. 9
5. 0
.,. 3
I. 5
I. 2
I. 3
o. 7
v.
0. 9
0. 2
1. 0
0. 4
1. 9
II. 0
I. 3
l. 2
I. 3
l. i
I. 4
1. 5
I. 3
I. 6
1. 0
I. 1
0. 8
I. 4
0. S
I. 5
I.I
0. Y
0. 8
I. 4
I. 4
I. 4
:. -;
.~..~
;,_ 1
li. fi
~
I. I
.,.'
:l. R
2. 0
o. 3
16. 6
5 .,
(•)
(')
lo. 3
2. 2
0. 3
0. :J
0.3
0. 3
l!i. O
l i' . 0
15 5
5. u
4. 6
5. 2
;u
0. 3
14.. 7
5. 8
0. 9
2. 5
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
13. 4
4. 9
2. 4
0. 6
11. U
15. 4
4. ·I
.5. 4
II. U
(')
3. 2
0 3
('
0. 3
15. ,\
17 . 9
4. 9
5. I
4. 4
6. 1
I. 3
1. 0
I.I
I. 2
11. 7
15. l
15 9
15. 4
4. 2
5. V
1.7
1.7
2 I
2 "
Hirn1inghum , Alu._ .. . _... .. .. ..
2. U ·
El Paso, T ,•x •. .. _.. _. . _... ..•. . .
Litt),, Hoek, A r k . .•. . . . • . •. ... . .
:!\!ohllt>, Al u . . . ... . . . __ . - - · . . ....
W ichita, K uns . . . .. . . . ... .. . . . ..
2. 2
2
4
:1
:J
2 ?
2. 3
2. 2
0.1
(' )
c•;
0. 3
(•)
(')
u. 2
0. 3
0. 3
0. 3
0,3
I. I
i. I
(')
2
.:.!.
2
2
0. 8
7. 0
(•J
Cedar R a µ lds, Io wa
C olumbia, S . C'. __ ... . ..... . .. . .
Know Ille, T~n n . . . . .. .. . . .. . . ..
C olumbus, Ohio , .... . . . .. . . . . ..
0. 0
0. 7
0. 9
:!. 0
2. I
2. 3
l.l
I. 2
I..
I. 4
1. 6
0. 8
0. 7
fl. 3
5. 7
2 2
(')
0. i
I. 2
0. 8
u. 9
II. 8
,\.11
"·
4
4. 2
'..! 0
:!. 0
I. 3
l. l
I. 3
I. 3
r,.
7
56 1
"·
'
" · l)4
:I.
ti. 3
.,
0. 2
I. 6
2. 5
1.8
I. 6
0. 9
0. 8
I. I
2. 3
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
2. :1
2. 3
2. 3
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 6
0. 5
Jo. 3
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
0. 5
0. 6
2. 3
2. 3
2. 3
2. l
2. 4
0 5
0. 5
0. 5
I. 2
0. ,\
0. U
0. 5
0. 9
o. 7
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
2. 3
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
I.I I
I. I
I. I
I. 2
I. 2
0. 0
O. ft
(IO )
(")
0. 4
I. 2
0.
I. 2
I. 2
(")
I. 2
1. 2
i
0. i
ll. 5
0. 8
I. 2
( ")
1. 2
(")
I. 2
l. 2
I. 2
II. 3
(")
I.
I. 2
(" )
C. .5
( ")
2. 4
2. ..
I. 2
I.
I. 2
2 4
I. 2
O. l
0. 1
0. 2
O. l
2
u.
(")
(")
(")
0. 5
0. 2
(")
(1• )
0.3
0. 5
0. 4
( ")
( ")
0. 3
(")
o. 4
0. 7
0. 6
I. 4
I. 4
I. 3
0. 8
0. 8
U. 8
2. 4
2. 5
2. 5
2. 5
2. 5
I. 2
I. 4
I. 4
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
I. 2
0. 4
(")
I. 5
I. 4
0. 9
0 8
0. 7
0. 6
2. 5
2. 5
I. 3
I. 3
0. 4
1. 0
0. 4
( •• )
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
I. 2
I. 3
I. 4
0. 7
0. 8
o. 8
2. 6
2. 6
I.
I. 2
I. 2
I. 2
I 3
0. 5
u. 2
0.8
(" )
(")
(")
0. 5
(" )
0. 3
(" )
(")
0. 3
f')
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 6
")
(" )
{"J
0. 3
0. 5
0. 2
0. 5
(" )
(")
0. 4
.
0. 3
(")
(")
(")
(")
(")
0. I
0. 2
1.3
ll. 2
0. 6
0. 4
0. 6
0.4
( ")
( IO)
2. 4
2. l
I. 2
I. 2
I. 2
0.•
(" )
( 10)
(" )
(")
("')
0 8
2. 4
2. 4
(")
0. l
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 3
0. 5
o. ¼
( ")
0. 4
0. 7
0.4
(")
a,
)>
!,!!
• 1-'lSS t ha.n 0.0., percent.
, I ncl ude sales t ax w here lev ied (nppe ri,l ix tnh le 16) .
1 Bucl~et allow ance identical in all d tics, plus sales tax w here le\'ied .
1 Eu:lu... ive of sales tal .
• T hou~h only 18 eities had a direi'I char~c for refuse dis posal. nn O\'erage fo r i\9 cities is used in order to bala nr-e t he table.
• T hou~b only ,15 !'!tics had a direet char~• fo r school attemlarwc , nn a ,·era~e fo r 5U cit ies is used In order to balance t he t able.
• T hough ten.es were payable iu onl y :-m dtles , an uverage for &Heil ics is used in order to balum:e the table.
; T hough f)6rsonnl property taxes were puyuble in only 22 l' ittes , on average for 50 cit ies is ust~d in order to balance the tnble.
• Though capit ati on ta.' °s were payuble in only 25 dlies. un a\'era~e fo r 50 c-lties is used in or,ler to balance the tuhle.
• r-.: ot a direct charge
" None payable.
"'
-I
)>
a,
,-
m
VI
•
"'°
0
Tafile 21.-Percent Distribution of the Costs I of Living Among Major Budget Groups and Principal Subgroups, in 9 Geographic Divisions, 4-Person
·
Manual Worlcer's Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
~
Geographic di vision
B u<l ~r t i:rou p
K ew
England
M l<lrlle
Atlantic
Ea.st N ort h West North
Central
Central
South
Atlantic
East South
Central
"'c~~i~~
th
Pacific
M.ountaln
-
$90~. 27
JOO. 0
$912. 27
100. 0
$924. 36
100. 0
$925, 07
100. 0
$910. 88
100. 0
$800. 25
100. 0
$848. 80
37. 6
38. 0
37. 0
36. 3
36. 4
Clothin~, clothing upkeep, and personol care . .. .
Clot hin~ . .. . .. . .. . . . . . ... ....... .. . .. . .. . .
Clot hin~ u pkee p . . . ..
-- --- - Persornil care-. __ _..
J.1. 2
II. I
1.3
I. 8
14.1
11.0
14. 4
1.8
13. 5
10. 6
1. 2
I. 7
B uusi n;:r , indudinl? waler.
I~. 6
18. 2
Househo ld OJ)(lrntion . _. . •
Fuel. . . . . .. .. . . . .... .. •.... .. .. . ..•.. ... ..• . ..
Coul or w ood . . .
Gns . _________ __ . ::-~ : : ::: :::.:::: ~~~:::::::
l ee . .. ..... ... . . . . . •
E lectricity .. . .. . . . . . . . . :: . . :::: .. : : . .. . . . . . .. --~.
H ousehold su pplies _____ _ -·- - · ·- -· - ____ ____ ___
Furn lturr, furnishing~, and household equipment
He!use d is posal 2 • • • •. . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ • ••• •
Unspeci fied essentials • ...
. . . .. . . .
1:1. 5
5. 3
4. 2
I. I
2. I
I. 6
I. 9
2. I
0. 2
0. 3
15. I
Mis('('llaneotL• . .. .. . . .... .... ... .. . . . .. . . . . .. ..... . . •.
:'>ledieal mre . .. . ... . . . ... . .. . ... . . .. . ... ... •. .. . .
Transportation _____ ____. . __ _. . . .. . . .. . ... . . • ... ..
School attendance •. . .. .. ....... .. . . .. . ..... •.•. •.
Recreation .. .. . . . . . . .. _.. ____ __. .. . .. . ••.. . .. . .. •
Motion p icture theater ad m tssions . •. .... .. ..
16 I
6. I
14. 6
5. 3
3. 8
0. 2
1.4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 3
I.I
0. 5
0. 3
0. 2
T ot nl rost o! llvin~: Amou n L . . .. . . .•
I
Percent_ .. . ____ -- - · •
Ft)OtL ......
--·- ---
-- ----- ··
--- ---
v
.,e,
-,
"'a.
!1)
;,-
'<
()
C
0
oa
·fv
· ·· · ·- · ·
T!~<;:~~ ~~.•-':::::::::::::::::::::: :::::
Life
Church oontrlhutions • ... ...•.. . ..... . .. . ...... ..
T axes • 7••• • •• • •.• •••• •• •• • ••••••••••• • •• •••••• . ••
~~':i'~i1o~r:'.~~t-~~::::::: :: :::::::::::::::: ::
~ i)
0. 8
1.4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 3
I. 2
0. 3
0. I
0. 2
1. 3
7. I
.~. 9
1.2
1.7
I. 8
1.9
2. I
0. 2
0. 3
(I)
-
-
-
100. 0
$8M. 37
100. 0
$91.~. 16
100. 0
$9'~.48
100. 0
38. 6
39, 2
39. 4
31!. I
36. 9
13. 6
10. 7
I. 2
I. 7
H.0
10. 9
I. 3
1.8
14. l
11.0
I. 3
I. 8
!.UI
II. 4
I. 2
1.8
14. 2
II. 2
1. 3
I. 7
IL 6
I. 6
1.8
15. 4
12. 2
I. 4
1. 8
20. 0
19. 3
19. 1
19. 6
17. 5
17. 0
17, 6
15. 8
13. 0
5. b
4, 6
0. 9
1. 7
1. 7
l.7
2. 0
0. I
0. 3
12. 6
5. 6
5. 0
0. 6
I. 6
I. 3
1.8
2. 0
14. 2
6. 6
5. 9
0. 7
I. 5
1.6
1.8
2. 0
0. 4
0. 3
12. 9
5. 0
3. 4
1.6
2. 2
I. 5
I. 7
2. I
0. I
0. J
12. 5
4. 3
2. 8
I. 5
2. 2
I. 6
1.9
2. 2
12. 4
3. 5
2. 5
1.0
2. 5
1.9
1. 9
2. I
0. 2
0. 3
14. 6
5. 4
4. 3
I.I
2. 6
1.8
2. 2
2. 2
0.1
0. 3
14. 8
5. 1
3. -~
1. 6
3. 2
I. 4
2. 2
2. 1
0. 5
0. 3
16. I
4. 9
6. 7
0. 6
I. 3
0. 8
o. 5
2. 3
15. 3
5. I
4.0
0. 9
I. 4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 3
I. 2
0. 4
0. 1
1). 3
16. 2
6. 3
4. 4
1.0
I. 5
0. 9
0. 6
2. 4
I. 2
0. 4
0. I
0. 3
14. 7
6. 8
3. 0
17. I
16. 5
5. l
6. 9
0. 4
I. 6
1. 0
0. 6
2. 3
1.1
0. 2
o. 2
tO
•
IUilllB.GlllfCT LJ:VJ:L
A,·ern~e. 59 1
1
rlt ies
tO
0
{')
0. 3
17. 4
4. 8
6. 6
I.I
1.4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 2
I.I
0. 2
0. 2
.
LI
0. 2
0. 1
0. I
(I)
0. J
16. 8
6. 2
4. 6
I. 4
1.4
0. 8
0. 6
2. 6
I. 2
o. 5
0 I
0. 3
5. ;
6. 0
o. 6
0. 7
I. 4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 3
I. I
0 4
O3
0. I
fl
')
(' )
1.4
0. 9
0. 5
2. 3
I. I
0
...,
,-
sz
.P
VI
,0
"'3
u::
• 1 - &baa o.oa peroent.
1 IDclude aales tu wbere levied ( a ~ table 16).
1 Tbouab only 18 cities bad a direct charp for refme dlaJ)Olllll, aa averqe tor Ml cltlel la med lo order so balance the table. Tbe peroeota for the pocrapblo dlvlalooa
are av.-acee
tor the cltte.. lo each dlvlaloo Included lo this study.
• Not a dlreet obarp.
' Budpt allowance ldentleal lo all citlee, plua ulee tu when levied.
• Though only 66 cities bad a direct charge tor achoo! attendance, an averqe tor 611 oltles la med lo order to balaooe the table, The peroeota for the geopaphlo dh1slooa are av.-acee
for the cities lo each division Included lo thla study.
• ExclUlllve of llalell tu.
.
' Tbo111b taxes were payable lo onl:, 36 cities, an average for 611 cities la med In order to balance tbe table. The percenta for the geographic dlv1slooa are avenges tor the cities lo
each division Included lo thla study.
• None payable.
1 Tbougb pm,onal property taxes were paJable lo only 22 cities, an average for Ml cities Is used lo order to balaooe the table. The
peroenta;ror the aeographlo divisions are averacw
for tbe cities lo each division Included In thla study.
11 Though capitation taxes were payable lo only 2a cities, an averaee for 611 cities Is med lo order to balance the table.
The peroeota tor the geographic divisions are avN'<t's
tor the cities lo each division Included In tbla study.
a:,
)>
0
,:i
;:.·
(t
Cl.
O'
-<
C')
0
af ')
sa
("\
-4
)>
a:,
r
m
II)
•
"°
0
""'
204 • COSTS OF LIVING, 59 CITIES
To&/e .2.2.--Percent Distribution of the Costs I of living Among Major Budget Groups
and Principal Subgroups, in 5 Size of City Classifications, 4-Person Manual Worker's
Family, 59 Cities, March 1935
ICKICRGICNCY LICVJ:L
Size of city classillcatlon
Budget group
1-------------,--------
Average,
69 cities 1,000,000 500,000to 250,000to 100,000to 25.000 to
or more 1,000,000 500,000
250,000
100,000
-----------------+--- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - - Total cost of living: Amount ______ _
Percent_ _____ ..
Foud __ .............. __ .. -- _............. .
$903. 'r1
100. 0
$951. 82
100.0
$951. 211
100.0
$897.60
100.0
$884.88
100. 0
$883. 29
100.0
37.6
36. 1
35.6
37. 7
38. 2
311.0
14.2
11.1
I. 3
1.8
13. 7
10.11
1.1
1. 7
13.9
11.0
1.2
L7
13. 9
10.11
1.3
l. 7
14.6
11. 3
1. 4
1.8
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and persons!
care............ ···-·-··-·--····· ....... .
Clothlnl( ... _..... ·-·· ................ _
Clothing upkeep ..... ·--· ............ .
Persons! care_--····-·····-· .... ··-·-·
lUI
11. 3
I. 5
I. 8
Housing, including water-.. ·-•········-··
18.6
18.8
111.7
18.4
18. 7
17.11
Household operstion. ____ ····----···· .....
FueL_ ...... ······-·----·-····· ·-· _.. _
Cos! or wood ______ ·--·----------·
01111. __ -· ---· - . -- --- . --·- --- ...... .
Ice ... _..... - ... ···-·-·····-·-·---· ... .
Electricity ... ·······-····------- ..... .
Household supplies ................. ..
Furniture, lumishinl!ll, and household
13. 6
6. 3
4. 2
1.1
2.1
1.6
1.11
13.0
6.11
4.8
0.8
1.11
1.6
1.8
12. 6
6.2
4.6
0. 7
1.8
1. 3
1.8
12.11
6.1
4.1
1.0
2.1
1.6
1.8
13. 8
6. 6
14.11
5.8
4. 2
4. 4
1. 4
2. 0
1. 7
1.11
1.4
2. 4
I. g
2. 0
I.II
2. 0
0.2
0.3
2.0
0.1
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.3
2. 2
0.3
0.3
18. 2
6.0
7.11
0.6
1.4
17.1
6.1
fl. I
0.8
1.4
14. 8
6. 2
3. 6
0. 7
1.4
13. fl
5.3
l. 7
l. l
1.4
0.9
0.6
2.2
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.5
2. 3
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.11
0.5
2. 4
1.2
0.4
0. 2
0.2
0.11
R=~~~iC:::::::::::::::::::
Unspecllled essentials•-_·-----------M isoellsneous. ·-- _•• ____ • _. _____ .• __ .. _. _.
Medical
Trsnsportatlon
.... _________________ ..
care·--------·----------------
School attendance•.·-------·---···--·
Recreation. ___ ...... __ ... __ .......... .
Motion
picture
admis- _
sions _______
----·theater
_______________
Tobacco and toys•--·--·--·---····
Lile Insurance•------·---------------·
Cburch contributions•-------·-···-···
Tru.es ". __ ----·----·-···--·---·--·. -Personal property•------······---Cnpitstion 1.. ______ ·-·· _______ . . . .
2. 1
0.2
0,3
(')
0.3
111.1
6. 1
6. 0
0.8
1. 4
18. 4
0.9
0. 6
2. 3
I. 2
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.9
0.5
2.2
1.1
6.2
8.0
0.6
1.4
(10)
..
.
o. 6
2. 4
1.2
0. 5
0. 2
0.3
•Less than 0.05 percent.
lncludo sales tsx where le'l"ied (appendix table 16).
• Though only 18 cities had s direct charge for refuse disposal, an average !or 59 cities is used In order to
balance the table. The percents !or the size ol city groups sre averages !or the cities in each group included
in this study.
• Not s direct charge.
• Budl(et allowance Identical in sll cities, plus sales ta,. where levied.
• Though only 65 cities had a direct charge !or school attendance, an average ror 59 cities is used in order
to balance the table. The percents !or the size or city groups are averages !or the cities in each group included
In thLs study.
• Exclusive or sales tax.
' Th•mgh taxes were payable in only 36 cities, an average !or 69 cities is used in order to hBlance the t&ble.
The peroonts !or the size of city groups are averages for the cities In each group included in this study.
• Though personal property taxes were payable in only 22 cities, an average !or 69 cities is used in ordt!I'
to bslsnoo the table. The percents !or the sir.eo[city groups are averages !or the cities in each group included
in this study.
• Though capitation taxes wore payable In only 25 cities, an average !or 59 cities Is WJed In order to balance
the table. The percents !or the size ol city groups sre averai:es !or the cities in each group included in this
study.
10 None payable.
t
D
I
zedryGooglc
Index
205
Dg1tzed by
Google
D1qt1zed
vGoogle
INDEX
Page
Automobile:
Not included in budgets priced ________________________________ 73, 116n
142
Ownership in 10 cities______________________________ ___________
B.T. U.:
Gas content ___________________________________________ 50, 51, 109, 130
Gas costs, relation of, to________________________________________
51
Budget allowances (aee alao Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal
care; Food; Household operation; Housing; Miscellaneous family needs):
Alternative, differential, or uniform in all cities____________________
xiv,
xv,xviii,46-46,94-95, 144-145
Alternative or differential:
Basis _______________________ 45-46, 49, 54, 76, 107-109, 110, 116-117
45,
Relation of, to costs_______________________________________
48,49-52,54-55, 75, 76-77, 127, 129-131
Identical money, relation of, to costs_____________________________
30,
31,52,59,60,63-64,83-84, 127, 132n, 133-134
Local consumption compared with_______________________________ xvi,
20,31,37,52,55, 78,94, 107,108,144
Budgets priced for study. See Methods used in study, quantity budgets.
Cenam, Fifteenth, of the United Statea: 1930 ___________ xiiin, xvn, 91n, 95n, 157n
Central Statistical Board___________________________________________
xn
Changes in costs of living. See Costs of living, changes in.
Church contributions. See Miscellaneous family needs, contributions,
church and other.
Cities in study:
Basis of choice_ _ ______________________________________________ 91-92
Choice of, relation of, to cost comparisons _______________________ 92, 126
Classified by climate for fuel and ice allowances_ _________________ 46, 107
Classified by population and area for transportation allowances____ 116-117
Cost differences, relation of, to size of (Ree also Costs of budget groups;
Costs of living)______________________________________________
xvxv~ xx, xxi, xxii~ 7-9, 16, 29, 36, 37, 42, 45, 54, 57, 60, 63, 69, 7172, 74, 76, 77, 79,84,87, 117,125,126,128,129,132.
Geographic location and population of_ ______ viii, xiv, xv, 91-92, 156-157
Rank of, in cost arrays:
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_________________
3,
14,21,35,41,43-44,53,57,67, 70,74,79,81
March 1937 compared with March 1935___ _____ ___ ___________ 9-11
Climate (aee also Cities in study; Geographic location):
Cities grouped by, in fuel cost calculations _______________________ 46,107
Fuel allowances baaed on________________ __ ______________ 4~46, 48, 108
Fuel costs and prices, relation of, to ______________________________ 45--52
Ice allowances baaed on __________________________________ - - - ___
54
Ice costs and prices, relation of, to __________ . ____________________ 54-55
207
Dg1tzed by
Google
208 • INDEX
Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care (llee alllo Budget allowances; PO,fle
Costs of budget groups; Methods used in study, quantity budgets)____
xxi,
21-32,99--100, 132, 133-134
Commodities and services priced___ _______________ __ ___ 23, 25-26, 30, 99
Costs oL _______________________________________ 2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937 _ _ ___ __ __ _________ ____ _ _ 9-11
Differences in _________________________________ 29-32, 132, 133-134
Maintenance and emergency levels compared________ 21, 23, 24, 27, 28
Percent distribution_____ ___________ ______ _______ _____ _____ _
23
Variation in, coefficients oL __ __ __ _______ __ ____ ___ _____ _____ _
128
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ________________ 23, 30, 99, 100
Price differences __________________________________ xxi, 24-27, 28, 30, 31
Techniques and procedures ____________________________________ 99-100
Clothing upkeep. See Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care.
Coal. See Household operation, fuel.
Coal or wood,gas,and ice costs combined. See Household operation,fuel and ice.
Coefficient of variation defined______________________________________ 124n
Coefficients of variation in costs_____________________________________
128
Comparability of intercity costs:
Devices for insuring_ _ _ _ _________________ __ ______ xv, 93, 94-95, 144-148
Limitations on________________________________________________
146
Problem of insuring __________________________________________ 123-124
Consumer shopping habits, basis for selecting sources of price data_ 92-93, 95, 146
Contributions, church and other. See Miscellaneous family needs.
Cost differences. See Costs of budget groups, relative; Costs of living, rel&tive; Coefficients of variation in costs.
Cost relatives (see also Cities in study, rank of, in cost arrays). See Costs
of budget groups; Costs of living.
Cost variations:
128
Coefficients of_________________________________________________
Comments on________________________ 17-20, 29-32, 36-38, 45-52, 54-56,
58,6~1,63-64, 72, 74-78,80-81,85,89-90, 127-134, 147-148
Extent of. See Costs of budget groups, relative; Costs of living,
relative; Cities in study, rank of, in cost arrays.
Relative responsibility of commodities and services for ___ xxiv-xxv, 134-135
Costs of budget groups (see also Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal
care; Food; Household operation; Housing; Miscellaneous family needs):
Differences in _____________________________ xviii, xx, xxiv-xxv, 3, 127-134
Emergency level:
Annual_ ____________________________________ 172-175, 180-181, 184
Relative ____________________________________ 176-179, 182-183, 185
Maintenance level:
Annual_ ____________________________________ 158-161, 166-167, 170
Relative ____________________________________ 162-165, 168-169, 171
Percentages of costs of living ________________________ xix, 6, 135, 189-204
Compared with percentages of family expenditures ______ xxvi, 138-144
Recalculated, as test of methods_________________________________
145
Variation in, coefficients of_____________________________________
128
Costs of living (see also Findings of study; Methods used in study):
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937 _ __________ ______________ xvii, 9-11
Compared ";th family expenditures:
Amounts and distributions of, in 10 cities __________ xxv-xxvi, 138-141
Definitions______________________ ____ _______ __ ___ _____ _____
ix
Differences in 10 cities explained ___________________________ 141-144
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
INDEX• 209
Costs of living (aee also Findings of study; Methods used in study)-Con- Page
tinued.
Costs of commodities and services, relation of, to differences in ___ xxiv-xxv,
134-135
Defined (see alao Levels of living of study)________________________
ix
Emergency level in 59 cities:
Annual_________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3, 5, 172-175
Monthly_________________________________________________
5
Percent distribution ________________________ xix, 6, 135-136, 197-201
Relative ________________________________________________ 176-179
Weekly___________________________________________________
5
Emergency level in five size of city groups:
Annual___________________________________________________
184
Percent distribution________________________________________
204
Relative__________________________________________________
185
Emergency level in nine geographic divisions:
Annual _________________________________________________ 180-181
Percent distribution ______________________________________ 202-203
Relative ________________________________________________ 182-183
Maintenance and emergency levels compared _____________ xii-xiv, 1--4, 124
Maintenance level in 59 cities:
Annual_ ____________________________________________ 2, 5, 158--161
Monthly_________________________________________________
5
Percent distribution ____________________ xix, 6, 135-136, 137, 189-193
Relative ________________________________________________ 162-165
Weekly ___________________________________________________ 5,137
Maintenance level in five size of city groups:
Annual ___________________________________________________ 8,170
Percent distribution________________________________________
196
Relative ______________________________________________ 8, 137, 171
Maintenance level in nine geographic divisions:
Annual__ _____________________________________________ 8, 166-167
Percent distribution ______________________________________ 194-195
Relative __________________________________________ 8,137, 168--169
Maintenance level in 31 cities, March 1937 _______________________ 10, 11
Percentages of, required for commodities and for services __ xxiv-xxv, 135-136
Problems of measuring intercity differences_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
123
Studies of:
Changes in_______________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ xn, 9n
Quantity budgets__________________________________________ x-xin
Summary of differences _______________________________________ 124-127
Variation in, coefficients of_ _________________________ ·----------128
Cover, John H __________________________________________________ ixn, 18n
Retail Price Behavior _________________________________________ - 92n
Electricity. See Household operation.
Emergency level of living. See Levels of living of study.
Expenditures for living. See Family expenditures.
Family budgets. See Methods used in study, quantity budgets.
Family expenditures:
Compared with costs of living. See Costs of living.
Not analyzed in study_________________________________________
95n
Family of study described ________________________________________ xiii-xiv
Federal Power Commission: Electric Rate Survey ___________________ 58n, llln
Field work. See Methods used in study.
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
210 • INDEX
Page
Findings of study _________________________________________ xv-xvi, 123-148
Compared with other studies ________________________________ 124n, 136
International Labour Office_________________________________
138
National Industrial Conference Board ______________________ 136-138
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics_ _ ________ xxv-xxvi, 13S-l 44
Limitations on ____________________________________________ xv-xvi, 123
Food (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget groups; Methods used
in study, quantity budgets) __________________ xx-xxi, 13-20, 97-99, 133-134
Commodities priced ____________________________________ 15, 93n, 97-98
Costs of _________________________________________________ 2, 12, 13-14
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937 _ _ ____ ____ ___ _________ __ 9-11
Differences in _____________________________________ 17-20, 133-134
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_______________ 4, 13-14
Percent distribution_______________________________________
14
Variation in, coefficients oL _·_ _ _ ___ ___ _______ __ ______ ___ ____
128
Price differences ______________________________________ xx, 15-16, 17-18
Techniques and procedures _________________________________ 97n, 9S-99
Fuel. See Household operation.
Fuel and light (see also Household operation), changes in costs of, March
1935-March 1937 _______________________________________________ 9-11
Furniture, furnishings, and household equipment.
tion.
See Household opera-
Gas. See Household operation, fuel.
Gas, coal or wood, and ice costs combined. See Household operation, fuel
and ice.
Geographic divisions. See Cities in study; Climate; Geographic location.
Geographic location (aee also Climate; Costs of budget groups; Costs of
living in nine geographic divisions), cost differences in relation to ____ xix-xx,
xx-xxi, xxii-xxiii, xxv, 7-8, 16, 17, 29, 30-31, 35-37, 41-42,
44-45, 49, 51, 52, 53-54, 57, 59-60, 63, 64, 69, 71, 74, 79, 84,
86-87,88, 124-125, 125-126, 130,132
Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics:
Quantity and Coat Budgets * * * Prices for San Francisco,
Nooember 1936_ _ ___ _______ __ _ ________ __ _ _ _____ _ __ ____ ___ __ __
55n
Quantity budgets priced by_______ ___ __________ ___ ___ ___________
xin
Home production:
No provision for, in quantity budgets____________________________
xiv
Possible cost savings through _______________________________ xvi, 20, 32
Household operation (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget groups;
Methods used in study, quantity budgets)_________________ xxii-xxiii, 39-65
Budget group, composition oL _______________________________ ___
39
Costs oL _______ ________________ _______________ _____________ 2, 39, 42
Component group items compared___________________________
xxii
Maintenance and emergency levels compared__________ _____ 4, 39, 41
Percent distribution___________ ________________________ xxiii, 39, 42
Variation in, coefficients oL _ _ _ ____________________ _________
128
Electricity ________________________________________ xxii, 56-58, 111,132
Costs oL ________________________________________ ______ 40, 56-57
Differences in ________________________________________ 58, 132
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_____________
57
Variation in, coefficients of_ _ _ _ _ ______________________ __ 128
Identical money allowances for, in all cities_____ ____ _________ 58, 111
Dig 11~ed by
Goog Ie
INDEX• 211
Page
Household operation (au alao Budget allowances; Costs of budget groups;
Methods used in study, quantity budgets)-Continued.
Electricity-Continued.
Servicespriced____________________________________________
111
111
Techniques and procedures_________________________________
FueL _______________________________ xxii-xxiii, 42-52, 106-110, 129-131
Alternative allowances of, based on local consumption ____ 107, 108, 130
Commodities and services priced ____________________ 42-43, 108-109
Costs of ____________________________________________ 40, 43, 4H7
Coal and wood ______________________________ 40, 44, 48-49, 128
Differences in _________________________________ 45-52, 129-131
Gas ________________________________________ 40, 44, 49-51, 128
Maintenance and emergency levels compared _____________ 43-44
Percent distribution____________________________________
43
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Differential allowances of, based on climate_ _ _ _______ ________ 45-46,
48, 49, 107, 108, 129-130
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ____________ 42-43, 52, 110
Localized consumption ____________________________________ 45, 107
Locally used but not priced___ _______________ ______________ 52, 108
Prices of _______________________________________________ 48, 51-52
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 106-110
Fuel and ice:
Complementary allowances _____________ ~ ____________ 42, 55, 56, 110
Combined costs better than separate _________________ 42, 56,128,131
Furniture, furnishings, and household equipment ____ ~_____________ xxii,
61-64, 112-113, 133-134
Commodities priced~------------------------------- 61-63, 112,113
Costs of_ ______________________________________________ 40, 61, 62
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937____________________ 9-11
Differences in _____________________________________ 63-64, 134
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_____________
61
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ______________ 63, 113, 133
Price differences_________________ ______________________ ____ 62, 63
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 112-113
Household supplies. ___________________________ xxii, 58-61, 111-112, 133
Commodities priced ___________________________________ 59, 111, 112
Costs of_ ______________________________________________ 40, 58-59
Differences in _____________________________________ 60-61, 133
Maintenance and emergency levels compared _____________ 58, 59
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ___________ 59, 60, 111-112
Price differences__________________ _________________________
59
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 111-112
Ice (sualso Household operation, fuel and ice) _____ xxii, 53-56, 110-111, 311
Commodity priced____ _____________________________ ______ 110-111
Costs of. ________________________________________ ______ 40, 53, 56
Differences in _____________________________________ 54-56, 131
Limitations on estimates oL ____________________________
55
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_____________
53
Variation in, coefficients of._____________________________
128
Differential allowances of, based on climate. __________ 54-55, 110, 131
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
212 • INDEX
Page
Household operation (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget groups;
Methods used in study, quantity budgets)-Continued.
Ice-Continued.
Prices of______ __ _ ___ ___ __ _ ____ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ 54-55, 56
Techniques and procedures ______________________________ 110-111
Refuse disposal______________ _ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ xxii, 64, 94, 113, 129
Coste oL _________ . ___________ - __ - __ - - - _- _______ - ___ __ ___ _
64
Differences in ________________________________________ 64, 129
Maintenance and emergency levels compared ____________ 64, 113
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Services priced______________ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ 64, 113
Techniques and procedures _____________ - ___ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _
113
Unspecified essentials:
Identical money allowance for, in all cities______________ xxii, 64-65
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 113-114
Housing (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget groups; Methods
used in study, quantity budgets) ____________ xxi-xxii, 33-38, 100-106, 132
Priced _______________________________ xiii-xiv, xxi-xxii, 33, 36, 100-101
Rents ______________________________________________________ 2,33-38
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937 _________________________ 9--11
Differences in _________________________________________ 36-38, 132
Maintenance and emergency levels compared__ _ _ _ __ ___ __ __ ___ 4, 35
Variation in, coefficients of__________________________________
128
Water charge included in ___________________ 33, 41, 103n, 104,105
Techniques and procedures___________________________________ 100-106
Ice. See Household operation.
Ice, coal or wood, and gas costs combined. See Household operation, fuel
and ice.
Insurance:
Fire__________________________________________________________
142
Life. See Miscellaneous family needs.
International Labour Office: A Contribution to the St1tdy of International
Comparisom of Costa of Living _______________ .. . ____ xin, 13811, 146n, 147
Kaplan, A. D. H.: Family Disbursements of Wage Earners and Salan"ed
Clerical Workers in Denver_ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ __ ___ _ _
139n
LaborBureau,lnc_________________________________________________
xin
"\,evele of living of study (see also Methods used in study, quantity budgets):
Compared with other levels of living ____________________________ xiv, xvii
Defined_________________________________________________ xii-xiii, xvii
Maintenance and emergency, content of, compared ______________ xvii, xxn,
21, 98, 101-103, 106, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120
Maintenance and emergency, costs of, compared. See Clothing,
clothing upkeep, and personal care; Coste of living; Food; Household operation; Housing; Miscellaneous family needs.
Light. See Fuel and light; Household operation, electricity.
Magnussen, Leifur: "An International Inquiry into Costs of Living "d__ _ 13811
Maintenance level of living. See Levels of living of study.
Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries, costs of living, index
numbers of changes in____________________________________________
xn
Dig ti zed oy
GoosIe
INDEX• 213
Medical care. See Miscellaneous family needs.
Page
Methods used in study ___ ---- - - - _---- ____ ----------- ______________ 91-121
Commentson _______________________________________________ 144-148
Cost calculation (see also Costs of budget groups; Food; Clothing,
clothing upkeep, and personal care; Household operation; Housing;
Misoellaneous family needs; Sales tax):
Commodities and services entering into, number of____________ 93--94
Methods of_ _______________________________________ xiv-xv, 96-97
Fieldwork ________________________________________________ 95--96, 123
Commodities and services priced (see also Clothing, clothing
upkeep, and personal care; Food; Household operation; Housing; Miscellaneous family needs)___________ ____ _____ _ _____ 93--95
Dates of, and prices ________________________ 96, 98,100,109,111,121
Relation of, to costs____________________________ 19-20, 31n, 49
Neighborhood coverage _____________________________________ 92-93
Price quotations, number of_ _____________________________ 93--94, 98
Sources of data____________________________________________
95,
100, lOZ--103, 109-110, 111, 112, 114-115, 118, 119, 121
General problems of technique ________________________________ 123-124
Quantity budgets (see also Levels of living of study; Budget allowances; Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care; Food; Household operation; Housing; Miscellaneous family needs)____________
xii,
xviiin, In, 14n, 21n, 35n, 39n, 67n, 91n, 93, 123
Priced before study_______________________ _ __________ ___ __ xn-xin
Problem of constructing_______________ ______ _______ ____ __ __
xii
Schedules __________________________ 95, 98, 99,109,110,111,112,114,148
Number of, collected ______________________________________ 93, 95n
Specifications for pricing:
Nature of, and their relation to costs____ ___ ___ _______ xiin, xxi-xxii,
18-19, 30, 31, 36, 37-38, 48-49, 60, 64, 72, 94, 98, 100-103, 108,
llZ--113, 115--116, 118-119, 121, 123, 127, 129-130, 131, 132,
133, 134, 144, 148.
Purpose of and limitations on ________________ 19, 30, 94, 123, 145--147
Substitutions in _______________________________________ 94, 96, 146
Miscellaneous family needs (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget
groups; Methods used in study, quantity budgets) __________ xxiii-xxiv, 67-90
Budget group, composition of___________________________________
67
Contributions, church and other, identical money allowances for, in
all cities __________________________________________ xxiv, 85, 86,120
Costs oL _ ______ __ __ ____ ______ _______________ _________ ___ 2, 66, 68-69
Changes in, March 1935-March 1937 ________________________ 9-11
Component group items compared ________________________ xxiii-xxiv
Maintenance and emergency levels compared__ _ _ ______ _______ 4, 68
Percent distribution ______________________________ xxiii-xxiv, 68-69
Variation in, coeffieieuts of__________________________________
128
Life insurance:
Classified as investment in Bureau of Labor Statistics' expenditure
study ______________________________________________ 139n, 143
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ______ xxiv-xxv, 85--86, 120
Techniques and procedures_________________________________
120
Medical care _____________________________ xxiii, 69-72, 114-116, 133--134
Commodities and services priced ________________________ 69, 71, 114
Dig tizf'd by
Goog Ie
214 • INDEX
Miscellaneous family needs (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget Pa,e
groups; Methods used in study, quantity budgets)-Continued.
Medical care-Continued.
Costs of _______________________________________________ 66, 69-71
Differences in ____________________________________ 72,134,147
Limitations on estimates_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ 69-72
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_____________
70
Percent distribution ____________________________________ 7~71
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Expenditures for, in New York______________________________
143
Price differences ___________________________________________ 7~71
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 114-116
Recreation _______________________________________ xxiv, 81-85, 118--120
Budget group, composition of_ ________________________ xxiv, 81, 118
Costs of___________________________ __ __ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _
81
Differences in____ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 85, 132
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_____________
81
Percent distribution____________________________________
81
Identical money allowances for, in all cities ___________ 81, 84, 118, 119
Motion picture theater admissions __________ xxiv, 82-83, 119, 132, 147
Costs oL __________________________________________ 66, 82-83
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_ _ _ __ ___ _
83
Variation in, coefficients of__________________________
128
Prices oL ____ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ 85, 147
Services priced________________________________________
119
Newspapers _________________________________ :u:iv, 82, 118--119, 132
Costs of_ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ ____ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ 66, 82, 128
Variation in, coefficients of__________________________
128
Prices of______ ___ ___ __ __ _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 82, 118--119
Services priced ______________________________________ 118--119
Organizations, tobacco, and toys:
Identical money allowances for, in all cities __ xxiii, 83-84, 119-120
Techniques and procedures _______________________________ 118--120
School attendance _____________________________ xxiv, 79-81, 94,118,129
Costs of ____ ~--------------------------------------------- 66,79
Differences in _____________________________________ ~81, 129
Maintenance and emergency levels compared ____________ 79, 118
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
Equipment:
Local practice of furnishing_____________________________
80
Priced _______________________________________________ 79,118
Techniques and procedures_________________________________
118
Taxes, personal property and capitation (see also Sales tax)_ xxiv,86-87, 121, 129
Amounts of _______________________________________________ 86, 87
Differences in ____________________________________________ 89, 129
Maintenance and emergency levels compared_ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _
87
Techniques and procedures_________________________________
121
Variation in, coefficients of__________________________________
128
Transportation ___________________________ xxiii-xxiv, 73-78, 116-118, 129
Costs of_ ________________________________________ 66, 73-74, 75, 77
Differences in _____________________________________ 74-78, 129
Limitations on estimates____________________________ 73, 77-78
Maintenance and emergency levels compared _____________ 73, 74
Variation in, coefficients of______________________________
128
D qi' ,ed by
Goog Ie
INDEX• 215
Miscellaneous family needs (see also Budget allowances; Costs of budget Pagt1
group; Methods used in study, quantity budgets)-Continued.
Transportation-Continued.
Differential allowances of, based on size of city and area ___ 75, 76-77, 117
Compared with Real Property Inventory_________________
78
Fares, car and bus______________________________________ 7 4--76, 77
School days in budget allowance of, number oL ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 76, 116
Services priced ___________________________________________ 73, 116
Techniques and procedures_____________________________
116-118
Monthly Labor RetJiew. See United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Motion picture theater admissions. Sea Miacellaneous family needs,
recreation.
National Education Association: School Books and Supplies______________
80n
National Industrial Conference Board:
Conference Board Bulletin __ . ____________________________ _ xi, 136n, 137n
Conference Board Service Letter___________________________________
xn
Costs of Jiving, index numbers of changes in______________________
xn
Quantity budgets priced by________________ ___ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __
xn
The. Cost of Living Among Wage Earners, Fall River, Massachusetts,
October 1919 _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___
xin
The Cost of Living in New York City_____________________________
xin
The Cost of Living in Twelve Industrial Cities______________________
xin
National Organization for Publio Health Nursing______________________
115
National Resources Committee______________________________________
xn
Newspapers. See Miscellaneous family needs, recreation.
Organizations, tobacco, and toys.
creation.
See Miscellaneous family needs, re--
Personal care. See Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care.
Populations of cities in study. See Cities in study.
Price collection (see also Methods used in study, field work) _____________ 95-96
Prices (see also Clothing, clothing upkeep, and personal care; Food; Household operation; Housing; Methods used in study; Miscellaneous family
needs):
Cost differences, relation of, to _________________ xx, xxi, 17, 19, 30, 32, 36,
46-52, 54, 55, 56, 6D-61, 63, 72, 74, 75, 77, 85, 127, 134, 145, 148
Public utility rates, government regulation oL ___ 51, 58, 78, 129, 130, 132
Purpose of study ________ ---------- _______________ -- _______________ ix, 123
Quantity budgets.
See Methods used in study.
Real Property Inventory (see also United States Bureau of Foreign and
Domestic Commerce: Real Property Inventory) _________________ 37n, 78,105
Recreation. See Miscellaneous family needs.
Refrigeration (see also Household operation, ice), use of_ _________________ 53, 55
Refuse disposal. See Household operation.
Rents. See Housing.
Sales tax ______________________ 9, 15n, 24n, 59n, 63n, 71n, 87-88, 121, 126-127
Amounts of_ __________________________________________ 87-88, 187, 188
88
As percent of costs of living_________________________________
Costs of budget groups and costs of living, relation of, to_________
9,
18,31-32,38, 52,56, 58,60,64, 72,78,80,85, 127
Differencesin _____________________________________________ 89-90
Maintenance and emergency levels compared__________________
88
Methods of computing ______________________________ 97, 98--99,121
3~502°-38--16
Dig tirnd by
Goos le
216 • INDEX
Sales tax-Continued.
Page
Cities having _____________________________________________ 88,187, 188
Commodities and services taxed and exempt_ __ 18, 31-32, 72, 78, 80, 89, 121
Costs of living in cities with and without_______________________ 126-127
Defined ______________________________________________________ 9n, 87
Methods of collecting_________________________________________ 89, 98n
Ra t€s oL _ _ __ __________ ________________________ _ ____________ 88, l 07
School attendance. See Miscellaneous family needs.
Seasonality in relation to costs (see also Geographic location) ___________ xxv, 19,
31,45-46,47-48,49,54-55
Specifications for pricing. See Methods used in study.
Standard of living, American (see also Levels of living of study) _____ iii, xiv, xvii
Stecker, Margaret L.: Quantity B1J.dgets for Basic Maintenance and
Emergency Standards of Living _________ xiin, xviiin, ln, 14n, 35n, 39n, 67n, 91n
Tax Research Foundation, The: Tax Systems of the World______________
86n
Taxes (see also Miscellaneous family needs; Sales tax):
Motion picture theater admissions ______________ 9n, 85, 87n, 126n, 187,188
Oleomargarine_________________________________________________
18n
Tobacco. See Miscellaneous family needs, recreation.
Toys. See Miscellaneous family needs, recreation.
Transportation. See Miscellaneous family needs.
Union dues_______________________________________________________
84n
United States Bureau of the Census(see also Census): Mines and Quarries: 1929 _ 49n
United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce: Real Property
Inventory ____________________________________________________ 78n, 105n
United States Bureau of Home Economics____________________________
xn
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (see also Williams, Faith M.):
Cities, list of, prepared by________________________ __ __ __ ___ _ _ __ _
92
Consumer purchase study____________________________________ xn, 139n
Cooperation in study ________________________ xin, 92, 95, 97n, 98-99, 145n
Cost of Living in the United States________________________________
xn
Costs of living, index numbers of changes in ______________________ xn, 9n
March 1935-March 1937 _____________________________________ 9-11
Family expenditure study______________________________________
139
Findings of, compared with results of this study ______ xxv-xxvi, 138-144
Monthly Labor Review ______________ xn, 139n, 140n, 141n, 142n, 143n, 146n
Quantity budgets priced by_____________________________________
xn
Specifications for pricing ______________ • _______________________ 146-147
Unspecified essentials. See Household operation.
Visiting Housekeeper Association, quantity budgets priced by___________
xin
Water. See Housing, rents.
Williams, Faith M.: (see also United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Monthly Labor Review) "Money Disbursements of \Vage Earners and
Clerical Workers"_______________________________________________ 139n
- - - and Zimmerman, Carle C.: St1J.dies in Family Living in the United
States and Other Countn·es___ ______________________ ________ ____ ____
xn
Wood. See Household operation, fuel.
92n
Wood, Katherine D.: Urban JVorkers on Relief________________________
Works Progress Administration ________________________________ xn, 18n, 92n
Zimmerman, Carle C.
See Williams, Faith 1\1.
0
Dig ti zed oy
Goos Ie
D
I
ed
vGooglc
DJ
edl)yG
ogle
@FedFRASER