Full text of Retired Couple's Budget for a Moderate Living Standard, Autumn 1966 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1570-4

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

retired cou ple’s budget




FOR
A
LIVING

MODERATE
STANDARD

A utum n 1 9 6 6 - B u l l e t i n N o . 1 5 7 0 - 4
U S. D E P A R T M E N T OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATI STI CS

retired couple’s budget




FOR
A
LIVING

MODERATE
STANDARD

A u tu m n 1 9 6 6 - B u I le t in No. 1 5 7 0 - 4
U,S. DEP ARTMENT OF LABOR
Wi l l ar d Wir t z, S e c r e t a r y
BUR E A U OF LABOR S T A T I S T I C S
A r t h u r M. Ross, C o m m i s s i o n e r

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 35 cents




Contents
Page

Introduction....................................................................................................
Costs in urban a r e a s ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Intercity d iffe re n ce s.......................................................................................................................................
2
A moderate standard: Present and p a s t .................................................................• • • ........................n
Data sources and estimating m ethods......................*............................................................................... ig
Food . . . ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Shelter c o s t s .............................................................................................................
ig
Transportation................................................................
19
Medical c a r e ...........................................................................................................................................
19
Other goods and s e r v ic e s .............................................................................................................. . . 20
Gifts and contributions................................................................................................................... *. . 20
Tables:
1.
2.

Annual costs of the retired couple’ s budget by major components urban United States,
39 metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan areas by regions, autumn 1966...................
Indexes of comparative living costs based on the retired couple’ s budget,
autumn 1966 ...................................................................................................................................

Appendix contents




........................................................................................................... ..........................

iii

3
7
21




Introduction

The Retired Couple’ s Budget described in this
bulletin is a companion to the budget for a younger,
4-person family published in the City Worker’ s
Family Budget for a , Moderate Living Standard,
Autumn 1966, Bulletin No. 1570-1.

The content of the new budget for a moderate
standard is based on the manner of living and
consumer choices in the decade of the 1960’ s.
The list of goods and services included was
derived in several ways. Nutritional and health
standards, as determined by scientists and tech­
nicians, were used for the food-at-home and the
shelter components. The selection among the
various kinds of food and housing arrangements
meeting the standards was based on actual choices
made by families as revealed by surveys of cons u m e r expenditures. The Medicare program
shaped part of the standard for medical care.
Where scientific standards have not been formu­
lated or legislation enacted, analyses of the data
reported in the Bureau’ s Survey of Consumer
Expenditures in 1960-61 and related consumption
studies were used to determine the specific items,
and the quantities and qualities thereof, to be
included in the budget. These analytical proce­
dures result in basing some parts of the budget
upon inferences about the collective judgment of
consumers as to the kinds and amounts of con­
sumption required, rather than upon scientific
standards. In such analyses, some exercise of
the budget-maker’ s own judgment is involved;
however, in this budget, such judgment has been
confined to selection of the basic data and deter­
mination of the procedures to be followed in
deriving the items and quantities making up these
parts of the budget. The specific decisions that
were made with respect to each component of the
new Retired Couple’ s Budget are documented in
this bulletin.

All benchmark estimates of living costs are
based on specific family situations. The cost esti­
mates of the Retired Couple’ s Budget are for an
urban family of 2 persons— a husband age 65 or
over and his wife—who are presumed to be selfsupporting and living independently. The budget
also specifies that both husband and wife are in
reasonably good health for their age and able to
take care of themselves, and that each is covered
by hospital and medical insurance under the
federal Medicare program. Two^thirds of these
families are homeowners, living in houses which
are mortgage-free. The couple has average inven­
tories of clothing, housefurnishings, major dur­
ables, and other equipment. Even at a comparable
standard of living, benchmark cost estimates for
younger and larger families will be higher, and
estimates for single persons will be lower, than
those for the retired couple. In other words, there
is no single answer to the question, “ How much
does it cost to live?” Family size, age, and type
have a significant effect on spending patterns,
manner of living, and family needs.
The other major consideration— in addition to
family composition—in developing family budgets
is the living standard for which cost estimates
are made. “ Standards of living” refer to the goals
we set for ourselves as consumers of goods and
services and as users of leisure time. The living
standard represented by the current" Retired
Couple’ s Budget is described as moderate. It pro­
vides for the maintenance of health and social
well-being, and participation in community acti­
vities. This generalized concept of a moderate
standard has been translated into a list of
commodities and services which can be priced.
(See appendix A.) Examination of the lists pro­
vides the clearest insight into what the moderate
standard com prises.




The moderate living standard does not show how
an “ average” retired couple actually spends its
money, nor does it show how a couple should spend
its money. Individual families may spend more on
one item and less on others than the amounts in­
dicated in the budget. Furthermore, some families
can and do spend less than the total amount speci­
fied in this budget without feeling deprived and
without impairing their health or their ability to
contribute constructively to our society. In gen­
eral, however, the representative list of goods
v

and services comprising the standard reflects the
collective judgment of families as to what is
necessary and desirable to meet the conventional
and social as well as the physical needs of families
of the budget type in the present decade.

the level of living of American families and their
ideas about what constitutes a moderate living
standard.
Technological advances also influence the com ­
position of the standard. New types of consumer
goods and services are developed, mass produc­
tion increases their availability, and mass com ­
munication and advertising media stimulate the
demand for them. As real incomes rise, certain
aspects of living, once considered attainable only
by a few, come within the: reach of many and are
accepted as part of the American way of life. For
senior citizens in particular, a rising level of
social concern for their welfare and the adequacy
of their income and resources has been an addi­
tional factor in changing their own expectations
and attitudes toward retirement. In a dynamic
society, therefore, the relative position of a
moderate living standard on a scale of all living
standards may remain fixed, but the description
of what constitutes that standard will be ever
changing.

The new Retired Couple’ s Budget is the third
study for this family type which translates a gen­
eralized concept of a moderate standard of living
into a list of commodities and services that can
be priced. The original Budget for an Elderly
Couple, developed by the Social Security Admin­
istration to parallel the original City Worker’ s
Family Budget prepared by BLS, was priced in
13 large cities
in 1946, 1947, and 1949. The
quantities and qualities of goods and services
included in that budget were based on the manner
of living and standards prevailing in the early
1940’ s. The budget was repriced by BLS in 34
large cities in October 1950, but it was discon­
tinued after that date because it was outmoded.

In 1960, the Bureau issued The Interim Budget
for a Retired Couple. It was based on a new list
of goods and services representing “ modest-butadequate” living in accordance with standards
prevailing in the 1950’ s. Because the basic data
used in the analysis related to the early 1950’ s,
and because of the limited scope of this revision,
it was considered “ interim ,” pending a more com ­
plete review of the procedures and the availability
of data from the Bureau’ s Survey of Consumer
Expenditures in 1960-61. The interim budget was
priced only once, in autumn 1959, in 20 large cities.

The present study differs from the earlier
budgets in two major respects. These differences
affect the level of the 1966 costs and comparative
living cost indexes, particularly in relation to the
costs and indexes of the 1959 interim budget.

Both of the earlier budgets were for a family of
the same size, age, and type as that in the new
budget. Similarly, the living standard in all three
studies provides for the maintenance of health and
social well-being, and participation in community
activities. For the most part, the procedures used
to translate this generalized concept of the living
standard into a list of goods and services were
also the same, but the kinds and quantities of items
comprising the standard differ, because the
budgets reflect the conditions of living in three
different decades. Changes in educational levels,
cultural developments growing out of travel and
migration, and growth in purchasing power affect

2. Costs of maintaining an owned home (mort­
gage-free) have been included in the mod­
erate standard. Shelter costs in the earlier
budgets were limited to rental housing. Use
of rental housing only was appropriate for
large cities in terms of the 1940 modest
standard of the original budget, but it was
recognized as a limitation in the 1959 interim
budget in terms of the standard of the 1950’ s.
The addition of homeowner costs provide,
for the first time, comparative budget costs
for renter and owner families and intercity
indexes of homeowner maintenance costs for
equivalent housing.




1. For the first time, the budget has been priced
in a sample of medium-sized and small cities.
Thus, it is possible to estimate the average
U.S. urban budget cost and to compare met­
ropolitan and nonmetropolitan area costs.
(See appendix B.)

vi

The effects of these and other changes on the mod­
erate standard are discussed in detail in this
bulletin.

In contrast with the moderate budgets, the lower
standard budgets will not conform in certain re­
spects to p r e v a i l i n g customs and buying
practices—that is, to the collective judgments
of families of these types concerning what is
necessary for a satisfactory standard of living.
The lower standard budgets are expected to be
more appropriate than the moderate budgets for
use in establishing goals for public assistance and
income maintenance programs in the current
decade.

A list of the Bureau’ s previous budgets and re ­
lated references is provided in appendix C, includ­
ing the Report of the Advisory Committee on
Standard Budget Research, June 1963. The report
summarizes the recommendations of a special
committee of experts, representing users of
standard budgets in State and local welfare admin­
istration, academic research, labor unions, and
business organizations. The committee advised
the Bureau on the direction that its research on
standard budgets should take, and its recommen­
dations formed guidelines for the Bureau in the
development of the current budget.

The higher standard budget, while not connoting
real affluence, will represent a more comfortable
level and manner of living than the moderate stand­
ard, and a concept of economic success to which
numerous American families aspire. The higher
standard will be useful in measuring the ability of
self-supporting families to pay for social and
health services in unusual circumstances, and in
general economic analysis.

The following bulletins in the current series
report results of other phases of the standard
budget research program:

Bulletin 1570-3 will report the autumn 1966
Budget Pricing Procedures, Specifications, and
Average P rices.

In the future, estimates of the annual cost of the
three standard budgets for the 4-person family
and for the retired couple will be made as of the
spring of the year and published periodically for
the same metropolitan areas and regional classes
of nonmetropolitan areas as those included in the
present study. The budget quantities and weights
will remain fixed, however, for longer periods of
time. While living standards are constantly chang­
ing, and over time the accumulated change may be
dramatic, year-to-year variations are often dif­
ficult to identify and the basic data to measure
such differences as do occur are not available.

Subsequently, there will be bulletins on the
spring 1967 costs for the moderate standard, and
for a lower and a higher standard for the 4-person
family and for the retired couple. The lower stand­
ard budget will represent a minimum of adequacy.
Substantial downward adjustments will be made in
the content and/or manner of living of the mod­
erate standard, where this is possible without
compromising the family’ s physical health or selfrespect as members of their community.

This bulletin was prepared by JeanC. Brackett
under the supervision of Helen H. Lamale, Chief
of the Division of Living Conditions Studies, and
the general direction of Arnold E. Chase, A ssis­
tant Commissioner. Elizabeth Ruiz supervised the
research for all budget components except food
and medical care, for which Mary H. Hawes was
responsible. Other staff members whose work
contributed substantially to the project were
Miriam A. Solomon, Roseann C. Cogan, Alice B.
Curry, and M. Louise McCraw.

Bulletin 1570-1 gives the autumn 1966 costs of
the City Worker’ s Family Budget for a moderate
standard of living.
Bulletin 1570-2 will describe the Revised Equivalence Scale for estimating budget costs for
fam ilies of different size, age, and type.




vii




Retired Couple’s Budget for a Moderate
Living Standard, Autumn 1966

Costs in Urban Areas
The annual cost of living at a moderate standard
for a retired couple (husband and wife, age 65 or
over) averaged $3,869 in autumn of 1966 in urban
areas of the United States. The cost averaged
$4,006 in metropolitan areas and $3,460 in smaller
cities. JL/ These estimates include allowances for
food, housing, transportation, clothing, personal
care, medical care, and other items used in fam­
ily living. The budget also includes an allowance
for gifts to persons outside the family and contri­
butions to religious, welfare, and other organiza­
tions, amounting to 6 percent of the total cost.
Life insurance is not included, however, on the
assumption that payments on a basic policy were
completed before retirement. There is also no
provision for the payment of income taxes, since
the cost of the budget is below the level at which
retired couples are obligated to pay Federal
income taxes. Distributions of costs, by major
components of the budget, are shown in the tab­
ulation below.

Total budget costs were $179 higher for renter
than for homeowner families who were living in

1 / Table 1 shows annual costs of the budget for
urban United States, metropolitan and nonmetro­
politan areas, 39 individual metropolitan areas,
and 4 nonmetropolitan regions. (See p. 3.) Al­
though costs have been rounded to the nearest
dollar, the estimates are subject to two kinds of
errors: E rrors of judgment in determining the
kinds, quantities, and qualities of goods and
services appropriate for a specific living standard
(a standard budget is not a survey of how families
at a particular income level actually spend their
money); and sampling and reporting er rors in the
calculation of average prices. Since measures of
the error from these two sources are not available,
small difference in costs should not be regarded
as significant.

Distribution of costs by major components, autumn 1966
Total cost of budget___________

Component

Total
urban

Total cost------------- ------------ -------$3, 869

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Total
urban

$4, 006

$3, 460

$3,637

$3,766

$3, 252

100.0
29.5
35.6
9 .5
9 .5
7 .8
8.1

100.0
28.9
37.0
9.1
9 .2
7 .6
8 .2

100.0
31.5
30.9
10.6
10. 6
8 .4
8 .0

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

100.0

100.0

100. 0

Total fam ily consumption------ ------F ood'-------------------------------- ------Housing1--------------------------- ------Transportation------------------ ------Clothing and personal care -----Medical ca re -------------------- ------Other family consumption --------

94.0
27.7
33.6
8.9
8.9
7.3
7 .6

94.0
27.2
3 4 .7
8.6
8.6
7 .2
7 .7

94.0
29.7
29.0
10.0
9 .9
7 .9
7 .5

Gifts and contributions----------- _____

6 .0

6 .0

6.0

1J

Cost of family consumption
Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
areas
areas

Weighted average cost for homeowner (65 percent) and renter (35 percent) families.




1

m ortgage-free homes. 2 / Costs were highest for
renter families in metropolitan areas and lowest
for homeowner fam ilies in smaller cities, aver­
aging $4,127 and $3,404 respectively. (See the
following tabulation.) This difference reflects not
only the variation in the costs and manner of living

associated with renting or owning a mortgage-free
house but also the difference in transportation re ­
quirements and spending patterns for clothing,
personal care, recreation, meals away from home,
etc., between metropolitan areas and smaller
cities. 3 /

2 / Since the majority of retired couples are
homeowners, their costs constitute 65percent, and
costs for renters 35 percent, of the weighted
average cost of shelter for urban United States
and each individual area.

3 / See appendix A for separate quantity lists
for families residing in metropolitan and non­
metropolitan areas. These lists were developed
for all budget components that were derived by
analysis of the choices of goods and services made
by consumers in successive, income groups.

Differences in total budget costs by type of area and tenure

Tenure
Total budget c o s t --------------Renter fa m ilie s ----------------------------

Cost difference
by type of area

Urban
United States

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

$3,869

$4,006

$3,460

$546

4,127

3,563

564
537 •

3,985

Homeowner fam ilies--------------------

3,806

3,941

3,404

Cost difference by tenure----

179

186

159

X £X

Intercity Differences
fied standard of living, and differences in State
and local taxes. They are comparative living cost
indexes and not comparative price indexes.

The new budget provides a wide variety of com ­
parative living cost indexes, not only for total
budget costs but for the major categories of con­
sumer goods and services (table 2). For the first
time in the Bureau’ s program of standard budget
research, separate budget cost estimates and
comparative indexes are provided for individual
medium-sized metropolitan areas and for broad
regional groupings of nonmetropolitan areas. The
average costs for the items which make up the
budget in each area are shown in table 1. Also,
for the first time, comparative housing cost data
for renter and owner families are included
separately.

Variations in Total Costs
The total annual cost of the budget in 1966
ranged from $3,246 in the small Southern cities to
$4,434 in Honolulu. Indexes of relative costs for
these areas were 84 and 115 respectively, with the
U.S. urban average cost equal to 100. Hartford was
the highest of the mainland cities, having a cost of
$4,352 and an index rating of 112.
The budget exceeded the U.S. average cost by
more than 5 percent in 5 of the 8 metropolitan
areas in the Northeast (Hartford, New Y orkNortheastern, N.J., Boston, Buffalo, and Portland,
Me.), and also in Milwaukee, Seattle, San Fran-

The intercity indexes reflect not only the dif­
ferences among areas in price levels but also
climatic or regional differences in the quantities
and types of items required to provide the speci­




2

Table 1.

Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and
Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966
Urban United States

Item
Total

N ortheast

M etropolitan
areas 2

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

Lan ­
c a s te r ,
P a.

New Y o r k N orth ­
eastern
New J e r se y

P h ila ­
delphia,
P a . - N . J.

B oston,
M ass.

B uffalo,
N. Y.

H artford ,
Conn.

$ 1 ,1 0 6
996
110
1 ,4 9 0
1, 531
1 ,4 6 8
971
1 ,0 1 2
949
193
326
401
595

$ 1 ,2 0 2
1, 067
135
1 ,5 2 3
1 ,6 4 7
1 ,4 5 6
1, 019
1, 143
952
179
325
403
600
108
236
118
290
151
139
319
53
121
70
59
16

$ 1, 157
1, 032
125
1, 270
1, 358
1 ,2 2 3
803
891
756
172
295
344
506
101
226
106
277
145
132
301
43
117
68
58
15

$ 1, 204
1, 053
151
1 ,6 7 0
1, 638
1 ,6 8 8
1, 146
1, 114
1, 164
182
342
229
621
98
231
122
283
152
131
325
53
117
80
58
17

$ 1, 144
1 ,0 3 3
111
1, 396
1 ,4 2 1
1 ,3 8 3
908
933
895
183
305
297
578

4 , 091
4 ,2 1 5
4 , 024

3, 681
3, 769
3, 634

4 , 064
4 , 032
4 , 082

F o o d ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------------Food away fro m h o m e --------------------------------Housing: T o t a l--------------------------------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s -----------------------------------------S he lte r: T otal 4 -------------------------------------------Rental c osts 5 ------------------------------------------H om eow ner c o sts 6 --------------------------------H ou sefurn ishin gs -----------------------------------------H ousehold o p e r a tio n s ---------------------------------T ran sp ortation : T o t a l7 -----------------------------------------A utom obile o w n e r s -------------------------------------------Nonow ners of au tom obiles -----------------------------Clothing 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------P e r so n a l care ----------------------------------------------------------M e d ical c a r e : T o t a l----------------------------------------------O u t-o f-p o c k e t M e d ic a re c o sts 9 ---------------A ll other m e d ic a l c a r e -------------------------------Other fam ily con su m p tion ------------------------------------R e a d in g -----------------------------------------------------------Rec r e a tio n -----------------------------------------------------T o b a c c o -------------------- ------------------------------------A lcoh olic b e v e r a g e s -----------------------------------M isc e lla n e o u s expenses -----------------------------

$ 1, 072
964
108
1 ,2 9 5
1 ,4 11
1 ,2 3 2
834
950
771
170
291
345
561
83
225
121
284
148
136
295
53
111
71
46
14

$ 1 ,0 8 9
975
114
1 ,3 9 2
1,5 1 3
1, 327
893
1 ,0 1 4
828
181
318
344
581
105
227
119
288
150
138
307
52
113
70
57
15

$ 1 ,0 2 3
932
91
1, 004
1, 107
948
656
759
600
139
209
346
500
17
216
128
274
145
129
261
57
106
72
13
13

$ 1, 174
1 ,0 6 6
108
1 ,5 9 5
1 ,6 1 2
1 ,5 8 6
1, 075
1 ,0 9 2
1 ,0 6 6
176
344
329
654
112
231
281
148
133
319
53
115
74
61
16

242
1 17
285
148
137
311
53
1 12
72
58
16

C ost of fam ily consum ption: T o t a l10---------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3, 637
3, 753
3, 574

3, 766
3, 887
3, 701

3 ,2 5 2
3, 355
3, 196

4 , 040
4 , 057
4 , 031

3, 952
3, 993
3, 930

111

no

P it t s ­
burgh,
P a.

P ortland ,
Maine

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

74
59
15

$ 1 ,1 1 5
999
116
1 ,2 5 8
1, 393
1, 185
772
907
699
172
314
370
541
113
232
116
276
146
130
315
56
117
68
59
15

$ 1, 129
1 ,0 4 2
87
1 ,4 1 7
1, 361
1 ,4 4 8
909
853
940
181
327
363
535
104
250
109
277
149
128
316
61
111
70
59
15

$ 1 ,1 3 5
1 ,0 21
1 14
1 ,2 1 2
1, 366
1, 129
860
1, 014
777
140
212
355
514
15
225
132
276
146
130
268
59
108
74
13
14

3, 765
3, 790
3, 752

3, 682
3 ,8 1 7
3, 609

3 ,8 6 1
3, 805
3, 892

3, 603
3, 757
3, 520

no

223
112
282
147
135
311
53

no

Gifts and c o n trib u tio n s-------------------------------------------

232

240

208

258

252

261

235

259

240

235

247

230

C ost of budget: T o t a l10-----------------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3, 869
3, 985
3, 806

4 , 006
4 , 127
3 ,9 4 1

3, 460
3, 563
3 ,4 0 4

4 , 298
4 , 315
4 , 289

4 , 204
4 , 245
4 , 182

4, 352
4 ,4 7 6
4, 285

3 ,9 1 6
4 , 004
3 ,8 6 9

4 , 323
4 , 291
4 , 341

4 , 005
4 , 030
3 ,9 9 2

3, 917
4 , 052
3 ,8 4 4

4 , 108
4 , 052
4 , 139

3, 833
3, 987
3 ,7 5 0

See footnotes at end of table.




0)

Table 1.

A

Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and
Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued
North C entral
Chicago,
Cincinnati, C lev e­
111. —
N orth­ Ohio—Ky. — land,
w estern
Ind.
Ohio
Ind.

Cedar
R a p id s,
Iowa

C ham p a ig n U rbana,
111.

F o o d - ______ __________________________________ ____
Food at hom e ----------------------------------------------Food away fro m h o m e --------------------------------H ousing: T o t a l----------------------------------------------------——
R enter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m il ie s -----------------------------------------S h e lte r: Total 4 -------------------------------------------Rental c osts 5 ------------------------------------------H om eow ner c osts 6 --------------------------------H o u se fu r n ish in g s ---------------- --------— ------ ----Household o p e r a tio n s----------------------------------T ran sportation : T o t a l7 ----------------------- -----------------A utom obile o w n e r s --------------------------------------------N onow ners of au tom obiles -----------------------------Clothing 8--------------------------------------------------------------------P e r so n a l care ----------------------------------------------------------M ed ical c a r e : T o t a l----------------------------------------------O u t-o f-p o c k e t M e d ic a re co sts 9 ---------------A ll other m e d ic a l c a r e -----------------------------Other fa m ily consu m p tion -------------------------------------R e ad in g-----------------------------------------------------------R,ec re a tio n ------------------------------------------------------T ob acco ----------------------------------------------------------A lc oh olic b ev e ra g es -----------------------------------M isc e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s -----------------------------

$ 1 ,0 3 3
938
95
1, 384
1, 532
1, 305
865
1, 013
786
181
338
37 0
546
104
234
121
280
146
134
299
46
113
71
54
15

$ 1 ,0 5 8
958
100
1 ,4 5 3
1 ,6 3 3
1, 356
957
1, 137
860
181
315
355
522
105
231
114
286
148
138
285
37
113
67
53
15

$ 1 ,0 6 2
967
95
1 ,4 2 4
1 ,6 3 7
1, 309
920
1, 133
805
177
327
307
605
108
236
120
282
148
134
301
51
113
70
52
15

C ost of fam ily consum ption: T o t a l10---------------R enter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3, 721
3, 869
3, 642

3, 782
3, 962
3, 685

3, 732
3, 945
3, 617

Item

Dayton, Detroit,
Ohio
M ich.

G reen
Bay,
W is.

Indian­
apolis ,
Ind.

K ansas
C ity,
M o .K ans.

M il­
waukee,
W is.

M in ne­
ap olis—
St. P aul,
Minn.

$ 1, 046
944
102
1 ,2 2 6
1, 352
1, 159
738
864
67 1
180
308
369
541
112
222
101
269
147
122
302
56
113
62
57
14

$ 1 ,0 3 8
928
110
1 ,4 2 8
1 ,6 9 9
1 ,2 8 2
929
1 ,2 0 0
783
175
324
384
566
111
234
123
265
148
1 17
298
56
113
62
52
15

$ 1 ,0 3 0
942
88
1, 247
1 ,4 7 4
], 124
776
1 ,0 0 3
65 3
177
294
364
535
106
232
104
274
147
127
294
51
113
63
53
14

$ 1 ,0 7 2
953
119
1, 221
1 ,4 8 9
1, 077
710
978
566
178
333
385
569
109
236
119
278
148
130
307
56
113
69
55
14

$9 95
914
81
1 ,2 9 6
1 ,2 9 3
1 ,2 9 8
822
819
824
178
296
367
546
98
245
104
283
145
138
294
50
109
71
50
14

$ 1 ,0 4 2
950
92
1 ,4 6 6
1, 589
1 ,4 0 0
963
1, 086
897
185
318
383
568
106
236
119
271
148
123
315
55
119
67
59
15

$ 1 ,0 6 5
966
99
1 ,2 4 2
1 ,4 1 6
1, 149
733
907
640
189
320
391
577
111
224
125
285
147
138
302
47
115
73
53
14

$ 1 ,0 3 6
915
121
1 ,4 9 8
1 ,5 6 1
1 ,4 6 4
994
1 ,0 5 7
960
165
339
374
554
104
234
113
277
147
130
306
55
1 14
72
50
15

$ 1 ,0 3 4
937
97
1, 39 3
1 ,5 3 3
1 ,3 1 7
899
1, 0 39
823
167
327
377
5 57
106
236
117
269
147
122
307
52
111
71
58
15

3, 535
3, 661
3, 468

3, 770
4 , 041
3, 624

3, 545
3, 772
3, 422

3, 618
3, 886
3, 474

3, 584
3 ,5 8 1
3, 586

3, 832
3, 955
3, 766

3, 634
3, 808
3, 541

3, 838
3, 901
3, 804

3, 733
3, 873
3, 657

St. L ou is, W ichita,
M o.-111.
Kans.

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

$ 1, 101
987
114
1, 314
1 ,4 4 8
1 ,2 4 2
815
949
743
183
316
393
580
111
221
114
277
148
129
283
47
104
69
48
15

$ 1 ,0 5 5
970
85
1 ,2 8 4
1 ,4 2 9
1 ,2 0 6
793
938
715
183
308
366
542
103
223
112
277
148
129
299
47
115
70
53
14

$ 1,0 24
94!
83
1, 101
1 ,2 32
1, 0 30
7 38
869
667
14 1
222
3 3b
48b
17
2 39
1 38
27 0
145
125
257
56
106
69
13
13

3, 703
3, 837
3, 631

3 ,6 1 6
3, 761
3, 538

3, 360
3 ,4 9 1
3, 289

Gifts and co n trib u tio n s-------------------------------------------

237

241

238

225

240

226

231

228

244

232

245

238

236

231

214

C ost of budget: T o t a l10-----------------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------Hom eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3, 958
4 , 106
3, 879

4,023
4 , 203
3, 926

3, 970
4 , 183
3 ,8 5 5

3, 760
3, 886
3, 693

4, 010
4 , 281
3, 864

3, 771
3, 998
3, 648

3, 849
4 , 117
3, 705

3, 814
3 ,8 1 1
3, 816

4, 076
4 , 199
4 , 010

3, 866
4 , 040
3 ,7 7 3

4, 083
4 , 146
4 , 049

3, 971
4 , 111
3, 895

3, 939
4 , 073
3, 867

3, 847
3, 992
3, 769

3, 574
3, 705
3, 503

See footnotes at end of table,




Tabic 1.

Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 M etropolitan Areas, and
Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued
South

Item

A tlanta,
Ga.

Austin,
Tex.

B a ltim o r e ,
Md.

Baton Rouge,
L a.

D a lla s,
T ex.

Durham ,
N. C.

H uston,
T ex.

N a sh v ille ,
Tenn.

O rlando,
F la .

W ashington,
D. C . - M d . "
V a.

N onm etro­
politan
areas 3

F o o d ___________________________________________________
Food at h o m e ----------- ----------------------------------Food away fr o m h o m e --------------------------------H ou sing: T o t a l------------------------------ ----------------------R enter fa m ilie s --------------------------------- ---------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s -----------------------------------------S h e lte r: Total 4 -------------------------------------------Rental c o sts 5 ------------------------------------------H om eow ner c o sts 6 -------------------------------H o u s e fu r n is h in g s -----------------------------------------H ousehold o p e r a tio n s---------------------------------T ran sp ortation : T o t a l7-----------------------------------------A utom ob ile o w n e r s -------------------------------------------N onow ners of a u to m o b ile s -----------------------------Clothing 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------P e r so n a l c a re ----------------------------------------------------------M e d ic a l c a r e : T o t a l----------------------------------------------O u t-o f-p o c k e t M e d ic a r e c o sts 9---------------A ll other m e d ic a l c a r e -------------------------------O ther fa m ily c on su m p tion ------------------------------------R e ad in g-----------------------------------------------------------R e c r e a tio n -----------------------------------------------------T ob acco ----------------------------------------------------------A lc o h o lic b e v e r a g e s — -----------------------------M isc e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s ------ 1---------------------

$ 1 ,0 1 7
913
104
1 ,0 4 6
1 ,2 6 0
931
568
782
453
181
297
368
539
113
212
126
284
148
136
313
51
106
73
70
13

$9 90
902
88
1,0 9 5
1 ,3 3 0
968
633
868
506
168
294
363
539
99
194
105
284
148
136
291
44
111
74
49
13

$ 1 ,0 0 2
906
96
1 ,3 3 3
1 ,4 8 9
1 ,2 5 0
821
977
738
186
326
382
566
103
219
123
285
148
137
297
51
107
68
56
15

$ 1, 016
916
100
968
1, 132
879
540
704
451
179
249
401
598
106
203
117
275
148
127
297
50
109
72
53
13

$ 1, 008
903
105
1, 123
1 ,2 7 6
1, 041
665
818
583
169
289
372
551
104
209
116
290
148
142
303
46
111
77
55
14

$978
896
82
1, 173
1 ,2 9 7
1, 107
724
848
658
177
272
359
533
99
217
111
278
148
130
276
47
108
52
55
14

$ 1 ,0 1 8
908
110
1, 092
1 ,2 2 4
1 ,0 2 1
622
754
551
177
293
391
580
107
200
118
293
148
145
299
49
107
78
51
14

$979
893
86
1 ,2 2 7
1 ,3 5 6
1, 157
750
879
680
176
301
371
549
105
222
111
280
147
133
308
48
108
73
65
14

$982
894
88
1, 228
1 ,5 2 6
1 ,0 6 8
760
1, 058
600
181
287
368
544
104
208
106
281
149
132
294
48
106
69
57
14

$ 1 ,0 6 1
965
96
1 ,4 2 3
1 ,6 0 1
1 ,3 2 7
897
1, 075
801
174
352
385
570
106
223
135
283
149
134
291
51
114
61
50
15

$ 9 88
898
90
864
934
826
530
600
492
136
198
347
503
16
199
120
273
145
128
260
55
105
74
14
12

C ost of fa m ily cpnsum ption: T o t a l10 ---------------R enter f a m i l i e s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3 ,3 6 6
3 ,5 8 0
3 ,2 5 1

3, 322
3 ,5 5 7
3, 195

3 ,6 4 1
3 ,7 9 7
3, 558

3 ,2 7 7
3 ,4 4 1
3, 188

3 ,4 2 1
3, 574
3, 339

3, 392
3, 516
3, 326

3 ,4 1 1
3, 543
3, 340

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

3 ,4 6 7
3 ,7 6 5
3, 307

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

3, 051
3, 121
3, 013

G ifts and co n trib u tio n s-------------------------------------------

215

212

232

209

218

216

217

223

221

243

195

C ost of budget: T o t a l10- -------------------------------------R enter f a m i l i e s ----------------------------- -----------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3 ,5 8 1
3 ,7 9 5
3, 466

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

3 ,8 7 3
4 , 029
3 ,7 9 0

3 ,4 8 6
3, 650
3, 397

3 ,6 3 9
3 ,7 9 2
3 ,5 5 7

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

3 ,6 2 8
3 ,7 6 0
3, 557

3 ,7 2 1
3 ,8 5 0
3 ,6 5 1

3 ,6 8 8
3 ,9 8 6
3 ,5 2 8

4 , 044
4 ,2 2 2
3 ,9 4 8

3, 246
3, 316
3 ,2 0 8

See footnotes at end of table.




01

Table 1.

0)

Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and
Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966-----Continued
W est

Item

Bake rsfield ,
C alif.

D enver,
Colo.

Honolulu,
Hawaii

Los A n g e le s Long B each,
C alif.

San D iego,
C alif.

San F r a n cisc o —
Oakland,
C alif.

Seattle—
E v ere tt,
W ash.

N on m etro­
politan
areas 3

F o o d ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------------Food away fr o m h o m e --------------------------------Housing: T o t a l__________________________________ —
R enter f a m i l i e s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s -----------------------------------------S he lte r: T o t a l4 --------------------------------------------Rental c o sts 5 ------------------------------------------H om eow ner c osts 6 ----- --------------------------H ou sefurn ishin gs -----------------------------------------Household o p e r a tio n s----------------------------------T ran sp ortation : T o t a l7 -----------------------------------------A utom obile o w n e r s -------------------------------------------N onow ners of au tom obiles -----------------------------Clothing 8--------------------------------------------------------------------P erso n a l c a r e ---------------------------------------------------------M e d ical c a r e : T o t a l----------------------------------------------O u t-o f-p o c k e t M e d ic a re c o sts 9 ---------------A ll other m e d ic a l c a r e -------------------------------O ther fam ily con su m p tion ------------------------------------R ead in g----------------------------------------------------------R e c re a tio n -----------------------------------------------------T ob acco ----------------------------------------------------------A lcoh olic b ev e ra g es -----------------------------------M isc e lla n e o u s expenses -----------------------------

$ 1 ,0 2 4
930
94
1 ,2 1 5
1, 346
1, 144
735
866
664
198
282
389
577
108
218
117
314
149
165
282
42
112
58
56
14

$ 1 ,0 5 7
953
104
1 ,3 1 3
1 ,4 0 6
1 ,2 6 3
809
902
759
180
324
374
553
107
233
122
284
148
136
290
45
112
65
53
15

$ 1 ,2 8 6
1, 175
111
1 ,5 0 2
1 ,9 9 3
1, 238
935
1 ,4 2 6
671
203
364
427
640
107
214
122
287
149
138
330
51
123
76
63
17

$ 1 ,0 3 7
920
117
1 ,3 3 7
1 ,5 8 2
1 ,2 0 5
843
1 ,0 8 8
711
194
300
399
596
104
224
128
331
152
179
296
52
116
57
56
15

$ 1 ,0 0 6
888
118
1 ,2 7 3
1 ,4 2 8
1, 190
795
950
712
195
283
387
571
112
214
117
320
150
170
293
53
113
57
56
.14

$ 1 ,0 8 6
965
121
1 ,4 2 0
1 ,6 5 1
1, 296
905
1, 136
781
197
318
415
623
102
233
143
318
151
167
306
53
120
61
56
16

$ 1, 133
1 ,0 0 8
125
1 ,4 8 2
1 ,6 8 0
1, 375
926
1, 124
819
188
368
404
601
109
236
129
303
149
154
318
49
112
82
59
16

$ 1 ,0 5 0
956
94
1, 137
1, 255
1 ,0 7 3
767
885
703
147
223
356
512
25
224
144
286
146
140
269
65
108
70
12
14

C ost of fa m ily consum ption: T o t a l10---------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------Hom eow ner f a m il ie s ------------------------------------------

3, 559
3, 690
3 ,4 8 8

3 ,6 7 3
3, 766
3 ,6 2 3

4 , 168
4 ,6 5 9
3 ,9 0 4

3, 752
3 ,9 9 7
3, 620

3, 610
3, 765
3, 527

3, 921
4 , 152
3 ,7 9 7

4 , 005
4 , 203
3, 898

3 ,4 6 6
3, 584
3 ,4 0 2

G ifts and c on trib u tion s-------------------------------------------

227

234

266

239

230

250

255

221

C ost of budget: T o t a l10-----------------------------------------Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------H om eow ner f a m i l i e s ------------------------------------------

3, 786
3, 917
3, 715

3, 907
4 , 000
3, 857

4 ,4 3 4
4 , 925
4 , 170

3 ,9 9 1
4 , 236
3, 859

3 ,8 4 0
3 ,9 9 5
3, 757

4 , 171
4 ,4 0 2
4 , 047

4, 260
4 ,4 5 8
4 , 153

3, 687
3, 805
3, 623

1 The fa m ily c o n sists of a retired husband and w ife, age
65 or over.
2 F o r a detailed d esc rip tio n , see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan S tatistical A r e a s , prep ared by the B ureau of the Budget.
3 P la c e s with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
4 The avera ge c o sts of sh elter w ere w eighted by the following p roportions:
35 p ercen t for fa m ilie s living in rented d w ellin gs, 65 percen t for fa m ilie s living in owned h o m es.
5 A v era g e contract rent plus the c ost of required amounts of heating fuel, g a s, e le c tr ic ity , w ater, sp ecified equipm ent, and insurance on household contents.
6 T a x e s , in suran ce on house and conten ts, w ater, refuse d isp osa l, heating fu e l, g a s, e le c tr ic ity , sp ecified equipment and hom e rep air and maintenance c o s ts .
7 The avera ge c osts of autom obile ow ners and nonowners w ere weighted by the follow ing proportions of fa m ilie s : New Y ork , 25 p ercen t for autom obile ow n ers, 75 percen t for nonw n e rs; B osto n , P hiladelphia and C hicago, 40 p ercen t for ow ners, 60 percent for nonow ners; a ll other m etropolitan a r e a s , 60 p ercen t for ow n ers, 40 percen t fo r nonow ners; and all
onm etropolitan a r e a s , 68 p ercen t for ow n ers, and 32 percent for nonowners.
8 Includes c o sts for husband and w ife plus allowance for clothing m aterials and s e r v ic e s .
Total subject to r evisio n .
Separate estim ates for h u sb an d . and wife w ill be available at
later date.
9 Annual m e d ic a l in suran ce p rem iu m plus estim ated average cost of deductible and coinsurance featu re s.
10 The total rep rese n ts the w eighted ave ra ge costs of renter fa m ilies (35 percen t) and owner fa m ilie s (65 p ercen t).
N O T E : See appendix A for item s and quantities included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city.
m ay not equal to ta ls.




B ecau se of rounding, sum s of individual item s

Tabic 2. Indexes of Comparative Living Costs Based on the Retired Couple’s Budget,1 Autumn 1966
( U .S . U rban A v e r a g e C ost = 100)
Budget c osts _____________ L
A rea

Urban United States —-----------------------------------M etrop olitan a r e a s 7---------------------------N on m etrop olitan a r e a s 8--------------------N orth east:
B o sto n , M a s s --------------------------------------B u ffalo, N . Y ---------------------------------------H a r tfo rd , C o n n ----------------- ----------------L a n c a s te r , P a -------------------------------------New York—N orth eastern New
J e r s e y ------------------------------------------------P h ilad e lp h ia, P a . —N . J ---------------------P ittsb u rg h , P a -----------------------------------P o rtla n d , M a i n e --------------------------------N on m etrop olitan a r e a s 8 ------------------North C en tral:
C edar R a p id s, Io w a ---------------------------Cham paign—U rb an a, 111--------------------C h icago, 111.—N orthw estern
In d ian a------------------------------------------------C incinnati, Ohio—K y .—Ind ----- ----------C levelan d , O h io -----------------------------------D ayton , O h io ---------------------------------------D e tr o it, M i c h -------------- :-----------------------G re en B a y , W i s ----------------------------------In d ian ap olis, In d --------------------------------K an sas C ity , M o .—K a n s ------------------M ilw au k ee, W i s --------------------------------M in n e ap olis—St. P a u l, Minn --------St. L o u is , M o .—I l l ----------------------------W ic h ita , K a n s -------------------------------------N on m etrop olitan a rea s 8 ------------------South:
A tlan ta, G a ------------------------------------------A u stin , T e x -----------------------------------------B a ltim o r e , M d -----------------------------------Baton R o uge, L a --------------------------------D a lla s , T e x -----------------------------------------D u rh am , N . C --------------------------------------H ouston, T e x --------------------------------------N a sh v ille , T e n n ----------------------------------O rlan d o, F l a ---------------------------------------W ash ington, D . C . —M d .—V a -------------N on m etrop olitan a r e a s 8 -----------------W e st:
B a k e r sfie ld , C a l i f ------------------------------D e n v e r , C o l o --------------------------------------H onolulu, H a w a i i -----------------------------L os A n ge le s—Long B ea c h , C a lif-----San D ie g o , C a l i f --------------------------------San F r a n c is c o —O ak lan d , C a l i f --------S eattle—E v e r e tt, W a s h ---------------------N on m etrop olitan a r e a s 8 -------------------

C ost of fam ilY consum ption
Housing (s h e lte r , h ou sefu rn ish in gs,
household operations)
T r a n sp o r ­
Shelter
R enter and
tation 6
T otal
Rental
H om eow ner
owner
c o sts 4
c o sts 5
combined 3

Other
fam ily
consum p­
tion

100
100
99

100
101
96

100
104
88

95
116
117
100

99
104
102
96

99
100
102
98

108
105
108
102

151
116
91
122
101

66
86
107
105
103

102
97
101
104
103

100
99
97
98
97

no
105
107
107
91

107
120

102
112

107
103

103
100

99
101

101
97

110
88
111
93
85
99
115
88
119
108
98
95
88

119
91
126
106
103
86
114
95
111
109
100
99
91

104
87
102
85
73
107
116
83
125
107
96
93
87

89
107
111
106
112
106
111
113
108
109
114
106
97

103
93
103
97
103
101
103
101
100
102
97
97
108

99
95
93
96
98
100
95
100
98
95
98
98
95

102
102
101
100
104
100
107
102
104
'104
96
101
87

81
85
103
75
87
91
84
95
95
110
67

68
76
98
65
80
87
75
90
91
108
64

82
91
103
74
86
89
79
93
111
113
63

59
66
96
58
76
85
71
88
78
104
64

107
105
111
116
108
104
113
108
107
112
101

98
86
99
92
94
95
92
96
91
103
92

100
100
100
97
102
98
103
99
99
100
96

106
99
101
101
103
94
101
104
100
99
88

94
101
116
103
98
110
114
88

88
97
112
101
95
109
111
92

91
95
150
115
100
120
118
93

86
98
87
92
92
101
106
91

113
108
124
116
112
120
117
103

97
103
97
102
96
109
105
106

111
100
101
117
113
112
107
101

96
98
112
100
99
104
108
91

Renter
fa m ilies

Hom eow ner
fa m ilie s

T o t a l2

Food

100
104
89

100
104
89

100
104
89

100
104
89

100
102

100
107
78

100
107
79

100
107
80

100
107
78

100
100
100

111
109
112
101

108
107
112
100

113
110
113
102

111
109
112
101

110
103
112
108

123
115
118
98

129
116
122
96

115
107
120
94

138
123
123
98

112
104
101
106
99

108
101
102
102
100

114
105
101
109
99

112
104
101
106
99

112
107
104
105
106

129
108
97
109
94

137
109
93
109
103

117
98
95
90
107

102
104

103
105

102
103

102
104

96
99

107
112

104
115

103
97
104
97
99
99
105
100
106
103
102
99
92

105
98
107
100
103
96
105
101
104
103
102
100
93

101
97
102
96
97
100
105
99
106
102
102
99
92

103
97
104
97
99
99
105
100
106
103
102
99
92

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

110
95
110
96
94
100
113
96
116
108
101
99
85

93
91
100
90
94
93
94
96
95
105
84

95
95
101
92
95
94
94
97
100
106
83

91
90
100
89
93
93
93
96
93
104
84

93
91
100
90
94
93
94
96
95
105
84

95
92
93
95
94
91
95
91
92
99
92

98
101
115
103
99
108
110
95

98
100
124
106
100
110
112
95

98
101
110
101
99
106
109
95

98
101
115
103
99
108
110
95

96
99
120
97
94
101
106
98

95

Clothing
and
p erso n a l
c a re

M edical
care

T o t a l2

1

The fa m ily c o n sists of a retired husband and w ife , age 65 and o v e r .
The total re p r e se n ts the weighted average c o sts of renter fa m ilie s (35 percen t) and ow ner fa m ilie s (65 p ercen t).
The ave ra ge c o sts o f sh e lte r w ere weighted by the following p rop ortion s: 35 percen t fo r fa m ilie s living in rented d w ellin gs, 65 p ercen t for fa m ilie s living in owned h om es.
A v e r a g e contract rent plus the cost of required amounts o f heating fu e l, g a s , e le c tr ic ity , w a ter, sp ecified equipm ent, and in suran ce on household contents.
T a x e s , in su ran ce on house and conten ts, w ater, refu se d is p o s a l, heating fu e l, g a s , e le c tr ic ity , and sp ecified equipm ent, hom e rep air and m aintenance c o s ts .
The ave ra ge c o sts of autom obile ow ners and nonowners w e r e weighted by the follow ing p roportion s of fa m ilie s : New Y o r k , 25 percen t for autom obile o w n ers, 75 p ercen t for nonowners;
B osto n , P h ilad e lp h ia, and C h icago, 40 p ercen t for ow n ers, 60 p ercen t fo r nonow ners; a ll other m etrop olitan a r e a s , 60 p ercen t for autom obile o w n ers, 40 p ercen t for nonow ners; and all nonm et­
ropolitan a r e a s , 68 p ercen t fo r o w n ers, and 32 percent fo r nonow ners.
\ F or a d etailed d e sc r ip tio n , see the 1967 edition of the Standard M etropolitan S ta tistica l A r e a s , prep ared by the Bureau of the Budget.
P la c e s with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
'
‘
4
5
^

NOTE:

See appendix A for items and quantitites included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city.




cisco , and Honolulu. Costs below average by more
than 5 percent were found in 6 of the 10 metropoli­
tan areas in the South, in addition to the smaller
Southern and North Central cities. In more than
half (26) of the 43 areas, costs were within approx­
imately $200 (5 percent) of the average. These
areas included the three Pennsylvania cities
(Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Lancaster); all of
the cities in the North Central Region except
Milwaukee; four of the Southern cities (Wash­
ington, D.C., Baltimore, Nashville, and Orlando);
and Denver, Bakersfield, and Los Angeles in the
West. Costs in the smaller cities in the Northeast
and West were also within this range.
Wide variations in the combined costs for food,
shelter, sand transportation are primarily respon­
sible for the range in costs of the total budget.
Indexes based on these three components differ
from total budget cost i n d e x e s by 3 index
points or less in 38 of the 43 areas. In three areas
in the Northeast, however (Hartford, Boston, and
the nonmetropolitan areas), indexes based on food,
shelter, and transportation alone are higher by
4 or 5 points, compared to indexes based on total
budget costs. On the other hand, costs of these
three components understate the relative position
of Houston and Atlanta, as costs for other com ­
ponents raise their rank by 4 and 6 percentage
points respectively.
Food 4 /
The U.S. urban average annual cost of food for
the retired couple was $1,072. Total annual food
costs were highest in the New York area and
Hartford, Connecticut, where they averaged about
$1,200. In Durham, North Carolina and Nashville, .
Tennessee these costs were roughly $980. The
$220 difference reflects not only variation in
prices, but also the regional preference patterns,
used for cities within each region to calculate the
cost of the nutritional standard for food at home.
A special analysis of the food budget data will be
made later, to determine what part of these costs
differentials was due to price, and what part to
regional preference patterns.
4 / See p. 17 for a detailed description of
sources and methods used to derive budget quan­
tities for food.




When the average U.S. cost of food at home
($964) equaled 100, there was a range of 19 per­
centage points between Hartford, the highest cost
area in continental United States, and San Diego,
the lowest cost area. Budget costs for food at
home, using nutritionally comparable food plans,
Were roughly $100 higher, on the average, in cities
in the Northeast than in the North Central and
Western regions. Costs in the last two regions
were about $45 above the Southern costs. Dif­
ferences in food-at-hom e costs within each region,
which reflected price differences only, were none­
theless relatively large. In the Northeast they
ranged from $996 in Buffalo to $1,067 in Hartford.
The annual cost of food at home in Washington,
D.C., where the U.S. preference pattern was used,
was $965.
In contrast, costs for food away from home had
a 64-percentage-point range between the New York
area, with the highest costs, and Green Bay,
Wisconsin, with the lowest costs. Average costs
were lowest in the South and North Central regions,
and highest in the Northeast. Costs for food away
from home were above the U.S. average cost in
the majority of both Northeastern and Western
cities, and below the U.S. figure in the majority
of North Central and Southern cities.
Housing 5/
Shelter costs for owners (65 percent) and
renters (35 percent) combined, averaged $834 for
urban United States, but varied from $1,146 in
New York to $530 in the smaller cities in the
South. Compared with the U.S. urban average
($950) equal to 100, shelter costs for renter
fam ilies were 150 in Honolulu and 63 in the smaller
Southern cities. The range in homeowner shelter
costs was slightly wider, from 151 in New York
to 58 in Baton Rouge.
The U.S. urban average outlay for maintaining
a 5- or 6-room , mortgage-free owned home
amounted to $771, or almost 20 percent less than
the average costs ($950) for a 2 - or 3-room rental
unit.

5/ For

a detailed description, see p. 18.

cisco and were exceeded only by costs in Boston
and Honolulu which averaged $654 and $640 re ­
spectively. Boston’ s costs were 17 percent and
Honolulu’ s 14 percent above the U.S. urban aver­
age of $561. At the other end of the scale, costs
in smaller cities in the North Central region were
13 percent below the U.S. average. In addition to
price differences, this comparison reflects the
fact that retired couples in smaller cities drive
a lower average number of miles than in metro­
politan areas.

Shelter costs for homeowner fam ilies include
insurance, taxes, repair and replacement ex­
penses, fuel, and utilities. In metropolitan areas
in all parts of the country except the Northeast,
these costs were about 25 percent below rental
housing costs (including fuel, utilities, and insur­
ance where these are not part of the contract
rent). In the Northeast, however, owner costs were
only 4 percent below renter costs, primarily as
a result of relatively high fuel costs and property
taxes. Shelter costs were higher for homeowner
than for renter families in only three areas—
Green Bay, Wis., the New York area, and Portland,
Maine. In the smaller cities, owner costs aver­
aged 20 percent below renter costs, with the
ratio slightly wider in the Northeast and narrower
in the South.

For families who did not own automobiles, costs
of public transportation (transit and taxi fares)
were highest in Atlanta and lowest in Green Bay,
Wis., among the metropolitan areas, but the range
in cost amounted to only $15. Costs were substan­
tially lower in the nonmetropolitan areas, however,
where utilization rates were affected by the lack
of public transportation.

In addition to shelter, the budget allowance for
the housing component covers household operation
costs, and an amount for replacement of housefurnishings, assuming the family had average
inventories of these items at the beginning of the
year. Operation costs varied by $170, with Seattle
on the high and smaller cities in the South on the
low end of the distribution. The range in housefurnishings costs was only about a third as great,
with a high of $203 in Honolulu and a low of $136
in the smaller Southern cities.

Medical Care 7/
The medical care budget includes the couple’ s
out-of-pocket expenses for hospital and medical
care covered by Medicare, including the premium
cost for medical insurance. It also includes the
costs of other medical services and supplies not
covered by Medicare. Total medical care costs
were highest in the four California cities, and
lowest in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Compared
with the U.S. urban average cost ($284) equal to
100, costs were 117 in Los Angeles, and averaged
downward by 24 percentage points to 93 in Cleve­
land.

Transportation 6/
The pattern of automobile ownership specified
for the budget reflects the greater availability of
public transportation in some areas than in others.
Thus in the New York area, only 25 percent of the
retired couples were assumed to own automobiles.
In Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, the compar­
able proportion was 40 percent; in all other met­
ropolitan areas, 60 percent; and in nonmetropoli­
tan areas, 68 percent. This variation in the weight ing pattern, together with differences in prices,
affects the intercity differentials for total trans­
portation costs, making New York the lowest and
Honolulu the highest cost city.

Out-of-pocket costs under Medicare comprised
52 percent of the total medical care component at
the U.S. urban level. With the U.S. urban average
cost of $148 for all Medicare expenses equaling
100, there was a range of only 5 percentage points
between the highest costs under Medicare in Los
Angeles, and the lowest costs in small Southern
cities. The largest part of these costs was the
same in all cities, and was made up of the $72
premium for medical insurance, plus an estimated
average charge of approximately $18 per couple
for hospital services. Only the costs paid by the

For automobiles owners alone, however, costs
were about the same in New York and San Fran­

6/ For

a detailed description,




see p. 19.

7 / For
9

a detailed description, see p. 19.

enrollee under the medical insurance program
varied from city to city, reflecting differences in *
the costs of physician visits.
Budget costs for medical and dental services not
covered by Medicare are in sharp contrast to the
Medicare picture. There was a range of 45 per­
centage points between the high-and low -cost
areas— Los Angeles and Cleveland respectively.
Because the same standards were used in all
cities, the intercity differences in these costs are
due solely to price differences.

Stable Differentials
Comparative cost indexes for 1950, 1959, and
1966 indicate considerable stability of intercity
differentials. Among the 18 large cities included
in all three studies, the city indexes varied by 12
percentage points in 1950, 23 points in 1959, and
19 points in 1966. Among all 34 large cities
covered in 1950, the range was 16 percentage
points; for the 20 large cities covered in 1959, 23
points; and for the 39 metropolitan areas and four
regional
groupings of nonmetropolitan areas
covered in 1966, the range was 31 points. Inclusion
of smaller areas and homeowner costs in 1966
contributed to the wider cost variation among
cities, but not as much as might have been
expected.

Clothing and Personal Care 8/
Clothing and personal care costs reflect both
differentials in prices of commodities and serv­
ices and variations in the kinds and quantities of
clothing required by climate.
As might be expected, they were generally
lowest in the South. However, within the region
costs differed by 17 percentage points (almost
$60), with Washington, D.C. the highest and Austin,
Tex. the lowest cost city. The combined cost of
clothing and personal care was highest in San
Francisco, Seattle, and nonmetropolitan areas of
the North Central and West, where higher prices
together with larger allowances for personal care
services in the smaller cities had a greater impact
on costs than did the influence of climate on cloth­
ing quantities. The spread in costs among most
cities was not great, however, since 33 of the 43
areas fall within 5 percent of the U.S. average
cost, and 26 areas within 3 percent of the same
average.

The 18 metropolitan areas covered in both the
1959 and the 1966 budgets were arrayed by total
budget costs in 1959. Four of the six areas in the
upper third of the distribution in 1959 remained
in that bracket in 1966 (Boston, Seattle, Cleveland,
and San Francisco). Chicago and Minneapolis fell
to the middle third in 1966. Among the middle
third in 1959, three were in the same group in
1966 (Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis);
New York and Washington moved into the top third;
and Detroit dropped to the lowest group. Of the six
cities ranking lowest in 1959, Philadelphia moved
into the middle bracket, but the other five (Kansas
City, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Atlanta and Houston)
remained in the lower third of the distribution. In
sum, 12 of the 18 areas remained in the same
third of the budget cost distribution in 1959
and 1966.

For other family consumption, the intercity cost
differentials were wider than in clothing and per­
sonal care, but no regional pattern was apparent.

8/ For a detailed description, see p. 20.




Honolulu and New York had the highest costs, and
the nonmetropolitan areas in the four regions had
the lowest costs. Of the 43 areas, 29 were within
5 percent of the U.S. average cost.

10

A Moderate Standard: Present and Past
Defining the Standard

a luxury budget and it does not represent an
American ‘ ideal’ way of living.” 9/

“ Standards of living” refer to the goals we set
for ourselves as consumers of goods and services
and as users of leisure time and to our norms for
conditions of living. “ Levels of living” refer to the
actual living conditions of fam ilies. “ Manner of
living” is the way or style of life (city or country,
homeowner or renter, etc.)—in other words, how
goods and services are consumed.

As noted in the Introduction, three kinds of data
were used to arrive at the component parts of the
budget: (1) Scientific or technical judgments con­
cerning the requirements for physical health and
social well-being; (2) provisions of the Medicare
program; and (3) analytical studies of the data
reported in the Bureau’ s surveys of consumer
expenditures, to determine by objective proce­
dures the choices of goods and services made by
consumers in successive income groups. Since
budgetary requirements vary with climate and
other local conditons, the quantities and types of
goods and services required to provide the mod­
erate standard were adjusted to describe an equi­
valent standard of living from place to place. A
description of these procedures is included in the
last section of this bulletin.

In a standard budget, the “goals of consumers”
are translated into a list of goods and services
which describe a specific standard that can be
priced. To provide meaningful estimates of its
costs, the budget standard must be related to a
specific size and type of family, and specific
assumptions must be made with respect to the
family’ s manner of living. If these assumptions
are reasonable and factually based, and if the list
of goods and services has been determined by
objective methods, then the standard budget pro­
vides an independently derived cost estimate for
measuring income adequacy and evaluating the
actual levels of living of fam ilies as revealed by
consumer expenditure surveys and other con­
sumption data.

The standard for the retired couple is equivalent
to the standard for the younger, 4-person family
described in the City Worker’ s Family Budget.
In defining the modest standard forthat budget, the
Technical Advisory Committee recognized that
“ such a budget is not an absolute and unchanging
thing. The prevailing judgment of the necessary
will vary with the changing values of the com ­
munity, with the advance of scientific knowledge
of human needs, with the productive power of the
community, and therefore with what people com ­
monly enjoy and see others enjoy.” The same
observation is relevant to the budget for a retired
couple. 10/

The 1966 budget continues to represent, as did
the original and interim budgets, a moderate
standard of living for an urban retired couple,
consisting of a husband and wife, age 65 or over.
The concept of this standard was described in the
original budget by the Social Security Admin­
istration as follows:
“ [The budget is j intended to include those goods
and services that are necessary for a healthful,
self-respecting mode of living that allows normal
participation in the life of the community in
accordance with current American standards.
Social and conventional, as well as physiological,
needs are taken into account. This level is defin­
itely above the subsistence level in that it provides
for more than physical needs or what would be
necessary to carry families through a limited
period of stringency. On the other hand, it is not




Comparison with Earlier Budgets
The original budget for an elderly couple, de­
veloped by the Social Security Administration,
was defined as “ modest but adequate” in terms of
standards prevailing in the years immediately

j j / Technical Reference 11, p.36, appendix C.
10/ Technical Reference 10, p.36, appendix C.
11

was based on the USDA moderate plan alone. The
shelter standard reflects costs for both renter
and homeowner fam ilies, and the provision for
automobile ownership is consistent with this
housing pattern. The pricing date is autumn 1966.

.preceding and following World War II. For goods
and services other than food and shelter, the
quantities and pricing lists were derived primarily
from analyses of expenditures studies made in
1934-36 and 1941. The nutritional standard for
food was based on the January 1946 low -cost food
plan developed by the U.S. Department of Agri­
culture (USDA), but the selection of foods to meet
these standards was made from the 1935-36 Study
of Consumer Purchases. Specifications for health­
ful housing, formulated by the American Public
Health Association in the mid-1940, s, were used
as guides in defining the shelter standard, which
was limited to rental housing. There was no pro­
vision for automobile ownership. This budget was
priced in 13 large cities in March 1946, June 1947,
and March 1949, and in 34 cities in autumn 1950.
Pricing was discontinued, because the modest
standard of the 1940*3 was no longer appropriate
for measuring budget costs in the 1950’ s.

The differences among these three studies in
the content of the moderate standard resulted from
modification of the concept and methodological
problem s, as well as from real changes in the
goals of consumers. Hence a comparison of the
three budgets provides only a crude approximation
of change in the living standard over the past two
decades. The following comparison is limited to
average costs in the 18 metropolitan areas in­
cluded in all three studies and to costs for renter
families only.

Changes in Total Costs
The modest standard of the interim budget for
food, shelter, and medical care components was
based on standards and purchasing practices of
the mid-1950’ s. For other goods and services,
the budget quantities and pricing lists were derived
prim arily from the Bureau’ s Survey of Consumer
Expenditures in 1950. Food costs in this budget
were based on an average of the USDA low- and
moderate- cost plans to conform to the definition
of a modest food standard adopted for both the
original and interim budgets for the younger, 4person family. As a result, however, the interim
food budget for the retired couple represented a
relatively higher point on the scale of consump­
tion than did the original budget for this family
type. Similarly, although the shelter component
of the interim budget remained limited to rental
housing, some provision was made for automobile
ownership. Conceptually, this budget should have
included the cost of maintaining a mortgage-free
owned home, since then— as now— about twothirds of retired couples were homeowners, and
approximately 4 out of 5 of the homes were free
of mortgage debt. Resources were not available,
however, to estimate homeownership costs. The
interim budget was priced only in autumn 1959,
in 20 large cities.

In the 18 cities priced in all three studies, the
total cost of a moderate standard of living for a
retired couple living in rental housing averaged
about $1,790 in 1950. In 1959 the cost of the interim
budget for the same 18 cities was $3,061, or 71
percent higher than in 1950. The cost of the current
moderate standard in the same cities in 1966
averaged $4,126 for renter fam ilies. This level
was 35 percent higher than in 1959 and 130 percent
higher than in 1950. Gifts and contributions con­
stituted 3 percent of total budget costs in 1950, 4.5
percent in 1959, and 6 percent in 1966.

A precise measure of the change attributable to
revision in the standard or manner of living, as
distinguished from that caused by increased
prices, is almost impossible to achieve, because
many of the commodities and services constituting
the standard for an earlier period cannot be priced
in current markets. However, the Consumer Price
Index can be used to provide a very rough approxi­
mation of the effects of price change. The proce­
dure followed was to update the costs of the earlier
standards to 1966 by changes in the Consumer
Price Index at the subgroup level for each of the
18 cities. Then, the differences between the costs
of the 1966 standard in these cities and the updated

The current budget is based on the standards
of the 1960’ s. The nutritional standard for food




12

estimates of the 1951 and 1959 standards were
deflated by the change in the CPI over the appro­
priate period to adjust for the higher price levels
prevailing at the later date. The residual differ­
ences in costs between the new and the previous
budgets in these 18 cities can be attributed to the
upgrading of the standard. The average difference
has been used hereafter in this report as a reason­
able approximation of the change in the moderate
standard for all urban U.S. retired couples.

of all U.S. families of two persons or m ore, with
the head 65 years of age or older. Applying this
trend to the 1960-61 reported average results in an
estimated income of $4,046 in 1966 for budget-type
families. Thus, although the increase in the stand­
ard since 1950 has exceeded the improvement in
real income, the level of the new budget is slightly
below the current (1966) average money income of
retired couples.
Upgrading the Food Standard

The total increase of 35 percent in budget costs
for renter families, from 1959 to 1966, can be
identified as resulting from about a 15 percent
rise in prices, leaving 20 percent to represent the
upgrading of the standard. Compared with 1950,
the new standard reflects a 60-percent rise in
prices, plus changes in the standard amounting to
70 percent. Hence, over this 16-year period, the
rise in the moderate standard (after adjustment
for price changes) averages about 4.4 percent a
year.

One of the major sources of upgrading in the
1966 standard was in the food component. The cost
of the standard for food at home in the 1966 budget
reflects a change in the specific Department of
Agriculture (USDA) food plan selected to meet the
nutritional standard, as well as changes in food
preference patterns (variations in the choices of
foods which provide the nutritional standard) which
have occurred in the last decade.
The original (1950) budget costs were based on
the USDA low -cost plan. In 1959 an average of the
low - and m oderate-cost plans was used, while the
1966 budget utilized only the m oderate-cost plan.
Although families can achieve nutritional adequacy
from the low -cost food plan, it has been estimated
that only about a fourth of those who spend amounts
equivalent to the cost of this plan actually have
nutritionally adequate diets. 12/ The foods in­
cluded in this plan deviate considerably from
family food patterns and require a considerable
amount of home preparation and skill in cooking.
Furthermore, the low -cost plan has been used
widely as a basis for estimating minimum food
cost requirements for public assistance pro­
grams. For these reasons it was decided that the
m oderate-cost plan was more appropriate for use
in determining the cost of a moderate living
standard.

Over approximately the same period, 1950 to
1966, the increase in real after-tax income (also
adjusted for price change) has been estimated at
about 65 percent for families of the budget type,
or approximately 4.1 percent a year. Average
after-tax income for retired couples with head age
65 years or older, residing in urban areas, was
$1,814 in 1950, and $3,534 in 1960-61, based on the
BLS Surveys of Consumer Expenditures for these
dates. 11/ Current Population Surveys by the
Bureau of the Census for 1960-61 and 1966 indicate
an increase of about 14 percent in mean incomes

11/ Median after-tax incom es— which are less
affected by the extrem es—were $1,657 and $2,825
for 1950 and 1960-61, as reported in the BLS
surveys. The 1963 Social Security Survey of the
Aged reported an average before-tax income in
1962 of $3,563 for retired couples who were
receiving Social Security benefits, and a median
income of $2,710. Beneficiary couples who did not
work in 1962 had a median income of $2,410. See
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel­
fare, Social Security Administration, The Aged
Population of the United States, Research Report
No. 19, 1967, pp. 238, 289, 291.




Based on 1965 preference patterns and 1966
prices, the cost of the moderate plan for food at

12/ Based on nonfarm households using foods,
valued at the cost of the plan, that provided re c­
ommended amounts of eight nutrients, as reported
in the 1955 USDA Household Food Consumption
Survey.
13

home for the retired couple is about 12 percent
higher than an average of the low and moderate
plans, and 26 percent above the low -cost plan
alone. Since food at home represents 25 percent
of the total cost of the 1966 budget, the use of the
moderate plan—instead of an average of the low
and moderate— accounts for about 3 o fth e 2:t-percent increase in the overall standard between 1959
and 1966. Similarly, use of the moderate- rather
than the low -cost plan accounts for 6.5 of the 70percent increase in the overall standard since
1950.

while in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expen­
ditures food accounted for only 26 percent of
comparable consumption expenditures. Generally,
as income increases, expenditures for food de­
crease in relation to spending for other living
expenses. Hence, the lower average ratio for food
expenditures is evidence that the level of living
actually achieved by the average retired couple is
higher than that described by the moderate
standard budget.

Food-at-home costs in the original budget were
based on 1935-36 U.S. preference patterns. The
1959 interim budget standard used 1955 regional
preferences, and the 1966 budget reflects 1965
regional patterns. Among the 18 cities common to
the interim and current budget studies, the change
in preference patterns over the decade has result­
ed in relatively lower costs for food at home than
would have obtained if the 1955 preference patterns
had been continued in the new budget. However, the
impact of the change was not the same in all cities.
In Detroit, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh, for
example, autumn 1966 moderate-plan food costs
based on the 1965 preference patterns were 10 to
11 percent lower than autumn 1966 moderate-plan
costs of the 1955 preference patterns in these
cities. In Atlanta and Houston, however, they were
only 3 and 5 percent lower, respectively.

In the housing component of the new standard,
rental costs were based on a narrower range of
dwelling unit quality (i.e., the average of the
middle third of the distribution of autumn 1966
contract rents for units that met the budget criteria
of adequacy) than was used for the 1959 budget, in
which costs were based on average rents for all
units meeting the adequacy criteria. As a result of
this procedural change, in two cities, Kansas City
and St. Louis, the published costs for rental hous­
ing were lower in 1966 than the estimates published
in 1959, even though fuel and utility costs over this
period increased for the tenants who pay for them
separately.

Effect of Changes in Shelter 13/

The narrower quality range used for the 1966
budget provides a more precise basis for meas­
uring the cost of the moderate standard, but the
1966 estimates do understate somewhat the change
in rental housing costs in comparison with 1959.
This has relatively little effect on the overall cost
level of the new budget, however, since only 35
percent of the retired couples were assumed to
live in rental housing. The more significant
change in the new standard is the previously dis­
cussed inclusion of homeowner costs for twothirds of the families.

Between 1955 and 1965, regional differences in
food patterns lessened, and food buying habits in
the South moved closer to the patterns in other
parts of the country. As a result, the range in food
costs among the 18 cities was reduced from 23
percentage points in the 1959 study to 16 points in
the 1966 budget.
The new food standard also reflects an increase
in the number of meals bought and eaten away from
home by couples of this type. The 1966 allowance
for metropolitan areas provides 46 restaurant
meals, compared with 15 in the 1959 budget. The
number of meals provided for guests at home (95)
remained the same as in 1959.

Increase in Auto Ownership 14/
Accompanying the change in the housing pattern
is a revision in the proportions of families for

13/ For a detailed description, see p. 18.
14/ For a detailed description, see p. 19.

Total food costs com prise 29 percent of the total
cost of family consumption in the current budget,




14

whom ownership of an automobile is specified. In
the 1959 budget, New York, Philadelphia, and
Boston were classified as low (14 percent) owner­
ship cities. In the new budget, auto ownership was
specified for 25 percent of the fam ilies in New
York and 40 percent of those in the other two
areas. For other localities in the 1959 budget, 22
percent of the families were assumed to own cars.
This was raised in the newbudgetto40 percent of
the families in Chicago and 60 percent of those in
other metropolitan areas. Provision for occa­
sional use of public transit systems declined
sharply, but use of taxicabs increased slightly in
the new standard, in comparison with the earlier
one. These revisions were based on average pat­
terns of ownership and use of public transporta­
tion by retired couples as reported in the 1960-61
Survey of Consumer Expenditures.

For the 18 cities common to the interim and
current budget studies, the average 1959 cost of
those medical services which are now under
Medicare—physician and surgeon fees, hospital
i n s u r a n c e , and some small miscellaneous
expenses—was $231. Under Medicare, which has
more liberal benefits than were provided by the
1959 private insurance, including posthospital ex­
tended care, home health benefits, and other
services and supplies, the 1966 average budget
cost in the 18 cities was $149, a drop of 49 per­
cent from the estimated 1966 costs ($290) of the
1959 insurance—this in spite of rising medical
prices. In other words, this part of the medical
standard was upgraded at a substantially lower
cost to the budget couples.

Other services and supplies in the 1966 medical
care budget, which were not covered by Medicare,
reflect further improvement in the medical stand­
ard. There were higher allowances in dental care
for fillings, cleaning, and dentures; and the number
of prescriptions more than doubled.

For the nonmetropolitan areas not previously
included in the budget, automobile ownership was
specified for 68 percent of the families. In many
of the smaller cities public transportation is not
readily available, and this is reflected in the quan­
tities of transit and taxi rides provided for nonowners of automobiles in these places. Clearly,
some retired couples must depend on walking, or
on their auto-owning friends and relatives to
satisfy some of their transportation needs. It is

Other Changes
For all of the components derived by the quan­
tity- or e x p e n d i t u r e - i n c o m e elasticity tech­
nique, 16/ the new budget allowances reflect
changes in living standards which accompany
changes in real income. The demand for services
rose sharply. In personal care, provision for all
types of beauty shop services for women was
higher. Simultaneously, the allowances for all
personal care supplies, except for shampoos used
at home, increased. Home services were also in
demand. In the 1959 budget 5 out of 6 families were
assumed to have home telephone service, which
was used for local calls only. By 1966, all families
were allowed home phones, and provision for some
long-distance calls was added. More household
help and laundry services were also provided in
the new budget. The services of a dayworker were

inevitable, however, that “equivalence” in living
standards is conditioned by genuine differences
in living patterns and the availability of goods and
services in particular areas.
Effect of Medicare 15/
The advent of Medicare in 1966—providing fed­
erally supported hospital and medical insurance
for persons 65 years of age and over—consider­
ably changed the budget medical care standard
from what it was in 1959. The interim budget
assumed that only 45 percent of retired couples
were covered by private hospital insurance plans,
and made no allowance for any other medical
insurance. For the 1966 budget it was assumed that
all retired couples were covered by Medicare hos­
pital and medical insurance.

15/ For a detailed description, see p. 19.




16/ This
15

technique

is described on p. 20.

allowed at least once every other month, compared
with less than three times a year in the interim
budget.

creased. Older women also adopted more casual
attire—more sweaters, jackets and casual shoes;
fewer suits, lightweight coats, hats and gloves.

The trend toward informality in manner of
living, increased use of the automobile, and yearround control of temperatures in homes and public
buildings, which affected the clothing choices of
younger fam ilies, altered the patterns for older
men and women as well. For example, quantities
of topcoats and suits purchased by the retired man
decreased, while slacks and sports coats in­

Movies attendance declined, and the replace­
ment of radios and television sets leveled off, but
the allowances for books and magazines increased
in the new budget. Attendance at theaters, sports,
and other recreational events also increased.
Individual preferences play a large part in the way
fam ilies spend their money, however, and the
allowances provided for these items are not
suggested as a spending plan for a retired couple.

Data Sources and Estimating Methods
“ the previous decision to use standards of ade­
quacy based on the judgment of scientists and
experts to the extent that such standards are avail­
able, supplemented by the analysis of statistical
data on consumer practices.” 18/

The theoretical basis for the procedures used
to develop the budget quantities and pricing lists
for the retired couple is the same as for the budget
for a younger family. It is summarized in the
following quotation from the report on the original
City Worker’ s Family Budget:

Budget quantities and pricing specifications
which describe the 1966 moderate standard were
derived in a variety of ways. For food at home and
shelter, which constitute 49 percent of the total
costs of family consumption, allowances were
based on scientific findings or expert technical
judgments concerning requirements for physical
health and social well-being. For transportation
and supplemental medical care, accounting for 17
percent of family consumption, the prevailing
practices of retired couples were used as a guide
in developing budget allowances. Quantities for the
remaining third of the consumption total were
based on analytical studies of the Bureau’ s 1960-61
Survey of Consumer Expenditures. 19/ These
studies determined by objective procedures the
choices of goods and services made by consumers
in successive income classes.

“ . . . In the actual experience of families there
is a scale which ranks various consumption pat­
terns in an ascending order from mere subsistence
to plentitude in every respect.... This consumption
scale is established by society. It can be dis­
covered only through observation of the expres­
sions of society’ s ratings of the various existing
levels of living. These ratings of the various levels
of living are expressed in the judgments of scien­
tists, such as medical and public health author­
ities; and secondly, in the behavior of individual
consumers. Scientific judgments are based pri­
marily on the studies of the relation between
family consumption and individual and community
health. The expressions of consumer judgment
appear in the choices made by consumers as
economic barriers are progressively rem oved.”] ^
In 1963, the Bureau’ s Standard Budget Research
Advisory Committee, in reviewing the procedures
used in the original and interim budgets, affirmed

17/ Technical
pendix C.




Reference 10, p. 36,

18/ Technical Reference 9, p. 36, in ap­
pendix C.
19/ For a description of this survey, see Hand­
book of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS
Bulletin 1458, 1966), pp. 54-64.

in ap­

16

region in which the city is located was used for
each city except Washington, D.C. The U.S. pattern
was used for Washington, since its population
com es from all parts of the country and cannot
be considered typically Southern.

The complete list of items and quantities per
year is shown in appendix A. Pricing procedures
and specifications for the majority of items in the
budget are described in the forthcoming Bulletin
1570-3. A few items, which are purchased infre­
quently or represent an insignificant proportion of
the total budget, were not priced. Values for these
items were estimated as described in appendix A.
Procedures for estimating food, shelter, and med­
ical care costs are described in the text. Explana­
tory notes on the tables describe variations in the
basic budget quantities as required for use in
individual cities. The following is a general
description of the major sources of data and
methods of estimating quantities for the major
components of the moderate budget.

The spring 1965 level of prices in each region
was determined from the average prices paid for
individual items by urban fam ilies in the $5,000$5,999 income class in the USDA survey. These
prices were weighted by factors which took into
consideration the regional preference patterns for
individual items within each major food group in
the USDA plan. Individual city prices for pricing
groups (groups of related items) were estimated
from the preference-weighted regional survey
averages, by applying the spring 1965 city-toregion ratios of prices collected by BLS for the
same or comparable items. Spring 1965 city prices
were adjusted to October 1966 by a special cal­
culation of BLS item price changes. The 1966
city weighted average food group prices were
applied to the USDA food plan quantities to obtain
the final budget costs.

Food
The Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Research Council has established scientific stand­
ards for nutritionally adequate diets for various
sex-age groups, which the U.S. Department of
Agriculture used in developing food plans at dif­
ferent cost levels. 2 0 / The food-at-hom e com ­
ponent of the budget was based on the *moderatecost* food plan, considered suitable for th aver­
age U.S. family. The plan contains 11 food
categories which group foods according to sim i­
larity of nutritive values and uses in meals. The
suggested quantities furnish the NRC’ s recom ­
mended allowances for nutrients when average
food selections within each group are used.

BLS prices used for updating the cost of food at
home to 1966 price levels were those collected
regularly for the Consumer Price Index from a
representative sample of chain and independent
food stores of various types (e.g., groceries and
meat markets), stores at different levels of annual
sales volume, and stores in different locations
within a city. Average prices for each food were
obtained by calculating independent and chain store
averages separately, and then combining them
with weights representing the relative volume of
food sales by all food stores of each type in the
city.

Regional consumption patterns for specific
foods within each food group were obtained from
the USDA 1965 Household Food Consumption
Survey. Estimated budget costs reflect the food
preferences of the income class containing the
median income ($5,800) of the middle third of the
USDA income distribution. The pattern for the

The USDA food plans provide for 21 meals per
person per week to be eaten at home, or 2,184
meals annually for a couple. The budget for metro­
politan areas provides 2,138 meals at home and the
remainder—46 meals— in restaurants. In nonmet­
ropolitan areas these quantities were 2,133 and51
respectively. In both areas an additional 95 meals
at home are included for guests. The cost of food
at home was calculated including an allowance of
10 percent, recommended by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to compensate for higher per person

2 0 / Family Food Plans, 1964, CA 62-19, No­
vember 1964, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. In this
revision of the food plans the National Research
C ouncils recommended dietary allowances, 1963
USDA nutritive values, and the USDA’ s most recent
estimates of food consumption patterns were used.




17

food costs for small fam ilies. The average costper-guest meal was assumed to be the same as the
average per-person cost for the couple’ s own
meals at home. Dinner prices collected for the
Consumer Price Index were used in calculating
the cost of restaurant meals.

dwellings was $14,480 in 1960-61. The market
value was determined separately for each metro­
politan area (and within areas for the city proper
and the suburbs) and for each small city. It
represents the average value in the middle third
of the distribution of market values for dwellings
in the BLS 1959-60 Comprehensive Housing Unit
Survey which met the budget housing standard. The
current (1966) market value for these homes is
estimated to be about $15,560, based on change
since 1960-61, in the Consumer Price Index for
home purchase.

Shelter Costs
Standards for the shelter component of the
budget were those established by the American
Public Health Association and the U.S. Public
Housing Administration. They relate to sleeping
space requirements, essential household equip­
ment (including plumbing), adequate utilities and
heat, s t r u c t u r a l condition, and neighborhood
location.

The house was assumed to be m ortgage-free,
since 85 percent of retired couples live in homes
on which the mortgage has been paid up, according
to the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures.
Therefore, homeowner shelter costs exclude
allowances for mortgage interest and principal
payments. However, appropriate taxes are in­
cluded, reflecting varying assessment practices
and rates in individual cities. The most economical
comprehensive homeowner* s insurance policy was
used to provide insurance up to 80 percent of the
1960-61 market value of the house, in addition to
some coverage on its content and for injury to
persons on the property. An allowance for repairs
and replacement costs was also included, based on
an analysis of the 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure
Survey data for retired couples.

For renter fam ilies, the shelter standard called
for an unfurnished two- or three-room dwelling in
sound condition and with a complete private bath,
a fully equipped kitchen, hot and cold running water,
electricity, central or other installed heating,
access to public transportation, grocery stores,
and location in residential neighborhoods free
from hazards or nuisances.
Rates for dwellings which met this standard
were obtained from tenants during the regular
rent surveys for the Consumer P rice Index
between August 1966 and January 1967. The cost
of the rental shelter standard was calculated from
the average rent in the middle third of the distri­
bution of autumn 1966 rents. Since monthly con­
tract rents in apartment structures usually include
water, heat, light, cooking fuel, refrigerator, etc.,
the cost for these items was added to the contract
rent for dwellings whose tenants paid separately
for them. Insurance on household contents and
against injury to persons on the property, com ­
parable with the coverage provided for homeowner fam ilies, also was included in rental
housing costs.

Fuel and utilities also are included in shelter
costs. The housing specifications required central
heating equipment in cities where the average
January temperature is 40 degrees or colder, ex­
cept in five cities where other installed heating
equipment was accepted as more typical of the
manner of living. Central or other installed heat­
ing equipment (base burner, pipeless furnace, or
stove, with flue) was required for cities with
warmer climates, except for Honolulu, and
McAllen, Tex., where average January temper­
atures were 72 degrees and 61 degrees, respec­
tively. A space heater was included for each of
the second group of cities except Honolulu.

For homeowner fam ilies, the cost of maintaining
the shelter standard was calculated for a five- or
six-room , one- or one and one-half bath house that
met the same dwelling unit and neighborhood
specifications as described above for rental units.
The average U.S. urban market value for such




To adjust for climatic differences, fuel require­
ments for maintaining an indoor winter tempera­
ture of 70 degrees were estimated. The basis for
these estimates was the amount of fuel used to
18

heat homes of approximately the budget specifi­
cation, as reported in a 1962 trade association
survey of 62 cities (supplemented by data from
individual utility companies). These data were
related to annual degree days in these cities, as
recorded by the U.S. Weather Bureau. In the BLS
analysis, the quantities of fuel were expressed in
standard BTU’ s converted, for pricing purposes,
to the predominant type o f heating fuel used in
each city. Estimates of electricity and other
utilities for the appliances specified for the budget
were o b t a i n e d from utility companies and
associations.

paid by the enrollee, and the insurance fully covers
the remaining hospital costs for the first 60 days.
Hospital insurance also includes 20 posthospital
days in an extended care facility and 100 post­
hospital home health visits, at no cost to the
enrollee. Finally, the hospital coverage includes
outpatient hospital diagnostic benefits, for which
the enrollee pays the first $20 and 20 percent of
the balance of the cost for each diagnostic study.
Under the medical insurance program each
enrollee pays a monthly premium amounting to
$3 in 1966-67. In addition, the enrollee pays the
initial $50 of costs plus 20 percent of all remain­
ing costs for services and supplies (medical and
surgical services of a physician, diagnostic tests,

Transportation

selected
benefits).

The standard for transportation is based on the
average level of automobile ownership for retired
couples, as recorded in the 1960-61 Survey of Con­
sumer Expenditures. In four of the larger m etro­
politan areas, where public transportation is
readily available, the weight for automobile
ownership was adjusted to reflect the ownership
patterns in these areas. Thus, ownership was
specified for 25 percent of budget families in the
New York area, and 40 percent of the families in
Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In all other
metropolitan areas, the comparable weight is 60
percent. In nonmetropolitan areas, ownership was
specified for 68 percent of the fam ilies. Allow­
ances for occasional use of public transportation
by automobile owners are higher in the four areas
having mass transit systems than in other m etro­
politan areas and smaller cities.

Since the budget is designed for a couple in
reasonably good health and able to take care of
themselves, it was assumed that no charges were
incurred by the couple for the longer term pro­
visions of Medicare. The estimated annual average
out-of-pocket cost ($148) for all Medicare enrollees was provided for budget use by the Office
of Research and Statistics of the Social Security
Administration, based on survey data for the first
12 months of the program. That portion of the
estimated cost which covered the nonpremium
charges under medical insurance ($58) was ad­
justed by BLS to reflect intercity differences in
costs, primarily the differences in fees for physi­
cian visits—using data from a special BLS
analysis.

The standard provides for the purchase of a
used car every 8 years in metropolitan areas and
every 6 years in nonmetropolitan areas, based on
the customary purchases of fam ilies of the budget
type. The average age of the car for which
operating expenses were calculated is 7 years.

Since Medicare does not cover the cost of
routine dental care, eye examinations or eye­
glasses for refractive error and correction, or
most out-of-hospital prescription and nonpre­
scription drugs, allowances for these items were
added. Also added was a checkup visit to a physi­
cian for Medicare enrollees not using any Medi­
care services within 1 calendar year. Dental care
quantities were derived from 1963-64 utilization
data in the National Health Survey. Allowances for
eye care and prescriptions and drugs were de­
veloped from the BLS 1960-61 Consumer Expen­
diture Survey data.

Medical Care
The medical allowance includes hospital and
medical insurance as provided by the Federal
Medicare program, initiated in July 1966. Under
the hospital insurance, for each spell of hospital­
ization there is an initial $40 deductible amount




medical supplies, and home health

19

For a majority of the items in the housefurnish­
ings, clothing, personal care, and recreation com ­
ponents, the quantities could be standardized for
quality (by use of a constant price) across income
classes; for the remainder of the components, only
expenditure-income elasticities could be calcu­
lated. In the clothing, housefurnishings, and per­
sonal care components, the characteristic pattern,
in which quantities at first increase relatively
m ore rapidly than income and then increase at a
relatively slower rate than income, was found.
The inflection point, i.e ., the point of maximum
elasticity, for the majority of subgroups of these
components was in the (after tax) income class
$3,000-$4,000.

Average fees and prices for medical services
and supplies were those collected for the Con­
sumer P rice Index, supplemented by prices
obtained specifically for budget use.
Other Goods and Services
Food at home, shelter, transportation, and medcal care, as specified for the budget, account for
two-thirds of family consumption. The remaining
third includes housefurnishings, household opera­
tion, clothing, personal care, reading, recreation,
meals away from home, alcoholic beverages, and
tobacco. For these components, budget allowances
were developed by examining the quantities of, or
expenditures for, various items purchased at suc­
cessive income levels by retired couples in the
Bureau’ s 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures. The purpose of the analysis was to deter­
mine the income level at which the rate of increase
in quantities purchased, or expenditures, begins
to decline in relation to the rate of change in
income, i.e ., the point of maximum elasticity. The
average number and kinds of items purchased at
these income levels are the quantities and qualities
specified for the budget. Thus, they represent a
composite of individual choices. This technique
uses the consumer’ s collective judgment as to
what is adequate and is based on the assumption
that increasing elasticity indicates increasing
urgency of demand, and decreasing elasticity
indicates decreasing urgency. The point of max­
imum elasticity has been described as the point
on the income scale where fam ilies stop buying
“ more and m ore” and start buying either “better
and better” or something else less essential to
them. 21/

For reading, meals away from home, and
tobacco, the inflection point occurred most fre ­
quently in the next higher class, $4,000-$5,000.
Quantities of alcoholic beverages were also de­
rived from this income class, although elastic­
ities for this component were ever increasing.
Elasticities for recreation and household opera­
tions reached their maximum in income classes
$5,000-$6,000, and $6,000-$7,500, respectively.
To the extent that the inflection points for these
different categories are spread across the income
scale, the budget is a composite of average rates
of spending at different income levels.
Gifts and Contributions
The allowance for this component was based
on an upward adjustment of the ratio estimate
used in the interim budget. The adjustment re ­
flected both the change in the level of living and
the increase in prices between 1959 and 1966.

It was used with some refinements in deriving
quantities for The BLS Interim Budget for a
Retired Couple in 1959 (Technical Reference 7).
A mimeographed report providing a more detailed
description of its use in the current budget will be
available at a later date.

2 1 / This technique was developed for the ori­
ginal City Worker’ s Family Budget and is de­
scribed in detail in Technical Reference 10, ap­
pendix C. It was also adopted by the Social
Security Administration for the original Budget
for an Elderly Couple (Technical Reference 11).




20

Appendix-----Contents
Page
Appendix A .
T ables:
A - 1.

A - 2.

A - 3.

A -4 .

A - 5.
A - 6.
A - 7.

A -8 .

Annual quantities of items provided in the components of
the Retired Couple’ s Budget, autumn 1966 -------------------Food budget quantities-------------------------------------------------------------A. Food at home ------------------------------------------------------------------B. Food away from home and guest meals ---------------------Housing budget quantities--------------------------------------------------------A . Shelter: Renter fa m ilie s ----------------------------------------------B. Shelter: Homeowner fam ilies -------------------------------------C. Housefurnishings ------------------------------------------------------------D. Household operations-----------------------------------------------------Transportation budget quantities -------------------------------------------A . Automobile ow n ers--------------------------------------------------------- B. Nonowners of automobiles --------------------------------------------Clothing budget quantities ------------------------------------------------------A. Husband------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------B. Wife ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. Clothing m aterials and services ---------------------------------Personal c a r e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Medical c a r e -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Other family consum ption----------- -------------- ----------------------------A. Reading m a te r ia ls ----------------------------------------------------------B. R ecreation---------------------------------------------------------------------- —
C. Tobacco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------D. Alcoholic beverages--------------------------------------------------------E. Miscellaneous expenses ------------------------------------------------Gifts and contributions -------------------------------------------------------------

21

22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
30
30

31
31
31
31
31
31
31

Appendix B.

Index of population weights used in the Retired Couple’ s Budget ------------------

33

Appendix C.

Technical references ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35

NOTE: The tables which follow list, for each component of the Retired Couple’ s Budget,
the annual average quantities of items for which autumn 1966 prices were obtained or e sti­
mated to determine the annual costs of the budget. The quantities describe a moderate living
standard for a family of two— a retired husband and wife, age 65 or over. The methods and
sources used to derive the budget quantities are described in the text of this bulletin.
The codes in the tables identify the specifications used in pricing the commodities and
services for the budget.
For some budget items for which no code is shown, only an
estimated cost in 1966 for all cities is indicated.
These estimates were obtained by:
(1) Updating the cost of the item , as reported in the 1960—61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures, to 1966 by change in the appropriate subgroup, group, or "a ll ite m s" Consumer Price
Index; (2) updating the level of consumption, using data reported in trade journals, U .S.
Department of Com m erce’ s industry reports, and other sources; or (3) calculating the current
cost of the item as a ratio of the cost of other items based on comparable ratios reported
in the I960—61 CES. For further information on priced items see Bulletin 1570—3, Pricing
Procedures, Specifications, and Average P ric e s, Autumn 1966 (to be published at a later
date), which covers all priced items in the budget, other than food and shelter, for urban
United States and five metropolitan areas (Chicago, D allas, New York, San Francisco, and
Washington, D . C . ) .




21

22

Appendix
Table A-l. Food Budget Quantities
A.

Food at home 1
Nonmetropolitan areas

Metropolitan areas 2

Quantity 4

Item
Per week
Milk and milk products 5 ------------------------- ----- quart-Meat, poultry, and fis h --------------------------- — pound —
E g g s----------------------------------------------------------- — dozen —
Dry beans, peas, and nuts---------------------- — pound —
Grain products 6 ---------------------------------------- ------- do-----Citrus fruit and tomatoes------------------------- ------- do----Potatoes---------------------------------------------------- ------- do----Other vegetables and fru its--------------------- ------- do-----Fats and o i l ---------------------------------------------- ------- do----Sugar and sweets ------------------------------------- ------- do----Accessories:
Coffee--------------------------------------------------- --------- do----Tea ------------------------------------------------------- ---------do-----Soft drinks------------------------------------------- 72 ounces —
Other -------------------------------------------------B.

Per week

P er year
356. 3
445.4
55. 0
12. 7
203. 6
229. 0
178, 2
572. 6
57. 0
70. 2

7. 00
8.75
1. 08
. 25
4. 00
4. 50
3. 50
11. 25
1 . 12

1. 38

Per year

7. 00
8. 75
1.08
. 25
4. 00
4. 50
3. 50
11. 25

355. 6
444. 5
54. 9
12. 7
203. 2
228. 6
177. 8
571. 5
56.9
70. 1

1. 12

1. 38

(7 )
(7 )
.98
$ . 14

(I)
(7)

. 98
$ . 14

Food away from home and guest meals
Metropolitan
areas

Pricing code

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Quantity per year
Food away from home:
Meal s
Snacks
Guest mealR prnvided 9

_ _ _ _ _ _

46
8 $10. 49
95

_

51
8 $5. 45
95

1 Quantities from the moderate-cost food plan published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
(See
footnote 20, p. 17.) The quantities do not include allowances for guest meals. (See footnote 9 .)
2 The quantity allowances in metropolitan areas provide 42 meals weekly, and 2,138 meals annually after
adjustment for 46 meals away from home.
3 The quantity allowances in nonmetropolitan areas provide 42 meals weekly, and 2,133 meals annually after
adjustment for 51 meals away from home.
4 In estimating the cost of food at home for 2-person families, 10 percent should be added to the cost since
smaller families generally are unable to buy as economically and have more waste than larger families., (See "P er
Person Food Cost Differential in Large and Small F a m ilie s," Family Economics Review. September I960, pp. 3-5. )
5 Includes fluid whole milk arid milk products; quantities are converted to units containing the same calcium
content as milk, by using the following equivalents: 1 cup of milk equals 3/f pound of cottage cheese (creamed),
1 pound of cream cheese, IV3 ounces of cheddar cheese, or 1 scant pint of ice cream.
6 Weight in terms of flour and cereal. IV2 pounds of bread or baked goods are counted as 1 pound of flour.
7 The coffee and tea quantities shown below are for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas within a
region and reflect regional preference patterns:
Quantity per week
(in pounds)
Region
Northeast--------------------------------North Central— ..........-....... .......
South--------------------------------------W qst-------- -------- ----------------------U .S. (used for Washington,
D. C. ) — -.............. - ...................

Coffee
0.438
. 522
.406
. 464
.458

Tea
0.
.
.
.

044
034
080
030

. 048

8 Estimated cost in 1966 in all cities.
9 The allowance for this item assumes that the average cost per guest meal is the same as the cost per
meal consumed at home by family members.
Explanatory note: The annual allowance for food at home used in the calculation of the Retired Couple's
Budget is the estimated cost of the moderate-cost food plan after adjustment for meals eaten away from home. The
selection of specific foods which meet the nutritional standard and reflect regional preference patterns also affects
the food budget cost.
In estimating the unit cost of each of the major food groups for individual cities, regional
preference patterns were taken into account for all cities except Washington, D. C. , where the U.S. pattern was
used. (See explanation, p. 17.) Specifications for pricing individual food items are available upon request.




23
Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities
A.

Shelter:

R e n ter

Item

fam ilies1

Pricing code

Contract rent:
Unfurnished 2 - or 3-room dwelling unit containing
specified installed equipment ---------------- month—
Heating fuel:
Most common type heating fuel used in
each city --------------------------------------------------------------Water ------------------------------------------------------ cubic foot —
Electricity:
Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical
appliances --------------------------------- kilowatt-hour ~
Power for heating equipment------------------------ do----Gas :4
Cooking------------------------------------------------------ therm —
Hot water heating------------------------------------------ do----Furnace pilot ------------------------------------------------do-----Refuse disposal:
Trash and garbage removal —
Equipment:
Refrigerator ------------------------Range ------------------------------------Insurance on household contents
B.

Quantity per year,
all cities

21-015X

12

22-745X

(2)
7,280

22-505X

1,260

(3 )
22-375X
22-385X
22-390X

72
192
120

(5)

. 06

23-387 ------------------------------------23-399, 23-399A, 23-399C---23-975X --------------------------- ------

.06

1.00

Shelter: Homeowner families
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Shelter (5- or 6-room dwelling):
21-120X ---------------------------------Property tax ------------------------ ------------ ---------------------21-140X ---------------------------------Homeowner insurance premium---------------------------Repairs and maintenance:
Repairs contracted out:
21-527 ------------------------------------Painting and redecoration---------------------------21-437 ------------------------------------Repair of roof ----------------------------------------------Other-------------------------------------------------------------Repair materials:
21-181 ------------------------------------Painting and redecoration------------gallons —
Othe r -------------------------------------------------------------Heating fuel:
Most common type heating fuel used in
each city --------------------------------------------------------------Water ------------------------------------------------------ cubic foot —
22-745X --------------------------------Electricity:
Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical
-------------------- kilowatt-hour — 22-505X ---------------------------------appliances ------------■
Power for heating equipment------------------------- do--Gas :4
---------------------------------Cooking---------------------------------------------therm 22-375X
—
2 2 -3 8 5 X ---------------------------------Hot water heating-------------------------------------------- do--22-390X ---------------------------------Furnace pilot ------------------------------------------------do-----Refuse disposal:
23-984FB -------------------------------Trash and garbage removal -------------------- -------------Equipment:

Refrigerator----------------------------------------------------------Range ______________________________________________
See footnotes at end of table.




23-387 ________________________
23-399, 23-399A, 23-399C___

Metropolitan
areas
1.00
1.00

Nonmetropolitan
areas
1.00
1.00

. 07
. 04
(6)

. 10
. 04
(6)

1.44
(7)

.9 0
n

(2)
7, 280

(2)
7,280

1,260
(3)

1, 260
(3)

72
192
120

72
192
120

1. 00

1.00

. 06
.06

. 06
.06

24
Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities— Continued
C.

Housefurnishings
Quantity per year

Item

Pricing code

Household textiles:
Bedding:
Sheets --------------------pair —
Pillow cases ---------Pillows ------------------Blankets and quilts Bedspreads------------Towels:
B ath -----------------------Other ----------------Window coverings:
Curtains-----------D raperies--------Other---------------------Floor coverings:
Room -size rug -----------Other----------------------------Furniture:
Living room:
Living room suite —
Chair, fully upholsteredT able-------------------------------Sofa---------------------------------Other------------------------------Bedroom:
Bedroom su ite--------------Bed --------------------------------Mattress and bedspringDresser and ch est--------Dining room:
Dining room suite --------Dining room table --------Dining room chairs -----Dinette s e t --------------------Porch and garden--------------Other----------------------------------Electrical equipment and appliances:
Vacuum cleaner---------------------------------Washing machine -------------------------------T oaster-----------------------------------------------Fryer, food mixer, e tc ---------------------Iron-----------------------------------------------------Sewing machine ---------------------------------Air conditioner----------------------------------Fan -----------------------------------------------------Housewares, tableware, miscellaneous
equipment:
Heater, r o o m -s iz e ----------------------------Carpet sweeper ---------------------------------Dishes, s e t -----------------------------------------Other serving pieces -----Light bulbs ---------------------Lam p-------------------------------Miscellaneous equipment Other:
Lawn m ow er-------------------Tools, paintbrush, etc —

1.45
. 38
. 10
. 20
. 15

0. 85
.4 0
. 01
. 03
. 07

23-050FB ----------------------------------------

. 77
(8 )

. 78
(8 )

23-085, 2 3 -0 8 5 A ----------------------------23-091FB ----------------------------------------

. 53
. 32
(9)

. 15
. 28
(9 )

23-335, 23-335A, 23-336, 23-377FB

. 07
(i°)

. 08
(10)

23-132, 23-133, 2 3 -1 3 3 A -------------23-130X ------------------------------------------23-169FB ---------------------------------------23-192 ---------------------------------------------

. 03
. 09
. 02
_

. 05

(“ )
23-211, 23-211 A, 23-211B ----------23-200X -----------------------------------------23-204X, 2 3 -2 0 4 ----------------------------23-21 OX ------------------------------------------




-

. 02
(“ )

. 03
. 02
. 10
-

.
.
.
.

2 3 -2 2 8 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. 01
. 01
. 01
. 01
.46
(12)

_

. 02
. 06
(U )

23-411 --------------------------------------------23-423 --------------------------------------------23-465 AUX -----------------------------------23-470X ---------------------------- -------------23-471 A U X -----------------------------------23-460X -----------------------------------------23-440X -----------------------------------------23-450X ------------------------------------------

. 08
. 04
. 02
. 10
. 04
. 03
(l3)
. 07

. 02
. 01
. 04
. 03
_
(13)
. 05

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

. 02
. 01
. 03
(14)
11. 00
. 13
(15)

. 06
. 01
. 04
(14)
8. 05
. 05
(15)

. 07
$4. 20

. 03
16 $ 1. 73

2.47

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

H-954 ---------------------------------------------23-608 --------------------------------------------2 3 -6 8 0 X ___________________________

01
01
08
03

-

Household Operations

13 ounces —

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

2. 64

20 oun ces15 ounces —
14 ounces —
l/ z gallon —

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

35. 33
15.76
2.48
8. 38

See footnotes at end of table.

Nonmetropolitan
areas

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

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

Metropolitan
areas

36.
15.
2.
7.

29
14
27
88

Table A—2. Housing Budget Quantities---- Continued
D.

Household Operations— Continued
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Item
Laundry and cleaning supplies— Continued
Floor wax ------------------------------ 27 ounces Scouring powder------------------ 14 ounces Scouring pads----------------------- box of 10 Air deodorizer --------------------7 ounces .
Other---------------------------------------------------------Paper supplies:
Paper napkins---------------------- box of 80 Toilet tis s u e ------------------ 6 5 0 -sheet roll Paper towels, shelf, wax paper, foil, etcServices and miscellaneous supplies:
Launderettes-------------------------------- pound Laundry sent out ------------------- 10 pounds Household h elp ----------------------------- days Miscellaneous supplies---------------------------Communications:
Residential telephone service:
Basic charge---------------------------------------Long distance--------------------------------------Postage-----------------------------------------------------Stationery, greeting cards, e t c --------------

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
____ areas
______areas_______

H-951FB .
H-953FB .
H-901 ----H-906 -—

3. 50
15. 68
5. 04
3. 38
(1?)

3. 22
14.44
4. 63
3. 02
(1?)

H-764 .
H-799

11. 03
69.46
(18)

10. 41
64.47

34-754 .
23-924 .
23-931 •

22-624 .

148.83
19. 64
6. 52
(19)
12. 00
(2°)
I6*j$21. 13
16 $15.
4
08

O
-

4. 09
(19)
12. 00
(2°)
16 $ 19. 60
16 $ 13. 73

Allowances specified for fuel, utilities, and equipment do not apply when the cost of these items is
included in the monthly rent.
2 Heating fuel requirements vary with the length and severity of the cold season, type of structure, and
type of heating equipment. The variation caused by climate is measured in standard British thermal units (B .t.u . )
(convertible to equivalent quantities of fuel oil, gas, etc.) and the normal number of annual degree days in a
given city, derived from annual data published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. (A degree day is a unit, based upon
temperature difference and time, which measures the difference between the average temperature for the day and
65 F. when the mean temperature is less than 65° F. ; the number of degree days for any one day is equal to
the number of Fahrenheit degrees difference between the average and 65° F. ) The average number of B .t.u .'s
required in a given city may be computed as follows:
2- or 3-room unit—
Million of B. t. u. 's = 0. 75 (-302. 817962 + 110. 285800 times the logarithm
of the normal number of annual degree days)
6-room unit—
Million of B .t.u . 's — -302. 817962 + 110.285800 times the logarithm
of the normal number of annual degree days.
The quantity of any type of heating fuel used in a given city can be determined by converting the required number
of B .t .u .'s into quantities of the type of fuel used.
In the determination of the total amount of fuel required,
both the average B .t.u . content and an assumed efficiency factor must be taken into consideration for each
specified fuel.
3 The kw .-hrs. of electricity required to operate gas or oil heating equipment vary according to the amount
of fuel used.
The average required number of kw.-hrs. assumed here is 0.2 5 per therm of gas and 0.4 4 per
gallon of fuel oil.
4 In cities where either electricity or oil was the predominant fuel used for cooking and/or hot
water heating, it was substituted for gas.
The annual allowances for electricity are as follows:
Cook­
ing, 1080 kw. -hrs. ; hot water heating, 3480 kw. -h rs.
For oil, the annual requirement of hot water heating
is 155 gallons.
5 Cost is included in the rent.
6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 110.3 percent of cost of contracting for itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 100. 1 percent.
7 In metropolitan areas, cost is 111.5 percent of cost of paint and redecorating materials; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 106. 5 percent.
8 In metropolitan
areas,
cost
is53 .2
percent of cost of bath towels; in nonmetropolitan areas, 59 .0 percen
9 In metropolitan
areas,
cost
is35.7
percent of total cost ofitemized textiles; in nonmetropolitan areas,
28. 9 percent.
'l0 Cost is 432. 7 percent of cost of room -size rug in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
11 In metropolitan areas, cost is 6. 1 percent of cost of itemized living-room furniture; in nonmetropolitan
areas, 1.7 percent.
12 In metropolitan areas, cost is 18.8 percent of total cost of itemized furniture.
13 An annual allowance of 0. 03 air conditioners is limited to cities with an average July-Aug. temperature
of 8 5° and over, and a relative humidity of at least 85 percent; cities with an average July-Aug. temperature
of 90° or over, regardless of relative humidity; and \Los Angeles, with average July-Aug. temperatures close
to 85° and relative humidity nearly 85 percent, as reported by U.S. Weather Bureau.
14 In metropolitan areas, cost is 113. 8 percent of cost of sets of dishes; in nonmetropolitan areas 33. 0 percent.
15 In metropolitan
areas,
cost
is10.0
percent of total cost offurniture, equipment and housewares; in non
metropolitan areas, 12.7 percent.
16 Estimated cost for all cities.
17 In metropolitan areas, cost is 26. 8 percent of cost of itemized laundry and cleaning supplies; in non­
metropolitan areas, 26. 5 percent.
18 Cost is 150.0 percent of cost of itemized paper products.
19 In metropolitan areas, cost is 39. 1 percent of total cost of laundry, cleaning, and paper supplies; in
nonmetropolitan areas, 36.8 percent.
20 In metropolitan areas, cost is 14.9 percent of cost of basic telephone service; in nonmetropolitan areas,
14.8 percent.




26
Tabic A-3. Transportation Budget Q uantities1
Quantity p e r yea r
P ricin g code

Item
A.
P rivate transportation:
Replacem ent of a u to m o b ile ------Autom obile operating expenses:
G a so lin e--------------------------------M otor o i l -------------------------------L u b rica tion ---------------------------A n t ifr e e z e --------- -------------------T ir e s , tu beless -------------------B a tt e r y ---------------------------------R epairs and p a rts:
M otor tuneup--------------------F ron t-en d align m en t-------Brakes r e lin e d ----------------Other r e p a ir s ------------------Other operating e x p e n s e s ---Insurance:
P u blic lia b ilit y ----------------C om p reh en sive----------------R egistration :
State---------------------------------L o c a l--------------------------------In sp ection -----------------------------P erson a l property tax --------O p e ra to r's p e r m it----------------T o lls, parking, fin es, etc —
P u blic transportation:
L ocal:
T ran sit f a r e s -----------------------Taxi f a r e s ----------------------------Out of city------------------------------------

gallon —

renewal —

ride . d o ___

B.
Public transportation:
L oca l:
T ran sit fa res —
Taki f a r e s -------Out of c i t y -------------

N onm etropolitan
areas

Autom obile ow ners

41 -0 3 0 X g a llo n quart —

M etropolitan
areas

0 . 122

0. 155

41-065 __
41-097 —
41-355 —
41 -1 1 0 X 41-161 —
41-226F B

4 0 2 .8 9
19.91
2. 00
(*)
.8 1
. 33

366.23
19.35
1 .8 0
(2)
.4 8
. 33

41-483 —
41-675 —
41-643F B

.7 5
. 15
. 18

.5 0
. 19
12

P
i

41-807 —
41-81 OX

1 . 00
.5 0

41-8 7 0 —
41-871F B
41-880F B

1. 00

41-902

4 2 -020X
42-143 ..

s;i
.

1 . 00

. 50

1. 00

1 . 00
1 . 00

(’ )

([)

1.5 0

(1
6)
5
4
3
2

(6 )
1 .5 0

(78
)

(7)

0(910)

10 $ 41 . 00

1 . 00
10 $ 3. 79

Nonowners of autom obiles

r id e .d o

42 -0 2 0 X —
42-143 -—

107

10
10 $65. 26

3
13
10 $6. 07

1 The m ode of transportation within cities and m etropolitan areas is related to loca tion , s iz e , and ch a ra cte r­
is tic s of the com m unity.
The average costs of automobile ow ners and nonowners w ere weighted by the follow ing
proportion s of fa m ilie s : F o r 1 city (New York) 25 percen t fo r autom obile ow ners, 75 p ercen t fo r nonow ners; fo r
3 citie s (Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago) 40 percen t fo r ow ners and 60 percen t fo r nonow ners; fo r 35 other
m etropolitan a re a s, 60 p ercen t fo r autom obile ow ners and 40 percen t fo r nonow ners; and in a ll n onm etropolitan
a re a s , 68 p ercen t fo r autom obile ow ners and 32 percen t fo r nonow ners.
2 The annual allow ance is 1.25 gallons fo r all cities with an average m inim um tem perature of 3 2 °-1 5 ° during
January.
F o r cities with below 15° January m inim um tem pera tu res, the allow ance is 2 .0 0 .
No a n ti-fre e z e is
provided fo r m ild clim ate citie s .
3 In m etropolitan a re a s , co s t is 58. 7 percen t of item ized rep a irs; in n onm etropolitan a re a s , 50. 2 p ercen t.
4 In m etropolitan a rea s, cost is 4 .4 p ercen t of item ized operating exp enses; in nonm etropolitan a re a s ,
3. 0 percent,
5 The num ber of in sp ections requ ired by law in each city.
6 Cost requ ired by law in each city.
7 In m etropolitan a re a s , co s t is 5 .2 percen t of annual allow ance fo r item ized operating expenses; in non­
m etropolitan a re a s, 2. 0 p ercen t.
8 The annual allow ance is 34 rides in B oston, New Y ork, P h iladelphia, and Chicago; 25 in a ll other citie s .
9 The annual allow ance is 7 rides in B oston , New Y ork, P h iladelphia, and Chicago; 1 in all other citie s .
10 Estim ated cost in 1966 fo r all cities.




27
Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities
A.

Husband
Pricing code

Item
Outerwear:
Topcoats*-----------------------------Jackets, sport c o a ts*---------Sweaters-----------------------------Raincoats*---------------------------Suits:
Year-round weight* ------Tropical weight* -----------Slacks:
D r e s s ------------------------------W ork-------------------------------Shirts:
Dress —----------------------------W ork-------------------------------Sports------------------------------Other outerwear* ---------------Underwear, nightwear:
Undershorts, b r ie fs -----------Undershirts-------------------------Other underwear*-------------- Pajamas-------------------------------Bathrobes-----------------------------Hosiery (socks)------------------------Footwear:
Shoes:
Street ------------------------------W ork-------------------------------Loafers---------------------------H ouseslippers----------------Rubbers, galoshes, boots*
Hats, gloves, accessories:
Hats:
F e lt* -------------------------------Straw *-----------------------------Gloves:
D re ss*-----------------------------Work* ----------------------------- Ties, handkerchiefs-----------Jewelry, watches----------------Other accessories* -------------

------------ do—
------------ do—
------------do—
------------do—
i-t - i - ftt-------------d O

--------

.pair—
—do—

31-052, 3 1 -0 53----------31 -0 5OX ----------------------

. 28
. 05

. 37
. 03

31-086, 31-087 series
31-171 -------------------------

. 67
. 78

. 58
1. 27

31-273, 31-273A _____
31-222, 31-222A ------31-292 -------------------------

. 87
. 34
.65

(l )

1. 18
. 50
1. 24
-

1. 37
1. 53
(2)
.48
.09
4. 23

1.83
2. 04
(2)
.58
. 07
4.21

31-376FB ----------31-37 O X------------31-409, 31-409A
33-002, 33-002A
33-046 ---------------33-010X ------------33-050X ------------3 3 -2 2 6 F B -------—

.
.
.
.
.

61
18
12
18
11

.4 0
. 18
.09
. 10
. 10

3 1-427FB
31-420X -

. 19
. 13

.36
. 34

31-430X 31 -44 OX -

. 15
. 31
3 $ 1.66
3 $3. 08
(4)

. 39
. 14
3 $ 5. 44
3 $2. 02
(‘ )

-----------5-----------------------See footnotes at end of table


Wife

32-001, 32-002 series
32-01 O X________________
32-105 --------------------------32-118, 32-118A ---------3 2 -1 2 0 X -------- ----------------

0. 13
. 11
.0 3
. 24
. 07

32-222, 32-223, 32-226
32-248 ---------------------------

1. 05
.85
$ .4 9
. 17
(M

. 13
(l )

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

.6 0
.55
.55
1. 28
.4 3
. 07
. 13
(5)

.6 0
.49
. 68
1. 06
. 27
. 13
. 12
-

32-405, 32-405A

6. 31
‘ $ .1 1

4 .4 4
-

.97
. 33
. 35
,. 14

.75
. 32
.41
. 12

32-144, 32-144A

pair
- do-

do.
dodo.
do-

16
18
21
14

0. 07
. 17
. 16
.09

B.
Outerwear:
Coats:
Heavyweight * -----------------------Lightweight ---------------------------Carcoats, ja ck ets----------- — •
—
Sw eaters-------------------------------------Suits--------------------------------------------Dresses:
S treet----------------------------— ----H ouse-------------------------------------Skirts------------------------------------------Blouses, sh irts-------------------------Other outerwear*----------------------—
Underwear, nightwear:
Slips, petticoats--------- ----- -------- Girdles ---------------------------------------B r a ssie r e s-------- -------------------------Panties, b riefs---------------------------Nightgowns---------------------------------Pajamas--------------------------------------Robes, housecoats ---------------------Other underwear and nightwear*
Hosiery:
Stockings-------------------------------------Anklets---------------------------------------Footwear:
Shoes:
Street -------------------------------------Casual------------------------------------Houseslippers -----------------------Rubbers, galoshes, b o o ts*--------

0.
.
.
.

31-018 series-------------31-010X ---------------------31-154 ------------------------31-020X ----------------------

31-342FB
31-324

pair—

Quantity per year
Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
areas
areas

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

0.
.
.
.
.

12
10
02
27
08

.61
.4 9
-

28
Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued
B.

Wife— Continued
Quantity per year

Item

Pricing code

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
areas
areas

Hats, gloves, accessories:
G loves*---------------------------------------------- pair —
Purses, handbags ----------------------------------------Jewelry watches
Other accessories*
_
___ __ C.
Materials:
Wool, wool blends--------------------Cotton, cotton blends---------------Rayon, acetate -------------------------Nylon, orlon, dacron---------------Other yard g o o d s---------------------Notions (yarn, pins, e t c .)-------Services:
Cleaning and pressing:
Men's su its--------------------------Women's d r e sse s----------------Shoe repair:
Men's half soles
and h e e ls---------------------------Women's heels --------------------Shoe shines, polish, laces, etc
Other clothing se rv ic e s------------

3 2 -4 3 2 F B -----------------------------------------32-443 ----------------------------------------------3 2 -4 5 0 X ......................................................

0 .5 9
. 31
. 22
3 $ 1. 53
(*)

0.51
. 24
.23
3 $ . 87
(1
4
3
2 )5

Clothing materials and services

-yards —
-----do —
---- do —
---- do —

3 4 -4 2 0 X --------------------------------34-438, 34-438A, 34-449AUX
34-469FB --------------------------------

0.6 0
2.92
. 21
. 12
(6)

0. 18
2. 14
.36

C)

(6)
(7 )

garment—
--------do —

34-708, 34-708A
34-731, 34-731A

6.41
5. 16

6. 20
7. 07

number —
-------do—

34-639FB -----------34-662, 34-662A

.51
2.78

. 25
1. 17
(8)
(9 )

(!)
(9 )

1 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized outerwear, adjusted for intercity variations due
to climatic differences.
The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 2 .3 ; wife, 5 .1 .
In nonmetropolitan
areas the percentage is wife, 5. 9.
2 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear, adjusted for intercity variations due
to climatic differences. The percentages for the husband are 60.1 in metropolitan areas, and 10.6 in nonmetro­
politan areas.
3 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.
4 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of clothing, adjusted for intercity variations due to climatic
differences.
The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 1.5 percent; wife, 1.1 percent.
In nonmetro­
politan areas the percentages are husband, 0 .4 percent; wife, 1.7 percent.
5 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear and nightwear, adjusted for intercity
variations due to climatic differences.
In metropolitan areas the percentage is 7 .7 .
6 In metropolitan areas the cost is 2. 6 percent of itemized yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas, 7. 3 percent.
7 Inmetropolitan areas the cost
is 90. 3 percent of cost of all yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,
86. 9 percent.
8 In metropolitan areas the cost is 21. 2 percent of cost of shoe repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 9 .4 percent.
9 In metropolitan areas the cost is 17. 7 percent of cost of itemized clothing services; in nonmetropolitan areas,
8 .4 percent.
* See explanatory note p. 29 •




29
Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities-----Continued
Explanatory note: Quantities of starred items vary from city to city. The basic clothing budget is the U.S.
average quantity, both for metropolitan areas and for nonmetropolitan areas. For each city or metropolitan area,
the quantities of clothing articles specified in the following tabulation are adjusted upward or downward in accordance
with local climatic conditions, on the basis of the normal number of annual degree days as published by the U.S.
Weather Bureau. The tabulation shows the quantities of specified items of clothing required in metropolitan areas
when the normal number of annual degree days average 0 and 8,392; and in nonmetropolitan areas when the average
is 489 and 10,864.
(For definition of degree days, see footnote 2, table A -2 .)
The quantities required for spe­
cific cities were determined by straight-line interpolation.
Normal number annual degree days
Item

Metropolitan areas
8,392

0

Nonmetropolitan areas
10,864

489

Husband
Topcoats---- --------------------------Jackets, sp o rtco ats------------Raincoats -----------------------------Suits:
Year-round weight ——----Tropical weight — -----—Other outerwear------ j ----------Other underwear------ ■-----------Footwear:
Rubbers, galoshes, boots
Hats:
Felt _____________________
Straw--------------------------- ----Gloves:
D r e s s -------------------------------W o rk --------------------------------Other accessories-— ------------

.21
.16

0.11
.01

0. 26
. 26
. 22

0. 08
. 12
. 07

.2 9
.03

.26
.08

. 37
. 01

. 36
. 04

2 39. 1

$9. 62

0

. 24

0

0 . 12

12. 5

244.7

. 20

0

0

0

.24
.06
. 34

. 68

* 3.4

.13
.21
0

0

4. 8

. 25
.42

. 50
. 23
.98
. 34

0
0
4.4

. 28

0
1.8

. 30
. 97
. 64

0

0

Wife
Coats, heavyweight------------- ----Other outerwear------------ ----------Other underwear and nightwear
Rubbers, galoshes, boots--------Hats ------------------- --------~--------------G lo v es------------------ --------------------Other accessories--------------------1 The allowances are stated as
2 The allowances are stated as
3 Estimated cost in 1966.
4 The allowances are stated as
5 The allowances are stated
nightwear.




0. 23
1.9
2. 9
. 26
. 88
. 57
4. 1

0
1 lo 1
5 6. 3
0
. 24
0
2. 0

0

0

. 16
0
4. 8

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

30
Table A-5. Personal Care
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Service s:
Husband:
Haircut--------------------------------- ______________
Wife:
H aircut--------------------------------Permanent w ave______ ____
Shampoo and s e t ____________
Tinting and coloring________ —
Family: O ther_________________
Supplies:
medium bar__
Toilet so a p _____________________
ounce.
Toothpaste--------------------------------Shaving cream -------------------------Cleansing tissue
__ box 200 double —
Shampoo _______________________
Face powder___________________
Home permanent k i t ___________ ____________ r e fillOther
1
2
3
4
politan

In metropolitan areas the cost
In metropolitan areas the cost
Estimated cost in 1966 for all
In metropolitan areas the cost
areas, 107. 5 percent.

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

52-697 ____________

13. 50

20. 60

52-753 ____________
52-825 ____________
52-849 ____________

1. 60
1. 30
7. 50
(M
(1
2)

1. 90
2. 50
10. 00

71. 3
26.4
23. 6
14.4
7. 3
3$ 1.45
.2
(4)

58. 6
23. 6
20. 0
11. 6
1. 5
3$ 1. 50
.6
(4)

52-001 ____________
52-025 ____________
52-073 ____________
52-625 ____________
52- 193AU X________
52-529 ____________

is 4. 5 percent of total cost of itemized services for the wife.
is 0. 2 percent of annual allowance for itemized personal services.
areas.
is 100. 8 percent of annual allowance for itemized supplies; in nonmetro­

Table A-6. Medical Care
Quantity per year
Pricing code

Item

All cities
Medicare:
Hospital insnranrp Herlnrtihle
Medical insurance:
Premium
Derhirtihle anH roinsnranre
Medical care not covered by Medicare:
Physician's office visit (check-up)3 ________________
Dental care:
Fillings __________________________________________
Extractions ______________________________________
Cleaning and examination_______________________
Denture work, other rlental rare.
........
. _
Eye care:
F.Yamination for glasses
Eyeglasses __ .................... . . ..............
Other
Drugs:
Prescription_____________________________________
Nonprescription:
Vitamins
_ __ 100
Other ...... ...........
1
2
3
4
5
6

*$ 17. 72
$ 72. 00
2 $ 58. 43
51-201 ________________________________

. 64

51-465 ________________________________
51-466 __________ ______________________
5 1 -4 6 9 F B _____________________________

. 36
. 30
1. 00
(4)

51-518, 51 —51Q
51-518, 51-520

. 17
. 48
(5)

51-061 through 51-181 _______________
51-001

14. 8
1. 6
(6)

Estimated cost for all areas.
Estimated average cost: Differs from city to city.
An allowancefor those family members not using any Medicare service within 1 calendar year.
Cost is 228. 0 percent of total cost of itemized dental procedures.
Cost is 111. 1 percent of total cost of eyeglasses and examination.
Cost is 269.0 percent of cost of vitamins.




31
Table A-7. Other Family Consumption
Quantity per year
Item

Pricing code
A.

Newspapers (subscription)-------------------------------Books (not school)---------------------------------------------Magazines ----------------------------------------------------------

Metropolitan
areas

Nonmetropolitan
areas

Reading materials

53-806 through 53-819------—

1.00
1 $5. 27
1 $10. 54

1.81
1 $1. 50
1 $15. 76

0 .0 7
.06
1 $22. 15
. 30

0. 10
. 10
1 $14. 10
-

8. 16
1 $5. 58

1. 53
1 $ 1 .98

B. Recreation
Radios, television sets, etc:
Radios------------------------------------------------------------Television s e t s ---------------------------------------------Repairs, including parts -----------------------------Phonograph records ------------------------------------Admissions:

53 -033, 53-033A, 53-034—
5 3 -0 0 1 ,5 3 -0 1 8 ------------------53-177 -------------------------------53612

Other adm issions-----------------------------------------Other recreation:
Participant sports----------------------------------------Club dues, m em berships-------------- -------------Hobbi e s ——— —— — —— ——— — —— — — —— —
Pets, pet supplies, and other
recreation expenses ----------------------------------

-

—

(/22 )

—

(2)
—

- — —

—

—

—

—

1 $ 3 .0 3

(2)
( )
(2)
1 $12.09

C. T ob a cco
C igarettes ----------------------------------------- carton
C igars ------------------------------------------------ - each
P ipe tob a cco -------------------------------------- ounce
P ip e and s m o k e r's supplies -------------

5 4 -0 0 2 ,5 4 -0 0 6 -------------- — 54-077 -------------------------------54-153FB ---------------------------

17.9
97 .0
41. 1
(3)

17.9
97 .0
41. 1
(3)

16. 1
4. 1
7. 6

3. 3
1. 3

(4 )

(4 )

D. A lco h o lic bevera ges
At home:
B eer and a l e ---- -----------L iqu ors (w hiskey, etc. )
W in e ------------------------------Away fro m h o m e ----------------

72 ounces —
Vs gallon —
7s gallon —

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

.6

E. M iscellan eou s expenses
M iscella n eou s expenses:
Lodging away fro m h om e, bank s e r v ic e ch a rg es, lega l exp en ses, other
expenses that cannot be a llocated elsew h ere.

0 . 4 p ercen t of a ll other
co s ts o f fam ily
consum ption.

1 Estim ated co s t in 1966 for all citie s .
2 ' Cost is a s p e cifie d p ercen ta ge of total co s t o f ra d ios, telev ision s e ts , etc. , and a d m ission s. The percen tages
in m etropolitan areas are as follow s: P articip an t s p o rts , 36 .3; club du es, 1 4 .6 ; h ob b ies, 1 0 .0 .
In nonm etropolitan
a re a s , the percen ta ges are participan t s p o rts , 9 .6 ; club du es, 2 4 .9; h ob b ies, 11.0
3 Cost is 1. 1 p ercen t o f annual allow ance fo r item ized tob a cco produ cts.
4 In m etropolitan a re a s , co s t is 18. 2 percen t of total cost of item ized a lcoh olic b ev era g es; in nonm etropolitan
a re a s , 15.0 p e rcen t.

Table A—8. Gifts and Contributions
Item
Gifts and contributions:
C h ristm as, birthday, and other presen ts to person s outside the
im m ediate fam ily; and contributions to re lig io u s , w elfa re,
m e d ica l, educational, and other organ izations.




Quantity per y e a r, all cities

6. 4 percen t of total cost
o f fam ily consum ption, less
m iscella n eou s expenses.




A p p en dix B

Index of Population Weights Used in the Retired Couple’s Budget
Area

Population
weights

United States urban population -----------------Metropolitan areas 1
2 ----------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------------

100.00
74. 96
25. 04

Northeast4 --------------------------------------------Boston, M a ss------------------------------------Buffalo, N. Y -------------------------------------Hartford, Conn---------------------------------Lancaster, P a ---------------------------------New York—Northeastern New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pa.—N. J----------------------Pittsburgh, P a -------------------------------- —
Portland, M ain e-------------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 -------------------

30 90
2 36
2. 09
2 51
1 09
13.93
2. 86
1. 70
1. 47
2. 89

North Central4 --------------------------------------Cedar Rapids, Iowa -------------------------Champaign—Urbana, 111--------------------Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.~Ind-----------------Cleveland, Ohio--------------------------------Dayton, Ohio-------------------------------------Detroit, Mich------------------------------------Green Bay, W is--------------------------------Indi anap oli s , Ind-------------------------------Kansas City, Mo.—Kans ------------------Milwaukee, W is--------------------------------Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn------------St. Louis, Mo.—Ill ---------------------------Wichita, K a n s-----------------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------

25. 87
1. 56
1.60
4. 55
. 55
.76
. 76
2. 26
1. 41
. 53
.9 5
. 78
1. 29
.97
. 53
7. 37

Area

Population
weights

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

27. 34
2. 03
1.42
.98
. 82
2. 34
1.08
.9 4
2. 26
2. 61
. 87
11.99

W est4 --------------------------------------------------------Bakersfield, Calif -------------------------------Denver, C o lo ----------------------------------------Los Angeles—Long Beach, Calif----------San Diego, C a lif-----------------------------------San Francisco—Oakland, C a lif------------Seattle—Everett, W ash -------------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 3 -----------------------

15. 83
. 70
1. 35
4. 95
1. 60
2. 80
1. 64
2.79

Honolulu, Hawaii 5 -------------------------------------

.0 6

Anchorage, Alaska 5 ----------------------------------

(6)

1 The weight in each urban area is the total population of 2-person, husband-wife fam ilies, age 65 or over,
with no full-time earner in the family, as reported in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. For an explana­
tion of the sample selection, see "Technical Note: The Revised City Sample for the Consumer Price Index," Monthly
Labor Review, November I960, pp. 1141-1157. (Also issued as BLS Reprint 2354.)
2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A reas, prepared by
the Bureau of the Budget.
3 Places having population of 2, 500 to 50, 000.
4 Regions as defined by the Bureau of the Census: Northeast-—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; North Central— Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nfebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South—
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; and West— Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
5 Honolulu and Anchorage were separate sampling strata in the BLS 1960—61 Consumer Expenditure Survey,
and, therefore, are not included in the total weight for the West.
Honolulu’s weight is in the United States and
metropolitan area totals; Anchorage's weight is in the United States and nonmetropolitan area totals.
6 A population weight for Anchorage is not shown separately because the sample which represented this type of
family was not statistically significant. Therefore, the weight was imputed to other nonmetropolitan areas.




33




Appendix C
Technical References
1.

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

2.

Clorety, Joseph A . , "Consumption Statistics: A Technical C om m en t," How Am erican
Buying Habits Change, chapter X , 1959, pp. 217—242.
Includes a section on "Standard Budgets as Indicators of P ro g re ss" (pp. 232—242).
Also presents in summary form a representative c ro ss-sectio n of budgets compiled in
this country during the 20th century, showing average dollar cost figures for the total
and for the major components of each budget.

3.

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

4.

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

The Word and the

R eality",

Monthly

Labor

Review,

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

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

6.

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




35

7.

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

8.

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

9#

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

10. _________________ ____________ W orkers' Budgets in the United States: City Fam ilies and Single
P ersons, 1946 and 1947, (BLS Bulletin 927, 1948) 55 pp.
Describes concepts, definitions, and techniques used
City W orker's Fam ily Budget for a four-person fam ily,
services priced, and 1946—47 cost estimates for 34 cities.
survey of fam ily budgets, and summary data on State budgets
11.

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

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




36