The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
"y to n & M o n tg o m e ry Co Public Library MAR 2 4 1969 DOCUMENT collection FOR AN U R B A N FAMILY OF FO UR P E R S O N S Bulletin No. 1570-5 U S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS THREE STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR AN U R B A N FAMILY OF FOUR P E R S O N S SPRING 1967 Bulletin No. 1570-5 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF LABOR George P. Shultz, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 PREFACE This bulletin summarizes the first attempt by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop budgets at three levels—the generally known moderate budget, and budgets lower and higher than that level. No descriptive titles have been attached to the lower and the higher budgets. However, chapter I dis cusses the concepts of these budgets, and more importantly, describes in general terms how the lists of goods and services were derived. Chapters II and III summarize the highlights and provide b rief analyses of the component cost levels and intercity differences in the budgets at the first pricing period for all three budgets—April 1967. Chapter IV discusses information available on the actual in come of fam ilies of the budget type, and typical uses and misuses of budget cost estimates in com parison with income. Chapter V describes in detail the sources of data and estimating methods used in constructing the budgets. Appendix A lists the average annual quantities of items which were used to determine the costs of the three budget levels. Appendix B describes the specifications used to collect or estimate prices for the lower and higher budgets, which differ from those used in the moderate budget. (Specifications for the moderate budget have been published in Bulletin 1570-3, as described below.) Appendix C shows the population weights for combining individual metropolitan area and nonmetropolitan regional costs to U.S. urban averages. A list of the Bureau’ s previous budgets and related references, is provided in appendix D, including the Report of the Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research, June 1963. This report summarizes the recommendations of a special committee of experts, representing users of standard budgets in State and local welfare administration, 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 recommendations formed guidelines for the Bureau in the development of the current budget. Other bulletins in the current series report results of other phases of the standard budget research programs: Bulletin 1570-1 gives the autumn 1966 costs of the City Worker’ s Family Budget for a Moderate Living Standard and describes the change in moderate standard since the original and interim bud gets (issued October 1967). Bulletin 1570-2 describes the Revised Equivalence Scale for estimating budget costs for fam ilies of different size, age, and type (issued as preliminary October 1967, and final November 1968). Bulletin 1570-3 reports on the autumn 1966 Pricing Procedures, Specifications, and Average Prices used for the moderate standard of the city worker’ s budget (issued August 1968). Bulletin 1570-4 gives the autumn 1966 costs for a Retired Couple’ s Budget for a Moderate Living Standard (issued June 1968). Bulletin 1570-6 will give the spring 1967 estimates for Three Standards of Urban Living for a Retired Couple. iii In the future, estimates of the cost of the three standard budgets for the 4-person fam ily and for a retired couple will be made in the spring of the year and published periodically for the same metropolitan areas and regional classes of smaller cities as those included in the present study. For a rough approximation of the autumn 1968 costs of the major components of fam ily consumption in the three budgets for Urban United States, see page 14. This bulletin was prepared by Jean C. Brackett under the supervision of Helen H. Lamale, Chief of the Division of Living Conditions Studies and the general direction of Arnold E. Chase, Assistant 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 in this Division whose work contributed substantially to the project were Miriam A. Solomon, Roseann C. Cogan, Alice B. Curry, and M. Louise McCraw, .The Division of Consumer P rices, under the supervision of Doris P. Rothwell, developed procedures for the collection and calculation, or estimation, of average prices for the three budget levels. iv CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................. Page vj Chapter I Concepts and Procedures ................................................................................ 1 Chapter II Costs in Urban Areas ..................................................................................... 5 Chapter III Comparative L iving Costs Indexes ................................................................ 26 Chapter IV Income and Budget Costs ................................................................................ 39 Chapter V Data Sources and Estimating Methods............................................................. 41 Food ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Shelter c o s t s ....................................................................................................................... 42 Transportation ............... 44 Medical c a r e ........................................................................................................................ 44 Other goods and s e r v i c e s ................................................................................................... 45 Other costs ......................................................................................................................... 48 P ricin g procedures ............................................................................................................ 48 Tables: 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Fam ily, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 ................................................................................................................................. 15 2. Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Lower Living Standard fo r a 4-Person Fam ily, Spring 1967 ..................... * ............................................................................... 33 3. Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Moderate Living Standard for a 4Person Fam ily, Spring 1967 ......................................................................................... 35 4. Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Higher Living Standard for a 4-Person Fam ily, Spring 1967 ...................................................................................................... 37 Appendix contents.................................................................................................................... 51 v Introduction Budgets representing specified levels of living have long been recognized by social scien tists as desirable research tools for use as benchmarks in determining individual family needs, establishing interarea differences in living costs, and documenting changes in living standards over time. Despite the diversity of uses for such measures, relatively few such budgets have been developed by public or private agencies. in terms of a list of items in specific quantities and qualities for a fam ily of 4 persons (husband, wife, boy of 13, and g irl of 8). P rices of the items were collected in 34 large cities in March, 1946. The resultant costs estimates were described as the City W orker’ s Family Budget for a “ modest but adequate” living standard. About the same time, a budget for a retired couple, at a com parable living standard, was developed by the Social Security Administration. However, during the past decade, the estab lishment of many new social programs and the expansion of old ones have emphasized the need for objective, quantitive standards with which the income of individual fam ilies and population groups can be compared. The budgets presented in this bulletin have been prepared in recognition The original budgets were repriced by BLS at intervals through October 1951, after which they were discontinued because the lists of goods and services no longer represented a modest living standard for a worker’ s fam ily or a retired couple in the 1950’ s. The lists of items were revised near the end of the de cade, and an Interim City Worker’ s Family Budget and Interim Budget for a Retired Couple showing autumn 1959 costs of a “ modest but adequate” living standard in 20 large cities were published. of this need. Budget research has also been limited for technical reasons. Living standards refer to the goals we set for ourselves as consumers of goods and services and as users of leisure time. In our society, however, there is no single set of goals adopted by all fam ilies and no one level or pattern of consumption which provides an appropriate base for the evaluation of need in a variety of social programs. This fact raises many concep tual problems in defining a specific living stand ard and in developing objective procedures for deriving a list of goods and services which de scribe the standard, i.e., a quantity budget. When the Bureau’ s new program of budget research was initiated in 1965, the same general procedures w e r e used to develop a quantity budget at a moderate level, comparable with the earlier “ modest but adequate” level, for the same two family types (the younger, 4-person fam ily and the retired couple). In the new budgets, how ever, the lists of goods and services are'repre sentative of a moderate standard in the decade of the 1960’ s. Also, the program was expanded to include cost estimates for homeowner, as well as renter, fam ilies, and the budgets were priced in a sample of 39 metropolitan areas and of nonmet ropolitan areas in 4 regions. Hence, U.S. urban average cost estimates are available for the firs t time. Simultaneously, the Bureau revised its scale of equivalent income or budget costs, which can be used, in conjunction with the base budgets, to estimate total consumption costs (but not the separate components) of a comparable budget for families of other sizes and types. The Bureau of Labor Statistics was con fronted with these problems when in the mid1940’ s, it was directed by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives “to find out what it costs a worker’ s fam ily to live in the large cities of the United States,” and to calculate both the total dollars required and the relative differences in costs among the cities. To carry out this d irec tive, the Bureau, assisted by a Technical Ad visory Committee, identified a level and pattern of consumption required for the maintenance of health and social well-being, the nurture of children, and participation in community activ ities. This pattern of consumption was expressed The procedures developed two decades ago for deriving a list of goods and services to rep re sent a moderate budget level are not perfect, and vi research continues to improve the basic sources of information on consumer choices and tech niques of analysis. However, the budgets based on these procedures have been used widely, and consequently the general concept of a moderate budget is well understood and accepted—if not as true in some absolute sense, at least as a w elldocumented convention. Furthermore, t h e s e procedures result in cost estimates, not only of the total budget (including taxes) and total family consumption, but also of the major components of family consumption, which enhances their use fulness. They also provide a sound basis for measuring differences among geographic areas in costs for an equivalent level of living. And finally, the same budget quantities and pricing specifications can be used by other research workers to produce comparable cost estimates for other geographical areas not included in the BLS sample. Since the budgets based on these procedures were initiated, however, it has been evident that no single budget at one specified level would meet all of the important needs. Throughout the decade of the 1950’ s, for example, State public assistance agencies appealed to BLS to develop a budget for a lower living standard or to suggest ways in which the moderate budget could be scaled down, because, in the judgment of program administra tors, the goals represented by the moderate standard were too high to be consistent with the objectives of public assistance programs or with the funds available to administer such programs. Legislators attempting to formulate laws with in come criteria for admission to public housing units had a sim ilar problem. On the other hand, representatives of volun tary social and welfare agencies providing serv vii ices to fam ilies with a special problem, such as a handicapped child or an aged parent with a long term illness, frequently requested budget esti mates for a standard higher than moderate to consider in determining eligibility or establish ing a scale of fees paid for the services provided. Business organizations and labor unions inter ested in maintaining comparable salary levels or wage rates for sim ilar work assignments per formed in different locations also called repeat edly for intercity indexes of living costs based on budgets for standards above the moderate level. Requests for standards for other levels of living, and especially for a “ minimum” standard, have multiplied rapidly in recent years, and partic ularly with the focus on problems of lower in come fam ilies in this decade. It is not the purpose of this report to deter mine what criteria are appropriate for apprais ing the economic condition of population groups or of the total population, evaluating the need for and the effect of specific laws and programs, or guiding administrative determinations of need as required by a number of laws. The appropriate criteria must be selected by specialists in such areas as public assistance, social and welfare services, public housing, unemployment com pensation, minimum wages, collective bargain ing, college scholarship- aid, social security, etc., who are intimately acquainted with the goals of the programs and the resources available to administer them. M oreover, questions of policy which require public review are often involved. This report does attempt, however, to meet im portant needs insofar as possible by providing budgets at more than one level. Three Standards of Living for An Urban Family of Four Persons: Spring 1967 Chapter I. Concepts While most families that do any budgeting at all base their budgets on current or expected in come, any budget which is to be used as a bench mark for economic or social measurements must take the opposite approach. It must be built up from a list of goods and services representing a specified level of living, Whenthecostof these goods and services has been determined, it is then possible to ascertain the amount of income required to cover the budget. varying the assumptions concerning the man ner of living, and by providing different quanti ties and qualities of the necessary goods and services. The manner of living represented by the lower budget differs from that in the moderate and higher budgets prim arily in the specifica tions that the fam ily lives in rental housing without air conditioning; performs more serv ices for itself; and utilizes free recreation facilities in the community. The life style reflected by the higher budget, on the other hand, specifies a higher level of homeownership, compared with the moderate; more com plete inventories of household appliances and equipment; and more extensive use of services for a fee. For a majority of the items in the list of goods and services that are common to the three budgets, both the quantity and quality levels in the lower budget are below, while those in the higher are above, the levels specified for the moderate budget. Traditionally, specific levels of living have been described by such adjectives as minimum, liberal, subsistence, luxury, modest, moderate, necessary, adequate, comfortable, ideal, etc. Although any of these terms may serve as a con venient shorthand reference for a specified level and manner of living, none is self-explanatory. Their meaning is affected by changes over time in the conditions of living within a society. Re gardless of what descriptive term is chosen, therefore, a benchmark budget rests essentially on—and must be defined in terms of—the list of goods and services selected to represent the specified level of living. Furthermore, to provide meaningful estimates of its costs, the budget list must be related to a specific size and type of family, and specific assumptions must be made with respect to the fam ily’ s manner of living. The content of the budgets in based on the manner of living and consumer choices in the 1960’ s. Two kinds of data were used to derive the list of goods and services. First, nutri tional and health standards, as determined by scientists and technicians, were used for the food-at-ho me and the housing c o m p o n e n t s . The selection among the various kinds of food Budget Concepts The procedures that were used to develop the three budgets assume that maintenance of health and social well-being, the nurture of and housing arrangements meeting the stand ards was based on actual choices made by fam ilies, as revealed by surveys of consumer expenditures. Second, where scientific stand ards have not been formulated, analyses of the data reported in the Bureau’ s Survey of Con sumer Expenditures and related consumption studies were used to determine the specific items, and the quantities and qualities thereof. children, and participation in community activi ties are both desirable and necessary social goals for all fam ilies of the type for which the budgets were constructed. Within this broad framework the procedures were designed to d i s t i n g u i s h different levels of l i v i n g by and Procedures 1 2 These analytical procedures result in basing some parts of the budgets upon the collective judgment of consumers as to the kinds and amounts of consumption required, rather than upon scientific standards. Some exercise of the budget-maker’ s own judgment is involved in the construction of these budgets. However, such judgment has been confined to the specification of the manner of living (as described above) for each budget level, and selection of the basic data and determination of the procedures to be followed in deriving the items and quantities. The procedures used to derive the various levels are described in general terms in the following section and documented in more detail in chapter V. The concepts, procedures, and pricing lists for the moderate standard are described in de tail in BLS Bulletins 1570-1 and 1570-3. Procedures The budgets for a lower, moderate, and higher living standard were developed within a single theoretical framework to represent three levels of adequacy for one type of selfsupporting family of four persons. The theoretical basis for the general ap proach to the derivation of quantities and pricing lists for the three budgets is sum marized in the following quotation from the report on the original budget for a “ modest but adequate” standard: " . . . In the actual experience of fami lie s there is a scale which ranks various consumption patterns in an ascending order from mere subsistence to plentitude in every respect. . . . This consumption scale is established by society. It can be d is covered only through observation of the ex pressions of society’ s ratings of the var ious existin g levels of liv in g . These r a t ings of the various levels of liv in g are expressed in the judgments of s c ie n t is t s , such as medical and public health authori tie s; and secondly, in the behavior of in dividual consumers. S cien tific judgments are based prim arily on the studies of the relation between family consumption and in dividual and community health. The express ions of consumer judgnent appear in the choices made by consumers as economic bar r ie rs are progressively removed.” 1 / In 1946, and again in 1959, this general ap proach was used to derive a single list of com modities and services representing a standard described as “ modest but adequate” in both periods. Even where standards of adequacy based on the judgments of scientists and experts are available, however, these standards frequently can be implemented at various levels of cost. Hence the budget maker must define the cost level which is appropriate for a specific living standard, and within that level, determine the cost in such a way that it reflects the actual choices of consumers themselves. For example, in food consumption, recom mended allowances for nutrient intake, based on scientific research have been formulated for individuals in different sex-age groups. These requirements have been translated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture into food plans at different cost levels, which reflect the actual patterns of fam ilies with varying amounts of money to spend for food. In the 1946 and 1959 BLS budgets for a “ modest but adequate” living standard, the food component was based on an average of the low-cost and moderate-cost food plans. In the current BLS budgets, however, the low-cost food plan was used in the lower standard, and the moderate- and liberal-cost plans in the moderate and higher standard bud gets respectively. 2/ Similarly, technical experts have described standards for shelter relating to such factors as sleeping space appropriate to fam ily size and composition, essential household equipment (including plumbing), adequate heat, structural condition of the unit, and neighborhood location. However, depending on the quality level at which the basic standards are implemented, housing units may be rented or purchased at different levels of cost. A housing unit may include a guest room or den in addition to adequate sleeping space for the family, or it may have _1/ Technical R e f e r e n c e 10, p. 92, ap pendix D. 2/ See Section on Food on p. 41 for a more detailed account of the food standard and the basis for the food plans at different cost levels. 3 two or more bathrooms, central air conditioning, architectural distinction as well as sound struc tural condition, and it may be located in a convenient or exclusive area. For the current budgets, average contract rents and purchase prices of owned homes were accepted as a proxy measure of such qualitative differences among all housing units which conformed to the basic standards. Thus, the average rent for the low third of the distribution of contract rents for units which met the housing standard was used for the lower standard, and the averages for the middle and high thirds of the distribution were used for the moderate and higher standards respectively. 3/ For the transportation component, prevailing practices of budget-type fam ilies themselves provided the criteria for standards. The 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures revealed that the proportions of urban fam ilies that owned an automobile were high at all income levels, and paralleled the trend to homeownership and the extension of suburbs to areas not served by public transportation. Hence ownership of a car was specified for some proportion of the families in all three standards. Transportation costs differ among the standards as a result of two factors: Variation in the weights for automobile ownership in individual metropolitan areas, to reflect the greater availability of public transportation in some areas than inothers; and different specifications for the ages of the cars purchased and traded-in and for the number of miles driven at each budget level. Prevailing practice also provided a standard for the medical care component for insurance coverage of the cost of hospitalization and surgical services for all family members, obtained by the husband through a group con tract at his place of employment. Insurance costs reflect the percentage of the total cost paid by the employee (and assume the employer paid for the remainder). The same insurance protection was included in both the lower and moderate standards, but in the higher standard this coverage was supplemented by a major medical insurance contract. Allowances for medical care not covered by insurance—such as visits to physicians, dental care, eye ex aminations —were derived from National Health Survey data. These allowances were the same in all three standards, since they were based on utilization rates which reflect the average condition of health of individuals in the same age-sex categories as the budget family mem bers. Allowances differ only for items such as eyeglass frames, where factors other than health needs enter into the determination of costs. A standard of health, based on the recent findings of the U.S. Public Health Service on the ill effects of cigarette smoking, also was invoked as a basis for eliminating an allowance for oigarettes from all three budgets. (An allowance was included in the October 1966 pricing of the moderate standard, but excluded from the spring 1967 cost estimates for the moderate as well as for the lower and higher standards.) For other categories of consumption—house furnishings, household operation, clothing, p er sonal care, education, reading, r e c r e a t i o n , meals away from home, and alcoholic bev erages— the ratings of the various levels of living were based on the judgments of con sumers, as revealed in the choices made by families of the budget-type at successively high er levels on the income scale. The data analyz ed were from the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. In the relationship of consumption (for a particular category of goods) to income, the income class containing the point of maximum elasticity was defined as appropriate for determ i n i n g the quantities for the m o d e r a t e standard. ±/ Quantities for the lower and higher 3/ See Section on Housing, p. 10 for a more detailed account of procedures. A/ For a detailed description, see p. 46 > 4 standards were derived respectively from the income classes below and above the class containing the iaflection point. The inflection point has been interpreted as the income level at which fam ilies stop buying “ more and more” of a category of goods and services and begin buying other goods or items of higher quality. In the lower budget, t h e r e f o r e , this goal has not yet been reached, and in the higher budget it has been exceeded. Chapter II. Costs of 3 Living Standards for a Family of Four The total average cost in urban areas of the United States in the spring of 1967 came to $5,915 for the lowest of the three budgets presented here; $9,076 for the moderate budget; and $13,050 for the higher budget. 5/ These were out-ofpocket costs for the three standards of living described in this publication, and applied to a family consisting of a husband, age 38, who was employed full-time, his wife who was not em ployed outside the home, a boy 13, and a girl 8 years of age. The cost of the lower budget was 35 percent below, while the higher budget was 44 percent above, the moderate standard. The budget totals assume that the source of the fam ily’ s income is full-tim e employment of the family head. Since deductions for social security payments and disability insurance (where required by law) are made at a constant rate on all taxable earnings below $6,600 (atthe time the budgets were priced), they constitute a declining proportion of total income require ments as the level of the budget rises. Deduc tions for personal taxes, on the other hand, reflect the progressive rate structure of the Federal, and most State, tax laws. Distributions of costs, by major components of the budgets, are shown in tabulation on p. 6. Total budget costs include the components of family consumption—food, housing, transporta tion, clothing, personal care, medical care, reading, recreation , etc. In addition to these items consumed directly by a family, the total budgets also include allowances for gifts and contributions, life insurance, personal income and social security taxes, and occupational ex penses. Hence, the total budget costs are essen tially estimates of the gross incomes required to maintain the living standards described by the lists of goods and services included in the budgets. Costs for Renters and Owners The living arrangement in the lower standard was limited to rental housing only, the prevalent pattern at the lower end of the consumption scale. In the moderate and higher standards, on the other hand, the budgets represent weighted aver age costs for renter and homeowner fam ilies, g/ since homeowner ship is typical of the manner of living for the majority of fam ilies with chil dren. However, costs for homeowners and renters also are shown separately for these two standards (see table 1, p. 15 ), as a convenience to budget_users. At the moderate standard, total budget costs were about $800 higher for homeowner than for renter fam ilies. At the higher standard, this owner-renter differential was narrowed to ap proximately $600. H o w e v e r , homeownership costs include both mortage interest and prin cipal payments, and p r i n c i p a l payments constitute an element of “ savings” 5/ Table 1 shows annual costs, at spring 1967 prices, of a lower, moderate, and higher budget for urban United States, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 39 individual metropoli tan areas, and 4 nonmetropolitan areas. (See p. 15 .) Costs of the moderate budget only at autumn 1966 prices (averaging $9,191 in urban areas), were published in BLS Bulletin 1570-1. The spring 1967 estimate for this standard excludes the cigarette allowance and reflects differences in pricing procedures in the trans portation and recreation components. If these changes had been incorporated in the autumn 1966 estimates, the budget would have averaged $9,048 in urban areas. Hence the cost of the moderate standard increased 0.3 percent over the 6-month period. 6/ In the moderate standard, costs for homeowner fam ilies constitute 75 percent, and those for renters 25 percent, of the weighted average costs of shelter for urban United States and each individual area. In the higher standard the weights were 85 and 15 percent for homeowners and renters, respectively. 5 6 Summary and D is trib u tio n of Budget Costs for- 3 Livin g Standards, bv Ma.lor Components: Urban United S ta te s, Spring 1967 Costs Percent Lower standard Moderate 1 standard $5,915 *9,076 Total family consumption--------Pood-------------------------------------Housing--------------------------------Transportation--------------------Clothing and personal careMedical care-----------------------Other family consumption---- 4,862 1,644 1,303 446 7 ,2 2 1 2,105 2,230 3,340 Total budget Higher standard *13,050 d is t r ib u t io n Lower 1 Moderate I Higher standard | standard |1 standard 100.0 100.0 100.0 9,963 82.2 79.5 76.3 2,586 27.9 23.2 22.0 24.6 9.6 19 .8 25.6 8.6 872 1,127 7.3 J00 985 1,446 10.8 kjh 477 3.3 ll.l 3.8 295 552 497 967 11.8 8.0 5.0 6.0 7.^ Other costs---- --------------------------Gifts and contributions-----Personal l i f e insurance------ 265 410 250 160 730 490 240 4.5 2.5 4.6 145 120 5.6 3.8 2.0 2.8 1 .8 Occupational expenses-------------- 50 80 85 0.8 0.9 0.7 738 1,365 2,272 12 .5 1 5 .O 17.4 265 473 303 303 1,969 4.5 3.3 1,062 8.0 11 .7 2.3 15.1 Taxes--------Social security and d is a b ilit y ----------------------------Personal income------------------- not included in the budget for renter fam ilies. Such payments averaged approximately $455 in the moderate, and $540 in the higher budget. The additional income required to cover these pay ments also results in higher personal taxes for homeowner fam ilies, despite the fact that their mortgage interest p a y m e n t s are tax de ductible. 7/ Consumption costs At the lower standard, fam ily consumption items required an average annual outlay of $4,862 to meet the requirements for physical health and social well-being of fam ily members, the 7/ At the level of the moderate standard, few fam ilies of the type represented by the budget claim contributions, interest, and other eligible deductions over the standard deduction. Although such claims are more common at the level of the higher standard, it was not feasible to calculate taxes for each individual area except on the basis of assuming that standard deductions were claimed in all cases. 1 .8 nurture of children, and participation in com munity activities. Maintenance of these same general goals or objectives required $7,221 an nually at the moderate, and $9,963 at the higher standard, or 49 and 105 percent, respectively, above consumption costs in the lower budget. The three different levels of cost result from d iffer ences in the manner or style of life specified for the family, together with minor variations in the quantities and a wide range in the qualities of items purchased at each standard. In the lower budget, maintenance of the fam ily ’ s physical health required 34 percent of the cost of family consumption for the purchase of a nutritionally adequate diet, and an additional 10 percent for medical care—including a fam ily membership in a group hospital and surgical insurance plan. In the moderate standard, ade quate food and medical care require only 29 and 7 percent, respectively, of total fam ily consump tion. At the higher standard, food accounts for only 26 percent, and medical care just 5 percent of the total, even though in addition to meeting requirements for health, this standard permits greater choice and variety in diet and includes broader health insurance coverage. URBAN FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS Spring 1967 WHERE THE DOLLAR GOES Urban United States 8 Housing (including shelter, heat, utilities, household operations, and housefurnishings) in the lower budget requires about a fourth of total consumption and covers the costs of dwellings that are adequate for the fam ily’ s space require ments, condition of the unit, and plumbing facil ities, etc. In the higher standard, a third of the total is allocated for units that are not only ade quate but may also provide many extra facilities. (Housing in the moderate standard requires al most a third of total consumption.) Even more significant than the variation in the quality of the dwelling units at each standard, however, is the limitation of the lower budget to rental housing costs. At the moderate and higher levels the costs reflect the more typical manner of living for fam ilies of this type, in which the majority are mak ing mortgage payments on homes they purchased about 7 years ago. Transportation also requires a relatively smaller proportion of consumption costs in the lower than in the moderate and higher standards, prim arily because the use of a much older car for home-to-work and other travel in the lower budget and, in the larger metropolitan areas, higher proportions of fam ilies who do not own a car and, hence, use public transportation exclusively. Components of consumption Consumption pattern of the average budget-type fam ily, 1960-61 Only clothing and personal care needs result in proportionately sim ilar costs at the three levels of living. The kinds of items neededcoats, suits, dresses, haircuts, and toothpaste — do not vary among the standards, and differences in dollar costs result from d i f f e r e n c e s in quantities and qualities purchased. The r e mainder of fam ily consumption—reading, recrea tion, education, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and miscellaneous expenses— account for only 6 percent of the lower, but 8 and 10 percent r e spectively of the moderate and higher budget, These distributions of the budget costs for fam ily consumption do not reflect the way in which average fam ilies of the budget-type actu ally spend their money, or the way in which fam ilies should spend their money. The following tabulation compares the actual spending pattern of the average family of this type, as reported in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, with the budget allowances for consumption. The comparison clearly illustrates that fam ilies with consumption funds equivalent to the cost of the lower budget will have to allocate their Distribution of 1967 costs of budget allow ances fo r family consumption: 1/ Lower standard Moderate standard Higher standard T o ta l------------------------------------- $7,655 $4,862 $7,221 $9,963 Percent d is t r ib u t io n ---------- 100 100 100 Pood------------------------------- 24 34 100 26 Housing-------------------------- 33 2/ 13 27 9 29 31 Medical ca re ----------------- 13 6 Other fam ily con sumption--------------------- .11 6 T ran spo rtatio n --------- - C loth ing and personal c a re ----------------------- — 34 12 11 14 14 14 10 6 3 8 10 1/ D istrib u tio n s adjusted to add to 100 2/ Principal payments, which in surveys of consumer expenditures are c la s s ifie d as de creases in l i a b i l i t i e s , are included here as cash outlays fo r liv in g expenses fo r compara b i li t y with budget allowances fo r housing. 9 resources in a manner substantially different from the average family of this type, if the re quirements for physical health and social w ell being as specified for the lower budget are to be met. Families with funds equivalent to the higher standard, on the other hand, will approximate the average spending pattern in fulfilling their needs. The USDA moderate-cost plan, used in the moderate budget, is considered suitable for the average U,S. family. It includes larger quan tities of milk, eggs, meat, fruits, and vegetables than the low-cost plan. It allows for some of the higher priced cuts of meat, a few out-of-season foods, and some convenience foods, Thus, it provides for more variety and less home p re paration than the low-cost plan. Food At spring 1967 prices, U.S. urban costs of this component, including both food-at-home and away from home, averaged $1,644, $2,105 and $2,586 in the lower, moderate, and higher budg ets respectively. Food away from home—lunches at school and work, restaurant dinners, and snacks—amounted to 18 percent of the total food costs in the higher budget, 16 percent in the moderate, and 13 percent in the lower. The U.S. Department of Agriculture food plans, on which the food-at-home c o s t s are based, take into account both the nutritional allowances recommended by the National Re search Council and the consumption patterns of the families for whom the plans are setup. Costs for food at home in the lower budget were based on the USDA low-cost food plan, which has been used widely to estimate money allowances for food in public assistance programs. Compared with the moderate and liberal plans, the lowcost plan has larger quantities of foods that pro vide high nutritional returns for costs—potatoes, dry beans and peas, and flour and cereal—and smaller quantities of meat, poultry and fish, and fruits and vegetables other than potatoes. It is as sumed that users of this plan will select lower cost food items within the major groups. Although fam ilies can achieve nutritional adequacy from the low-cost plan, it has been estimated that only about a fourth of those who spend amounts equivalent to the cost of the plan actually have nutritionally adequate diets. 8/ Menus based on this plan will include foods r e quiring a considerable amount of home prepara tion, as well as skill in cooking to make varied and appetizing meals. 9/ 334-641 0 - 69 - 2 The higher budget uses the USDA liberal plan, which allows greater variety, more meats, and more fruits and vegetables than the other two. Its higher cost, compared with the moderate plan, results from different quantities of foods, but mainly from more expensive choices within the groups. 10/ 8/ Based on nonfarm households which used foods valued at the cost of the plan providing recommended amounts of eight nutrients, as reported in the 1955 USDA Household Food Consumption Survey. 9/ The USDA has compiled two other food plans which maintain nutritional adequacy but are lower in cost than the regular low-cost plan, namely: an economy plan, designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low, and costing 20 to 25 percent less than the low-cost plan; and a special version of the lowcost plan which includes quantities of grain products suitable for fam ilies who are high consumers of cereal products. The latter plan may be particularly useful for fam ilies in the Southeastern States. However, considering the relatively low proportions of fam ilies who actually achieve nutritional adequacy with the regular low-cost plan, it was deemed unrealistic to utilize either of the cheaper plans for the BLS lower budget. This decision conforms with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research. (See appendix D, Technical Reference No. 9). 10/ A description of the plans may be found in: Family Food Plans and Food Costs (Home Economic Research Report No. 20, November 1962) and Family Food Plans, Revised 1964 (CA 62-19, November 1964) Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 10 In addition to variations in costs resulting from differences in the allowances in the three USDA plans, variations also stemmed from the prices used to calculate the cost of the plans. These weighted prices reflected not only r e gional differences in food preference patterns, but also variations in those patterns at three selected income levels within each region, as reported in the USDA 1965 Food Consumption Survey. As a result of the quantity and price differences, the U.S. urban cost of food (as suming all meals at home) on a weekly basis averaged $29 in the lower budget for a 4person family. It was 24 percent higher ($36) for the moderate, and 52 percent greater ($44) for the higher budget. The cost of food away from home differed among the three budgets not only because of dif ferences in the number of lunches at work, restaurant dinners, and the size of the snack allowance (see appendix table A - l), but also because of variations in the menus and prices of restaurant meals. Thus, food away from home in the lower budget had an average U.S. urban annual cost of $217, in contrast to $326 in the moderate, and $472 in the higher budget. The average total cost of urban food in the lower budget equaled 100, and was exceeded by 28 percent in the moderate budget and 57 percent in the higher budget. In spite of the cost d iffer ences at the the three budget levels, food was only 26 percent of total consumption costs in the higher budget; it was 34 percent in the lower. Housing U.S. urban average housingcosts ranged from $1,303 at the lower standard to $3,340 at the higher, or from about 40 percent below to 50 per cent above the m o d e r a t e budget average of $2,230, at spring 1967 prices. Household opera tion costs and an allowance for the replacement of housefurnishings items accounted for 22 p er cent of the housing component in the lower and moderate budgets and 28 percent in the higher budget. Shelter— the major expense in the hous ing total—required an average annual outlay of $1,013, in the lower standard, where the man ner of living was limited to rental housing, and $1,745 and $2,308 in the moderate and higher budgets, respectively, where the amounts are weighted average costs for renter and home owner families. The housing total in the higher budget also includes and allowance for lodging away from home. Only 15 percent of fam ilies at the higher standard and 25 percent of those at the moderate were assumed to live in rental housing. Rental shelter costs, including contract rent plus esti mated costs of fuel and utilities where these are not part of the rent, and insurance on household contents were calculated from the low, middle, and high thirds of the contract rent distribution for units which met the standards for adequacy. Costs for units in the low third, used for the lower budget, averaged 20 percent below those in the middle third (used in the moderate budget), whereas costs in the higher budget were 50 p er cent above the moderate level. The majority of families at moderate and higher standards were assumed to be homeown ers, and their shelter includes average annual mortgage interest and principal payments, taxes, insurance, fuel, utilities, and repair and main tenance costs. These expenses in the higher standard were 25 percent above the moderate level, due to quality differences in the houses purchased about 7 years ago, at an average price of approximately $14,450 and $20,000 in the moderate and higher standards respectively. Shelter in the higher budget also includes larger utilities allowances for the operation of air con ditioning and major appliances. Since principal payments build equity, they can be considered a form of savings rather than outright consumption. Such payments amounted to approximately a fourth of homeowner shelter costs in both the moderate and higher budgets, averaging $456 and $541 respectively. When mortgage payments are limited to interest charges only, total shelter costs for homeowner fam ilies averaged less than those for renters in metropolitant areas at the higher standard. Costs 11 remained higher for homeowner families, how ever, at the moderate level in large cities and at both standards in small cities, as indicated in the tabulation shown below. Transportation costs The cost of transportation in urban areas ranged from $446 at a lower living standard to $1,127 at the higher standard. Lower standard costs were about 50 percent less, and higher standard costs 30 percent more than the mod erate standard. These differences result largely from the proportions of automobile ownership specified for each budget. For example, in the lower standard, one-half the families in the Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas were assumed to own auto mobiles, whereas in the moderate and higher budgets for these cities auto ownership was specified for 80 and 100 percent of the families, respectively. Similarly, in the moderate stand ard 95 percent of the fam ilies in Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C., and 100 percent in all other metropolitan areas were assumed to be car owners; but in the lower budget, two-thirds, and in the higher budget all fam ilies owned automobiles. A car was consi dered a necessity for all fam ilies in nonmetro politan areas, regardless of standard. Total transportation is a weighted cost for automo bile owners and nonowners, and budgets with lower proportions of ownership are the less costly. Transportation costs for automobile owners in the moderate budget averaged $919. This amount included the replacement of an automo bile every four years with a 2-year old used car, operating expenses, insurance, and some public transportation. Costs for auto owners at the lower and higher standards were one-third below Shelter Costs in 3 Budgets, Spring 1567 Renter-owner ratios (Renter costs = 100) Homeowner fam ilies Living standard Renter fam ilies Including principal payments Excluding principal payments Homeowner costs Including principal payments Excluding principal payments U.S. urban average: Lowe r ------------- - <pl , UJ.J &_____ $ *p Moderate------------- 1 . 2 7 1 1,903 1,447 150 114 Higher---------------- 1 . 9 3 4 2,374 1,833 123 95 Metropolitan areas: Lowe r — -------------- 1J. , Woiii +l Moderate------------- 1 , 3 1 6 1 , 9 8 7 1 , 5 0 6 151 115 Higher---------------- 2 ,06 6 2 , 4 7 5 1 , 9 0 6 120 92 Nonmetropolitan areas: Low er---— - - - - - - QQq OOy Moderate------------- 1 , 0 7 2 1,526 1 , 1 8 2 142 110 Higher--------------- 1 . 3 4 5 1.919 1 . 5 1 0 143 112 12 and one-fourth above the cost of the moderate standard. Compared with the moderate, the lower budget (averaging $607) includes a smaller mileage allowance for an 8-year old car, fewer repairs, (since cars of this age usually are r e placed if costly repairs are required), no com prehensive insurance, lower personal property tax, and no out-of-town travel on planes, trains, or other public vehicles. Higher costs ($1,127) to car owners in the more liberal standard result from the specification that 60 percent of the fam ilies are new car buyers, and the remaining 40 percent buy the same car (2-year old used) as the one provided in the moderate standard. Also, the insurance coverage has been increased, and more out-of-town travel provided. Public transportation for fam ilies without automobilies averaged $107 in the lower stand ard, or almost one-third lower than the $152 cost of the moderate budget at spring 1967 prices. This difference is attributed to an out-of-town travel allowance in the moderate standard which was not included in the lower standard. years in metropolitan areas. The car in the lower standard was replaced every 4.0 years in all areas. 11/ Clothing and Personal Total clothing costs (replacement of the clothing inventory and materials and services) averaged $538, $767, and $1,139 in the lower, moderate, and higher budgets respectively, at Spring 1967 prices. Men’ s clothing cost more than women’ s in the lower standard, but the r e lationship was reversed in the moderate and higher standards, sim ilar to the pattern in actual expenditures for members of budget-type fam ilies as reported in surveys of fam ily consump tion. Clothing for the boy—at the beginning of his teen years—was relatively more costly in the three standards than were the replacement needs for a younger age girl. However, the differential decreased from 29 percent in the lower, to 10 and 6 percent in the moderate and higher budgets respectively. Since about four-fifths of the budget-type fam ilies live in metropolitan areas, their costs are not significantly different from the averages fo r all urban fam ilies of this type. In nonmetro politan areas, 18 percent of the urban weight, all families are assumed to be car owners, be cause public transportation is not as readily available as in the larger cities. Differences among the three budget standards in the nonme tropolitan regions are attributed to different mileage allowances at each budget level, and al lowances for comprehensive insurance, and some out-of-town travel expense by families in the moderate and higher standards. Clothing costs are calculated as replacement rates, because the budgets are for established fam ilies with members in age brackets likely to have a stock of basic clothing items. The cate gories of items for replacement— coats, sweat ers, pajamas, street shoes— were the same in the 3 standards. Variations in costs stem prim arily from differences in the qualities of items, as reflected in average price levels used for each standard, and to a lesser extent from adjust ment of the replacement rates for some of the clothing subgroups. In consequence, the lower cost was 30 percent below, and the higher about Costs in the smaller cities were $563 in the lower, $941 in the moderate, and $1,139 in the higher budget— these were lower than metro politan area costs prim arily because of cheaper liability insurance rates in the less congested nonmetropolitan areas. This rate difference was sufficient to offset a higher mileage allowance in nonmetropolitan areas, and, in the moderate and higher standards, a higher automobile replace ment rate, every 3.4 years compared with 4.1 11/ Because of procedural changes in deter mining the net purchase price for automobiles, the October 1966 U.S. urban average transporta tion cost to automobile owners, published as $860 in Bulletin 1570-1, was revised to $911. Total transportation costs (the weighted average for automobile owners and nonowners) published as $815, was revised to $864. The revised estimates were used to measure the increase in costs over the 6-month period. 13 50 percent above, the moderate budget. Allow ances for the husband and boy required a declin ing proportion of the total clothing budget as the standard was raised, while allowances for the wife and for such clothing services as dry clean ing, shoe repairs, etc. for all family members accounted for a relatively larger share of the total costs. Personal care constituted just about 3 percent of total family consumption at the 3 budget levels, but costs ranged from $162 in the lower to $307 in the higher standard. Personal care services represented 38 percent of this component at the lower standard, and 48 and 52 percent at mod erate and higher levels, respectively, prim arily because of increases in the allowances for beauty shop services for the wife. The lower standard cost was one-fourth less than the moderate, whereas the higher standard was about 40 per cent more than the moderate standard. If all families had paid the full cost of their health insurance, the total cost of medical care in the three budgets would have increased about 30 percent. However, employers contribute some or all of the cost of group health insurance in the majority of cases, and therefore, to calculate total medical care costs for the budgets, the in surance costs were weighted to reflect the esti mated proportions of families who paid all, part, or none of their insurance premiums. On this basis, the weighted insurance costs constitute 20 to 23 percent of the medical component., Although the difference in medical care costs averaged only about $25 between the lower and higher standards, fam ilies at the llower level had to allocate 10 percent of their family con sumption to maintain the standard. For families at the moderate and higher levels, only 7 and 5 percent, respectively, of total consumption was used for this purpose. Medical care Other Consumption Costs U.S. urban costs of total medical care were almost identical in the lower and moderate budgets, $474 and $477 respectively, since basi cally the same allowances were used for both standards. In actual practice, expenditures for medical care are lower at lower income levels, because many of these fam ilies either defer needed treatment or receive it in free clinics. However, as a desirable goal or norm for a self-supporting family, it was considered essen tial to specify group hospital and surgical insurance coverage for both the lower and moderate standards, in accord with the prac tice of over 75 percent of the population under 65 years of age. Other items in the medical care component—physician’ s visits, dental and eye care, drugs—were based prim arily on utilization data which reflected the average condition of health of individuals in the same age-sex cate gories as the budget family members. Hence, there was no reason to vary these allowances either in the lower and moderate, or in the higher standard. The higher budget included a major medical insurance policy, supplementing the hospital-surgical coverage and raising the aver age U.S. urban insurance cost from $226 to $262. Allowances for reading and education con sumed about a third of other consumption costs at the lower standard but only half this propor tion—although actual dollars costs were almost double—at the higher standard. Recreation, on the other hand, accounted for barely a third of other consumption in the lower budget, but almost half in the moderate, and more than half in the higher budget. Allowances in the lower standard assum ed that fam ilies would meet some of their recrea tional needs by utilizing library and museum facilities, and by participation in community—or group-sponsored activities or sporting events for which there was no fee. Allowances for alcohol and tobacco (cigars or pipes) also are included as part of other con sumption costs in all three budgets, in accor dance with prevailing practices in this country. An allowance for cigarettes was eliminated, how ever, in view of the findings of the U.S. Public Health Service concerning the effects of ciga rette smoking on health. Costs for these items ranged from about $75 in the lower, to $115 in the higher, standard. 14 A Note on Budget Costs and Rising Prices Rising retail prices since spring 1967 have increased the consumption costs for all three budgets. A rough approximation of the fall 1968 costs of fam ily consumption in the three budgets has been calculated (as shown below), using price changes as reported in the Consumer P rice Index for appropriate classes of goods and serv ices. Between spring 1967 and autumn 1968, the Consumer P rice Index increased 6.6 percent; the cost of family consumption increased 6.0 per cent in the lower standard budget, and 5.7 per cent in both the moderate and higher standard budgets. Spring Lover Standard Autumn 1968 1967 P o o d - - - - - - - - -------- ------------ --• $1,6U4 $1,744 Housing— - — ------------------------ 1,503 446 1,356 468 700 474 295 758 517 3 11 4,862 5,15** T ran spo rtatio n — ----------------C loth ing and p erso n al care Medical c a r e ------- --------------Other fam ily consumption-T otal fam ily consumptlon- Moderate Standard Spring 1967 Autumn 1968 $2,235 2,311 Food— — — — — — — — — Housing-------- -------------------------Tran sportation — ----------------- $2,105 Clothing and p erso n al care Medical c a r e -----------------------Other fam ily consumption— 985 477 552 1,069 Total fam ily consumption— 7,221 7.629 2,230 872 912 520 582 Higher Standard Spring 1967 Food— - — ------------------------------ $2,586 Housin g--— ------— -------------T ransportation--------------------- 3,3*10 1,127 1.4U6 Autumn 1968 $2,747 3,471 Medical c are-----------------------Other fam ily consumption— 497 1,179 1,572 542 967 1,022 Total fam ily consumption— 9,963 10,533 C loth ing and perso n al care 15 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family JL/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 Total U r b a _n_____ U n i t e d _____ S t a t e s Metropolitan areas 2/ Nonmetropolitan areas 3/ Item Lower Moderate Higher $2,634 2,127 507 3,464 3,115 3,525 2,414 2,066 2,475 537 403 1.124 1.124 $1,550 1,369 181 1.179 1,151 259 322 230 216 124 311 511 269 97 298 997 97 557 67 504 134 1,088 270 286 214 208 110 286 432 230 70 263 832 60 465 50 23 93 141 4.591 4.591 6,635 6,294 6,748 8,941 8,453 9,027 742 502 240 85 257 137 389 229 160 80 680 440 240 85 305 1,092 968 1,134 305 2,043 1,922 2,064 247 293 925 843 953 293 1,641 1,484 1,669 9,243 8,616 9,453 13,367 12,897 13,449 8,322 7,899 8,463 11,640 10,995 11,754 4.923 4.923 7,352 6,849 7,520 10,192 9,843 10,253 265 145 120 50 410 250 160 80 730 490 240 85 267 147 414 254 160 80 265 473 473 303 1,062 945 1,101 303 1,969 1,842 1,992 269 485 485 5,915 5,915 9,076 8,485 9,273 13,050 12,549 13,139 5.994 5.994 1,139 261 315 227 215 121 307 497 262 92 292 967 90 540 64 23 93 157 139 151 420 617 131 546 139 119 134 106 48 168 488 232 97 292 306 55 98 47 13 59 34 120 50 Highet 718 181 171 167 133 66 203 415 197 70 260 476 42 235 35 16 69 79 9,963 9,589 10,029 137 153 446 607 107 538 138 118 132 102 48 162 474 226 92 285 295 51 93 44 13 60 34 1.041 1.041 Moderate $2,375 2,059 316 2,789 2,301 2,875 1,833 1,345 1,919 504 412 1,139 1,139 7,221 6,747 7,379 1,013 1,013 $1,664 1,439 225 1.331 1.331 Lower $1,973 1,717 256 1,909 1,568 2,022 1,413 1,072 1,526 260 236 941 941 $2,135 1,793 342 2,302 1,799 2,470 1,819 1,316 1,987 270 213 856 914 192 777 176 194 172 161 74 4,862 4,862 Cost of family consumption: Total 12, Renter families------------------Homeowner families----------- -— — See footnotes at end of table. Lower $2,586 2,114 472 3,340 2,966 3,406 2,308 1,934 2,374 531 404 1,127 1,127 $1,644 1,427 217 1,303 1,303 Cost of budget: Total 12/--------Renter families------------------Homeowner families----- ---— — — - Higher $2,105 1,779 326 2,230 1,756 2,388 1,745 1,271 1,903 268 217 872 919 157 767 177 190 171 156 73 218 477 226 92 289 552 66 258 55 15 72 86 Food------------------------------Food at home------- -----------— Food away from home-- ----------Housing: Total 4/----------------Renter families 4/---------------Homeowner families 4/------------Shelter 5/------ ---------------Rental costs 6/-------------Homeowner costs Tj ----------Housefurnishings---------------Household operations-----------Transportation: Total 8/---------Automobile owners--------------Nonowners of automobiles-------Clothing--------------------------Husband------------------------ Wife............................ Boy----------------------------Girl............................ Clothing materials and services— Personal care---------------------Medical care: Total 9J-----------Insurance-------------------- -— Physician's visits-------------Other medical care-------------Other family consumption--------- -Reading---------- --------------Recreation 10/-----------------Education----------------------Tobacco 11/--------------------Alcoholic beverages------------Miscellaneous expenses--— --— Other costs-----------------------Gifts and contributions--------Life insurance— --------------- — Occupational expenses-------------Social security and disability payments-----— Personal taxes: Total 12/--- — ---Renter families------------------ Homeowner families---------------- Moderate 221 491 232 97 295 570 72 263 60 15 73 87 22 93 161 1.179 889 889 129 161 563 563 111 123 88 48 139 412 197 70 257 244 32 73 31 14 62 32 120 50 419 419 5.564 5.564 16 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967--Continued Item Lower Boston Mass. Moderate Higher Lower $2,272 1,953 319 2,728 1,890 3,007 2,235 1,397 2,514 265 228 869 1,034 208 764 175 192 159 169 69 214 476 259 93 272 577 73 255 60 16 79 94 $2,755 2,272 483 4,123 3,167 4,292 3,020 2,064 3,189 542 451 1,248 1,248 $1,690 1,461 229 1,308 1,308 Food----------------------------------Food at home----------------------Food away from home-------- ------ -Housing: Total 4/---------------------Renter families 4/--------------- -— Homeowner families 4/---------------Shelter 5/------------------------Rental costs 6/----------------Homeowner costs 7/-— --- — -- — — Housefurnishings------------------Household operations-------------- Transportation: Total 8/--------------Automobile owners— — --- -------- — Nonowner8 of automobiles----------Clothing------------------------------Husband--------------------------Wife.............................. BOy-------------- ------- -- --- -Girl.............................. Clothing materials and services----Personal care-------------------- -----Medical care: Total 9/---------------- Insurance----------------------- -— Physician's visits----------------Other medical care----------------Other family consumption---------------Reading---------------------------Recreation 10/--------------------Education-------------------------Tobacco 11/--- -- ------ — — ---- — Alcoholic beverages— ---- ------- -Miscellaneous expenses------------- $1,722 1,509 213 1,465 1,465 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/--Renter families---------------------Homeowner families---------------- -- 5,103 5,103 7,900 7,062 8,179 11,061 10,105 11,230 Other costs-------------------------- Gifts and contributions--------— — Life insurance— — — — — — — ------Occupational expenses— --- ------ --- -Social security and disability payments— Personal taxes: Total 12/----------- — Renter families--------------------Homeowner families----------------- - 272 152 120 50 275 551 551 433 273 160 80 290 1,270 1,060 1,340 784 544 240 85 290 2,348 2,037 2,403 Cost of budget: Total 12/------------Renter families-- ------ --- -— — — — Homeowner families------------------ 6,251 6,251 9,973 8,925 10,322 See footnotes at end of table. — 1,162 1,162 ------- 139 164 426 704 147 541 138 119 122 115 47 164 473 259 93 269 312 56 96 47 14 64 35 1,123 251 321 218 219 114 303 496 296 93 276 1,013 98 551 67 26 97 174 14,568 13,301 14,791 Buffalo, N.Y. Moderate N o r t h e a s t Hartford, Conn. Higher Lower Moderate $2,188 1,855 333 2,382 1,769 2,587 1,892 1,279 2,097 272 218 929 929 202 812 172 218 166 184 72 222 467 233 90 276 568 73 255 60 17 73 90 $2,641 2,157 484 3,454 2,841 3,563 2,359 1,745 2,467 564 422 1,122 1,122 4,961 4,961 7,568 6,955 7,773 10,219 9,606 10,328 268 148 120 50 283 521 521 422 262 160 80 306 1,248 1,079 1,304 743 503 240 85 306 2,326 2,075 2,370 6,083 6,083 9,624 8,842 9,885 1,010 1,010 141 157 460 631 142 569 137 134 126 124 48 169 463 233 90 273 302 57 94 47 15 55 34 1,204 258 363 228 237 118 311 485 268 90 279 1,002 99 552 67 27 96 161 13,679 12,815 13,832 $1,774 1,538 236 1,510 1,510 Higher $2,335 1,958 377 2,551 1,969 2,745 2,093 1,511 2,287 262 196 958 958 204 802 178 189 179 173 83 229 487 203 112 288 581 73 260 60 17 77 94 $2,874 2,282 592 3,687 3,074 3,795 2,637 2,024 2,745 533 407 1,155 1,155 5,297 5,297‘ 7,943 7,361 8,137 10,759 10,146 10,867 278 158 120 50 283 514 514 435 275 160 80 290 1,085 966 1,125 769 529 240 85 290 1,911 1,739 1,942 6,422 6,422 9,833 9,132 10,067 1,228 1,228 138 144 464 636 144 573 141 117 136 123 56 174 483 203 112 284 319 56 101 47 16 62 37 1,189 264 318 247 226 134 316 505 236 112 292 1,033 98 575 67 28 96 169 13,814 13,029 13,953 Lancaster, Pa. Moderate Lower $1,714 1,502 212 1,224 1,224 Higher $2,254 1,913 341 2,068 1,661 2,204 1,627 1,220 1,763 249 192 845 845 186 762 171 182 157 175 77 211 422 167 69 280 585 63 286 60 16 75 85 $2,742 2,225 517 3,046 2,619 3,121 2,058 1,631 2,133 505 373 1,046 1,046 4,765 4,765 7,147 6,740 7,283 9,734 9,307 9,809 262 142 120 50 256 490 490 407 247 160 80 290 1,036 946 1,066 5,823 5,823 8,960 8,463 9,126 952 952 131 141 398 545 125 544 136 113 121 122 52 164 419 167 69 278 302 46 102 47 14 60 33 New Yo rk-Northeastern Ne Jersey Lower Moderate Higher $1,758 1,518 240 1,238 1,238 $2,330 1,935 395 2,637 1,800 2,916 2,161 1,324 2,440 269 207 771 923 159 803 184 196 180 175 68 221 512 221 122 295 583 75 264 60 17 74 93 $2,845 2,250 595 4,052 3,576 4,137 2,937 2,461 3,022 588 417 1,122 1,122 4,919 4,919 7,857 7,020 8,136 11,091 10,615 11,176 719 479 240 85 290 1,782 1,655 1,805 267 147 120 50 282 503 503 432 272 160 80 308 1,300 1,071 1,377 736 546 240 85 308 2,598 2,407 2,632 12,610 12,056 12,708 6,021 6,021 9,977 8,911 10,333 14,868 14,201 14,987 1,133 251 306 217 229 130 297 439 199 69 284 1,031 89 602 67 25 95 153 949 949 140 149 370 641 99 567 146 120 138 118 45 165 510 221 122 292 311 58 102 47 15 55 34 1,190 273 327 249 229 112 319 531 261 122 297 1,032 101 565 67 27 97 175 17 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4- Person Family JL/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 - Continued _N_ Item Lower Food----- — -------- ------— -— — — Food at home------- ---------Food away from home----------Housing: Total 4/----------------Renter families 4/-------------Homeowner families 4/----------Shelter 5/------------------- Rental costs 6/-----------Homeowner costs 7/--------Housefurnishings-------------Household operations---------Transportation: Total 8/---------Automobile owners— -----------Nonowners of automobiles— ---Clothing— ---------- ------— -Husband------------ — --------Wife........................ — Boy--------------------Girl-....... ----------------Clothing materials and services Personal care----------------------Medical care: Total 9J-----------Insurance------------------- -Physician's visits-----------Other medical care----- ---- — Other family consumption--- ------ — Reading----------------------Recreation 10/---------------Education--------------------Tobacco 11/-------------------Alcoholic beverages----------Miscellaneous expenses-------Cost of family consumption: Total 12/........... . Renter families--------Homeowner families-----Other costs; -----------------Gifts and contributions--Life insurance----------Occupational expenses---- ----■ Social security and disability payments--------------Personal taxes: Total 12/---Renter families--------- — Homeowner families-- -----Cost of budget: Total 12/--------Renter families----------------Homeowner families------------ -- See footnotes at end of table, $1,740 1,510 230 1,188 1,188 902 902 145 141 395 640 149 554 136 117 135 117 49 164 463 255 83 270 301 56 90 47 16 59 33 4.805 4.805 263 143 120 50 263 517 517 5,898 Philadelphia, Pa. - N.J. Moderate _ Higher $2,264 1,917 347 2,140 1,548 2,337 1,662 1,070 1,859 275 203 788 932 $2,750 2.229 521 3,253 3,394 3.229 2,190 2,331 2,166 560 393 1.129 1.129 212 777 171 190 175 168 73 215 467 255 83 274 562 73 250 60 17 76 1,154 256 318 243 219 118 301 485 290 83 278 1,001 Lower $1,671 1,433 238 1.197 1.197 921 921 133 143 436 579 169 538 134 117 125 112 50 167 456 248 81 268 308 60 95 47 14 59 33 o r t Pittsburgh, Pa. Moderate $2,169 1,820 349 1,963 1,562 2,097 1,505 1,104 1,639 253 205 846 878 229 760 168 190 165 162 75 220 459 248 81 271 565 77 254 60 16 75 83 _h_ e a s t Portland! Higher $2,641 2,128 513 3,046 2,537 3,136 2,023 1,514 2,113 511 402 1.077 1.077 1,122 245 319 226 207 125 307 479 284 81 275 1,003 102 Lower $ 1,668 1,458 210 1.303 1.303 998 998 138 167 405 551 134 604 146 143 122 140 53 153 472 268 98 259 325 65 96 47 15 Maine_____ Moderate Higher Nonmetropolitan areas_____ Moderate Lower $2,229 1,919 310 2,199 1,675 2,373 1,703 1,179 1,877 268 228 884 884 194 861 185 231 160 206 79 202 475 268 98 263 582 81 259 60 16 78 88 $2,666 1,273 273 386 220 265 129 284 492 297 98 267 1,006 107 559 67 26 91 156 531 134 112 132 102 51 135 444 230 81 264 241 32 77 31 14 54 33 2,237 429 3,089 2,401 3,211 2,043 1,355 2,165 519 417 1.091 1.091 $1,646 1,460 186 1,120 1,120 837 837 132 151 577 577 $2,570 2,194 376 3,088 2,270 3,232 2,116 1,298 2,260 523 409 1.146 1.146 739 178 172 180 143 447 230 81 267 479 43 235 35 16 65 85 1,112 263 290 223 228 108 291 465 265 81 270 855 61 477 50 26 91 150 9,527 8,710 9,672 66 201 86 98 553 67 28 96 159 7,213 6,621 7,410 10,073 10,214 10,049 4.773 4.773 6,982 6,581 7,116 9,675 9,166 9,765 4.930 4.930 7,432 6,908 7,606 9,901 9,213 10,023 4.694 4.694 7,149 6,502 7,365 409 736 496 240 85 294 262 142 716 476 240 85 290 417 257 160 727 487 240 85 290 260 140 iV, 50 257 401 241 160 80 290 267 147 160 80 294 1,083 949 1,128 1,943 1,985 1,935 499 499 .... 1,011 921 1,041 1,785 1,632 1,812 9,079 8,353 9,321 13,131 13,314 13,099 5.841 5.841 8,764 8,273 8,928 12,551 11,889 12,668 249 120 560 67 26 96 152 68 34 120 290 120 50 264 Higher $2,154 1,871 283 2,168 1,521 2,384 1,686 1,039 1,902 259 223 961 961 160 80 303 240 85 303 1,012 1,657 1,464 1,691 435 435 .... 1,042 -- 1,093 1,804 1,534 1,852 5.951 5.951 9,195 8,563 9,405 12,660 11,779 12,816 5.703 5.703 8,981 8,178 9,248 12,428 11,341 12,621 442 442 976 868 886 18 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family I J , Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 - Continued Item Cedar Rapids, [owa Moderate Lower Higher $2,040 1,728 312 2,394 1,989 2,529 1,877 1,472 2,012 278 239 886 886 193 782 186 186 170 161 79 231 445 212 78 277 555 68 258 60 14 68 87 $2,534 2,069 465 3,496 3,145 3,558 2,457 2,106 2,519 507 422 1,081 1,081 5,034 5,034 7,333 6,928 7,468 10,001 9,650 10,063 Other costs---------------------------Gifts and contributions----------Life insurance---- --------------Occupational expenses-----------------Social security and disability payments— Personal taxes: Total 12/-------------Renter families---------------------Homeowner families---------------- -— 270 150 120 50 274 595 595 414 254 160 80 290 1,241 1,135 1,277 732 492 240 85 290 2,199 2,074 Cost of budget: Total 12/-------------Renter families---------------------Homeowner families-------------------- 6,223 6,223 9,358 8,847 9,529 13,307 12,831 13,391 Food---------------------------------- Food at home-— ----- ----- ----- — Food away from home--------------Housing: Total 4/--------------------Renter families 4/-- -- — -— --— --- — Homeowner families 4/----- -------- -Shelter 5/— --------- -----------Rental costs 6/---------------Homeowner costs 7/------------Housefurnishing*-----------------Household operations-------------Transportation: Total 8/--------------Automobile owners-— — — — — — Nonowners of automobiles---------Clothing------------------------------Husband-------------------------Wife........................... — Boy— ----------------------------Girl-............................ Clothing materials and services--Personal care- — -— -— -— --— -— Medical care: Total 9/-------— Insurance----— — --- ---- -- --- ~ Physician's visits— ---------- --Other medical care---------------Other family consumption----------- -— — Reading------------------------ -Recreation 10/-------------------Education-----------------------Tobacco 11/---- -— ------- -- ---Alcoholic beverages--------------Miscellaneous expenses------ ----- $1,627 1,413 214 1,530 1,530 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/-Renter families-— ------------------- Homeowner families------------------- See footnotes at end of table. --- 1,229 1,229 140 161 416 568 133 550 146 115 130 107 52 176 443 212 78 274 292 50 96 47 10 54 35 1,152 272 309 228 214 129 317 463 243 78 281 958 94 534 67 20 85 158 N o r t h Champai gn-Urbana, 111. Lower Moderate Higher $2,090 1,780 310 2,511 2,236 2,602 2,032 1,757 2,123 270 209 846 846 193 769 173 194 160 168 74 216 484 255 87 288 565 56 276 60 15 69 89 $2,601 2,143 458 3,734 3,382 3,796 2,752 2,400 2,814 489 383 1,059 1,059 5,169 5,169 7,481 7,206 7,572 10,301 9,949 10,363 274 154 120 50 275 489 489 419 259 160 80 290 987 930 1,006 6,257 6,257 9,257 8,925 9,367 $1,653 1,446 207 1,6 29 1,629 1,342 1,342 137 150 415 566 133 534 135 118 120 113 48 164 480 255 87 283 294 39 103 47 11 58 36 2,221 C e n i t r ! 1 Cincinnati, OhioChicago, 111.Northwestern. Ind. Cy.-Ind. Lower Moderate Higher Lower Moderate Higher $1,678 1,465 213 1,449 1,449 $2,105 1,783 322 2,555 1,978 2,748 2,080 1,503 2,273 261 214 812 965 201 773 181 190 166 158 78 229 494 255 90 295 566 72 263 60 15 67 89 $2,613 2,139 474 3,665 3,364 3,717 2,603 2,302 2,655 540 412 1,167 1,167 5,046 5,046 7,534 6,957 7,727 10,380 10,079 10,432 747 507 240 85 290 1,776 1,677 1,793 270 150 120 50 269 469 469 421 261 160 80 290 1,009 888 1,049 13,199 12,748 13,278 6,104 6,104 9,334 8,636 9,567 1,132 249 324 215 223 121 301 501 285 87 291 973 82 557 67 20 85 162 1,157 1,157 139 153 408 674 141 542 142 117 126 107 50 177 490 255 90 291 302 55 99 47 11 55 35 $2,059 1,732 327 2,190 1,642 2,373 1,719 1,171 1,902 262 209 859 859 222 766 174 193 169 158 72 195 410 170 79 258 563 76 256 60 14 73 84 $2,566 2,081 485 3,077 2,424 3,192 2,103 1,450 2,218 472 392 1,037 1,037 4,689 4,689 7,042 6,494 7,225 9,475 8,822 9,590 751 511 240 85 290 1,819 1,733 1,834 260 140 120 50 251 452 452 404 244 160 80 290 1,010 884 1,052 706 466 240 85 290 1,727 1,527 1,762 if,325 12,938 13,392 5,702 5,702 8,826 8,152 9,051 12,283 11,430 12,433 1,137 259 318 223 211 126 314 512 291 90 297 972 98 539 67 21 84 163 $1,633 1,413 220 1,227 1,227 953 953 133 141 429 573 162 537 136 119 130 106 46 151 405 170 79 253 307 60 98 47 10 59 33 1,133 257 324 225 210 117 271 427 203 79 260 964 102 535 67 20 91 149 Lower $1,631 1,388 243 1.348 1.348 1.063 1.063 137 148 445 603 151 555 138 122 133 113 49 159 432 257 88 233 306 60 96 47 11 58 34 4.876 4.876 120 50 260 464 464 5.915 5.915 eveland, Ohio Moderate $2,048 1,701 347 2,529 1,745 2,791 2,044 1,260 2,306 258 227 859 893 212 793 176 198 174 168 77 216 436 257 88 237 563 78 255 60 14 68 88 $2,538 2,042 496 3,582 2,749 3,729 2,556 1,723 2,703 500 416 1,087 1,087 7,444 6,660 7,706 10,093 9,260 10,240 417 257 160 80 290 1,031 864 1,087 737 497 240 85 290 1,792 1,551 1,835 9,262 8,311 9,580 12,997 11,923 13,187 1,173 260 330 233 224 126 306 456 294 88 241 951 103 518 67 20 84 159 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 - Continued N o Dayton, Item Lower Moderate Higher 9,743 9,420 9,800 735 495 240 85 290 1,937 1,699 1,979 266 146 120 50 262 492 492 407 247 160 80 290 1,052 969 1,080 719 479 240 85 290 1,895 1,787 1,914 13,111 12,120 13,286 5,957 5,957 8,965 8,540 9,107 270 150 120 50 269 509 509 415 255 160 80 290 1,085 963 1,125 12,944 11,968 13,116 6,124 6,124 9,232 8,593 9,445 12,911 12,698 12,949 5,757 5,757 8,955 8,215 9,201 8,981 8,374 9,183 7,136 6,794 7,250 708 468 240 85 290 2,347 2,047 2,400 400 240 160 80 290 1,254 1,082 1,311 5,873 5,873 8,636 8,314 8,743 4,887 4,887 10,064 9,311 10,197 258 138 120 50 253 558 558 12,392 12,293 12,408 5,796 5,796 $2,572 2,118 454 3,193 2,870 3,250 2,165 1,842 2,222 498 420 1,120 1,120 7,362 6,845 7,535 729 489 240 85 290 1,870 1,820 1,879 408 248 160 80 290 1,033 919 1,071 399 239 160 80 290 962 904 981 1,153 259 324 233 207 130 312 493 317 90 267 996 103 558 67 21 91 156 139 156 417 579 117 536 136 125 122 101 52 156 434 199 72 276 287 55 92 47 11 50 32 1,129 249 337 216 197 130 275 457 232 72 284 947 98 529 67 19 84 150 1,192 1,192 138 158 432 592 136 562 142 120 136 114 50 163 431 241 87 240 309 58 95 47 11 63 35 Kansa:i City, Mo. " K ftS. Moderate Higher Lower $2,088 1,769 319 2,103 1,761 2,217 1,611 1,269 1,725 279 213 925 925 205 771 174 192 177 158 70 232 451 207 84 279 566 72 267 60 15 67 85 5,026 5,026 9,514 8,838 9,633 — ----- 954 954 $1,641 1,429 212 1,488 1,488 Higher $2,575 2,109 466 3,481 2,728 3,614 2,469 1,716 2,602 500 402 1,102 1,102 6,931 6,363 7,120 264 144 120 50 258 454 454 262 142 120 50 255 471 471 141 143 440 603 139 551 140 120 133 106 52 172 468 278 90 259 312 60 99 47 11 61 34 $1,559 1,367 192 1,249 1,249 Indianapolis, .Ind. Moderate Lower $2,069 1,754 315 2,366 1,849 2,539 1,873 1,356 2,046 275 218 912 912 196 789 181 196 178 166 68 217 435 241 87 244 574 75 261 60 14 77 87 4,638 4,638 712 472 240 85 290 1,715 1,692 1,718 9,590 9,514 9,603 945 945 1 r a Green Bay, Wis. Moderate Higher $2,443 2,016 427 3,189 2,513 3,308 2,186 1,510 2,305 513 380 1,074 1,074 9,937 9,774 9,966 6,905 6,641 6,993 1,139 263 333 236 190 117 282 426 202 79 259 971 99 548 67 20 85 151 $1,675 1,446 229 1,229 1,229 t: $1,966 1,684 282 2,127 1,559 2,316 1,652 1,084 1,841 265 210 878 878 180 771 173 204 161 153 80 201 438 199 72 280 550 72 258 60 14 64 82 7,170 6,677 7,334 4,758 4,758 See footnotes at end of table, n Lower 4,847 4,847 $2,502 2,074 428 3,237 3,161 3,250 2,235 2,159 2,248 515 377 1,034 1,034 Cost of budget: Total 12/---------------Renter families-----------------------Homeowner families--------------------- C Higher $2,661 2,130 531 3,227 3,064 3,256 2,177 2,014 2,206 515 425 1,095 1,095 $2,022 1,732 290 2,077 1,813 2,165 1,609 1,345 1,697 266 202 855 855 186 770 179 199 175 145 72 204 409 170 79 256 568 73 270 60 14 69 82 Other costs-------------------------------Gifts and contributions-------------Life insurance----------------------Occupational expenses---------------------Social security and disability payments---Personal taxes: Total 12/---------------Renter families-----------------------Homeowner families--------------------- r t h Detroit, Mich. Moderate $2,138 1,774 364 2,120 1,627 2,284 1,619 1,126 1,783 269 232 855 890 199 785 179 195 174 158 79 226 472 278 90 262 574 77 265 60 15 72 85 Food------------------------------------- $1,611 1,407 Food at home---------------------- -204 Food away from home-----------------1,332 Housing: Total 4/-----------------------1,332 Renter families 4/------------------- Homeowner families 4/--------------- -1,044 Shelter 5/...... — ......... ...... — 1,044 RentaT costs 6/-------------------------------------Homeowner costs 7/---------------140 Housefurnishings--------------------148 Household operations----------------410 Transportation: Total 8/--------- ----- -— 564 Automobile owners-------------------126 Nonowners of automobiles---- --------539 Clothing---------------------------------140 Husband-----------------------------122 Wife...........-..................... 132 Boy--------------------------------98 Girl................................. 47 Clothing materials and services------156 Personal care-------------------------- - — 404 Medical care: Total 9/------------------170 Insurance---------------------------79 Physician's visits------------- ----251 Other medical care------------------306 Other family consumption-----------------56 Reading--- ----------------------- -101 Recreation 10/----------------------47 Education---------------------------11 Tobacco 11/-------------------------58 Alcoholic beverages— ----------- ---- — 33 Miscellaneous expenses---------------Cost of family consumption: Total 12/----Renter families-----------------------Homeowner families--------------------- Lower 1,151 266 328 239 190 128 303 454 275 87 249 998 100 556 67 20 97 158 $1,663 1,441 222 1,326 1,326 1,033 1,033 141 152 434 590 143 541 137 119 134 106 45 176 448 207 84 275 299 54 101 47 11 52 34 1,135 253 320 239 209 114 274 472 243 84 284 977 100 550 67 21 86 153 12,732 12,301 12,808 20 Table 1. Annual Costa of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 - Continued Item Lower Milwaukee, Wis. Moderate Higher Food------------------------------------- $1,604 Food at home--- --- -— --- -------- 1,387 Food away from home--- --- ---------217 Housing: Total 4/— --------------------1,407 Renter families 4/-----------------— - 1,407 Homeowner families 4/--------- -------1,126 Shelter 5/-------------------------1,126 Rental costs 6/-----------------Homeowner costs 7/--------------129 Housefumishlngs-------------------152 Household operations----------------424 Transportation: Total 8/---------------Automobile owners— -— -- --- -------585 126 Clothing--- ----- ---------- --- -— ----- 545 133 Husband---- -----------------------Wife.............................. — 119 124 Boy................................. 118 Girl-............................... Clothing materials and services-----51 Personal care --------------------------168 446 Medical care: Total 9/-----------------Insurance--------------------------238 82 Physician's visits-----------------262 Other medical care-----------------Other family consumption--- -------------296 Reading----------------------------59 Recreation 10/— — ----- -- -------- — 95 47 Education----------- ---------------10 Tobacco 11/-- --------------- — — — Alcoholic beverages----------------51 34 Miscellaneous expenses--------------- $2,032 1,691 341 2,463 1,779 2,691 2,007 1,323 2,235 244 212 870 870 186 779 170 193 163 174 79 217 450 238 82 266 556 76 253 60 14 65 88 $2,548 2,041 507 3,477 2,787 3,598 2,485 1,795 2,606 454 428 1,060 1,060 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/---Renter families----------------------Homeowner tami lies---*--------*-----*---- 4,890 4,890 7,367 6,683 7,595 9,968 9,278 10,089 Other costs ----------------------------Gifts and contributions------- — — — Life insurance----- ---------------- Occupational expenses— — — — — — — — — — Social security and disability payments--Personal taxes: Total 12/--------------Renter families----------------------Homeowner Iarailies—**----- “--- ------ -- 266 146 120 50 269 629 629 415 255 160 80 290 1,392 1,182 1,462 6,104 6,104 9,544 8,650 9,842 Cost of budget: Total 12/--------------Renter families--------------------- Homeowner iam N o r t h Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. Lower Moderate Higher Lower $1,600 1,395 205 1,361 1,361 $2,027 1,722 305 2,323 1,845 2,482 1,841 1,363 2,000 254 228 886 886 199 773 178 190 162 163 80 227 445 291 76 245 565 73 256 60 15 75 86 $2,519 2,072 447 3,332 2,897 3,409 2,325 1,890 2,402 487 410 1,072 1,072 4,863 4,863 7,246 6,768 7,405 731 491 240 85 290 2,562 2,252 2,617 265 145 120 50 267 613 613 13,636 12,636 13,812 6,058 6,0$8 1,151 250 321 215 235 130 302 467 270 82 270 963 101 534 67 20 84 157 1,076 1,076 135 150 442 606 138 543 139 117 123 112 52 174 441 291 76 240 302 56 98 47 10 57 34 136 150 459 618 165 543 137 116 128 114 48 171 442 217 87 262 286 51 92 47 11 51 34 $2,156 1,817 339 2,247 1,763 2,409 1,750 1,266 1,912 269 228 898 933 225 778 174 189 168 172 75 223 446 217 87 266 539 67 249 60 15 62 86 $2,695 2,184 511 3,163 2,693 3,245 2,153 1,683 2,236 499 401 1,138 1,138 9,797 9,362 9,874 4,925 4,925 7,287 6,803 9,834 9,364 9,916 411 251 160 80 290 1,372 1,223 1,422 722 482 240 85 290 2,454 2,269 267 147 120 50 264 496 496 412 252 160 80 290 1,071 957 1,109 9,399 8,772 9,608 13,348 12.728 13,457 6,002 6,002 9,140 8,542 9,340 1,133 257 316 214 217 129 309 464 327 76 248 968 99 528 67 22 98 154 $1,701 1,482 219 1,323 1,323 n t C e St. Louis , Mo.-111. Moderate Higher 1,037 1,037 r a Lower Higher Nonme tropo11tan areas Moderate Lower $2,060 1,769 291 2,102 1,787 2,207 1,609 1,294 1,714 273 220 937 937 209 756 178 188 168 150 72 211 451 248 87 257 567 66 274 60 15 68 84 $2,540 2,112 427 3,088 2,776 3,143 2,074 1,762 2,129 498 406 1,160 1,160 $1,573 1,405 168 1,362 1,362 4,898 4,898 724 484 240 85 290 1,880 1,727 1,907 12,813 12,190 12,924 1,153 257 316 226 232 122 303 463 250 87 269 919 93 504 67 21 79 155 $1,661 1,452 209 1,357 1,357 1 Wichita, Kans. Moderate 129 161 547 547 $2,377 2,088 289 3,024 2,382 3,137 2,065 1,423 2,178 485 434 1,102 1,102 1,113 258 315 225 199 116 294 470 282 87 262 962 92 543 67 20 88 152 517 144 114 113 94 52 146 396 204 66 242 238 31 72 31 11 60 33 740 194 177 159 138 72 212 400 204 66 246 474 40 233 35 17 69 80 1,135 294 293 209 223 116 298 417 234 66 250 ‘832 59 461 50 24 94 144 7,084 6,769 7,189 9,627 9,315 9,682 4,779 4,779 6,772 6,426 0,800 9,185 8,543 “O 266 146 120 50 263 501 501 405 245 160 80 290 1,048 970 1,074 714 474 240 85 290 1,879 1,774 1,898 262 142 120 50 256 476 476 394 234 160 80 290 975 891 1,002 692 452 240 85 290 1,730 1,520 1,767 5,978 5,978 8,907 8,514 9,038 12,595 12,178 12,669 5,823 5,823 8,511 8,081 11,982 11,130 12,132 1,059 1,059 137 161 440 600 143 533 139 118 128 101 47 161 448 248 87 254 298 50 101 47 10 56 34 1,072 1,072 ’ See footnotes at end of table. Higher $1,961 1,729 232 2,072 1,726 2,188 1,572 1,226 1,688 261 239 913 913 21 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967 - Continued S o u t h Item Lower Atlanta, Ga. Moderate Higher Lower $1,988 1,676 312 1,851 1,630 1,925 1,344 1,123 1,418 268 239 856 856 213 733 172 192 167 139 63 228 443 174 90 279 581 71 264 60 14 93 79 $2,453 1,995 458 2,706 2,365 2,766 1,696 1,355 1,756 496 404 1,074 1,074 $1,541 1,330 211 1,056 1,056 Austin, Tex. Moderate Higher Lover $1,968 1,667 301 1,718 1,497 1,792 1,248 1,027 1,322 252 218 851 851 168 707 159 174 172 130 72 201 439 164 86 282 551 64 268 60 15 68 76 $2,399 1,981 418 2,646 2,525 2,667 1,687 1,566 1,708 470 379 1,086 1,086 $1,527 1,307 220 1,361 1,361 Baltimore, Kd. Moderate | ! $2,498 1,991 ; 507 1 3,007 2,985 3,011 1,947 1,925 ! 1,951 518 432 1,073 1,073 F o o d ------- --------------- --- -------Food at h o m e ----------------- -— Food away from h o m e -- ---- — ----Housing: Total 4/ --------------------Renter families 4/ ------------------Homeowner families 4/ ----------------Shelter 5/ ---------------------Renter costs 6/ --------------Homeowner costs 7/ -----------Housefurnishings --------- -— Household operations ------------Transportation: Total 8/ --------------Automobile owners --------------Nonowners of automobiles ------ Clothing ------------------------------Husband ------------------------W i f e ----- ------------ ---- ----B o y ----------------------------Girl ............................ Clothing materials and services -Personal care -------------------------Medical care: Total 9/ -•--------------Insurance---- ---- -— ---- ----Physician's visits -------------Other medical care --------------Other family consumption --------------Reading ------------------------Recreation 1 0 / --- --------- ----Education------- -— -----— ----Tobacco 11/ --------------------Alcoholic beverages -------------Miscellaneous expenses--------- - $1,538 1,320 218 1,252 1,252 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/ -Renter families ---------------------Homeowner families ------------------- 4,648 4,648 6,680 6,459 6,754 9,128 8,787 9,188 4,379 4,379 6,435 6,214 6,509 8,886 8,765 8,907 4,762 4,762 6,802 6,669 6,847 9,483 9,461 9,487 Other costs----------------------------Gifts and contributions ---------Life insurance -----------------Occupational expenses ----- -— ------ --Social security and disability payments — Personal taxes: Total 12/ ------------Renter families ---------------------Homeowner families------ --- ----- --- 259 139 120 50 246 394 394 391 231 160 80 290 887 833 905 689 449 240 85 290 1,654 1,535 1,676 250 130 120 50 230 328 328 383 223 160 80 290 764 718 779 677 437 240 85 290 1,361 1,333 1,366 262 . 142 120 50 256 490 490 395 235 160 80 290 1,118 1,078 1,131 5,597 5,597 8,328 8,053 8,420 11,846 11,386 11,928 5,237 5,237 7,952 7,685 8,041 11,299 11,150 11,325 5,820 5,820 8,685 8,512 8,743 Cost of budget: Total 12/ ------------Renter families ---------------------Homeowner families ------- ------ ----- See footnotes at end of table. 941 941 136 175 419 562 153 505 131 120 128 86 40 172 440 174 90 276 322 54 94 47 12 83 32 1,134 264 324 224 215 107 323 461 206 90 282 977 96 538 67 19 113 144 770 770 127 159 404 564 107 491 121 110 133 82 45 155 436 164 86 280 296 47 99 47 14 59 30 1,089 246 291 232 199 121 244 456 197 86 285 966 90 560 67 22 87 140 1,061 1,061 140 160 449 613 144 512 135 118 130 88 41 158 455 222 90 270 300 54 92 47 14 60 33 $1,992 1,661 331 2,003 1,870 2,048 1,491 1,358 1,536 267 245 846 879 204 738 176 186 169 141 66 216 458 222 90 273 549 71 249 60 16 73 80 Higher j j Lower $1,531 1,335 196 1,153 1,153 Baton Rouge, La. Moderate Higher $1,998 1,687 311 1,911 1,537 2,035 1,448 1,075 1,573 267 195 921 921 189 700 162 180 163 129 66 220 430 174 91 264 554 70 259 60 14 71 80 $2,463 2,009 454 3,158 2,762 3,228 2,212 1,816 2,282 503 333 1,166 1,166 4,506 4,506 6,734 6,360 6,858 9,613 9,217 9,683 707 467 240 85 290 2,163 2,154 2,164 254 134 120 50 237 355 355 393 233 160 80 290 851 766 879 713 473 240 85 290 1,674 1,552 1,696 12,728 12,697 12,733 5,402 5,402 8,348 7,889 8,500 12,375 11,857 12,467 1,142 2 77 312 228 213 112 316 477 257 90 277 970 96 537 67 23 97 150 875 875 135 143 442 610 129 485 124 114 126 80 41 168 429 174 91 263 298 54 91 47 14 61 31 1,080 250 300 220 197 113 306 448 208 91 268 992 96 564 67 21 93 151 22 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967— Continued Dallas, Tex. Durham, N.C. Higher F o o d ----------------------------------Food at home --------------------Food away from home --- ----------Housing: Total 4/ --------------------Renter families 4/ ------------------Homeowner families 4/ ----------------Shelter V ----------------------Renter costs 6/ ---------------Homeowner costs 7/ ------------Housefurnishings -----------------Household operations --- ---- ----Transportation: Total 8/ --------------Automobile owners --— ------------Nonowners of automobiles ----------Clothing ------------------------------Husband -------------------------W i f e ----------------------------B o y -----------------------------Girl --------------------- ------Clothing materials and services --Personal c a r e ------------- ------------Medical care: Total 9/ ----------------Insurance -----------------------Physician's visits ---------------Other medical care ---------------Other family consumption --------— -----Reading -------------------------Recreation 10/ ---- --------------Education-------- ---------------Tobacco 11/ ---------------------Alcoholic beverages --------------Miscellaneous expenses ------- ---- $1,525 1,305 220 1,258 1,258 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/ -Center families ---------------------Homeowner families -------— ----- ----- 4,664 4,664 Other costs -- ------------------------Gifts and contributions ----------Life insurance -- -----------------Occupational expenses -----------------Social security and disability payments — Personal taxes: Total 12/ --- ---------Renter families ------ ---------------Homeowner families ------------------Cost of budget: Total 12/ Renter families ------Homeowner families ------ See footnotes at end of table. 973 973 127 158 418 574 127 490 123 117 125 83 42 161 507 233 92 315 305 50 97 47 14 65 32 247 387 387 5.607 5.607 Highei $1,489 1,294 195 1,259 1,259 $1,972 1,644 328 1,923 1,745 1,983 1,455 1,277 1,515 253 215 859 859 187 713 163 186 163 134 67 213 510 233 92 318 561 67 265 60 15 74 80 $2,467 1,965 502 3,041 3,369 2,983 2,040 2,369 1,983 514 376 1,089 1,089 1,105 255 311 219 204 116 301 530 274 92 320 993 92 562 67 26 96 150 135 152 402 564 102 505 133 118 125 86 43 161 448 213 92 264 295 50 92 47 11 63 32 6,751 6,573 6,811 9,526 9,854 9,468 4,559 4,559 .... 393 233 160 80 290 831 794 843 709 469 240 85 290 1,547 1,639 1,530 8,345 8,130 8,417 12,157 12,577 12,082 972 972 245 460 460 5.570 5.570 Lower $1,921 1,640 281 2,052 1,669 2,180 1,596 1,193 1,704 270 206 857 857 $2,359 1,957 402 2,995 2,460 3,089 2,018 1,483 2,112 508 359 1,096 1,096 $1,570 1,329 241 1,167 1,167 728 174 187 161 137 69 209 451 213 92 267 560 66 269 60 12 72 81 133 162 455 621 $2,020 1,677 343 1,844 1,577 1,932 1,353 1,086 1,441 265 226 913 913 $2,503 1,999 504 2,832 2,575 2,877 1,832 1,575 1,877 500 390 1,165 1,165 1,123 268 312 214 207 122 291 465 239 92 270 982 92 570 67 18 89 146 472 121 110 125 75 41 167 485 202 91 307 298 53 91 47 15 60 32 682 159 174 163 121 65 220 487 202 91 310 550 70 256 60 16 68 80 6,778 6,395 6,996 9,311 8,776 9,405 4.614 4.614 6,716 6,449 6,804 394 234 160 80 290 1,099 990 1,135 6 49 5l 240 85 290 2,047 1,839 2,083 120 50 244 377 377 160 80 290 823 768 842 8,641 8,149 8,805 12,431 11,688 12,561 5.542 5.542 8,301 7,979 8,40&. 872 872 \\7 1 $1,488 1,281 207 1,259 1,259 Nashville, Tenn. Moderate | HlRher 136 168 414 570 $1,917 1,622 295 2,028 1,622 2,163 1,527 1,121 1,662 272 229 865 865 $2,345 1,934 411 3,135 2,857 3,184 2,120 1,842 2,169 512 393 1,082 1,082 1,056 248 291 220 185 112 309 509 243 91 314 959 95 540 67 24 86 147 515 135 122 129 87 42 163 439 173 83 282 312 53 93 47 13 74 32 750 177 194 168 144 67 210 444 173 83 286 571 70 262 60 14 85 80 1,158 273 323 226 221 115 296 459 204 83 288 976 96 536 67 20 108 149 9,333 9,076 9,378 4.590 4.590 6,785 6,379 6,920 9,451 9,173 9,500 til 257 137 240 85 290 1,490 1,417 1,502 120 50 143 372 372 160 80 290 838 755 866 240 85 290 1,524 1,446 1,538 11,897 11,567 11,954 5.512 5.512 8,388 7,899 8,551 12,055 11,699 12,118 955 955 1% 23 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring 1967— Continued Orlando, Fla. Washington, D.C-Md.-Va. Nonmetropolitan areas______ Higher F o o d ------------------------------------Food at h o m e -------------- ------Food away from home --------- - — -Housing: Total 4/ ---------------------Renter families 4/ -------------------Homeowner families 4/ --------------- Shelter 5/ -----------------------Renter costs 6/ --------------Homeowner costs 77 -----------Housef u r n i s h i n g s -- ----------- --Household operations --------- ---Transportation: Total 8/ -------------Automobile o w n e r s --------- -------Nonowners of automobiles — ------Clothing --- ---------------------------Husband --------------------------W i f e .............................. B o y ------------------------------Girl .............................. Clothing materials and services -Personal care --------------------------Medical care: Total 9/ ----------------Insurance ------------Physician's visits --------------Other medical care ---------— ---Other family consumption --------------Reading --------------------------Recreation 10/ -------------------Education ------------------------Tobacco _ 11/----------------------Alcoholic beverages -----— ------Miscellaneous expenses ----------- $1,488 1,273 215 1,237 1,237 Cost of family consumption: Total 12/ Renter families ----------------------Homeowner families -------------------Other costs-----------------------------Gifts and contributions ---------Life insurance -------------------Occupational expenses ------------------Social security and disability payments • Personal taxes: Total 12/ -------------Renter families ----- — --------- ------ Homeowner families -------------------Cost of budget: Total 1_2/ -------------Renter families ----------------------Homeowner families -------------------- See footnotes at end of table. i 138 161 403 545 $1,920 1,611 309 1,980 1,727 2,065 1,493 1,240 1,578 272 215 848 848 487 128 113 119 82 45 158 450 201 95 269 296 51 92 47 13 62 31 703 167 179 155 131 71 205 454 201 95 272 546 68 251 60 14 74 79 1,091 258 299 210 200 124 291 470 233 95 275 959 93 535 67 20 95 149 518 132 121 128 91 46 159 466 204 96 282 309 55 99 47 14 59 35 750 173 192 167 145 73 222 469 204 96 285 566 72 264 60 15 68 87 1,154 266 320 223 221 124 330 485 235 96 288 988 98 555 67 23 86 159 471 126 107 116 79 43 134 396 178 66 254 244 30 71 31 15 67 30 680 172 164 158 125 61 195 399 178 66 257 469 40 231 35 16 73 74 1,052 259 276 215 198 104 271 415 210 66 259 810 59 449 50 23 96 133 4,519 4,519 6,656 6,403 6,741 9,427 8,784 9,541 5,004 5,004 7,312 6,848 7,467 10,096 9,784 10,151 4,350 4,350 6,250 6,030 6,324 8,457 8,177 8,506 255 135 120 50 238 357 357 390 230 160 80 290 811 759 828 290 1,518 1,344 ; 1,549 269 149 120 50 270 540 540 413 253 160 80 290 1,178 1,052 1,220 737 497 240 85 290 2,211 2,096 2,232 250 130 120 50 230 344 344 376 216 160 80 290 788 738 805 656 416 240 85 290 1,421 1,343 1,435 5,419 5,419 8,227 7,922 8,329 12,024 11,207 12,169 ; 6,133 6,133 9,273 8,683 9,470 13,419 12,992 13,495 5,224 5,224 7,784 7,514 7,875 10,909 10,551 10,972 938 938 ; $2,379 1,925 454 3,155 2,512 3,269 2,154 1,511 2,268 506 385 1,082 1,082 $1,621 1,401 220 1,479 1,479 704 464 ! 240 1 85 1 I i $2,612 2,143 469 3,434 3,122 3,489 2,350 2,038 2,405 547 427 1,093 1,093 $1,472 1,288 184 1,076 1,076 137 147 452 611 $2,118 1,793 325 2,316 1,852 2,471 1,821 1,357 1,976 258 237 871 905 1,195 1,195 126 162 557 557 $1,887 1,632 255 1,685 1,465 1,759 1,193 973 1,267 255 237 935 935 $2,266 1,964 302 2,507 2,227 2,556 1,585 1,305 1,634 491 391 1,136 1,136 788 788 24 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolitan Regions, Spring, 1967— Continued • Lower Food-----------------------------Food at home------------------Food away fro* home-----------Housing: Total 4/---------------Renter faailies 4/------------Homeowner families 4/---------Shelter 5/...... -........... Rental costs 6/-----------Homeowner costs T J - -------Hou8efurnishings------------Household operations---- ---Transportation: Total 8/--------Automobile owners-------------Nonowners of automobiles------Clothing-------------------------Husband------------------- ---Wife........................... Boy............................ Girl--------------------------Clothing materials and services Personal care--------------------Medical care: Total 9/----------Insurance--------- -----------Physician'8 visits------------Other medical care------------Other family consumption---------Reading-----------------------Recreation 10/----------------Education---------------------Tobacco 11/-------------------— Alcoholic beverages--- — -----Miscellaneous expenses— --- -— Cost of family consumption: Total 12/...................... Renter families---------------Homeowner families------------Other costs ---------------------Gifts and contributions-------— Life insurance----------------Occupational expenses------------Social security and disability payments----------------------Personal taxes: Total 12/-------Renter families---------------Homeowner families------------Cost of budget: Total 12/------— Renter Families---------------Homeowner families------------- See footnotes at end of table, Bak<srsfield, <Jalif. Moderate Denver, Colo. Higher Lower $2,041 1,720 321 1,942 1,555 2,070 1,454 1,067 1,582 290 198 924 924 194 779 176 193 183 152 75 224 546 262 93 341 549 62 256 60 14 74 83 $2,513 2,061 452 2,955 2,509 3,034 1,912 1,466 1,991 562 371 1,201 1,201 $1,667 1,444 223 1,268 1,268 4,797 4,797 7,005 6,618 7,133 ! 9,648 9,202 9,727 263 143 120 50 402 242 160 80 715 475 240 85 254 415 415 364 971 874 1,004 364 1,848 1,691 1,875 5,779 5,779 8,822 8,338 8,983 12,660 12,057 12,766 $1,646 1,419 227 1,141 1,141 852 852 144 145 449 620 133 554 144 117 151 94 48 172 544 262 93 339 291 45 92 47 11 63 33 1,118 243 312 232 204 127 317 571 305 93 347 973 88 557 67 17 92 152 969 969 140 159 429 582 145 571 156 115 153 98 49 165 484 247 87 291 289 48 92 47 11 57 34 Honolulu, Hawaii Higher $2,076 1,757 319 2,191 1,778 2,329 1,690 1,277 1,828 270 231 909 909 206 799 190 192 185 155 77 220 487 247 87 294 549 64 256 60 14 69 Lower $2,634 2,118 516 3,246 3,218 3,251 2,184 2,156 2,189 542 410 1.098 1.098 $2,003 1,785 218 1.832 1.832 1,144 268 308 234 205 129 310 505 281 87 297 969 90 553 67 17 526 140 117 137 85 47 171 472 224 93 283 327 54 1.469 1.469 160 203 494 702 110 86 Los AngelesLong Beach, Calif. Higher $2,489 2,146 343 2,848 2,389 3,001 2,255 1,796 2,408 312 281 1.034 1.034 170 737 171 192 166 134 74 223 474 224 93 285 604 71 271 60 19 83 $3,133 2,579 554 4,363 3,732 4,474 3,150 2,519 3,261 627 476 1,200 1,200 Higher 245 1.427 1.427 1.150 1.150 142 135 438 614 112 1,062 239 311 211 179 122 320 494 257 93 290 1,083 97 610 67 24 568 143 123 151 96 55 176 631 262 $2,066 1,699 367 2,189 1,896 2,287 1,715 1,422 1,813 285 189 881 918 172 804 174 203 182 158 87 235 635 262 $2,586 2,046 540 3,433 3,461 3.429 2,401 2.429 2,397 553 369 1.154 1.154 1,160 245 327 23 J. 210 147 333 661 313 122 122 122 397 313 56 102 401 584 72 277 60 14 73 100 183 88 405 1,016 98 579 67 17 92 163 5.825 5.825 8,409 7,950 8,562 11,655 11,024 11,766 5.206 5.206 7,394 7,101 7,492 10,343 10,371 10,339 294 174 451 291 160 80 814 574 240 85 275 155 416 256 160 749 509 240 85 100 47 15 71 40 102 47 86 156 4.873 4.873 7,231 6,818 7,369 9,906 9,878 9,911 265 145 410 250 160 727 487 240 85 260 457 457 290 1,069 963 1,104 290 2,003 1,993 2,005 290 787 787 290 1,672 1,506 1,727 290 3,232 2,924 3,286 277 497 497 364 1,072 999 1,097 364 2,104 2,114 5.905 5.905 9,080 8,561 9,253 13,011 12,973 13,018 7.246 7.246 10,902 10,277 16,076 15,137 16,241 6.305 6.305 9,326 8,960 9,449 13,645 13,683 13,639 120 50 120 11,110 120 50 2,102 25 Table 1. Annual Costs of Budgets for 3 Living Standards for a 4-Person Family 1/, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas and 4 Nonmetropolltan Regions, Spring 1967--Continued ITEM Lower Food------------- ---------------Food at home------------------Food away frosi home-----------Housing: Total 4/— --------- ---Renter families 4/------------Homeowner families 4/------- -Shelter 5 /— ---------------Rental costs 6/-----------Homeowner costs T j --------Housefurnishings------------Household operations--------Transportation: Total 8/--------Automobile owners------- -— — Honowners of automobiles------Clothing-------------------------Husband----------------------— • Wife.......................... Boy........................... Girl--------------------------Clothing materials and services Personal care--------------------Medical care: Total 9/— ------ Insurance---------------------— Physician's visits----------- — Other medical care— ----------Other family consumption---------Reading--------------- -------Recreation 10/----------------Education------- --------------Tobacco 11/-------------------Alcoholic beverages-----------Miscellaneous expenses--------Cost of family consumption: Total 12/......... Renter families -------Homeowner families---- Othar costs------------------Gifts and contributions— — ■ Life insurance Occupational expenses--------Social security and disability payments--------- ---------Personal taxes: Total 12/---Renter families-----------Homeowner families--------Cost of budget: Total 12/-------Ranter families------- --------Hoemowner families------------- $1,619 1,385 234 1.299 1.299 1,011 1,011 151 137 458 609 178 543 133 118 150 96 46 160 583 262 San Diego, Calif. Moderate _ Higher $2,015 1,667 348 2,236 1,727 2,406 1,758 1,249 1,928 290 188 910 910 238 768 162 194 182 157 73 213 587 262 Lower $2,498 1,996 500 3,532 2,979 3,629 2,489 1,936 2,586 570 363 1.147 1.147 $1,720 1,481 239 1.519 1.519 1,114 234 314 231 592 152 123 152 105 60 189 551 207 212 123 297 628 310 1.233 1.233 150 136 455 653 88 W E S San FranciscoOakland. Calif. _ . Moderate Higher $2,163 1,794 369 2,411 2,105 2,513 1,923 1,617 2,025 289 199 923 964 148 837 185 204 184 170 94 256 555 207 $2,711 2,154 557 3,571 3,383 3,604 2,501 2,313 2,534 570 390 1,186 354 595 74 282 60 14 73 92 112 T SeattleEverett, Wash, Moderate _ Higher $1,778 1,543 235 1,536 1,536 Nonaetropolitan areas Lower $2,766 2,229 537 3,477 -3,115 3,541 2,383 358 1,031 100 586 67 17 93 168 141 175 478 657 145 596 150 125 158 106 57 180 496 203 97 312 310 53 98 47 14 61 37 $2,229 1,857 372 2,332 2,038 2,431 1,823 1,529 1,922 268 241 994 994 205 843 183 206 190 174 90 239 499 203 97 315 580 70 264 60 18 76 92 22 12 98 166 57 34 10,648 10,460 10,681 5.374 5.374 .... 7,716 7,422 7,815 10*51* 10,153 10,579 1,204 258 329 233 226 158 365 580 254 1,220 1,220 2,021 2,447 523 461 1,211 1,211 1,213 258 333 238 233 151 332 520 241 97 320 996 96 547 67 $1,643 1,461 182 1.312 1.312 Higher 138 169 589 589 $2,024 1,769 255 2,033 1,712 2,140 1,512 1,191 1,619 276 245 970 970 $2,451 2,136 315 2,949 2,430 3,041 1,900 1,381 1,992 554 455 1.189 1.189 562 145 119 149 94 55 146 440 792 199 183 192 142 76 217 443 1,110 210 210 73 277 249 37 78 31 73 281 493 47 250 35 15 64 82 278 306 207 194 125 314 461 243 73 284 873 67 506 50 18 85 147 4.941 4.941 6,972 6,651 7,079 9,347 8,828 9,439 1.005 1.005 102 102 102 112 368 308 57 96 47 372 574 74 266 60 14 73 87 377 997 350 318 57 104 47 4.970 4.970 7,303 6,794 7,473 10,213 9,660 10,310 5.344 5.344 7,740 7,434 7,842 268 148 413 253 160 80 743 279 428 764 280 427 757 267 401 700 503 240 85 159 268 160 80 524 240 85 160 267 160 80 517 240 85 147 241 160 80 460 240 85 264 450 450 364 1,049 921 1,091 364 2,056 1,862 2.09G 355 543 543 364 1,162 1,085 1,188 364 2,217 2,151 2,229 287 529 529 290 1,037 976 1,057 290 1,839 1,737 1,857 268 559 559 290 1,147 1,056 1,177 290 2,016 1,820 2,050 6,002 6,002 9,209 8,572 9,421 13,461 12,714 13,592 6.571 6.571 9,774 9,391 9,902 14,079 13,825 14,124 6.520 6.520 .... 9,550 9,195 9,669 13,486 13,022 13,568 6.085 6.085 8,890 8,478 9,027 12,438 11,723 12,564 11 62 35 120 50 100 560 67 17 92 161 11 62 37 120 50 112 120 50 120 50 JJ Th® family consists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. 4/ The higher standard cost includes $110 for lodging away from home city in metropolitan areas, and $40 in nonmetropolitan areas. These costs are not shown separately or included in any of the housing subgroups. 5/ The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions: Lower standard, 100 percent for families living in rented dwellings; moderate standard, 25 percent for renters, 75 percent for homeowners; higher standard, 15 percent for renters, 85 percent for homeowners. 6/ Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment, and insurance onhouseholdcontents. TJ Interest and principal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas,electricity,andspecifiedequipmentand home repair and maintenance costs. 8/ The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners in the lower budget are weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both automobile owners, and nonowners; all other metropolitan areas, 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. The moderate standard proportions are: Boston, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C., with 1.4 million of population or more In 1960, 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. The higher budget weight is 100 percent for automobile owners in all areas. Moderate standard costs for automobile owners in autumn 1966 were revised prior to updating to Spring 1967 cost levels. 9/ In total medical care, the average costs of medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). .10/ The autumn 1966 cost6 of recreation in the moderate standard were revised prior to updating to Spring 1967 costs. 11/ Cigarette costs were deleted from the moderate standard beginning with Spring 1967 pricing period. 12/ The total represents the weighted average costs of renter and homeowner families. See the weights cited infootnote 5. 2J 3/ NOTE: See Appendix A for items and quantities included in each component and appendix B for the population weights for each city. sums of individual items may not equal totals. 334-641 0 - 69 - 3 Because of rounding ’ Chapter III. Comparative Living Cost Indexes Answers to the question, “ How much more or less does it cost to live in one community than in another,?” , are needed for a wide variety of purposes. For example, comparative living costs are important in wage negotiations; in manage ment decisions on plant locations; in Federal, State, and local government allocations of r e sources and estimates of relative costs for urban expenditure distributions, or preference pat terns. At the same time differences in the con ditions of living in each locality over which in dividual fam ilies have no control, e.g., climate, transportation facilities, taxes, etc. can be r e flected in the comparisons. Hence indexes based on a standard budget measure differences in l i v i n g costs and not differences in prices only. 13/ renewal and consumer programs of various kinds; and for individual family decisions on places to live. Indexes for Three Living Standards The new budgets provide a wide variety of comparative living cost indexes for total bud get costs and for the major categories of con sumer goods and services. For the firs t time measures are available to determine the range in living costs at low, moderate, and higher levels of living (tables 2, 3, and 4 respectively). All indexes relate to costs for fam ilies estab lished in the areas. They do not measure dif ferences in costs associated with moving from one area to another, or costs for recent in migrants. Within each living standard, the inter city indexes reflect not only differences among areas in price levels but also climatic or regional differences in the quantities and types of items required to provide the specified standard of living, and differences in State and local taxes, which are a part of the total budget. For most purposes, detailed information on differences in total costs, rather than differences in price levels 12/ among communities is needed. Although no single measure of intercity d iffer ences in living costs will serve all purposes, the standard budget approach offers the best solution to a general purpose intercity index for two reasons. In the first place, this method of comparison holds constant the age, size, and composition of the family. Thus, variations in requirements associated with fam ily needs are not confused with locality differences. Secondly, the level and manner of living represented by the standard can be held constant for each city in the comparison, even though the cities may be quite different in their actual average levels of living, 12/ It is frequently assumed that the BLS Consumer P rice Indexes for 23 metropolitan areas can be used for this purpose, but this is not the case. These individual area indexes are not based on a uniform “ market basket” of goods and services, but on the particular “ market basket,” or pattern of expenditures of wage- and clerical-w orker families, in each area. Like the U.S. urban CPI, each city index is designed to measure changes in price levels over time; and the index weights for the city remain constant over time, except for major periodical revisions. In the absence of a common set of weights, the Consumer Price Indexes for individual cities cannot be used to measure differences in price levels among the cities. Not unexpectedly, the range in total budget costs is narrower at a lower level of living, and widens as the living standard rises. Costs were lowest in the small cities in the South at all three standards. Metropolitan areas in the West 13/ Comparative indexes based on th e aut umn 1966 pricing of the moderate standard are shown in Bulletin 1570-1, op. cit., table 2 page 13, and discussion pp. 8 , and 14-16; see also Jean C. Brackett and Helen H.Lam ale, “Area Differences in Living Costs,” in P roceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 1967; American Statistical Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 144-148. 26 27 were the most expensive at the lower standard, but this rank shifted to large cities in the North east for moderate and higher levels of living. The range from high to low total budget costs was 17 percentage points at the lower, 20 points at the moderate, and 24 points at the higher standard. The annual total for the lower budget in Spring 1967 amounted to $5,224 in nonmetropolitan areas in the South and $7,246 in Honolulu. In relative terms, with U.S. urban average costs equal 100, this constitutes a range from 88 to 122, or 34 percentage points. 14/ Among mainland areas, Area Variations in Living Costs Within these broad city-size and geographical areas, living costs vary among specific places. For example, of the 10 highest cost areas at the lower standard, 3 were metropolitan areas in the West, 4 were in the North Central, 2 in the North east and 1 in the South. Similarly, at the higher standard, of the 10 most expensive cities, 4 each were in the Northeast and West and leach in the North Central and South. 14/ Total budget, total consumption, food, and rental shelter costs for the three standards were significantly higher in Honolulu than in the mainland cities, as were also homeowner shelter in the lower and higher standards, and trans portation and tobacco in the moderate standard. Therefore, subsequent discussion of intercity differentials has been limited to the mainland cities. Comparative Living Cost Indexes fo r Three Living Standards, Spring 1967 1/ Standards Region and s iz e o f area Urban United States--------------Metropolitan areas---------Nonmetropolitan areas----- Lower 2/ 100 101 Moderate 3/ Higher 100 102 100 102 92 89 Northeast— ------------ ------- -----Metropolitan areas---------Nonmetropolitan areas----- 105 107 102 106 108 96 99 95 North Central— ------- ----------— Metropolitan areas---------Nonmetropolitan areas----- 10 1 102 98 100 101 South-----------------------------------— Metropolitan areas---------Nonmetropolitan areas----- 92 91 95 93 90 94 88 86 84 102 103 98 102 105 103 West----------------------------------------Metropolitan areas---------Nonmetropolitan a re a s ---- 94 99 100 92 103 95 1/ Indexes calculated from costs of budget fo r a 4-person family . (U.S urban average to tal budget cost fo r each standard = 100 ) . 2/ Renter family only. 2 / Weighted average cost fo r homeowner (75 percent) and renter (25 percent) fam ilies. 4/ Weighted average cost fo r homeowner (85 percent) and renter (15 p ercent) fam ilies. 4/ 28 costs of the lower budget were highest in San Francisco, averaging $6,571, or 23 percentage points above the Southern regional average of small cities. In the moderate and higher budgets, New York was the most expensive main land area, averaging $9,977, and $14,868 at these levels, amounting to 24 and 30 percentage points respectively above the costs of comparable bud gets in smaller places in the South. in costs for total consumption and persona] taxes. Federal, State, and local taxes reflect variations in tax laws in different jurisdictions, and also differences in the costs of all other budget components—since these costs constitute the base on which the tax allowances are caculated. These extremes among individual areas, based on total budget costs, are summarized in the tabulation below, together with the range Among the major components of the budgets, the comparisons for food at home, shelter, trans portation, and clothing are for an equivalent, not Variations Resulting from Differences in Quantities and Prices High- and[ Low-cost Areas at Three Standards of Living, Spring 1967 Areas Living standard High Indexes 1/ Range Low High Low Nonmetropolitan areas 111 88 23 Nonmetropolitan areas 110 86 24 Nonmetrop olitan areas 114 84 30 Nonmetropolitan areas 111 89 22 Nonmetropolitan areas 110 87 23 Nonmetropolitan areas 111 85 26 (Index points) Total budget: Lower------------ Moderate------- Higher----------- San Francisco New York New York Total consumption: Lower— --------- Moderate------- Higher..........- Seattle Hartford New York Personal taxes: Lower----------- Milwaukee Austin 133 69 64 Moderate------ Milwaukee Austin 131 72 59 Higher--------- New York Austin 132 69 63 1/ Excluding Honolulu. 29 an identical, list of goods and services. Thus, for these components both the quantities (or weights) and prices may vary from city to city. Generally, these components, especially shelter and tranportation, contributed most to the inter city differences in total consumption costs. home was much greater: 36 percentage points between Los Angeles and nonmetropolitan areas in the North Central region. Moderate and higher food budget costs were largest in two East Coast cities: Hartford for food at home and the New York City area for food away from home. As in the lower budget, Orlando was lowest for food at home and small North Central cities for food away from home. The range in food-at-home costs in the moderate and higher standards (19 and 17 percentage points, respectively) was about the same as the lower budget. But the range of costs for restaurant meals—50 percentage points in the moderate, and 65 in the higher—was considerably wider than in the lower budget. The ranges for food away from home reflected much greater variability in re s taurant prices in various parts of the country than in the costs of food bought in grocery stores. Differences among the budget cities in the cost of food resulted not only from variations in prices, but also from differences in consump tion patterns for food at home. At each of the three budget levels, the same U,S. Department of Agriculture food plan allowances for food at home were used for all cities throughout the country, but city costs within each of the four regions reflected regional consumption patterns (see page 9 ). 15/ Moreover, as noted earlier, the consumption patterns within each region varied by budget levels. The highest and lowest regional food costs followed much the same pattern in all three budgets. With one exception the Northeast had the highest average costs, and in all cases the South had the lowest, as shown by the indexes below (U.S. urban average = 100). In all three budgets, differences in food-athome costs within each region, reflecting only differences in prices, showed the same pattern. Only in the South were the differences between the highest and lowest costs less than $100 (Washington, D.C. was not included in the South for this comparison, since its costs reflect not the regional, but the U.S. urban consumption pat terns). The differences were greatest in the West, where the spread between high-cost Seattle and low-cost San Diego ran from $160 in the lower budget to $230 in the higher budget. Among specific cities, the lower-budgetfood costs were highest in the two West Coast cities— Seattle for food at home, and Los Angeles for food away from home. Food at home was lowest in Orlando, which, with an index of 89 (U.S. urban average = 100), was 19 percentage points below Seattle, The range of costs for food away from Shelter, often considered the prim ary factor in determining the relative position of an area on a scale of living costs, is subject to many local conditions, and areas in which costs are high at one level of living are not necessarily high at other levels. In general, shelter costs were 15/ For an anlysis of the variations in food costs which may be attributed to differences in price levels among regions and cities for food at home and five selected major food groups, see BLS Bulletin 1570-3, op. cit., Pt. I, pp. 1-9. Lower Area Home Away Home Away Total 100 108 100 109 96 89 104 100 100 107 105 100 100 100 100 100 105 105 105 108 100 92 102 100 97 93 93 106 99 91 101 Home Total OJ o\ U.S. urban------------Northeast------North CentralSouth-------------West---------------- Total Higher Moderate 99 93 98 99 92 97 93 99 Away 100 112 96 85 105 30 higher in large metropolitan areas than in medium-sized or small cities, for both renters and homeowners at low, moderate, and higher levels of living. (See tabulation below). 16/ Regionally, total shelter costs in large met ropolitan areas in the Northeast at the lower standard, which covers rental costs only, aver aged 5 p e r c e n t below; costs in the North Central and the West were 6 and 13 percent r e spectively above the U.S. average cost of the lower standard. On the other hand, at the mod erate and higher standards, which cover both owned and rented dwellings, costs in these large Eastern cities were substantially above those in all other parts of the country. In medium-sized cities (population 50,000 to 1 million), shelter was relatively more expensive in the North Cen tral than in any other region at all three stand ards and particularly at the lower level. 16/ For a detailed discussion of shelter costs in the autumn 1966 pricing of the moderate standard, see BLS Bulletin 1570-3, op. cit., Pt. Ill, pp. 23-28. The range in total shelter costs was 56 p er centage points in the lower budget, and 60 and 62 points in the moderate and higher budgets. Rental costs were highest in Champaign-Urbana for both the lower and moderate standards, and lowest in Austin (for the lower budget) and small Southern cities (for the moderate budget). In the higher budget, New York rents were highest while those in small Northeastern cities were lowest. Homeowner costs were highest in Boston and lowest in small Southern cities in both the moderate and higher budgets. Relative costs for the transportation com ponent in the lower budget ranged from a high of 132 in small cities in the West to 83 in the New York area, or 49 percentage points (with the U,S. urban average * 100), prim arily because an automobile was specified as a necessity for all fam ilies living in small cities. Only half of the fam ilies in the New York area where public transportation facilities are more readily avail able owned an automobile. At the moderate stand ard, where the weights for automobile ownership differed less from one place to another, costs ranged by only 26 percentage points: from a high of 114 in Seattle (with 95 percent ownership) to a Corrparative Indexes of Shelter Costs, Spring 1967 (U.S. urban average cost of each budget « 100) Total shelter Areas Lower 1/ Moderate 2/ Renters Higher Lower Moderate Homeowners Higher Moderate Higher Large metropolitan areas (1 m illion or 103 107 107 103 104 Other metropolitan areas ( 50,000 to 1 m illio n )-........ 103 96 97 103 102 Nonmetropolitan areas (2,500 to 50 , 000 ) ------------- 88 81 79 88 84 more population)— JJ 2/ 3/ Renter fam ilies only. Renter (25 percent) and homeowner (75 percent) fam ilies. Renter (15 percent) and homeowner (85 percent) fam ilies. 111 108 107 95 95 98 70 80 81 31 low of 88 in New York (with 80 percent owner ship). At the higher standard, where all families were assumed to own automobilies, the range was only 19 percentage points, and the New York area costs were equal to the U.S. urban average. Costs for automobile owners were highest in Boston and averaged $704, $1,034 and $1,248 in the lower, moderate and higher standards re s p e c t i v e l y . At the lower end of the scale, Orlando’ s costs were $545 in the lower budget, Lancaster’ s $845 in the moderate, and Dayton’ s $1,034 in the higher budget. The spread of costs among cities decreased from 26 percentage points in the lower to 19 percent in the higher standard. In the three standards, there was a pattern of higher costs in the more densely popu lated areas because of higher insurance rates, and in Honolulu and Western cities where car prices tended to exceed those in other areas. For fam ilies who did not own automobilies, costs of local public transportation (transit and taxi rides) were the same for both the lower and moderate budgets in each city. No allowances are provided for the higher budget or for nonmetro politan areas, because all fam ilies are assumed to own cars. Public transportation ranged from $178 in San Diego to $88 in San Francisco. Since clothing costs are affected by variations in the kinds and quantities of clothing required by the climate as well as by differences inprices, they tended to be lowest in the South. Nonmetro politan areas in the South had the lowest costs— $471 in the lower standard, $680 in the moderate, and $1,052 in the higher, or about 12 percent be low the U.S. urban averages for the lower and moderate, and 8 percent below for the higher. For all three standards, clothing costs were highest in Portland, Maine, because of both c li mate and price levels. Higher prices were re sponsible for costs in Seattle and San Francisco, which followed Portland in the three standards. Costs in Portland were $604 in the lower, $861 in the moderate, and $1,273 in the higher—all of which are 12 percent above the U.S. average costs. Thus the full range of costs among cities was approximately the same for all budgets. Clothing costs were within 5 percent of the U.S. average cost in about two-thirds of the cities in the lower standard, three-fourths of the cities in the moderate, and four-fifths of the cities in the higher standard. Variations in Costs Reflecting P rice Differences Only Area differences in the costs of all compon ents of the budgets other than food at home, shel ter, transportation, and clothing, are attributable to price differences, because within eachbudget the items and quantities priced were the same from place to place. Three Western cities— San Francisco, Seat tle, and Los Angeles—had the highest costs of personal care in the three standards; San Fran cisco exceeded U,S. average costs about 17 per cent. Nonmetropolitan areas in the South had the lowest costs in the lower and mode rate budgets, $134 and $195 respectively, or 17 and 11 percent below the U.S. averages for these budgets. Austin had the lowest cost ($244) in the higher standard, which was 20 percent below the U.S. average. At all three budget levels, total medical care costs were highest in the four California cities, and lowest in Dayton, Cincinnati, and small cities in the North Central and Southern regions. Only in the Western region were a majority of the cities above the U.S. urban average cost. Costs were 133 in Los Angeles and averaged downward 49 percentage points to 84 in the nonmetropolitan areas of the North Central and Southern regions. The intercity patterns of costs varied among the three components of medical care. For ex ample, the widest range was found in fees for physicians’ s visits, which had identical costs in the three budgets. Los Angeles and New York were highest, with indexes of 133, in contrast to 72 for small North Central and Southern cities— a difference of 61 percentage points. San Fran cisco and San Diego ranked third and fifth from the top, respectively, while Bakersfield dropped to tenth place. A majority of cities in the West had costs above the U.S. urban average, whereas none of the North Central cities exceeded the average. A majority of the ten lowest cost areas were in this region. 32 Basic health insurance costs for the lower and moderate budgets were above theU.S. aver age in a majority of North Central and North eastern areas, while Southern areas accounted for 6 of the 10 lowest rankings. F ifty-six per centage points separated the high in MinneapolisSt. Paul (129) from Austin’ s low of 73. Insurance in the higher budget had the same general inter city cost patterns as that in the basic coverage, but the spread was only 50 percentage points between the high (125) and the low indexes. Recreation also cost less in nonmetropolitan areas, where the mode of living emphasized par ticipant sports and organization memberships rather than television, radios, and movies for which allowances were higher in metropolitan areas. Costs in the small cities of the South were one-fourth below the ILS. average in the lower budget, and almost one-fifth below the average in the higher budget. San Francisco was the most expensive area at the lower standard, and Lancaster (where prices for tape recorders, phonographs, etc. were high) at the moderate and higher standards; costs in each case were about 11 percent above the U.S. averages. ************ 33 Table 2. Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Lower Living Standard for a 4-Person Family 1/, Spring 1967 (U.S. Urban Average Cost - 100) of F a m i l y C o s t Area Urban United States-------- ------------------Metropolitan areas 6/---------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 7/------------------Northeast: Boston, Mass -------------------------Buffalo, N.Y -......................... Hartford, C o n n --------- ----------- -— Lancaster, P a ------- 1 ----------------New York-Northeastern N.J -------------Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J ................. Pittsburgh, Pa -----------------------Portland, Maine-----------------------Nonmetropolitan areas 7/--------------North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa--------------------Champaign-Urbane, 111-----------------Chicago, 111.-Northwestern Ind---------Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind--------------Cleveland, Ohio------------------- ---Dayton, Ohio--------------------------Detroit, Mich ------------------------Green Bay, Wis------------------------Indianapolis, Ind-------------------- — Kansas City, Mo-Kans------------------Milwaukee, Wis------------------------Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn-------------St. Louis, Mo.-Ill..................... Wichita, Kans— ------------------- ---Nonmetropolitan areas 7/---------------South: Atlanta, Ga— — — — -— — — — --------- — Austin, Tex---------------------------Baltimore, Md----------------— — -- -— Baton Rouge, La-----------------------Dallas, Tex---------------------------Durham, N.C --------------------------Houston, Tex--------------------------Nashville, Tenn-----------------------Orlando, Fla--------------------------Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va............... Nonmetropolitan areas 7/--------------West: Bakersfield, Calif.................... Denver, Colo--------------------------Honolulu, Hawaii----------------------Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif----------San Diego, Calif----------------------San Francisco-Oakland, Calif-----------Seattle-Everett, Wash-----------------Nonmetropolitan areas 7J--------------- Co n s u m p t i o n Transportation 4/ Clothing and oersonal care 100 103 88 100 94 126 100 102 92 100 103 87 100 104 83 112 100 116 94 95 91 92 100 86 115 100 121 94 94 89 91 98 83 95 103 104 89 83 88 98 91 129 101 105 107 101 104 102 101 108 95 100 98 102 88 108 98 96 100 94 106 103 109 103 106 103 105 110 82 99 101 102 99 99 98 < 102 95 100 101 98 97 104 101 96 117 125 111 94 103 102 94 96 114 102 108 104 101 104 104 121 132 114 94 105 103 93 94 118 102 111 106 102 104 106 93 93 91 96 100 92 99 93 97 97 95 99 103 99 123 103 100 103 98 102 99 103 99 103 102 102 102 102 99 95 93 101 103 85 91 85 99 91 91 95 94 93 93 94 83 99 100 103 104 104 104 106 98 105 102 100 103 97 101 81 96 90 98 93 96 94 95 94 93 103 89 94 94 93 93 93 91 95 91 90 99 90 96 81 104 88 97 97 90 97 95 113 83 93 76 105 86 96 96 86 94 93 U8 78 94 91 101 99 94 90 102 93 90 101 125 97 92 96 93 93 95 91 97 92 97 86 93 92 96 90 107 94 102 93 95 98 84 110 101 102 101 104 100 101 106 101 105 83 99 100 120 107 102 110 111 102 100 101 122 101 98 105 108 100 88 97 140 109 100 117 118 101 84 96 145 113 100 122 120 99 101 96 111 98 103 102 107 132 103 105 99 106 100 111 111 101 115 102 99 133 123 116 105 93 99 98 112 107 105 108 105 85 Total Food Total housing 2/ 100 101 94 100 101 94 100 101 94 100 102 90 106 103 109 98 102 100 99 101 96 105 102 109 98 101 99 98 101 97 105 103 108 104 107 106 102 101 100 105 106 103 96 100 98 99 97 104 101 103 102 101 101 98 104 106 104 96 100 98 100 95 103 101 101 100 101 101 98 95 89 98 91 95 94 94 93 92 104 88 98 100 122 107 101 111 110 103 Total budget Shelter 3/ (renter costs) 1/ Medical care 5/ Other Family consumption The family consists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. Total housing includes shelter, household operations and housefurnishings. All families with the lower living standard are assumed tobe renters. Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment and insurance on household contents. 4/ The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners in the lower budget are weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both automobile owners, and nonowners; all other metropolitan areas, 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. 5/ In total medical care, the average costs of medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying fullcost of insurance: for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). 6/ For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 7/ Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. 7/ 37 NOTE: See appendix A for items and quantities included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city. COMPARATIVE LIVING COSTS MEASURED BY URBAN FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS (lower standard, spring 1967) U.S. Urban A ve ra g e = 1 0 0 % AREA HONOLULU, HAWAII SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CALIF. SEATTLE-EVERETT, WASH. HARTFORD, CONN. LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, CALIF. BOSTON, MASS. CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILL. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA INDIANAPOLIS, IND. WASHINGTON, D. C.-MD.- VA. BUFFALO, N. Y. CHICAGO, ILL.-NORTHWESTERN, IND. MILWAUKEE, WIS. MINNEAPOLIS,-ST. PAUL, MINN. NEW YORK-NORTHEASTERN, N. J. KANSAS CITY, MO.-KANS. PORTLAND, MAINE ST. LOUIS, Ml-.-ILL. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. WICHITA, KANS. CLEVELAND, OHIO DENVER, COLO. PHILADELPHIA, PA.-N. J. DETROIT, MICH. PITTSBURGH, PA. BAKERSFIELD, CALIF.. BALTIMORE, MD. DAYTON, OHIO LANCASTER, PA. GREEN BAY, WIS. CINCINNATI*!, OHIO-KY.-IND. ATLANTA, GA. DALLAS, TEX. DURHAM, N.C. HOUSTON, TEX. NASHVILLE, TENN. ORLANDO, FLA. BATON ROUGE, LA. AUSTIN, TEX. 80 nr 120 ~T----— • Table 3. Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Moderate Living Standard for a 4-Person Family 1 / , Spring 1967 (U.S. Urban Average Cost «* 100) UDGET COSTS Total 2/ budget Renter families Homeowner families Total 2/ Food C: 0 S T OF FA]H I L Y (: o n s u ) P T I 0 N Housing (shelter, housefurnishingg, household operations) Transpor Shelter tation J J Total y Renter and Homeowner owner combined c o stsl/ costs £/ 100 102 92 100 102 93 100 102 91 100 102 92 100 101 94 100 103 86 100 104 81 100 104 84 100 104 80 100 98 108 110 106 108 99 no 100 97 101 99 105 104 108 100 105 98 98 101 96 111 107 109 98 111 101 96 101 100 109 105 110 99 109 100 97 103 99 108 104 111 107 111 108 103 106 102 122 107 114 93 118 96 88 99 97 128 108 120 93 124 95 86 98 97 no 101 119 96 104 84 87 93 82 132 no 120 93 128 98 86 99 100 100 107 no 97 88 90 97 101 no 103 102 103' 97 102 95 > 99 99 102 99 105 104 101 98 94 104 105 102 96 96 98 99 97 101 101 102 103 101 100 95 103 101 103 98 103 94 99 99 102 98 106 104 101 97 93 102 104 104 98 103 96 99 96 102 99 102 100 101 98 94 97 99 100 98 97 96 102 93 98 99 97 96 102 98 93 107 113 115 98 113 93 S 95 95 106 94 no 104 101 94 93 108 116 119 99 117 92 93 95 107 92 115 106 100 92 90 116 138 118 92 99 106 89 85 107 100 104 107 100 102 96 106 112 119 100 121 89 94 97 108 91 117 105 101 90 89 102 97 93 99 99 98 98 101 105 106 100 102 103 108 105 92 88 96 92 92 95 91 92 91 102 86 95 91 100 93 96 96 94 93 93 102 89 91 87 94 92 91 95 91 92 90 102 85 93 89 94 93 93 94 93 94 92 101 87 94 93 95 95 94 91 96 91 91 101 90 83 77 90 86 86 92 83 91 89 104 76 77 72 86 83 83 90 78 88 86 104 68 88 81 107 85 100 94 85 88 98 107 77 75 69 81 83 80 90 76 87 83 104 67 98 98 97 106 99 98 105 99 97 100 107 97 100 120 103 101 108 105 98 98 101 121 106 101 111 108 88 97 100 120 102 102 107 104 97 97 100 116 102 101 107 107 97 97 99 118 98 96 103 106 96 87 98 128 98 100 108 105 91 83 97 129 98 101 no 105 87 84 100 141 112 98 127 120 94 83 96 127 95 101 106 101 85 106 104 119 101 104 106 114 111 104 103 105 106 105 102 102 105 87 100 102 102 102 102 103 104 100 104 102 100 102 98 103 86 105 100 99 100 101 102 99 103 99 102 85 99 99 109 106 104 108 105 89 COMPARATIVE LIVING COSTS MEASURED BY URBAN FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS (moderate standard, spring 1967) U.S. Urban A ve rag e = 1 0 0 % AREA HONOLULU, HAWAII BOSTON, MASS. NEW YORK-NORTHEASTERN, N. J. HARTFORD, CONN. SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CALIF. BUFFALO, N. Y. MILWAUKEE, WIS. SEATTLE-EVERETT, WASH. MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL, MINN. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA CHICAGO, ILL.-NORTHWESTERN, IND. LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, CALIF. CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILL. CLEVELAND, OHIO INDIANAPOLIS, IND. WASHINGTON, D. C.-MD.-VA. PORTLAND, MAINE ST. LOUIS, MO.-ILL. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. DENVER, COLO. PHILADELPHIA, PA.-N. J. DETROIT, MICH. GREEN BAY, WIS. KANSAS CITY, MO.-KANS. LANCASTER, PA. WICHITA, KANS. BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. CINCINNATI, OHIO-KY.-IND. PITTSBURGH, PA. BALTIMORE, MD. DURHAM, N. C. DAYTON, OHIO ATLANTA, GA. BATON ROUGE, LA. DALLAS, TEX. NASHVILLE, TENN. HOUSTON, TEX. ORLANDO, FLA. AUSTIN, TEX. 80 37 Table 4. B u d g e t Indexes of Comparative Costs Based on a Higher Living Standard for a 4-Person Family 1/, Spring 1967 C O 8 t 8 Area Total 2/ Renter budget families Homeowner families —' Clothing and Medical personal care care 8/ Other family consumption 103 in? 100 102 90 100 102 92 100 103 85 112 105 106 106 102 104 113 105 106 111 103 108 114 101 96 97 95 113 106 95 94 90 114 100 96 111 101 97 99 96 107 102 111 106 110 106 102 103 99 124 103 110 90 122 97 91 92 94 102 101 102 102 102 103 102 101 102 100 95 99 99 100 95 101 95 97 101 101 97 97 89 100 94 99 100 101 97 105 102 98 96 92 100 103 104 95 101 96 100 95 101 98 100 98 99 97 92 98 101 101 99 98 97 103 94 100 99 98 97 104 98 92 104 112 110 91 107 96 96 95 104 95 104 99 94 92 92 91 89 101 94 100 93 92 93 $9 104 84 91 86 97 95 92 96 91 92 93 103 84 92 95 80 74 98 95 93 95 91 92 92 103 84 95 96 96 93 94 95 95 101 85 V7 95 95 91 97 91 92 101 88 89 94 91 89 84 93 94 102 76 S4 96 89 87 80 92 93 102 69 94 122 77 81 95 78 105 67 96 84 89 79 91 96 101 69 103 97 97 103 96 96 97 101 96 97 98 94 101 96 103 91 90 107 94 102 92 95 98 84 99 101 101 100 98 1001 103 98 103 101 100 100 95 100 86 101 100 100 103 103 102 99 101 99 102 84 97 100 123 105 103 108 103 95 97 103 121 109 101 108 104 93 97 99 124 104 103 107 103 96 98 99 117 104 103 107 106 94 97 102 121 100 97 105 107 95 88 97 131 102 105 107 104 90 83 95 136 104 108 108 103 82 76 111 130 126 100 120 104 71 84 92 137 101 109 107 103 84 107 97 107 102 102 105 107 106 99 100 96 103 98 109 107 98 115 102 99 133 126 117 105 93 101 100 112 105 103 107 103 90 100 opoiic (U.S. Urban Average Costs - 100) Cif F a m i l y C O 8 t C o tii s u m p t i o n Housing (shelter, housefurnishings, household operations) TransporTotal 2/ Food Shelter Total 3/ Renter and Renter Homeowner tation 7/ owner combined 4/ costs 5/ costs 6/ 89 105 79 107 70 104 81 100 101 101 103 87 in? 86 131 102 114 107 90 105 92 127 120 78 70 67 111 100 103 93 100 100 96 97 102 99 105 104 99 104 101 99 108 97 100 98 102 127 95 134 104 116 90 127 91 89 91 95 107 98 96 99 94 105 104 107 107 107 104 104 104 88 106 119 113 91 111 97 94 95 107 94 108 101 93 90 89 109 124 119 75 89 112 104 78 89 95 93 98 87 91 74 106 119 112 93 114 95 93 97 110 94 110 101 94 90 92 96 94 104 92 96 92 97 95 98 99 94 95 101 103 98 102 99 100 97 102 98 101 97 100 97 100 100 101 97 99 93 101 103 86 92 86 99 92 91 95 94 93 93 95 84 70 74 1% 7h Northeast: New York-Northeastern N.J --Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J ....... Nonmetropolitan areas 10/---North Central: Champa1gn-Urbana, 111* Chicago, Ill-Northwestern IndCincinnati, Ohio— Ky.-Ind-— — Cleveland, Ohio------------ Dayton, on 10 Detro11, Mich Green Bay, yig--..-----.-----.*-Indianapolis, IndKansas City, Mo«—Kans--------Milwaukee, Wis————— —— —— —— Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn--St. Louis, Mo.-Ill-----------Wichita, Kans---------— — — — Nonmetropolitan areas 10/---South Atlanta, Ga Austin, Tex---** Baltimore , Md-------------Baton Rouge, La------ --- -Dallas, Tex------- --------Durham, N . C --------------Houston, Tex--------------Nashville, Tenn------------Orlando, Fla--------------Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va--- -Nonmetropolitan areas 10/— — West: Bakersfield, Calif-”---”----”"* Denver, Colo---------— -----Honolulu, Hawaii-------------Los Angeles,-Long Beach, Calif San Diego, Calif------------San Francisco~Oakland, Calif— Seattle-Everett, Wash--------Nonmetropolitan areas .10/---- 104 102 97 92 91 96 95 101 8 m 93 8 1/ The family consists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the home,an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 7/ The total represents the weighted average costs of renter and homeowner families. See the weights cited in footnote 4. 3/ The moderate standard does not include an allowance for lodging away from home city, buc the higher standard includes $110 for metropolitan areas and $40 in nonmetropolitan areas? These costs are not shown separately or included in any of the housing subgroups. 4/ The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions: Moderate standard, 25 percent for families living in rental dwellings, 75 percent for homeowners; higher^ standard, 15 percent for renters, 85 percent for homeowners. 5/ Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity,water, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents. ?/ Interest and principal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas, electricity andspecifiedequipment ; and home repair and maintenance costs. 7/ The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners in the moderate budget are weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C., with 1.4 million of population or more in 1960, 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. The higher budget weight is 100 percent for automobile owners in all areas. Moderate standard costs for automobile owners in autumn 1966 were revised prior to updating to Spring 1967 cost levels. 8/ In total medical care, the average costs of medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). 9/ For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 10/ Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. COMPARATIVE LIVING COSTS MEASURED BY URBAN FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS (higher standard, spring 1967) U.S. U rb an A v e ra g e = 100% AREA HONOLULU, HAWAII NEW YORK-NORTHEASTERN, N. J. BOSTON, MASS. SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CALIF. HARTFORD, CONN. BUFFALO, N.Y. LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, CALIF. MILWAUKEE, WIS. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. SEATTLE-EVERETT, WASH. WASHINGTON, D. C.-MD.-VA. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA CHICAGO, ILL.-NORTHWESTERN, IND. MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL, MINN. CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILL. PHILADELPHIA, PA.-N. J. CLEVELAND, OHIO DENVER, COLO. INDIANAPOLIS, IND. DETROIT, MICH. GREEN BAY, WIS. BALTIMORE, MD. KANSAS CITY, MO.-KANS. ST. LOUIS, MO.-ILL. BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. LANCASTER, PA. PORTLAND, MAINE WICHIITA, KANS. PITTSBURG, PA. BATON ROUGE, LA. DAYTON, OHIO DURHAM, N.C. CINCINNATI, OHIO-KY.-IND. DALLAS, TEX. NASHVILLE, TENN. ORLANDO, FLA. ATLANTA, GA. HOUSTON, TEX. AUSTIN, TEX. 80 i 90 1 100 ^ ...... .....¥ ... .. ^ ...** a A w > ¥1 110 i 120 r Chapter IV. Income and Budget Costs The lower, moderate, and higher budgets pro vide three measures of income adequacy for a self-supporting family of a specific size, age, composition, residence and employment status. Thus, the total costs of the budgets should be compared directly only with the total annual in come of urban four-person, husband-wife fam ilies, a nonworking wife, and a husband 35 to 44 years old, who works full-tim e. However, none of these “ Census fam ilies” is suf ficiently like the “ BLS budget fam ily” to permit a direct comparison of their median money in come with total budget costs. 17/ 17/ The comparison is also affected by significant differences in the survey methods, used by the Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics, to obtain complete reports of money income, and by differences in the definition of a family. For an evaluation of these differences, see Statistical Evaluation Report No. 5, Family Income Distribution Statistics Published by Federal Agencies, issued by the Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistics Stand ards, December 1964. Unfortunately current income estimates for families of the budget type are not available. The Bureau of the Census, in its Current Population Reports, publishes annual estimates of median total money income for nonfarm families classi fied by a single fam ily characteristic, as indi cated in the tabulation below: Median T otal Money Income o f Nonfarm F am ilies^ 1960-61 and 1966 1960-61 1966 Percent change 1960-61 - One fu ll-tim e earner------------- $5 ,4 12 $6,780 25 Male head, married, wife present—not in labor fo rce----------------------------------- 5.795 7,305 26 A ll fam ilies of 2 or more---- 5.900 7,582 29 2 children under 18 years old............................... ........ 6.316 8.037 27 4 persons------------------------------- 6,552 8,1+63 29 Head 35-44 years old------------- 6,659 8,704 31 Head year-round f fu ll-tim e worker-------------------— ------- 6,969 8,859 27 Family characteristic Source: U.S. Department o f Commerce, Bureau o f the Census, Current Population R eports, S e rie s P-60 and Technical Paper Income o f Fam ilies and Persons in the United S t a te s . 39 1 7 : Trends in the 40 On the other hand, the trend in the Census data, between 1960-61 and 1966, rangingfrom25 to 31 percent increases in incomes for the fam ily types indicated in the tabulation, provides a reasonable approximation of the increase in in come over this same period for the more nar rowly defined budget family type. In the 1960-61 BLS Survey of Consumer Expenditures, before tax income of budget families averaged $9,095. Applying the trends reported in the Census data, 1966 average income before taxes for these familes must range between $11,000 and $12,000. 18/ The total costs of the budgets should also not be compared with general levels of industrial wages or salaries, or with average earnings in a particular industry or occupation. Such aver ages relate to all workers in the industry or occupation, including the young and inexperi enced. Historically, in this country, wages have been determined through a free job market or by collective bargaining, and generally have been related to the skills involved in performing a job. In this period of rising social concern for the welfare of fam ilies, however, the question of whether a worker is earning enough to maintain a moderate, or a lower or higher, living stand ard, assuming he had a wife and 2 children to support, is considered increasingly relevant in evaluating specific wage or salary structures. In such cases the earnings of workers who have 15 years or more of experience— sim ilar to the breadwinner in the three standards—provide an appropriate basis for comparison with the total costs of the budgets. 19/ Finally, for the lower standard, the total cost should not be interpreted as a goal or standard for public assistance or welfare programs. Our system of payments to dependent families in this country has been developed in the context of wel fare legislation, concerned prim arily about chil dren in homes in which the breadwinner is absent, disabled, or unemployed for varying periods of time. The total cost of the lower budget, however, assumes that the source of family income is from employment and that the breadwinner’ s earnings are sufficient to provide the level of consumption described by the budget and to pay the amounts specified for social security and personal income taxes. The lower budget cost of consumption in cludes only those components of fam ily living which are consumed directly by the family. Some of these costs are associated with the employ ment of the family head, for example, transpor tation to work, lunches away from home, work clothing, etc. Also, the provision for a group health insurance plan purchased through the hus band’ s place of employment is not applicable in the framework of public assistance or welfare programs. Generally, therefore, the individual components of the cost of consumption in the lower budget will provide the basis for more realistic benchmark estimates for assistance goals or standards than will the published total cost of consumption. Estimates of the costs of consumption for other family types can be derived by applying the revised equivalence scales described in Bulletin 1570-2 to the lower, moderate, and higher consumption totals for the 4-person fam ily. A method for approximating total budget costs is also explained in that Bulletin. These scale values can not be used, however, to esti mate costs of the components of the budgets. 18/ This estimate is less conservative than the one published in Bulletin 1570-1, when Census data for the 6-year period 1959 to 1965 were used to determine trends because 1966 data were not yet available. 19/ Adjustments should be made in the budget totals, if an industry or an employer pays all or none of the costs of health insurance, since the published totals represent a weighted average of methods of payment. Chapter V. Data Sources and Estimating Methods Concepts and general procedures used to de rive budget quantities and pricing specifications for the three standards were discussed in the Introduction. The following sections describe sources of data and methods of estimating quan tities and prices for the major budget components in detail. Appendix A shows the complete list of items and quantities per year which were used to determine the cost level of each living stand ard. reflect the food preferences of th e income classes containing the median incomes ($2,700, $5,800 and $9,400) of each third of the USDA in come distribution for urban households. The patterns for the region in which the city is lo cated were used for each city, except Washington, D.C. The U.S. patterns were used for Washington, since its population comes from all parts of the country and cannot be considered typically South ern. Food The spring 1965 price levels in each region were determined from the average prices paid for individual items by urban fam ilies in the $2,000-$2,999, $5,000-$5,999, and$9,000-$9,999 income classes in the USDA survey. These prices were weighted by factors which included the regional preference patterns for individual items within each major food group in the USDA plans. Individual city prices for pricing groups (groups of related items) were estimated from the p re ference-weighted regional survey averages, by applying the spring 1965 city-to-region ratios of prices collected by BLS for the same or com parable items. For all three budget levels, spring 1965 city prices were adjusted item by item to April 1967 by changes in prices obtained for the Consumer P rice Index for each city. The 1967 city-weighted average food group prices were applied to the USDA food plan quantities to obtain the final budget cots. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council has recommended dietary allowances for cal ories, proteins, several minerals, and vitamins for various sex-age groups. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has translated these dietary all o w a n c e s into food plans at different cost levels. 20/ The food-at-home components of the lower, moderate, and higher budgets were based on the USDA low-, moderate- and liberal-cost food plans, respectively. Each plan contains 11 food categories which group foods according to sim ilarity of nutritional values and uses in meals. The suggested quantities furnish the NRC’ s re c ommended allowances for nutrients when aver age food selections within each group are used. Regional consumption patterns for specific foods within each food group were obtained from the USDA 1965 Household Food Consumption Survey. Estimated costs for the three budgets BLS food prices for the Consumer P rice In dex are collected regularly from a representa tive sample of chain and independent food stores o f various types (e.g., groceries and meat mark ets), stores at different levels of annual sales volume, and stores in downtown, neighborhood, and suburban areas within a city. Average prices for each food are obtained by calculating inde pendent and chain store averages separately. These average prices are combined with weights representing the relative volume of food sales by all food stores of each type in a given city. 20/ Family Food Plans, Revised 1964, CA 62-19, November 1964, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agricul ture. In this revision of the food plans, the National Research Council’ s 1963 recommended dietary allowances, and the USDA’ s most recent estimates of nutritive contents of foods and food consumption patterns were used. 334-641 0 - 69 - 4 The USDA food plans provided for 21 meals per person per week to be eaten at home or carried 41 42 from home, or 4,368 meals annually for a fam ily of four. As shown in appendix Table A - l , the food-at-ho me component was adjusted in each budget to provide varying numbers of meals away from home. The smaller number of meals at home in nonmetropolitan areas mainly r e flects the purchase of more school lunches in small cities. Quantities and prices for school lunches were supplied by the public school system for each area. For a description of the derivation of quantities of lunches at work and other meals away from home, see page 47 . Shelter Costs Standards for the shelter components of the budgets 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, structural condition, and neighborhood location. For renter fam ilies, the shelter standards called for an unfurnished five-room unit (house or apartment) in sound condition; a complete private bath; a fully equipped kitchen; hot and cold running water; electricity, central or other installed heating; access to public transporta tion; schools, grocery stores, play space for children; and location in residential neighbor hoods free from hazards or nuisances. For the higher standard only, the dwelling unit might have more than 1 private bath, and the unit might provide extras such as a central switchboard, secretarial, swimming, or special recreational facilities. Rates for dwellings which met the standards were obtained from tenants during the regular rent surveys for the Consumer Price Index be tween August 1966 and January 1967. The costs of the rental shelter standards were calculated from the averages of rents paid in the low, mid dle, and high thirds of the distributions of autumn 1966 rents for the lower, moderate, and higher budgets respectively. The distribution used for the higher standard included the units having facilities which, by definition, were excluded from the moderate and lower standards. Rents were updated from the base pricing to FebruaryJuly 1967 by a change in the Consumer P rice Index for contract rents in each area. Since monthly contract rents in apartment; structures usually include water, heat, light, cooking fuel, refrigerator, etc., the costs for these items were added to the contract rents for dwellings whose tenants paid separately for them. The allowances on which the estimates of these additional costs were based were the same as those for homeowner fam ilies as described below. Insurance on household contents and against injury top ersons on the property also was included in rental housing costs at the moderate and higher levels, and fire insurance and extended coverage pro visions were provided in the lower budget. The proportions of renter fam ilies purchasing in surance at each level are indicated in appendix A -2 (footnote 7). Homeownership was specified for 75 percent of the families at the moderate standard, and 85 percent of those at the higher level. These spe cifications reflect the prevailing manner of living for urban families of the budget type as reported in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures (CES). The moderate ratio was based on the U.S. urban average proportion; the higher standard, on the average proportion in income classes above the class containing the average. The lower standard which was limited to rental housing only reflects the prevalent pattern at the lower end of the consumption scale. For homeowner families, the costs of main taining the shelter standards were calculated for a five- or six-room house, with 1- or 1- 1/2 baths for the moderate, and 1 or more baths for the higher standard. Both standards called for a fully equipped kitchen, hot and cold running water, electricity, and central or other installed heat ing. Neighborhood specifications were the same as described above for rental units. Costs in cluded mortgage principal and interest pay ments for a home purchased 7 years ago. These figures were based on the average length of homeownership for fam ilies of this types as r e ported in the 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure 43 Survey. Purchase prices were determined sep arately for each metropolitan area (and within areas for the city proper and the suburbs) and for each small city. They represented the aver age values in the middle and upper thirds of the distribution of market values (for the moderate and higher standards respectively) for dwellings in the BLS 1959-60 Comprehensive Housing Unit Survey which met the budget housing standards. The average U.S. urbanpurchase prices for these dwellings were $14,480 for the moderate budget and $19,999 for the h i g h e r budget in 196061. Costs of fuel and utilities also were included. The housing specifications required central heating equipment in cities where the average January temperature is 40 °F . or colder, except in five cities where other installed heating equip ment was accepted as more typical of the manner of living. Central or o t h e r installed heating equipment (base burner, pipeless furnace, or stove with flue) was required for cities having warmer climates, except for Honolulu, and Mc Allen, Tex., where average January tempera tures were 72° and 61°, respectively. A space heater also was included for each of the second group of cities, except Honolulu. Principal and interest costs were estimated separately for conventional mortgages and mort gages insured by the Federal Housing Adminis tration or by the Veterans Administration. Terms of the mortgages and the ratios of mort gage to purchase prices were based on practices of all urban fam ilies reporting the purchase of homes in the indicated purchase price classes in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. For the moderate budget, payments were cal culated for a 15-year conventional first mort gage representing 75 percent of the purchase price, and a 25-year FHA or VA mortgage for 85 percent of the purchase price. At the higher level, the payments represented a 20 -year con ventional mortgage for 65 percent of the purchase price, and 25-year FHA or VA mortgage for 80 percent of the purchase price. Payments were combined by weights representing the distribu tions of various types of mortgages reported by U.S. urban buyers in the respective purchaseprice classes. In addition, the costs included appropriate taxes, and reflected varying assess ment practices and rates in individual cities. On insurance, the moderate standard used the most economical comprehensive homeowner’ s policy which provided insurance up to 80 percent of the 1960-61 market value of the house, in addition to some coverage on its contents and for injury to persons on the property. The higher standard budget included a policy having broader extended coverage provisions. Allowances for repairs and replacement costs were included, and were based on an analysis of the 1960-61 Consumer Expen diture Survey data for budget-type fami lies. 21/ To adjust for climatic differences, fuel r e quirements for maintaining an indoor winter temperature of 70° F. were estimated. The basis for these estimates was the amount of fuel used to heat homes of approximately the budget spe cification, as reported in a 1962 trade associa tion survey of 62 cities supplemented by data from individual utility companies. These data w e r e 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 of heating fuel used in each city. Utility companies and associations estimated electricity and other utilities for the appliances specified in the budget. The moderate allowances reflect normal average operation of appliances, and allowances for the lower standard a more economical usage. Allowances for the higher standard provide for the operation of a dish washer, waste disposal, and clothes d r y e r appliances not included in the moderate and lower standards. The moderate and higher budg ets also include an electricity allowance to op erate a window air conditioner in cities which meet specified average monthly temperature and relative humidity ratings; the criteria were more stringent for the moderate than for the higher standard. (See footnote 3 on table A-2, Pt. C.) 21/ See Section on Other Goods and Services (p. 45 ) for description of analytical method. 44 Transportation For the moderate standard, a u t o m o b i l e ownership was specified for 80 percent of the budget fam ilies in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia; 95 percent of the fam ilies in other metropolitan areas having 1.4 million population or more in 1960; and 100 percent of the fam ilies in all other metropolitan and non metropolitan areas. These proportions repre sented 1960-61 average ownership rates r e ported in the CES data for all budget-type fam ilies in these areas. For the lower standard housing is restricted to rental units, which are more likely than owned units to be located in a centralized part of the metropolitan area. Reflecting greater accessibility to public trans portation, auto ownership in this standard was specified for one-half the fam ilies in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, and about two-thirds in all other metropolitan areas, and was based on average ownership for renter fam ilies of the budget type. In nonmetropolitan areas, an automobile is a necessity, since generally limited or no public transportation is available. Therefore, each of the budgets pro vided for an automobile. The higher standard provides an automobile for all fam ilies in both metropolitan and nonmetroplitan areas, typical of budget fam ilies at all income levels above the average. The budgets provide for the purchase of a car every 4 years, based on the customary purchases of fam ilies of the budget type. In the moderate budget, the purchase is a 2 -year old used car. This car, a trade-in, is assumed to be the age and type of car purchased by the family in the lower standard. The higher standard bud get, however, provides a new car for 60percent of the fam ilies based on the average proportion of new car purchasers in the 1960-61 data, and the same car ( 2 -year old used) as in the moderate standard for the remaining 40 percent. The average age of the car for which mileage and operating expenses were calculated is 4 years for the moderate and higher budgets and 8 years for the lower budget. The mileage for the moderate and higher standards is the average reported by all budget type fam ilies in 1960-61, and for the lower standard, the average miles driven by fam ilies owning automobiles 6 years or older. In Boston* Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, however, the mileage was adjusted to reflect the lower proportion of workers reporting the use of a private automobile or carpool to ride to work, compared with other metropolitan areas. These adjustment factors were derived from data on home-to-work travel obtained from the 1963 Passenger Transportation Survey by the Bureau of the Census. A corresponding increase in the allowances for public transportation in these four areas also was made. Of the 442 local transit trips (other than school rides) reported by budget type fam ilies who do not own cars, 58 percent were rides to work by the fam ily head, and the remainder were rides for other purposes by all family members. As reflected in the 1960-61 expenditure data, some family heads walk to work or have access to a company car or other means of free trans portation. In table 1 transportation costs for nonowners at the moderate standard were esti mated and published for all areas as a conve nience to budget users. However, in areas in which 100 percent auto ownership was specified for this standard, the estimates for nonowners were not used to calculate the total cost of trans portation. Medical Care In all three budget standards, the medical care allowance includes the same basic hospital and surgical insurance for all fam ily members, obtained by the husband through a group contract at his place of employment. The Health Insurance Association of Am erica estimated the costs of a standardized contract fo r commercial car r ie rs in the areas priced for the budget. The con tract provides full care for 70 days in a room of two beds or more for each hospital confinement, all supplies and ancillary services normally pro vided, and surgical benefits. Costs also were obtained for the Blue Cross-Blue Shield con 45 tracts most nearly comparable to the commerical insurance provisions. Budget costs were based on the lower of the two premiums (for either the commercial or Blue Plan contracts) in each area. A majority of families of the budget type do not bear the full cost of their health insurance, since the employer pays part or all of the premium. The cost of the contract selected for each area, therefore, was weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: 30 percent paying the full cost of their insurance; 26 percent paying half the cost; and 44 percent making no payment since the employer pays the entire cost. 22/ The higher standard budget also includes a supplementary major medical insurance con tract, which covers all family members and was obtained by the husband through a group con tract where he worked. Costs of a standardized contract in all budget areas were estimated for the commercial carriers by the Health Insurance Association of Am erica (Blue CrossBlue Shield contracts were not included). The contract can supplement either the Blue Plan or commercial insurance basic hospital-surgi cal contracts. The terms include: 1. An initial deductible of $100 per person per contract year. 2. Coinsurance, the contract covers 80 per cent of the changes beyond the basic policy coverage plus the $100 deductible. 3. Benefit maximums of $5,000 in any illness or during the benefit year, and $10,000 lifetim e for each person. The maximum are restorable on proof of insurability. The charges covered include: h o s p i t a l , surgical, non-surgical p h y s i c i a n visits for diagnosis and treatment, private duty nursing, prescribed drugs and medicines, X -ray serv ices, laboratory tests, oxygen, physiotherapy, radium, radiation isotopes, equipment and ap pliances, local ambulance services. As with the basic hospital-surgical con tracts, the cost of the supplementary major medical contract was weighted to reflect those costs borne by the employer (using the same weights as those described above). Quantities for medical care not covered by insurance were derived from two sources. Physician’ s visits and dental care were es timated from 1963-64 utilization data from the National Health Survey and are the same for all three standards. (Due to the $100 per person deductible in the major medical insurance for the higher standard budget, the cost of physician’ s visits cannot be deleted from that budget.) Allowances for eye care, prescription and nonprescription drugs, and other m iscell aneous medical care were developed from the 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The costs in the latter group are the same in all three budgets except for eye glasses, where the cost of eye glass frames varies from budget to budget. Average fees and prices for medical services and supplies were those collected for the Consumer P rice Index, and were supplemented by prices obtained specifically for budget uses. Other Goods and Services Food at home, shelter, transportation, and medical care, as specified for the budgets, account for 69 percent of family consumption for the lower living standard, 67 percent for the moderate standard, and 61 percent for the 22/ See Wage and Related Benefits, Part II: Metropolitan Areas, United States and Regional Summaries, 1964-65 (BLS Bulletin 1430-83, 1966), pp, 97 and 106; Walter W. Kolodrubetz “Growth in Employee - Benefit Plans, 1950-65” Social Security Bulletin, April 1967, p. 18. 46 higher standard. The remainder includes house furnishings, household operation, clothing, per sonal care, education, reading, r e c r e a t i o n , meals away from home, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco. For these components, budget allowances for the moderate standard were developed by ex amining the quantities of, or expenditures for, various classes of items purchased at suc cessive income levels by budget-type families found in the Bureau’ s 1960-61 Survey of Con sumer Expenditures. The analysis determines the income level at which the rate of increase in quantities purchased, or expenditures begin 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 pur chased at these income levels are the quantities and qualities specified for the moderate 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 de mand, and decreasing elasticity indicates de creasing urgency. The point of maximum elasti city has been described as the point on the in come scale where fam ilies stopped buying “ more and m ore” and started buying either “better and better” or something else less essential to them. 23/ No separate statistical analysis was made to define the consumption level appropriate for the lower and the higher living standards. Instead, budget allowances for the lower stand ard were most often derived at the next lower income class below the class in which the inflection point (point of maximum elasticity defined as equivalent to the moderate stand ard) was located. Allowances for the higher standard were obtained mostly from the next higher income class above the class containing the inflection point. In this unified conceptual framework, therefore, the lower standard bud get describes a point on the income scale at which families are still buying “ more and m ore,” in contrast to the higher which families are already better” or something else relation to the norms*, of the standard budget in buying “better and less essential in prevailing culture. For a majority of the items in the housefurnishings, clothing, personal care, and recrea tion components, the quantities used in the quantity-income elasticity analyses 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 calculated. The point of maximum elasticity for the majority of sub groups in the clothing component was located in the initial (after tax) income class, $3,000$4,000, for this family type. Since there were no budget-type fam ilies having 1960-61 after tax income below $3 ,000 , the clothing quantity allowances of the moderate standard are also used for the lower standard. Although clothing items are identical for the three budgets, the quantities for the higher standard are more liberal than the moderate allowances. The major differences in clothing costs among the three standards, however, are due to differences in price, and quality rather than quantity. Clothing materials and services are provided for the three standards. However, services such as dressmaking, fur storage, and shoe shines, are not included in the lower standard. In housefurnishings, quantities at first in creased relatively more rapidly than income and then increased at a relatively slower rate 23/ This technique was developed for the original City Worker’ s Family Budget and is described in detail in Technical Reference 10, appendix D» It also was used, with some refine ments, to derive quantities for The Interim City Worker’ s Family Budget in 1959 (Technical Reference 5). 47 than income. This pattern was characteristic. The inflection point, which deter mined the allow ances for the moderate standard, was most com monly in the $5,000-$6,000 income class. For the lower standard, quantities were derived from the next lowest income class ($4,000$5,000), and for the higher standard, from the class above the inflection point. The moderate and higher budgets include a window air condi tioner in cities which met specific summer temperature-relative humidity levels. The high er budget permits air conditioning in 34 metro politan areas and 2 nonmetropolitan regions, compared with 17 metropolitan and 2 nonmetro politan regions at the moderate standard. Major appliances, such as a clothes dryer, dishwasher, and waste disposal, are provided in the higher budget but not in the moderate and lower budgets. These items generally are associated with a higher level of homeowner ship and a more comfortable manner of living. A few furniture items not generally purchased by renter fam ilies were excluded from the lower standard budget. The household operation point of maximum elasticity occurred between $6,000-$7,500. Thie lower and higher budget allowances were derived f r o m the $5,000-$6,000 and $7,500-$10,000 classes, respectively. Costs varied among the standards due to quantity and item differences, since the prices in this component were for items of standard quality. The lower standard provides a clothes washer; no paid household help is included. The moderate standard provides some launderette service in addition to a wash ing machine. The higher standard allows some laundry and dry cleaning for household items and occasional household help. Except for 15 percent of the fam ilies in the lower standard, fam ilies in the three standards had home telephone service. The points of maximum elasticity for read ing, recreation, personal care, and tobacco were generally between $6,000-$7,500. The lower and higher allowances were derived from the income classes immediately below and above the inflection point, respectively. For personal care in the lower standard however, allowances were obtained from two income classes below the inflection point. Cost differences in the reading component reflected the variations in spending reported by this family type in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. For recreation, the lower standard budget provides a radio and television set. A phonograph, records, and other musical instruments are added for the moderate standard and a tape recorder and some color television (reflecting current purchasing pat terns) for the higher standard. The lower standard allows movie attendance, but free sports and cultural events are the main sources of entertainment. Both the moderate and higher budgets provide a variety of paid entertainment, such as plays, concerts, sports events and hobbies. Personal care across standards varies in the quantities of paid services. Family members in the lower budget are limited to haircuts, except for a special occasional visit to the beauty shop by the wife. More beauty shop services are available to fam ilies in the moderate and higher budgets. Cigarettes, which had been included in the moderate standard budget for October 1966, were deleted from all three standards for the spring 1967 pricing period, to conform to the require ments for improved health as formulated by the U.S. Public Health Service. Quantities of cigars and pipe tobacco were derived at the inflection point in the $6,000-$7,500 income class for the moderate standard, and from the income classes immediately below and above the inflection point respectively for the lower and higher standards. Elasticities for food away from home and alcoholic beverages were ever-increasing, and quantities for these components at the level of the moderate standard were derived between $6,000-$7,500. These moderate quantities were converted to reflect the manner of living of fam ilies at lower and higher income levels. Liquor is replaced by quantities of beer in the minimum standard, and less beer and more liquor are in cluded in the higher standard. 48 Lodging away from home is limited to the higher standard because the point of maximum elasticity was located between $10,000-$15,000. It is assumed that fam ilies at the other standards camped or stayed with friends or relatives during their vacations. Other Costs The allowance for gifts and contributions in the moderate standard was adjusted upward from the ratio estimate used in the interim budget. This adjustment, which reflected both the change in the level of living and the increase in prices between 1959 and 1966, approximated the allow ance indicated by the average of incomes $5,000$7,500 in the 1960-61 CES for this family type. The income class ($3,000-$5,000), below the implied class for the moderate standard, pro vided the ratio allowance for the lower standard, However, the real point of maximum elasticity in outlays for gifts and contributions in the 196061 data was between $7,500-$10,000, and this class was the basis for the higher standard allowance. Like gifts and contributions, the average out lay for life insurance in the moderate standard was derived from an upward adjustment of the cost estimate used in the interim revision budget. The cost approximated the average reported by fam ilies in the 1960-61 median income class. The higher standard allowance was derived at the inflection point, which was located at the next higher income class above the median. The lower standard allowance was obtained from the class below the median: In each case, the annual pre mium pays for a policy having a face value ap proximately equal to 1 year's regular family income should the breadwinner die. Occupational expenses in the moderate budget represent the average outlay in the median in come class forbudget-type fam ilies, as reported in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. For the lower standard, expenses were calcu lated from the income class below the median. The higher standard allowance, from incomes $7,500-$10,000, showed, inparticular, the impact of the nonreimbursed cost of using the family automobile for business purposes, and business and professional association dues. Social security and Federal, State, and local income taxes were calculated from rates ap plicable in 1967, as required by the level of the total budget. Employees contributed 4.4 percent to social security on maximum creditable earn ings of $6,600 at this date. (The amount of taxable annual earnings was increased to $7,800, effec tive January 1, 1968, but employee contributions continues at 4.4 percent until 1969, when the rate is scheduled to be i n c r e a s e d to 4.8 percent). Pricing Procedures Because the resources of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for work on the standard budgets did not permit extensive collection of additional price data for the lower and higher standard budgets or for the repricing of the (Autumn 1966) moderate family budget in the spring of 1967, various procedures (described below) were used to estimate prices for individual items. Gener ally, costs for most components included in the higher and lower standard were calculated at fall 1966 prices. These costs were then adjusted from the fall of 1966 to the spring of 1967 by the change in the appropriate Consumer P rice Index estimating class for each city (or region, for nonmetropolitan areas). Some exceptions to this procedure were made where collected prices were readily available. The most important of these were new and used cars; homeowners', automobile, and health insurance premiums; and some “ spring and summer* seasonal items of apparel and household furnishings. No special collection of food prices was made for any of the three budget levels. Instead, as explained on page 41 of this bulletin, spring 1965 average prices paid by urban fam ilies at speci fied income classes in each of four regions as determined from the USDA 1965 Household Food Consumption Study were used for the computa tions. Prices for individual cities were estimated from the USDA regional averages, according to the intercity relationships of prices collected in 56 urban areas throughout the United States by BLS for the Consumer P rice Index. 49 P rices used to calculate shelter costs were taken from a number of sources. They applied to fam ilies living in renter or owner occupied units meeting the standards shown on page 42 . Except for insurance, these costs were calcu lated for all three budget levels for the fall of 1966 as described in Bulletin 1570-3, “ P ric ing Procedures, Specifications, and Average Prices, Autumn 1966,” pp. 23-26, and adjusted to the Spring of 1967 by using the appropriate changes in the CPI for each city. As indicated earlier, the prices (and quanti ties) used for medical care at the higher and lower standards were the same as those used for the moderate budget, except that premiums for a “ major medical* health insurance contract were added to the higher standard to supplement the basic hospital-surgical insurance contract, used in both the moderate and lower standards. Most of the prices for the other commodities and services included in the budgets were estimated in a number of ways. Ideally, prices included in these budgets should represent the specific “ narrow* qualities of goods and services purchased by fam ilies living at the higher and lower standards, and obtained from retailers and service establishments patronized by these familes. Despite the fact that few prices were collected specifically for these budgets, esti mates, using the data collected for the moderate family budget as a starting point were possible. In some cases, for example, price data collected for the moderate standard covered a broad range of “qualities,” so that appropriate distinctions could be made between the qualities represented in the moderate budgets and those represented in the higher and lower budgets. In other cases, particularly those using CPI price data (e.g., rent, homeownership costs, and automoble pur chase), actual price data for items included in the higher and lower standard already were available. Finally, prices of a few items were estimated from known relationships with related items for which prices actually are collected. For a detailed description of the specifications, pricing and estimating procedure used in the fall 1966 moderate budget, see BLS Bulletin 1570-3. Estimating Procedures In most cases, prices of commodities other than food and shelter were estimated through the use of several general estimating pro cedures, as described below. The code numbers have been entered for each budget item in the columns headed “ Pricingcode or estimatingprocedure” on tables A - l through A - 8 . Where a procedure is shown, estimates usually were based on prices corresponding to the moderate standard pricing code. These codes and specifi cations are described in detail in Bulletin 1570-3. Where additional pricing was done for the lower and higher standards, or a specific price estimation procedure which dif fered from the moderate budget procedure was used, a new pricing code is shown. The detailed specifications for these items, together with the calculation procedure used in each case, are shown in appendix B. The formats of the specifications and calculation procedures follow those used in Bulletin 1570-3. The general estimating procedures used to calculate prices for items other than food and shelter for the higher and lower standards are as follows: E P - 1. The price used in this budget was the same price used in the moderate budget. In these cases, the quality of the item purchased was either the same for the respective (higher or lower) standard as for the moderate standard; prices for other qualities were not available; or specifying different qualities as, for example, most services was not possible. EP - 2. The price of the item was estimated as a specified percentage ratio (same as in moderate budget) of the estimated or actual price of another item in the same budget. These ratios were based upon known price relationships between the various items as determined from manu facturer’ s prices, retail catalogs, and other pertinent data. See ap pendix 1 of Bulletin 1570-3 for the exact ratios used for each item. 50 EP - 3. The price of the item in the five benchmark cities represents aver age prices representing the wide range of “qualities” collected for the moderate budget. In the other cities, the prices were calculated using ratio estimates based on t h e s e prices. (See Bulletin 1570-3, pp. 1618 for a description of the “bench mark city” calculation procedure used in the moderate budget.) The ratios were calculated separately for each benchmark city. For the higher budget, they represent the ratio of the average price of the upper third of the array to the price used in the moderate budget; for the lower budget, of the lower third. These ratios were then applied to the prices used in the moderate budget in the other cities within the region in which the benchmark city is located. EP - 4. The price of the item was estimated in the same manner as in 3 (above). Arrays of prices from the bench mark cities, were used except that the benchmark city average prices and ratios were based on the aver age price of the upper and lower half of the array for the higher and lower budgets, respectively. EP - 5. The appliance prices used in the moderate budget represented spe cific makes and model numbers in the five benchmark cities. For the higher standard, prices for spe cified makes and models of a some what higher quality were collected in the benchmark cities. A ratio estimate comparing the prices of the “higher” quality with those of the quality used in the moderate budget was then calculated and applied to the moderate budget price in each city within the respective region. - 6 . The prices of the two items were estimated separately. Box spring prices were estimated using EP-3 procedure, i.e., higher and lower thirds of the arrays of prices of 23-204 (FB-G) in benchmark cities. Mattress prices were estimated at same level as box springs. - 7. In the higher budget, prices of television sets were represented as the ratio of the prices of the highest one-third of the array of black-andwhite and of color television prices to the average prices of black-andwhite sets used in the benchmark cities for the moderate budget and color sets of comparable (moderate) quality. The estimated prices for black-and-white and c o l o r tele vision sets then were combined by weights (27 percent and 73 percent, respectively). For the lower stand ard, prices of black-and-white sets were sim ilarly calculated. Only the array of black-and-white prices was used. A p pen dix--C on ten ts Appendix A. Quantity budgets fo r lo w e r, m oderate, and higher liv in g standards fo r a fo u r-p e rs o n urban fa m ily , decade of the 1960*s Page E xplanatory N o t e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T a b le s : A - l. F ood budget q u a n tities-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. F ood away fro m h o m e -----------------------------------------------------------------A - 2. Housing budget quantities-------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Shelter: R enter fa m ilie s --------------------------------------------------------------B. Shelter: H om eow ner fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------------C. Lodgin g away fro m home: a ll fa m ilie s ----------------------------------------D. H ou sefu rn ish in gs------------------------------------------------------------------------E. Household o p e ra tio n s ------------------------------------------------------------------A - 3. Transportation budget quantities. - :______________________________________ A . Autom obile o w n e r s _______________________________________________________ B. N onow ners of a u to m o b ile s _______________________________________________ A - 4. Clothing budget quantities-------------------------------------------------------------------------A. H usband-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. B o y .----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. W ife -----------------------------------------------------------D. G irl__________________________________________________________________________ E. Clothing m a te ria ls and s e r v i c e s --------------------------------------------------A - 5. P e rs o n a l c a r e -------------------------------------------------------A -6 . M ed ical c a r e ________________________________________________________________________ A - 7. Other fa m ily con su m p tion --------------A. Reading m a t e r ia ls -----------------------------------------------------------------------B. R e crea tio n --------------------------------------------------------------------C. Education------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D. T o b a c c o -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E. A lco h o lic b e v e r a g e s ______________________________________________________ F. M iscellan eou s e x p e n s e s __________________________________________________ A -8 . Other c o s ts __________________________________________________________________________ A. Gifts and c o n tr ib u tio n s ----------------------------------------------------------------B. L ife in su ra n ce----------------------------------------------------------------------------A - 9. Occupational expenses and ta x e s __________________________________________________ A . Occupational e x p e n s e s __________________________________ ;________________ B. T a x e s ----------A - 10. R atios fo r estim atin g costs of unpriced budget item s_____________________________ Appendix B. P r ic in g sp ecifica tio n s fo r item s in lo w er and higher budgets (Supplement to 1570-3)-----------------------------------------------------------Appendix C. Table C -l. Index of population w eights used in the budgets--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appendix D. Tech n ical r e f e r e n c e s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 51 52 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 58 58 58 59 59 60 61 62 63 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 69 89 92 A p p e n d ix Quantity A Budgets fo r L o w e r, M oderate, H igh er L iv in g Standards and Explanatory Note Q u an tities: T ables A - l through A - 9 which fo llo w in this Appendix show, fo r each component of fa m ily liv in g , the annual a vera g e quantities of item s which w ere used to determ in e the costs of th ree liv in g standards fo r a fa m ily of four p e r son s--an em ployed husband, age 38, a w ife not e m p loyed outside the home, and two ch ildren, a g ir l age 8 and a boy of 13. The quantities a re not v a lid fo r other s iz e s , age groups, or types of fa m ilie s . The quantity budgets a re not designed to show how an “ a v e r a g e ” fa m ily of fou r p erson s actu ally spends its m oney, or how a fa m ily should spend its m oney. They a re e s se n tia lly p ric in g lis ts of item s, broadly defined, which w ere used to determ in e the gen eral le v e l of purchases fo r each m a jo r component of the budgets. The methods and sources used to d e riv e the budget quanti ties a re d escrib ed in the text of this bulletin. P r i c e s : In the determ in ation of budget costs, the le v e ls of p ric e s paid fo r item s a re as im portant as the num bers of quantities bought. The p ric in g codes in T ables A - l through A -8 id en tify the sp ecifica tio n s, or detailed descrip tion s, of item s which w ere p ric ed . Th ese sp ecifica tio n s co n trol the le v e ls of a vera g e p ric e s used in each budget. F o r the m oderate standard, the sp ecifica tio n s, together with a vera g e p ric e s fo r the U.S. and 5 m etrop olita n a re a s , have been published in C ity W o rk e r's F a m ily Budget: P r ic in g P ro c e d u re s , S p ecification s, and% A v e r a g e P r ic e s , Autumn 1966, Bulletin No. 1 570-3. S p ecifications fo r the lo w er and higher bud gets, which d iffe r fro m those used in the m oderate standard, a re shown in Appendix B of this B ulletin. F o r item s in the lo w e r and higher budgets fo r which a vera g e p r ic e le v e ls w e re estim ated, an E stim ating P ro c ed u re Code is indicated. Th ese codes a re explained in the text (see p. 49). C o s ts : F o r a m a jo rity of item s in the budget, cost is the product of quantity tim es p r ic e . G en erally both the quantity and the p ric e le v e l in c re a s e as the livin g standard r is e s . O cc a s io n a lly , h ow ever, quantities declin e, and the in crea se in cost resu lts s o le ly fro m an im p rovem en t in quality. F o r some budget item s fo r which no p ric in g code or p ric e estim ating proced u re is shown, only an estim ated cost in 1966 fo r a ll c itie s is indicated. Th ese estim ates w ere obtained by up dating the U.S. a vera g e costs of the item , as rep orted in the 1960-61 Survey of C onsum er Expenditures, to 1966 by change in the appropriate sub-group, group, or “ a ll ite m s ” Consum er P r ic e Index. Costs in 1967 w ere estim ated sep a rately fo r each m etropolitan a rea and non m etrop olita n region by change in the C P I at the appropriate subgroup le v e l. Table A - 10 lis ts the budget item s fo r which cu rrent costs w ere calculated as ratios of the costs of other item s based on com parable ratios rep orted in the 1960-61 CES. Separate quantities fo r m etropolitan and nonm etropolitan a rea s w e re used to compute item costs. The U.S. urban a vera g e quantities and estim ated costs shown in T a b les A - l through A -9 , and the ra tio estim a tes fo r unpriced item s in Table A - 10 w ere d e rived by applying a w eight of 82 p ercen t to the m etropolitan quantities and 18 p ercen t to the nonm etropolitan quantities. 52 53 Table A-l. Food Budget Quantities Quantity Item L o w e r standard Per w eek 1 M o derate standard Per year 2 Per w eek 1 A. M ilk and m ilk products 4 ______ M eat, poultry, and fish _______ ________p o u n d ___ Eggs ------------------------------------------ ________d o z e n ___ D ry beans, peas, and n u ts ____ ________p o u n d ___ G r a in products 5 ________________ ___________ do ... C itru s fru its and t o m a t o e s _______________ d o __ P otatoes _________________________ ___________ d o ___ Other v egetables and fru its __ ___________ d o ___ Fats and oils ___________________ ___________ d o ___ Sugar and sweets _______________ ___________ d o ___ A c c e s s o rie s : Coffee ________________________ T ea ___________________________ ___________ d o ___ Soft drinks ___________________ Dinners 7------------------------------- — 18. 11. 2. 1. 13. 7. 10. 22. 2. 2. 00 25 08 38 00 50 00 50 12 75 884. 1 552. 6 102. 2 67. 8 638. 5 368.4 491. 2 1, 105. 2 104. 2 135. 1 ( 6) 1. 60 $0. 22 19.00 B. 54-505X E P -1 54-525X 54-51OX 54-520X 54-530X 20. 50 20. 75 2.42 . 88 11. 00 11. 75 7. 75 27. 75 2. 75 4. 25 0 9 8 9 7 1 7 8 2 9 _ - 1. 96 $0. 27 - P r ic in g code or p rice estim ating pro ced u re fo r: Low er M o d erate H igher standard standard standard M e a ls , total ___________ Lunches at w o r k ---Lunches at school — Other ------- --------------Snacks 7 ________________ 927. 853. 109. 42. 597. 439. 414. 1,219. 134. 164. ( 6) ( 6) - Per w eek 1 Per y ear 2 Food at home 1 3 2 17. 50 2. 25 . 88 12. 25 9. 00 8. 50 25. 00 2. 75 3. 38 _ - ( 67 ) H ig h e r standard Per year 2 ( 6) ( 6) 2. 11 $0. 25 - 989. 1,001. 116. 42. 530. 566. 373. 1,338. 132. 205. 0 1 8 5 7 9 9 8 7 0 _ _ _ - Quantity p e r y ear Low er standard M o d erate standard H igh er standard Food aw ay fro m home 54-515X E P -1 54-535X 242 66 150 26 $ 62.44 270 78 150 42 $6 9.46 316 97 150 68 $71. 76 1 W eekly quantities provide fo r 84 m eals at home o r 4, 368 annually. 2 Annual quantity allow an ces shown fo r m etropolitan and nonm etropolitan a r e a s have been adjusted to exclude the num ber of m ea ls aw ay fro m home as shown in part B fo r each budget le v e l. F o r m etropolitan a r e a s , the quantity allow ance pro vid es 4, 056 m ea ls at home fo r the higher budget, 4, 107 for the m oderate budget, and 4, 135 fo r the lo w er budget. F o r nonm etropolitan a r e a s , becau se of variations in the num ber of school lunches by cities, the quantity allow ances provide fo r an av e ra g e of 4, 036 m e a ls at home fo r the h igher budget, 4,058 fo r the m oderate budget, arid 4,083 fo r the lo w e r budget. 3 Quantities fro m the lo w -, m o d e ra te -, and lib e r a l-c o s t food plans, published by the U .S . D epartm ent of A g ric u ltu re (see footnote 20, p . 4 l ) . 4 Includes fluid whole m ilk and m ilk products; quantities a re converted to units containing the sam e calciu m content as m ilk, by using the follow ing equivalents: 1 cup of m ilk equals 3/4 pound of cottage cheese (c re a m e d ), 1 pound of cre a m cheese, I V 3 ounces of cheddar ch eese, or 1 scant pint of ice cre am . 5 W eight in term s of flou r and c e re a l. 1 V 2 pounds of bre a d or baked goods a r e counted as 1 pound of flou r. 6 The coffee and tea quantites shown below a r e fo r both m etropolitan and nonm etropolitan a r e a s within a region, and reflec t reg io n a l p referen ce patterns. Quantities fo r the m oderate budget a re a c o rrectio n of the data published in Bulletin 1570-1, p. 24. (C o ffe e , tea, and soft drink quantities are estim ates p re p a re d by B L S fro m U S D A survey data. ) Quantity per week (in pounds) L o w e r________ M o derate________ H igh er Region C offee Tea N o r t h e a s t __________________ 0.438 0.048 N o rth C en tral _________ 562 .034 S o u th _______________________ .370 .058 W e st .......................................... 384 .028 W ashington, D. C. (U .S . p a t t e r n ).........................432 .046 Coffee T ea 0.438 0.044 . 522 .034 .406 .080 .464 .030 .458 .048 C offee T ea 0. 500 0.030 .468 .032 . 574 . 048 .498 . 056 .506 .040 7 E stim ated costs in 1966 in a ll cities. Costs in 1967 w ere estim ated sep a ra tely fo r each m etropolitan a re a and nonm etropolitan regio n by the changes in the C onsum er P r ic e Index at th e'ap p ro p riate subgroup level. 54 Table A-2. Item Housing Budget Quantities P ric in g code o r p rice estimating proced ure fo r: L o w er M oderate H igher standard standard standard A. Contract rent: Unfurnished 5-r o o m dw elling unit containing specified installed equipm ent------------------------------------ month — Heating fuel: M ost common type heating fuel used in each c i t y -----------------------------------------------------W a t e r -------------------------------------------- cubic foot — E lec tricity : Lighting, refrig e ra tio n , and e lectrica l a p p lia n c e s ---------------------- k ilow att-h our — P o w e r fo r heating equipm ent------------ d o ------G a s :5 Cook ing-------------------------------------------therm — Hot w ate r h eatin g------------------------------- d o ------Furnace p i l o t ------------------------------------- d o ------Refuse disposal: T rash and garb age r e m o v a l------------------------Equipment: R e f r i g e r a t o r _______ ______ ____________________ Rang e ________ ____ ______ ___ ________ __ ____ _ 21-005X 21-01OX 21-015X E P -1 22-748 22-750X E P -1 - 22-500X - E P -1 - E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 22-370X 22-380X 22-390X E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 23-385X E P -3 B. Shelter (5 - o r 6 - room d w ellin g): M o rtgage interest, p rin cip al payment P ro p e rty tax . H om eow ner insurance p re m iu m -----------------R epairs and m aintenance: R ep airs contracted out: Painting and red e co ratio n -----------------R epair of r o o f ------- -----------------------------Othe r ----------------------------------------------------R epair m a te ria ls: Painting and redecoration - gallons — Othe r ----------------------------------------------------Heating fuel: M ost common type heating fuel used in each city . ------- cubic f o o t . E lec tricity : Lighting, refrig eratio n , and electrica l — kilow att-h our — appliances P o w e r fo r heating equipm ent-------------d o -----G a s :5 C ook ing------------------------------------------ therm — Hot w ate r h e atin g-------------------------------- d o -----Furnace p i l o t -------------------------------------- d o -----Refuse disposal: T ra sh and ga rb age r e m o v a l------------------------Equipment: R e f r i g e r a t o r ----------------- —-----------------------------R a n g e -------------------------------------------------- ----------- See footnotes at end of table. 12 (2) 14,560 (* ) 14,560 ( 2) 15,566 1,500 (4) 3 1,800 (4) 3 3,150 ( 4) 120 300 120 120 300 120 ( 6) 120 324 120 ( 6) . 06 . 06 (6) . 06 . 06 7 1. 00 . 06 . 06 M oderate standard H igher standard H om eowner fa m ilies 21-110X 21-120X 21-140X 21-115X 21-125X 21-145X 21-527 21-437 - E P -1 E P -1 - . 10 . 03 (8) . 13 . 04 (8) 21- 181 - E P -1 “ 3. 56 (8) 3. 60 (8 ) . 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 22-748 22-750X ( 2) 14,560 ( 2) 15,566 22-500X - E P -1 - 3 1,800 (4) 3 3, 150 ( 4) 22-370X 22-380X 22-390X E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 120 300 120 120 324 120 23-984FB E P -1 1. 00 1. 00 23-387 23-399, 23-399A/ 399C E P -5 E P -3 . 06 . 06 . 06 . 06 C. H otels, m otels, cottages, etc Shelter: 12 o o H igher standard M oderate standard 12 r- E P -5 23-387 E P -3 23-399, 23-399A / 399C 23-970X E P -1 Renter fa m ilies 1 o o 23-965X - - H igher standard M oderate standard t- Insurance on household co n ten ts---------------------- Shelter: Quantity p e r y ear L o w er standard - - Lodging away fro m home: - A ll fa m ilies ’ $97 55 Table A-2. H ousing Budget Quantities— Continued Item . P ric in g code o r p ric e estim ating p ro ced u re fo r: Low er M oderate H igh er standard standard standard D. Household textiles: Bedding: S h e e ts_________________________________________ P illo w ca se s ( p a i r ) -----------------------------------P illo w s ------------------------------------------------------Blankets and q u ilt s --------------------------------— B e d s p r e a d s --------------------------------------------- T o w els: Bath — --------------------------------------------- -----Othe r — -----------------------------------------------------Window co v erin gs: C u rta in s --------------------------------------- -------------D ra p e rie s ------------------------------------------------Other _ __________ ______________________________ F lo o r co verin gs: R o o m -s iz e r u g -- --------------- --------------------- O th e r.................. ................................................ Fu rn itu re: Living room : Living room s u i t e ------------------------- ----------- C h air, fu lly u p h o ls te re d ------------------—-----T a b le ----------------------------------------------------------- 23-001, E P -1 23-001A E P -4 23-008FB E P -1 23-013, 23-013 23-013, 23-014FB 23-014FB 23-022FB E P - 3 E P -3 E P -3 23-031 E P -3 1.41 1.41 E P -3 E P -4 E P -1 - E P -3 23-132, 23-133, 23-133A, 23-134FB E P -2 - B e d ................................................................ M a ttress and b e d s p r in g ---------------------------- E P -2 E P -6 D r e s s e r and c h e s t------------------------------------O th e r------------ -------------------------------------Dining room : Dining room s u i t e --------------------------------- - E P -2 - E P -1 - - Dining room t a b l e ------------------------------------Dining room ch airs ---------------------------------Dinette set ------------------------------------------------P o rc h and g a r d e n -------------------------------------- —— O th e r____ - ____ - ________________ ________________ E le c tr ic a l equipment and applian ces: Vacuum c le a n e r ---------------------------------------------W ashing m a c h in e --------------- --------------------- -----Clothes d r y e r _______ ________________ __ ____ _ D is h w a s h e r ___ - _______ - ___ - _____________ - ______ W aste d i s p o s a l----------------------------------------------T o a s t e r ---------------------------------------------——---------- E P -3 F r y e r , food m ix e r, e t c --------------------------------Ir o n ------------------------------------------------------------------ E P -1 E P -3 Sewing m a c h in e ____ __________- _- _- ____ __ ____ A ir cond itioner----------------------------------------------F a n ------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 23-252 - E P -1 23-420X - H ig h e r standard 2. 10 .86 .86 . 15 . 15 .95 . 22 . 34 . 39 . 34 .39 . 36 . 36 23-050FB E P - 3 - 1. 26 1. 26 ( 8) ( 8) 1. 97 ( 8) 23-085, E P -1 23-085A 23-091FB E P - 3 - .84 .84 .86 . 23 ( 8) . 23 ( 8) . 52 ( 8) .06 . 06 . 09 23-335, E P -3 23-335A, 23-336, 23-377FB - E P -3 M o derate standard H ou sefu rnishings E P -4 S o fa ----------------------------------------------- ------- O th e r------------------------------------------------------- B edroom : B ed ro o m s u ite ------------------------------------------- See footnotes at end of table, Quantity p e r y e a r Low er standard ( 8) 23-132, 23-133, 23-133A 23-132, 23-133, 23-133A, 23-134FB 23-130X E P -2 23-169FB 23-169, 23-170FB 23-192 E P -4 23-211, 23-211 A & B 23-200X 23-204X, 23-204 23-210X 23-228, 23-228A 23-23 OX 23-240X 23-220X 23-250X - 23-411 23-423 - 23-465 AUX 23-470X 23-471 AUX 23-460X 23-440X 23-450X ( 8) (8) . 01 . 04 . 04 .09 - .09 . 08 . 11 . 08 . 02 . 04 ( 8) . 04 ( 8) - E P -3 . 03 . 03 . 05 E P -2 E P -6 . 01 . 26 . 02 . 36 . 04 . 36 E P -2 - . 01 - . 01 - . 04 ( 8) E P -4 - . 01 . 01 E P -2 E P -2 E P -2 23-252 - . 03 . 02 . 25 ( 8) . 04 . 05 . 03 . 30 ( 8) . 04 . 06 . 04 .91 ( 8) E P -4 E P -5 23-429 23-430X 23-500X E P -3 . 05 .09 . 03 . 07 . 15 . 03 . 10 . 15 . 05 . 02 . 02 . 06 E P -1 E P -3 . 04 .09 . 10 . 09 . 19 . 13 E P -1 23-441 E P -1 . 04 . 06 . 04 . 05 ( 10) . 06 ( l° ) . 08 56 Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities— Continued P r ic ir lg code o r p ric e estim ati rig p ro ced u re for: Low er M oderate H igher standard standard standard Item D. H o u s e w a re s, ta b le w a re s , m iscellan eou s equipment: H eate r, r o o m - s i z e ------------------------------ —------C a rp et s w e e p e r ---------------------------------------------D is h e s, s e t ------------------------------------------------------ O ther s erv in g p i e c e s ------------------------------------Ligh t b u l b s -----------------------------------------------------L a m p ---------------------------------------------------------------M iscellan eo u s equipm ent-----------------------------O ther: S erv icin g , r e p a ir s , and r e n t a ls ----------—-----Law n m o w e r --------------------------------------------------T o o ls , p a in t b ru s h , e t c ----------------------------- — M oderate standard H ig h e r standard H ousefurnishing s~—Continued E P -1 E P -3 . 04 . 05 . 05 . 02 . 04 . 09 . 02 . 15 E P -1 E P -3 - 23-480X 23-591 23-531, 23-53 1C, 23-533/ 534 H -954 23-608 - E P -1 E P -3 - ( 8) 13. 00 . 24 ( 8) ( 8) 15. 00 . 24 ( 8) ( 8) 15.00 . 33 ( 8) 23-679X - 23-680X - 23-681 - ( 8) ..02 9 $ 5. 75 ( 8) . 04 9 $ 8. 20 ( 8) . 07 9 $12. 00 E P -1 E P -4 E P -3 - E. Laun dry and cleaning sup plies: Laun dry soap: Soap fla k e s , c h ip s -------------- 13 ounces — D etergent po w der, g r a n u le s ---------------------------- 20 ounces — D etergen t, li q u i d --------------- 15 ounces — Starch , s p r a y --------------------------- 14 ounces — B le a c h , l i q u i d ------------------------- V2 gallon — F lo o r w a x --------------------------------- 27 ounces — S couring p o w d e r --------------------- 14 ounces — Scouring p a d s --------------------------- box of 10 — A i r d e o d o r i z e r ------------------------ 7 ounces — O t h e r ---------------------------------------------------------------P a p e r sup plies: P a p e r n a p k in s -------------------------- box of 80 — T o ilet t i s s u e -------------------- 6 5 0 -sheet r o ll — P a p e r tow els, sh elf, w ax p a p e r, fo il, etc — S erv ice s and m iscellan eou s supplies: L a u n d e re tte s ---------------------------------- pound — Laundry sent ou t--------------------- 10 pounds — D ry cle an in g sent o ut—---------------------------------H ousehold h e l p --------------------------------- days — M iscellan eo u s s u p p li e s --------------------------------Com m unications: R esidential telephone se rv ic e : B a s ic c h a r g e ---------------------------------------------Long d is ta n c e --------------------------------------------O ther c h a rg e s -------------------------------------------P o s t a g e -------------------------------------------------------- Stationery, greeting c a rd s, e t c ------------------- Quantity p e r y e a r Low er standard Household operations E P -1 H -802 E P -1 4. 04 4. 37 4.88 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - H -804 H -807 H -9 5 2 F B H -9 5 0 F B H -9 5 1 F B H -9 5 3 F B H-901 H -906 - E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - 55. 10 24. 24 3. 78 12.88 3. 23 14.47 4. 64 _ 59. 88 26. 32 4. 10 13. 94 4. 09 18. 34 5.86 3.93 ( 8) ( 8) 66. 74 29. 33 4. 58 15. 57 5. 18 23. 23 7.44 4.99 ( 8) E P -1 E P -1 H -764 H -799 E P -1 E P -1 - 12. 92 80. 00 15. 20 95. 34 - - - - 34-754 - - - - - - EP- 1 - - 22-620X - E P -1 23-924 - 23-931 - 2 2 -6 2 IX - _ _ - ( 8) - ( 8) 139.30 - - ( 8) ( 8) 11 12. 00 9 $12. 38 9 $9. 70 18. 95 95. 34 ( 8) 139.30 18. 24 11 $6. 78 5. 09 ( 8) 12. 00 ( 8) 9 $16. 05 9 $ 12.55 12. 00 , (8) 9 $ 10. 80 9 $ 20. 60 9 $ 15.45 1 A llo w an c es specified fo r fu el, u tilities, and equipment do not apply when the cost of these item s is included in the monthly rent. 2 Heating fuel requ irem ents v a ry with the length and s everity of the cold season, type of stru ctu re, and type of heating equipment. The variatio n caused by clim ate is m ea su red in standard B ritish th e rm a l units (B .t . u. ) (co n vertible to equivalent quantities of fuel oil, gas, etc. ) and the n o rm al num ber of annual d e gree days in a given city, deriv e d fro m annual data published by the U. S. W eather B u re au . (A de gree day is a unit, b ased upon tem p e ra tu re differen ce and tim e, which m ea su res the differen ce between the a v e ra g e tem peratu re fo r the day and 65° F. when the m ean tem peratu re is le s s than 65° F . ; the num ber of de gree days fo r any one day is equal to the num ber of Fahren heit d e gree s differen ce between the a v e ra g e and 65° F . ) The a v e ra g e num ber of B. t. u. 's re q u ire d in a given city m ay be computed as fo llo w s: M illio n of B .t .u . *s = -302.817962 + 110.285800 tim es the lo garith m of the n o rm al num ber of annual d egree days. The quantity of any type of heating fuel used in a given city can be determ ined by converting the req u ire d num ber of B . t . u . 's into quantities of the type of fuel used. In the determ ination of the total amount of fuel re q u ire d , both the a v e ra g e B .t .u . content and an assum ed efficien cy facto r must be taken into consideration fo r each sp ec ified fuel. 57 F ootnotes— Continued 3 An additional 1, 250 kw. -h r s . w as allow ed fo r operation of a window a ir conditioner in cities which m et the c rite ria specified in footnote 10. 4 The kw. -h r s . of e lectricity req u ire d to operate gas o r oil heating equipment v a ry ac cording to the amount of fuel used. The a v e ra g e re q u ire d num ber of k w .- h r s . assu m ed h ere is 0.25 p e r therm of gas and 0.44 p e r gallo n of fuel oil. 5 In cities w h ere either electricity o r oil w as the predom inant fuel u sed fo r cooking and/or hot w ate r heating, it w as substituted fo r gas. In the lo w e r and m oderate standards, the annual allow an ces fo r electricity a r e : Cooking, 1,800 k w .- h r s . ; hot w ate r heating, 5,220 k w .- h r s . F o r o il, the annual req u irem en t of hot w ate r heating is 232 gallons. In the h igher standard, the annual allow ances fo r e lectricity a r e : Cooking, 1,800 k w .- h r s . ; hot w ate r heating, 5,580 k w .- h r s . F o r o il, the annual requ irem ent of hot w a te r heating is 248 gallon s. ° Cost is included in the rent. 7 The proportion s of fa m ilie s with insurance on household contents a r e : L o w e r standard, 15 percen t; m oderate standard, 33 percen t; and h igh er standard, 50 percent. 8 See table A - 10. 9 E stim ated cost in 1966. See footnote 7 table A - l . 10 F o r the m oderate standard, an annual allow ance of 0. 04 a ir conditioners is lim ited to 19 a re a s that had an av e ra g e Ju ly -A u gu st tem peratu re of 85° and o v e r, and a rela tive humidity of at le ast 85 percent; an a v e ra g e July—August tem peratu re of 90° o r o v er, r e g a r d le s s of relative humidity; o r, fo r Lo s A n geles only, an av e rage July—August tem peratu re close to 85° and relative humidity n e a rly 85 percen t, as repo rted by U. S. W eather B ureau . F o r the h igher standard, the c r it e r ia w e r e expanded to include a ll cities that had an a v e ra g e July—August te m p e ra ture of 80° o r o v er, r e g a r d le s s of relativ e hum idity, ap plicable to 34 of the m etropolitan a re a s and to non m etropolitan a re a s in 2 regio n s. 11 Telephone s e rv ic e is provid ed fo r 85 percen t of the fa m ilie s in m etropolitan a r e a s , and fo r a ll fa m ilie s in nonm etropolitan a r e a s . 334-641 0 - 69 - 5 58 Tabic A-3. Transportation Budget Quantities P ric in g code o r p ric e estim ating p ro ced u re fo r : Low er H igh er M oderate standard standard standard Item A. P riv a te transportation: Replacem ent of a u to m o b ile *------------------------A utom obile operating expenses: G a s o lin e ------------------------------------- gallon — M o tor o i l ------ ------------------------------ quart — L u b r ic a t io n -----------------------------------------------A n t i f r e e z e --------------------------------- gallon — T i r e s ----------------------------------------------------------B a t t e r y ------------------------------------------------------R e p airs and p a rts : M otor tuneup------------------------------------- — F ro n t-en d alig n m e n t---------------------------B ra k e s r e li n e d ------------------------------------O ther r e p a i r s --------------------------------------O ther operating expenses -----------------------Insurance: P u b lic l i a b i li t y ------------------------------------C o m p re h e n siv e ------------------------------------R egistratio n fe es: S tate------------------------------------------------------L o c a l-----------------------------------------------------Inspection f e e - ------------------------------------------P e r s o n a l p ro p erty t a x -----------------------------O p e ra t o r 's p e r m it ----------------- ren ew al — T o lls , p ark in g, fin es, e t c ----------------------P u b lic transportation: L o c a l: School f a r e s ---------------------------------- ride — A ll other f a r e s ------------------------------ d o -----Out of c i t y ------------------------------------------------------- M oderate standard H ig h e r standard Autom obile ow ners 1 41-025X 41-030X 41-035X 0. 250 0. 253 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 41-193 E P -1 41-065 41-097 41-355 41-110X 41-161 41-226FB E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 (M (l ) 2. 00 ( 2) 1. 07 . 38 2. 00 (2) 1. 28 . 33 2. 00 (2 ) 1. 28 . 33 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - 41-483 E P -1 41-675 E P -1 4 1-643FB E P -1 - .85 . 11 . 16 1. 00 . 24 .29 1. 00 . 24 .29 (!) (!) ( 3) ( 3) (!) ( 3) E P -1 - 41-807 4 1 -8 1 OX 41-805X E P -1 1. 00 - 1. 00 . 50 1. 00 . 50 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 EP- 1 - 41-870 41-871FB 41-880FB 41-902 - E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 (!) (!) (5) 2. 00 ( 3) (!) (5 ) 2. 00 ( 3) E P -1 E P -1 - 42-010X 42-020X - E P -1 E P -1 ( 6) (7 ) 8 $ 8. 17 ( 6) (7 ) 8 $ 22. 7 1 B. P u b lic transportation: L o c a l: School f a r e s ---------------------------------- ride — A ll other f a r e s ------------------------------ d o -----Out of c i t y ------------------------------------------------------- Quantity p e r y e a r Low er standard 42-010X 42-020X - 42-010X 42-020X ■ 0. 253 ( ' ) (l ) i1 ) (5 ) 2. 00 ( 3) ( 6) (7 8 ) 0 1 9 n Nonow ners of autom obiles 1 9 148 9442 - 9 148 9442 10 $60. 11 - - - 1 The m ode of transportation within cities and m etropolitan a r e a s is related to location, s iz e , and c h a ra c te ristic s of the community. The tabulation b elow shows the weights by which the a v e ra g e costs of autom obile ow ners and nonowners w e re com bined, and the annual allow ances fo r gaso lin e and m otor oil which v a ry by the num ber of' m ile s driven . Lower standard_____________________________ Moderate standard______________ Higher standard New York ----------------- --------------Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago — Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Wash ington, San Francisco, and Los Angeles — — — ------ ------A ll other metropolitan areas-----Nonmetropolitan areas -------------- Motor Miles oil driven Auto owners Nonowners Gasoline Percent Percent Gallon Quart Number Percent 50 50 50 50 482.2 520.0 65 65 100 35 35 - 557.6 557.6 557.6 Auto owners Nonowners Gasoline Motor oil Miles ; Auto driven j owners Percent Gallon Quart Number; Percent 19.0 20.5 7,233 7, 800 80 80 20 20 553.0 598.8 21. 8 23.6 8,295 8,982 100 100 22.0 22.0 22.0 8,364 8,364 8,364 95 100 100 5 - 644.6 644.6 661.2 25.4 25.4 26. 1 9,669 9,669 9,918 100 100 100 Nonowners Gaso line Percent Gallon Quart Number _ - Motor oil Miles driven 553.0 598.8 21.8 23.6 8,295 8,982 644.6 644.6 661.2 25.4 25.4 26.1 9,669 9,669 9,918 The annual allow ance is 1.25 gallons fo r a ll cities that had an a v e ra g e m inim um tem peratu re of 3 2 °-1 5 ° during January. F o r cities that had January m inim um tem peratu res below 15 , the allow ance is 2.00. No an ti fre e z e is pro vid ed fo r m ild clim ate cities. 3 See table A - 10. 4 The num ber of inspections req u ired by law in each city. 5 Cost req u ire d by law in each city. 6 The annual allow ance fo r the 3 budget le v e ls is 183 rides in B oston, N e w Y o rk , P h iladelp h ia, and Chicago; 51 in other m etropolitan a r e a s ; and 53 in nonm etropolitan a re a s . 7 The annual allow ance fo r the 3 budget le v els is 220 rides in B oston, N e w Y o rk , P h ilad elp h ia, and Chicago; 97 in other m etropolitan a r e a s ; and 56 in nonm etropolitan a r e a s . 8 E stim ated cost in 1966 in a ll cities. See footnote 7 table A - 10. 9 The annual allow ance fo r m etropolitan a re a s only. 10 E stim ated cost in 1966 in m etropolitan a re a s only. See footnote 7 table A - l . * The age of ca r pu rch ased w as a 6 -y e a r old in the lo w e r budget; a 2 -y e a r old in the m oderate budget; and a new c a r (60 percen t of the fa m ilie s ) or a 2 -y e a r old ca r (40 percen t of the fa m ilie s ) in the h ig h er budget. the replacem en t rates indicated above, the ca r traded in w as 10 y e a rs old in the lo w e r (no allow ance Applying given), 6 y e a rs old in the m oderate, and 4 o r 6 y e a rs old in the h igh er budget. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 2 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 59 Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities P r ic in g code or p ric e estim ating p ro ced u re fo r: Quantity p e r y e a r Item Low er standard M oderate standard H igh er standard A. Jackets, sport coats* -----------------------------------S w ea te rs----------------------------------------------------------R aincoats*-------------------------------------------------------Suits: Y e a r-ro u n d w eigh t*-----------------------------------T ro p ic a l w eight*------------- -----------Slacks: D r e s s ---- -------- --------------------------------- E P -3 31-005X E P -3 E P -2 E P -3 E P -2 — E P -3 W o r k ---------------------------------- -----------------------Shorts, w alkin g*---------------------------------------------S hirts: D r e s s ---------------------------------------------------- — E P -1 E P -2 E P -3 W o r k ----------------------------------------------------------- E P -1 S p o rts ____________________________________ — Other o u t e r w e a r * ------------------------------------------U n d erw ea r, nightw ear: U n d ersh o rts, b r i e f s -------------------------------------U n d ersh irts -----------------------—— ---------------------Other u n d e rw e a r*------------------------------------------P a ja m a s ----------------------------------------------------------B a t h r o b e s ____________________-___________________ H o s ie r y ------------------------------------------- p a ir ----------- E P -3 F o o tw ear: Shoes: Street-------------------------------------- do---------------- W o r k -------------------------------------- do---------- — L o a f e r s-________________________ do___________ H o u s e s lip p e r s -----------------------do---------------R u b b ers, ga lo sh es, b o o ts *------- do---------------Other fo o tw ear*----------------------------------------------H ats, glo v e s, a c c e s s o r ie s : H ats: F e lt * -----------------------------------------------------------S tra w *_- _____ ________________ __ ___________ G lo v e s: D r e s s * ----------------------------------- p a i r -------------W ork *--------------------------------------- do--------------T ie s , handkerchiefs--------------------------------------J e w elry , w a tc h e s ------------------------------------------Other a c c e s s o r ie s * ----------------------------------------- See footnotes at end of table, - E P -3 E P -3 - E P -3 E P -1 E P -3 33-001, 33-002, 33-002A E P -1 E P -2 E P -2 E P -1 - 31-018 s e rie s 31-010X 31-154 31-020X 31-052, 31-053 31-050X 31-086, 31-087 s e r ie s 31-171 31-080X 31-273, 31-273A 31-222, 3I-222A 31-292 - H igh er standard Husband 0. 12 0. 12 0. 12 31-005X E P -3 E P -2 . 52 . 24 . 11 . 53 . 24 . 11 . 58 . 24 . 14 E P -3 . 27 .28 . 32 E P -2 . 08 . 10 E P -3 1. 23 1. 24 1.40 E P -1 E P -2 2. 10 . 11 2. 10 . 11 2. 15 . 15 E P -3 1.49 1. 50 1. 73 E P -1 1. 22 1. 22 1. 29 E P -3 1. 82 1.83 ( 1) 2. 12 (* ) 4. 80 4. 22 .40 . 05 10. 29 E P -3 - 31-342FB E P -3 31-324 E P -1 C ) 31-376FB E P -3 31-370X 31-375X E P -3 31-409, 31-409A . 37 . 04 9. 94 4. 77 3. 94 i1) . 37 . 04 9.99 33-001, 33-002, 33-002A 33-046 E P -1 33-01 OX E P - 2 E P -2 33-050X 33-226FB E P -1 .95 .96 1. 07 .61 . 27 . 13 . 18 (M . 61 . 27 . 13 . 18 (M . 59 . 31 . 19 . 21 (M . 17 . 07 . 19 . 07 . 20 . 09 . 13 1.92 2 $3. 04 2 $3. 48 (* ) . 15 2. 09 2 $3. 12 2 $3. 92 (M . 18 2. 14 2 $ 3. 37 2 $ 3. 92 (M - - 33-002, 13 3 -002A - - E P -3 E P -1 3 1-427FB E P - 3 31-420X E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 31-430X 31-440X - - - - _ M oderate standard 00 o O u terw ea r: T opcoats* — -------------------------------------- —----------- Low er standard E P -1 E P -1 ~ 4.76 3. 94 n n 60 Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued P r ic in g code o r p rice estim ating p ro ced u re fo r: Item Low er standard M oderate standard Quantity per y e a r H igh er standard Low er standard B. O u te rw e a r: O v e r c o a t * ------------------------------------- ------------------ E P - 3 Jackets, sports c o a t s * ------------------------------------ E P - 3 S w M t P i 's * - E P -3 R aincoats _____ E P -3 S u its ----- ------------ ------ --- ------------ — _____ E P - 1 S la c k s ---------------------------- ------------------- ------ — E P - 1 D u n gare es ----------- ----------------- - — — — E P - 1 S h o r ts ___ __________________________ __ ________ _ E P - 2 Bathing t ru n k s __ - _______ __ ____________ _________ E P -1 S h irts : D re s _____ „_______ t.—,T T .. E P -2 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _™ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r _ _m _ _T -r ,__________r _ _ _ _ E P -3 SpO r t S -TT— .-.I----,.--_ Other o u t e r w e a r * ___________________________________________________ U n d e rw e a r, nightw ear: U n d e r s h o r t s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E P - 3 — U n d e rs h irts — — P a ja m a s -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B a t h r o b e s — -------------------------------- ---------------------- — — H o s ie r y : Socks_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _► »_ _ _p a ir _ _ _ _ Other h o s ie r y * --------------- ------------------------ -------- _ ------F o o tw e ar: Shoes, stre et— ----------------------— - p a ir — Sne ake r s r — ..--— _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _r _ _ _ _do ______ --------------— ---------do — H o u s e s lip p e rs _ R u b b e r s , galo sh es, b o o ts * — --------------------do — H ats, glov e s, a c c e s s o r ie s : G l o v e s * __________________________________________________________do ______ ------- ------Other a c c e s s o r ie s * --------------- — ------------- ------- See footnotes at end of table — ----------- — M oderate standard H ig h e r standard B oy 31-570X 31-662 31-714FB 31-577 31-660X 31-646FB 31-732FB 31-640X 31-650X E P -1 E P -3 £ P -3 E P -3 E P -1 E P -3 E P -1 E P -2 E P -1 0. 21 1.00 . 68 . 10 . 25 3. 25 2. 27 . 22 .4 2 0. 23 1.03 . 74 . 11 . 26 3.51 2. 36 . 24 . 47 0. 25 1. 29 . 80 . 12 . 26 4. 15 2. 27 .41 .55 31-810X 31-817FB E P -2 E P -3 1.61 4. 46 1.69 4. 61 1. 84 4.95 i1) C) V) E P -3 5. 18 5. 18 5. 39 E P -2 E P -2 E P -1 31-832, 31-832A 31-830X 31-840X 31-850X E P -2 E P -2 31-855X 4.01 .59 . 10 4.01 .59 . 10 4.56 .71 . 10 E P -3 31-883FB E P -3 - 11. 65 11.89 13. 18 (M (M (l ) 2.54 1. 24 . 15 . 22 2. 70 1. 30 . 18 . 23 2.86 1. 37 . 25 . 29 78 .79 - - - - E P -3 E P -3 E P -2 E P -2 33-542FB 33-586 33-550X 33-560X E P -3 E P -3 E P -2 E P -2 E P -1 31-860X E P -1 " . l1) .92 (M 61 Table A -4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued P r ic in g code or p ric e estim ating p ro ced u re fo r: Item Low er standard M oderate standard Quantity p e r y e a r H igher standard C. O u terw ear: Coats: H eavyw eight*- E P -3 Lightw eight — ----C arcoats, jackets S w ea te rs-----— — E P -2 E P -1 E P -3 S u its --------------------------D re sses: S t r e e t ------------------- E P -1 E P -3 E P -3 Hou s e — ^-----------------— —-----Skirts, ju m p e rs, c u lo tte s ----B lou ses, s h i r t s ------------ - ■ 1■■ - E P -3 E P -3 32-165X 32-175X - S la c k s --------------------------------------Dungarees, blue je a n s -----------Shorts, pedal p u s h e r s * ----------Other o u t e r w e a r * -------------------U n derw ear, nightw ear: Slips, petticoats— ----------------G ir d le s -------------------------------------- E P -3 E P -3 B r a s s i e r e s ------------------------------- 32-391, 32-392FB 32-313, 32-314FB E P -1 E P -3 32-345X - P anties, b r ie fs —--------------------Nightgow ns------------------------------P a ja m a s ------------------------- — —■ — Robes, housecoats— ------------ — Other u nderw ear, n igh tw ear* H osiery: S tockin gs---------------------------------- p a ir —— E P -3 A n k le t s ------------------------------------Footw ear: Shoes: Street----------------------------------- — do— — do— E P -3 C asu al --------------------------------House s lip p e r s --------------------R u bbers, galosh es, b o o ts * — Other fo o t w e a r * ---------------------Hats, gloves, a c c e s s o r ie s : H a t s * ---------------------------------------G l o v e s * ------------------------------------P u rs e s , handbags-------------------Jew elry, w a tc h e s -------------------Other a c c e s s o r ie s * ----------------- — do— — do— — do— E P -3 E P -3 E P -2 - See footnotes at end of table, E P -3 p a ir —— E P -3 E P -1 32-001, 32-002 s e rie s 32-01 OX 32-105 32-118, 32-118A 32-120X 32-222, 32-223, 32-226, 32-226A 32-248 - 32-144, 32-144A 32-172 32-170X 32-180X * 32-287 32-378, 32-378B 32-391 32-313 32-327FB 32-339FB 32-340X - Low er standard M oderate standard H igher standard W ife E P -3 0. 18 0. 21 0. 23 E P -2 E P -3 E P -3 . 13 . 10 . 69 . 15 . 11 . 79 . 16 . 12 . 95 E P -1 . 14 . 15 . 17 E P -3 1. 49 1. 65 1. 93 E P -1 . 54 2 $3. 51 1. 43 . 57 2 $3. 51 1. 61 . 61 2 $5. 62 1. 99 E P -3 32-165X E P -1 - . 66 . 06 . 73 (M . 79 . 07 . 84 . 91 . 07 1. 07 (l> ( l ) E P -3 E P -3 1. 38 . 48 1. 40 . 55 1. 52 . 74 32-391, 32-392FB 32-313, 32-314FB E P -3 E P -1 32-345X - 2. 66 2. 70 2. 97 4. 66 4. 72 4. 98 . 56 . 37 . 22 (M . 58 . 37 . 23 (M . 62 . 46 . 24 n 12. 49 12. 49 13. 68 2 $0. 78 2 $0, 78 2 $0. 84 - E P -3 h 32-405, 32-405A - E P -3 33-271, 33-272 33-361 33-406 33-41 OX - E P -3 1. 30 1. 37 1. 63 E P -3 E P -3 E P -2 - 1. 37 . 42 . 13 (M 1. 41 . 42 . 13 (M 1. 59 . 50 . 15 32-432FB 32-443 32-450X E P -3 E P -3 32-455X _ - _ - - - . 56 . 51 .9 0 2 $3. 83 (M . . 1. 2 $5. (M 64 60 00 02 (l > . . 1. 2 $ 15. n 81 74 10 60 62 Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued P r ic in g code or p ric e estim ating pro ced u re fo r: Quantity p e r y e a r Item L o w er standard M oderate standard H igher standard D. O u terw ea r: Coats: H eav y w eigh t*------- --------------------------------------L ig h tw eigh t*-------- — —-.. ...... — ------------------R a in c o a t s * -------------------------------------------------------- E P -3 32-555X E P -3 J ack ets--------------------------------- ------- --------------------- 32-575X S w e a te rs ------------ ------------ ---------------------------------- E P - 3 D r e s s e s -------------------------------------------------------------- E P -3 S k irts ----------------------------------------------------------------- E P -3 E P -3 S la c k s ---------------------------------------------------------------- E P - 2 O v e ra lls , blue je a n s -------------------- ------------------- 32-715X Shorts ---------------------------------------------------------------- E P -1 P la y suits — — ----------—— — , — — -------------------- E P -1 Other o u t e r w e a r * ------------------------------------——■ U n d erw ea r, nightw ear: Slips, petticoats----------— -------- ------------------------ E P -3 P an ties, b r i e f s ------------------------------------------------ E P -3 U n d e rs h irts ------------------------------------------------------P a ja m a s , n igh tgo w n s-------------------------------------- 32-855X B a t h r o b e s ---------------------------------------------------------- E P - 3 Other u n derw ear, n ig h t w e a r* -----------------------H o siery : Anklets, so c k s-------------------------------------- p a ir - — E P - 3 Other h o s ie r y * -----------------------------------F o o tw e ar: Shoes: S treet--------------- — ..... ................ ... - p a ir — E P - 3 B lo u s e s ------------------------------------------------------------- E P -2 C a s u a l -------------------------------------------------do— H ouses U pp ers — ------------------------------ do— E P -2 Boots, r u b b e r s * ------------------------------------- do— E P -3 ■ -------Other fo o t w e a r * --------------------------------Hats, gloves, a c c e s s o r ie s : E P -1 H a t s * ......— --------- ---------- —... ....................... G loves * --------------------- ----------------- --- p a ir — E P -1 Other a c c e s s o r i e s * -----------------------------------------_ See footnotes at end of table, Low er standard M o derate standard H igher standard G ir l 32-554FB 32-550X 32-579, 32-579A 32-580X 32-631FB 32-744, 32-744A 32-644, 32-644A 32-657 FB 32-710X 32-720X 32-730X 32-740X - E P -3 32-555X E P -3 0. 31 . 14 . 18 0. 34 . 14 . 21 0. 36 . 19 . 21 E P -2 E P -3 E P -3 . 29 1. 02 2. 76 . 34 1. 03 2. 78 . 44 1. 12 2. 94 E P -3 . 77 . 81 . 91 E P -3 E P -2 32-715X 32-735X E P -1 - 1.29 2 $0. 92 1. 27 . 25 1. 41 . 63 32-801 32-827FB 32-860X 32-866 - E P -3 E P -3 E P -2 E P -3 - 2. 6. 2 $0. 1. . 32-891FB - E P -3 - 9. 01 (M 9. 17 (l ) 9. 73 (l > 33-541, A 33-541B 33-766 33-76'OX 33-770X 33-901 F B - E P -3 2. 28 2. 29 2. 41 E P -2 E P -2 E P -3 - 1. 70 . 31 . 37 (l ) 1. 72 . 33 . 37 (l ) 1. 84 . 39 . 39 (l ) 32-870X 32-880X 32-875X E P -1 ■ . 55 . 75 (M . 58 . 77 (M . 68 . 93 (M - ( l ) 06 73 71 12 14 ( l ) 1. 2 $1. 1. . 1. . 31 23 29 26 45 63 ( l ) 2. 6. 2 $1. 1. . n 08 80 00 14 15 1. 48 2 $1. 49 1. 36 . 41 1. 58 . 68 (M 2. 6. 2 $1. 1. . n 17 96 37 29 18 63 Table A -4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued P r ic in g code or p ric e estim ating pro ced u re fo r: Item Low er standard M oderate standard E. M a te ria ls : W ool, w ool blends Cotton, cotton blends ■ y a rd s ------- do- E P -1 E P -3 ■do•do- E P -1 E P -3 Rayon, acetate-----------Nylon, or Ion, dacron Other y ard goods Notions (yarn , pins, etc. ) S erv ice s: Cleaning and p re s s in g : M e n 's s u it s -------------------- ■g a rm e n t- E P -3 W om enl s d r e s s e s - ---------- do- E P -3 - 34-420X 34-438, 34-438A, 34-449 AUX. 34-460X 34-469 F B - - Other c le a n in g -----------------------------------------Shoe re p a ir: M en 's and b o y s' half soles and h e e l s --------------------------------------- num ber W om en 's and g i r l s 1 h e e l s ------- -----— doShoe shines, polish, laces, etc. Other clothing s e r v i c e s -------------------- 1 2 E P -1 E P -1 H igher standard Quantity per y ear Low er standard M oderate standard H igher standard Clothing m a te ria ls and s e rv ic e s E P -1 E P -3 0. 55 9. 54 0. 61 9. 17 1. 42 7. 60 E P -1 E P -3 . 20 . 21 . 08 (l) (l ) . 51 . 22 ( L) - - n - (l) ( l ) 34-708, 34-708A 34-731, 34-731A - E P -3 9. 25 10. 05 17. 43 E P -3 5. 64 6. 51 8. 93 ( l ) t 1) ( l ) 34-639FB 34-662, 34-662A E P -1 E P -1 . 88 2. 81 . 88 3. 14 1. 09 4. 05 n (M (M C) - - - - - - (M ( l ) 1 See table A - 10. s 7 on T able A - l . 2 Estim ated cost in 1966. See a lso foo The b a sic clothing budget is the U. S. * E xplanatory note: Quantities of s ta rre d item s v a ry fro m city to city, av e ra g e quantity, both fo r m etropolitan and fo r nonm etropolitan a r e a s , For each city o r m etropolitan are a, the quantities of clothing a r t ic le s specified fo r each budget a r e adjusted upw ard or downward in accordan ce with lo ca l clim atic conditions, on the b a s is of the n o rm al num ber of annual d e g re e days as published by the U. S. W eather B ureau. A tabulation, showing the quantities of specified item s of clothing re q u ire d in m etropolitan a re a s when the no rm al num ber of annual d e gree days a v e ra g e 0 and 8, 392, and in nonm etropolitan a r e a s when the a v e ra g e is 489 and 10,864, a r e a v a ila b le upon request. (F o r definition of d e g re e days, see footnote 2, table A -2 . ) The quantities req u ire d fo r specific cities w e re determ ined by stra ig h t-lin e interpolation. 64 Table A-5. Personal Care P r ic e code or price estimating procedure for: M oderate H igher Lo w er standard standard standard S ervices: Husband: H aircut --------------------------------------------------------W ife: H aircut --------------------------------------------------------P erm anent wave _____________________________ Shampoo and s e t ----------------------------------------M anicure _____________________________________ Tinting and coloring ----------------------------------Boy: H a i r c u t ________________________________________ G irl: H aircut ___________ __________________________ Fam ily: Other __________________________________________ Supplies: Toilet snap _ ____ m edium b a r — T oothpaste------------- ------------------------- ounce — Shaving c r e a m ____________ __________ ounce — Cleansing t i s s u e ___________ box 200 double — Sham poo________________________________ ounce — Face pow der-----------------------------------------------------Home perm anent kit--------------------------- r e fill — Sanitary supplies ------------------------box of 12 — O th e r----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Estim ated cost in 1966. 2 See table A - 10. Quantity per year Low er standard M oderate standard H igher standard E P -1 52-697 E P -1 18. 9 23. 2 24. 9 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - 52-753 52-825 52-849 - E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 - 1. 6 .7 - 3. 0 .9 4. 6 ( 2) 3. 8 1. 1 16. 3 1$ 2. 99 ( 2) E P -1 52-729FB E P -1 10.4 12. 8 13. 3 E P -1 52-730X 52-735X .7 1. 3 2. 2 - ( 2) ( 2) - E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 “ - 52-001 52-025 52-073 52-625 52-193AUX 52-529 52-649AUX E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 E P -1 105. 1 64.4 21. 1 25. 3 47. 5 ‘ $1. 85 1. 5 20. 7 ( 2) 116. 2 64. 4 21. 1 27. 3 47. 5 1 $ 1. 98 . 6 20. 7 ( 2) See also footnote 7 on table A - l . Table A-6. Medical Care12 i Item Quantity per year P ric in g code A ll standards Health insurance: H o s p ita l-s u rg ic a l contract _________________ Supplem entary m ajo r m ed ical contract 1 __ M e d ical c a re not covered by insurance: P h y sic ia n s' visits: Home ________________________________________ O f f i c e ________________________________________ H ospital (nonsurgical) ____________________ Other m ed ical ca re ___________________________ Dental care: F illin gs ____________ _______________________ E xtractions __________________ ________ __ Cleaning and e x a m in atio n ________________ Other dental ca re _______ ________________ Eye care: Exam ination for g la s se s _________________ E y e g la ss e s Othe r ________________________________________ D rugs: P r e s c r i p t io n ________________________________ N onp r e s c r ipti on: Vitam ins _________________________________ Other ____________________________________ A pplian ces and supplies __________________ 1 F o r higher budget only. 2 See table A - 10. 51-940X 51-950X 51-202 51-201 51-838FB 51-465 51-466 51-469FB 51-518, 51-519 51-518, 51-520, 51-521FB _ 51-061 through 51-181 51-001 _ - 1. 00 1. 00 .6 13. 1 1.4 ( 2) 3. 55 1. 07 5. 01 ( 2) .44 . 70 ( 2) 15. 9 4. 3 ( 2) ( 2) 142. 1 64.4 21. 1 32. 3 47. 5 1 $4. 29 .6 20. 7 ( 2) 65 Table A-7. Item Other Family Consumption P ric in g code or p rice estim ating procedu re for: L o w er H igher M oderate standard standard standard A. N e w sp a p ers (su b s c rip tio n )-------------------------------- E P -1 Books (not s c h o o l)---------------------------------------------M a g a z in e s -------------------------------------------— -----------Other reading e x p en ses------------------------------------- - 53-806, 53-807, 53-810, 53-811 " Tape r e c o r d e r ____ ________________________ ___ Phonographs ---------------------------------------------- — M u sic al in stru m ents-------------------------------------R e p airs, including p a r t s -----------------------------Phonograph records -------------------------------------A dm ission s: M ovies: A d u lts --------------------------------------------------------Child r e n _____________________________- ____ ____ Other a d m is s io n s ---------------------- -------------------Other recreation : Participan t sports —-------------------------------------Toys and play equ ipm en t------------------------—— Club dues, m e m b e rsh ip s -------- — -------- -------H obb i e s ____ - ___ __ ____ __________ ___________ __ P e t s , pet supplies, and other recreation e x p e n s e s --------------------------- —---- E P -7 E P -3 - E P -1 E P -1 - 353-001 53-033, 53-033A, 53-034 53-082FB 53-177 53-612 53-613 - - E P -1 - 1. 03 1. 06 1 $8.41 1 $7. 28 (2) 1 $16.67 1 $13.89 (2) 1 $30.46 1 $22. 79 (2 ) . 10 . 31 . 10 . 38 . 13 . 39 1 $15.94 - . 10 (2) 1 $18.52 4. 96 . 06 . 15 (2) 1 $19.87 6. 03 E P -1 E P -1 - 8. 16 23.83 - 9. 07 26. 01 1 $10. 14 11. 55 27. 84 1 $20. 25 - (2) - - E P -7 E P -3 53-097 E P -1 E P -1 C ig a r s ------------------------------------- —------------ each — P ipe to b a c c o ---------------- — --------------------ounce — P ipe and sm o k e r1s s u p p lie s -------------------- ---------- 54-002, 54-006 54-078FB 54-077 54-079FB 54-153, 54-153FB 54-153, 54-154FB 54-154FB - E P -1 - W in e ------------------------------------------- Vs gallon — Aw ay fro m h o m e------------------------------------------------- - 54-309 54-384, 54-399 54-429, 54-431 - (2) 1 $30. 05 1 $48. 28 1 $55.50 1 $63. 94 Tobacco *40. 9 92. 9 43. 3 ( 2) 86.6 20. 9 77. 3 18. 6 38. 9 - 26. 2 4 .4 12. 5 9. 1 E P -1 - 4.7 4. 7 - - (2) (2) (2 ) (2) A lcoholic b ev e rage s E P -1 54-401FB M iscellan eous expenses: M iscellan eous expenses away fro m home city, bank s e rv ice ch arges, le gal expenses, allow ances to children, m usic and dancing lessons fo r children (except fo r lo w er standard), and other expenses that cannot be allocated elsw h ere. M iscellan eo u s expenses (* ) Estim ated cost in 1966. See footnote 7 table A - l . See table A - 10. Specification rev ised beginning with spring 1967 pricin g period. Quantities deleted fro m m oderate standard beginning with spring 1967 p ricin g period. (* ) (* ) (2) F. 1 ? 3 4 0 (p (2) E. At home: B e e r and a l e ------------ ---------------72 ounces — Liq u o rs (w hiskey, e t c )------------ V5 gallon — (*> (?) Education 1 $44. 12 D,. C ig a r e t t e s ------------------------------------------ carton — Recreation 1 $20. 03 - - H igher standard 1. 00 C. School and college: Books, supplies, tuition, fe e s , e t c ------------ M oderate standard Reading m ate ria ls B. Radios, m u sical instrum ents, etc: T elevision s e t s ---------------------------------------------Radio s ___________________ ____ __ ___________ __ Quantity p e r y e a r Low er standard 66 Tabic A-8. Other Costs Quantity p e r y e a r Item Low er standard A. G ifts and contributions: C h ris tm a s , birthday, and other presen ts to p e rso n s outside the im m ediate fa m ily ; and contributions to re lig io u s, w e lfa r e , m ed ical, educational, and other o rgan izations. H ig h e r standard G ifts and contributions ( ') (* ) B. L ife insurance policy: A policy to provide fo r the fa m ily during a pe rio d of adjustm ent in event of the death of the brea d w in n e r. M o derate standard 2$ 1 2 0 . 0 0 (M L ife insu rance 2$ 160.00 2$ 240.00 1 See table A - 10. 2 E stim ated cost in a ll cities. Table A-9. Occupational Expenses and Taxes Quantity p e r y e a r Low er standard A. O ccupational expenses: Dues to unions, b u sin ess, and p ro fe s s io n a l associatio n s; lice n ses, tools, and sp ec ia l equipment other than clothing re q u ire d fo r the jo b ; non re im b u rse d costs fo r tra v e l o r fo r use of the fam ily* s ca r fo r bu sin ess. M o derate standard Occupational expenses ^ O .O O ^ s o .o o B. T axe s : E m ployee contributions fo r F e d e r a l old-age, s u r v iv o rs * , d isability insurance, and M e d icare (O A S D H I); fo r tem p o rary disab ility and unemployment taxes w h ere re q u ire d by State law . P e r s o n a l incom e taxes (F e d e r a l, State, and lo c a l), and capitation taxes. 1 E stim ated costs in a ll cities. H ig h e r standard ^ s s .o o T axe s A s re q u ire d by the le v e l of the total budget. Rates ap plicable in 1967 in each city; in m etropolitan a r e a s , the ap plicable rates in each u rban part w e re used. 67 Table A-10. Ratios for Estimating Costs o f Unpriced Budget Items (F o r items fo r which it w as not p o ssib le to derive a quantity, a cost was estim ated as a ratio of the cost of one o r m ore closely related item s. The ratios w e re based on expenditures reported at the inflection point, or the income class below or above the inflection point (in the 1960—61 CES data), fo r the lo w er, m oderate, and higher budgets respectively. The item s fo r which costs w e re estim ated, the "b a s e " item s to which these costs w e re related, and the ratios a re shown below ) Ratio of estim ated to b ase cost: Item Estim ated Shelter: Hom eowner fa m ilie s — Other rep a irs contracted out-----------------------Other rep a ir m a te ria ls ---------------------------------- L o w er standard M oderate standard | H igher i standard (P e rcen t B ase 120. 6 121. 3 76. 1 96.4 20. 4 54. 4 20. 4 54. 4 51.2 66.9 66. 9 157. 1 Item ized r e p a i r s --------------------Paint and decorating m a te ria ls -------------- ---------------- H ousefurnishings: Household textiles: 21.8 F lo o r coverings, furniture: Other living room fu r n it u r e -------------------Other bedroom fu r n it u r e ------------------------- H ou sew ares, tab le w ares, m iscellaneous equipment: Other serving p i e c e s ------------------------------M iscellan eous equipm ent------------------------Other: Servicing, re p a irs , r e n t a ls -------------------Household operations: Other laundry and cleaning s u p p lie s ----------- Item ized living room fu r n it u r e --------------------------- — Item ized bedroom fu r n it u r e ------------------------------- 5. 0 7. 5 7. 2 Sets of d is h e s -------------------------F u rn itu re, equipment, and h o u s e w a re s --------------------------- 266. 9 96. 0 88. 1 10.4 9.7 12. 2 Furniture and equ ipm en t------- 11. 3 11.6 12. 7 20. 3 119. 5 20. 9 150. 0 23. 0 197. 0 10. 7 - 20 . 8 25. 0 32.4 40. 5 62. 1 2. 7 2. 3 53. 2 5. 3 4. 0 53. 2 5. 3 4. 0 5. 7 7. 0 2. 2 6. 0 8 .4 8. 3 5. 4 Item ized laundry and cleaning s u p p lie s ----------------P a p e r tow els, shelf, w ax p a p er, fo il, etc — Item ized paper p ro d u c ts-------M iscellan eous supplies (can dles, m atches, flo w e rs , seeds, e t c )---- ------------------------------ Item ized laundry, cleaning, and paper s u p p lie s --------------Communication: Long distance tele p h o n e-------------------------- B a s ic telephone s e r v i c e -------Transportation: Other rep a irs — —____________ Itemized rep a irs Other operating expenses ----------------------------- Item ized operating expenses — T o lls, parking, fin es, e t c --------------------------- Item ized operating expenses — Clothing: Husband— Other o u t e rw e a r * ---------------------- —----------------- Item ized o u t e r w e a r ---------------Item ized underw ear f'lth'^r 'ln ^ r w ^ a r* ........ Itemized footwear - __________ Other footw ear* — — Other a c c e s s o rie s * --------------------------------------- Total clothing-------------------------Clothing: Boy---Other o u t e rw e a r * ------------------------------------------- Item ized o u t e r w e a r ---------------Other h o s i e r y * ___ __ - __ ___ _____ _______ ___ ___ S o c k s---------------------------------------Other a c c e s s o r ie s * --------------------------------------- Total clothing---------------------- — Clothing: W ife” Itemized outerw ear - _______ — Other o u terw ear* Other underw ear and n ig h tw e a r*----------------- Item ized underw ear, n ig h tw e a r------------- ---------------DlVusi* foofnrAa .... Itemized fnntwear Other a c c e s s o r ie s * --------------------------------------- Total clothing-------------------------Clothing: G ir l— Other o u t e rw e a r *------------------------------------------ Item ized o u t e r w e a r ---------------Other underw ear and n ig h tw e a r*----------------- Item ized u nderw ear, n ig h t w e a r -----------------------------O fV i a r V » n o m _... . Socks Other fo o tw e a r * --------------------------------------------- Item ized fo o t w e a r -----------------Other a c c e s s o rie s * --------------------------------------- Total clothing-------------------------- See footnotes at end of table. 10.8 - - 3. 3 7. 1 .8 7. 5 2. 6 .7 5.4 2.4 4. 5 5. 0 1. 7 4. 1 3. 7 2. 5 5.8 17. 0 19. 1 18. 6 2. 6 .7 1. 1 2. 8 1. 1 1. 2 3. 2 3. 2 1. 3 22. 6 25. 3 24.8 2.9 10. 3 1.6 2. 7 3. 1 9. 1 2. 2 2.9 .6 1.8 7. 1 2. 5 3.7 68 Table A-10. Ratios for Estimating Costs o f Unpriced Budget Items— Continued (F o r item s fo r which it w as not p o ss ib le to d e riv e a quantity, a cost w as estim ated as a ratio of the cost of one o r m o re clo sely related item s. The ratios w e re based on expenditures repo rted at the inflection point, o r the incom e c la ss b elow o r above the inflection point (in the 1960~61 CES data), fo r the lo w e r, m o derate, and high er budgets resp ec tiv e ly . The item s fo r which costs w e re estim ated, the " b a s e " item s to which these costs w e r e related, and the ratios a re shown belo w ) Ratio of estim ated to b ase cost: Item Low er standard E stim ated B ase Clothing m a te ria ls and s e r v ic e s : M a te r ia ls : O ther y a rd goods -------------------------------------Notions (y a rn , pins, etc. ) ----------------------S e rv ic e s : Other cleaning - ------- ---------- Shoe shines, polish , la c e s , e t c ------------O ther clothing s e r v i c e s ---------------------------P e r s o n a l c a re : S e rv ic e s: Tinting and c o lo r in g ------------------------- —----F a m ily : O t h e r -------------------------------------- — Supplies: O t h e r ----------------------------------------------------------M e d ical c a r e : 1 py m edical f'are - —- __ - _______ Other dental c a r e ------------------------------------------Other eye c a r e ----------------------------------------------O ther n o np rescrip tion d r u g s --------------- —-----A p p lian ces and s u p p li e s -------------------------------Reading m a te ria ls : Other e x p e n s e s ----------- -----------------------------------R ecreation: M u s ic a l in s tru m e n ts -------------------------------------- Other rec re ation : P articipan t s p o r t s ------------------------------------- Toys and play eq u ip m en t------------------------Club dues, m e m b e r s h ip s -------------------— H o b b ie s ----------—-----------------------------------------Tobacco: P ip e and s m o k e r ’s supplies ------------------------A lco h o lic b e v e r a g e s : A w ay fro m h o m e --------------------------------------------M iscellan eo u s expenses _ _ _____ _ __ Gifts and c o n trib u tio n s -------------------------------------- M oderate standard H ig h e r standard (P e rc e n t) Item ized y a rd g o o d s -----------Total y a rd g o o d s ------------------- 2. 0 85. 3 7. 2 100. 1 5 .4 75. 6 Item ized cleaning, p r e s s in g -----------------------------Shoe re p a irs ------------------------Item ized clothing s e rv ic e s — 26. 1 42. 0 - 24.8 42. 6 13. 3 20. 5 43.8 14.4 Item ized s e rv ic e s fo r w ife — Item ized s e r v i c e s ---------------- - 2. 9 1. 2 11. 6 1. 0 107. 9 140. 9 Item ized s u p p lie s ----------------P h y s ic ia n ’s office visits Item ized dental p ro c e d u re s — Total of ey e g la s s e s and ex a m in a tio n ----------------------Vitam ins -------------------------------Total of p re s c rip tio n and n onprescription d r u g s ------Item ized reading m a t e r i a l s ---------------------------- 83.9 _ - 16. 5 91. 1 - 4. 6 268. 0 8. 5 2. 2 Total cost of ra d io s, t e le v isio n sets and p h on ograph s------- ------ ------ — Total cost of rad io s, m u sic al instrum ents, etc. , and a d m is s io n s -------- do do do Item ized tobacco products — Item ized alcoholic b e v e r a g e s ---------------------------A ll other costs of fam ily consumption ----------------------Total cost of fam ily con sumption, le s s m is c e l laneous expenses --------------- _ - 22. 0 - 1. 7 1.9 28. 9 27. 1 37. 24. 8. 22. 43. 21. 17. 24. 9 1 3 6 1. 1 1. 5 1.4 21. 6 21. 6 21.6 .7 1. 2 1. 6 3. 0 3. 5 5. 0 1 M e d ic a l ca re ratios fo r lo w er and higher standards a r e the sam e as fo r those fo r m oderate standard. * See explanatory note table A - 4. 3 4 3 1 Appendix B P r ic in g Specifications The p r ic e s fo r d escrib ed as fo r the specifications shown on the fo llow in g pages a re those used to co lle c t or estim ate the lo w e r and higher standards which d iffe r fr o m those used in the m oderate standard, in Appendix 1 of Bulletin 1 570-3. The coding system fo r the specifications is the same m oderate budget. 70 FOOD Food Away F r o m Home LU NC H 54-505 (X) Description: Entrees under these general descriptions: 1. Roast beef sandwich 2. Hamburger sandwich 3. Bacon, Lettuce, and tomato sandwich 4. Tuna fish sandwich A beverage was added to complete the meal; “ h ig h -p ric e d ” outlets w ere e x cluded. LU N C H 54-515 (X) Description: Same as 54-510 (X) (see bulletin 1570-3) except that “ low p r ic e d ” outlets w ere excluded. DINNER 54-525 (X) Description: Same as 54-530 (X) (see bulletin 1570-3) except that “ highp r ic e d ” outlets w ere excluded. DINNER 54-535 (X) 1 * Description: Entrees under these general descriptions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ground beef patty Round steak Veal Cutlet Ham Chicken F is h An a ppetizer, 2 vegetables, a b e ve ra g e, bread and butter, and a d e s s e r t w e r e added to these entrees to com plete the meal. Special Instructions: Where any of the specified item s w ere not included, the a la carte p r ic e (s) was added to the cost of the entrees. “ L o w - p r i c e d ” out lets w ere excluded. 71 HOUSING Rent and Homeowner Shelter Costs RENTAL, COSTS Contract Rent 21-005 (X) Description: A rental unit meeting the same general description as that used for the moderate standard (see bul letin 1570-1). Estimating Procedure: The rental cost for the lower standard was calcu lated as the average rent fo r the lower third of the distribution of rents fo r units meeting the stand ard. Where facilities usuallycovered by rent were not included, estimates of the cost of these items were added to the contract rent. Contract Rent 21-015 (X) Description: A rental unit meeting the same general description as that used for the moderate standard (see bulletin 1570-1) but with no r e s t r ic tions on the number of baths or extra facilities and services such as switchboard, secretarial, swimming, or special recreational facilities. Estimating Procedure: The rental cost for the higher standard was calcu lated as the average rent fo r the upper third of the distribution of rents for units meeting the above standard. Estimates of the cost fo r fuel and utilities were added to the contract rent. INSURANCE ON HOUSEHOLD CONTENTS 23-965 (X) Description: Annual premium fo r tenants for coverage that includes: 1. F ir e and extended coverage insur ance on unscheduled personal property contained in the rental unit. 2. Deductible: A $50 deductible ap plies to loss from windstorm and hail. HOMEOWNER COSTS The items fo r homeowner costs fo r the higher standard were calculated fo r a 5 or 6-room dwelling meeting all the criteria specified fo r the moderate standard (see bulletin 1570-3), but with no restrictions on the number of baths. MORTGAGE IN TE R E ST AND P R IN C IP A L PAYMENTS 21-115 (X) 1 Description: Annual payments for 3 types of loans fo r a home purchased 7 years ago were combined by weights r e p r e senting the distribution of type of mortgage reported by U.S. urban buyers in the specified purchase price class. 1. Conventional - 65 percent of pur chase price, 20-year term (rate fo r A p r il 1961 fo r city proper and suburbs weighted together by indi vidual city weights). 2. F H A — 80 percent of purchase price, 25-year (statutory maximum rate as of A p r il 1961, including mortgage insurance premium, 6 percent). 72 HOUSING Rent and Homeowner Shelter Costs 3. V A - 80 percent of purchase p ric e , 25-year term (statutory rate as of A p r il 1961, 5 l/4 p e r cent). Method of Calculating Costs: See pages 23-25 of bulletin 1570-3 and page 49 of this bulletin. P R O P E R T Y TAXE S 21-125 (X) Description: Same as 21-120 (X) (see bulletin 1570-3) except that the specified value of the home was higher. P R O P E R T Y INSURANCE FOR HOMEOWNER 21-145 (X) Description: Same as 21-140 (X) (see bulletin 1570-3) except that insurance costs w ere based on a higher home value and the annual premium fo r the broad fo rm comprehensive hom e ow ner’ s policy. 73 HOUSING Household T e x tiles PILLO W 23-014 (F B ) Description: Bed pillow, cotton c o ver ; (zipper closure excluded); packaged in polyethylene. M a t e r ia ls : P illo w fillin g : White goose feathers; weight, 2 to 3 pounds. C ove r: Eight ounce cotton ticking; corded edge. Size: Cut size: 22x28 inches Standard size: 21x27 inches Thickness: 3 to 8 inches Estimating P ro c ed u re: Same as E P - 3 except that the a r r a y of p r ic e s used included both 23-013 (F B - G ) and 23-014 (F B ) in .the fiv e benchmark cities. The ratio of the average p rice of the upper or lo w er third of the c o m bined a rr a y was applied to the p ric e used in the m oderate standard in other citie s. 334-641 0 - 69 - 6 74 HOUSING F urniture L IV IN G ROOM SUITE C O C K T A IL T A B L E 23-134 (F B ) 23-170 (F B ) Description: Sofa and lounge chair; (sold either fr o m open stock or as a suite with matching or harmonizing chair) premium grade: promotionals excluded. Description: P re m iu m grade; walnut, ch erry, pecan, or teak wood. Style: Modern or contem porary; oval or rectangular; may have shelf and/or drawer. Style: Modern or contemporary. Construction: K iln dried hardwood fra m e, co rn er blocked, c r o s s -b ra c e d , double doweled, screw ed and glued, hard or soft edge w ell padded, s e l f decked, may have exposed wood arm s or legs, padded outside arm s and backs, Scotchgard or Zepel stain resistant finish. R e v e rs ib le seat and p illo w back cushions (sofa may have tight back cushion), concealed zipper cushion c o v e r s , snug fit, compact and smooth cushions, latex or urethane foam/ p o lye ster core. C oilsp rin gs fastened to fra m e and/or webbing; or sinuous construction, no sag, zipper or arch types. Covering: (Good quality) Synthetic, natural or blend fib ers, 100% fla x excluded; flat, pile or t e x ture weaves. Size: Sofa platform length 60 to 90 inches. Estimating P ro c ed u re: Same as E P - 3 except that the a r r a y or p ric es used included 23-132, 23-133 (F B - G ), and 23-134 (F B ) in the fiv e benchmark cities. The ratio of the average price of the upper or low er third of the c o m bined a r r a y was applied to the p rice used in the moderate standard in other cities. Construction: A l l pieces fra m ed and braced throughout, m ortis ed and tenoned or doweled, glued and screwed. Table Top: Veneer su r face and base, if any, machined smooth and clean, oiled and handrubbed finish. Edges, rails and legs: Solid wood. S iz e : Approx. 42, 48 or 54 inches. Estimating P roc e d u r e : Same as E P - 3 except that the a r r a y of p r ic e s used included both 23-169 (F B -G ) and 23-170 (F B ) in the fiv e bench mark cities. The ratio of the avera ge p ric e of the upper or low er third of the combined a r r a y was applied to the p ric e used in the m oderate standard in other cities. 75 HOUSING Furniture L A W N CHAIR 23-252 (C P I) Style: Folding chair Construction: One-inch polished aluminum tubing. Webbing: Approx. 4 to 6 v e r tic a l and 8 to 10 horizontal webs of saran, velon, or polypropelene, approx. 2 l/4 inches wide. A rm rests: Double tubular, or 1piece flat. S iz e : Seat: Approx. 21 to 23 inches. Height: Approx. 30 to 32 inches. Special Instructions: T h ree volume s e lle r s p riced in each outlet in the five benchmark cities. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r ic e : Method I (see bulletin 1570-3). 76 HOUSING Housewares, Tablew a re and Miscellaneous Equipment L A W N MOWER 23-679 (X) A p ric e of $26.25 was estimated fo r all cities , based on averaged retail p rice estim ates fo r a hand m ow er fro m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. L A W N MOWER 23-681 (C P I) Style: Lawn m ow er, power; rotary type; push type; hand propelled; 19 to 22 inch cutting width. Construction: Steel die cast aluminum alloy or fib e r g la s s housing (deck); tubular steel or aluminum handle; engine control (throttle); alloy steel blade; wheels, adjustable fo r cutting height, with rubber tire s; may be offset; discharge chute on side; may have lea f mulcher attach ment. Engine: 4 cy cles. Type of starting: R e c o il or impulse. Special Instructions: Th ree volume s e lle r s p riced in each outlet in the fiv e benchmark cities. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r ic e : Method I (see bulletin 1570-3). 77 HOUSING E le c t r ic a l Equipment and Appliances R E F R IG E R A T O R Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r ic e : Method I (see bulletin 1570-3). 23-385 (X) P r i c e estimated in each city as 60.48 percent of average p ric e of r e f r i g e r a t o r f r e e z e r , 23-387 (C P I), moderate standard, based on m a il- o r d e r catalog p r ic e r e l a tionships. WASHING MACHINE 23-420 (X) P r ic e estimated in each city as 62.49 percent of average pric e of washing machine, 23-423 (C P I), moderate standard, based on m a il- o r d e r catalog price relationships. C LO TH E S DRYER 23-429 (C P I) Style: E le c t r ic , sem i-deluxe model, not installed; thermostatic t e m perature control; automatic shut off; safety switch on door (shuts off machine when door is opened); may have in terio r light; lint trap; no-vent models excluded. Construction: Sheet steel e x te rio r and fra m e work; steel drum, rustproofed with porcelain, zinc or sim ila r coating, excluding stainless steel drums; white baked enamel or a c r y lic enamel e x te r io r , may have porcelain enamel top; may operate on either 11 5 or 230 volts, 60 cycle e le c t r ic a l current. Special Instructions: One model each of two manufacturers pric ed in each outlet. 3.14-641 0 - 6 9 - 7 DISHWASHER 23-430 (X) P r i c e estimated in each city as 94.4 percent of a vera ge p ric e of washing machine, 23-423 (C P I), moderate standard, based on m a il- o r d e r catalog pric e. FOOD W A STE DISPOSER 23-500 (X) A p r ic e of $60.00 was estimated fo r all c ities , based on a vera g e retail p r ic e estim ates fr o m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. AIR CONDITIONER 23-441 (C P I) Style: Standard window-type (excluding porta ble-type); thermostatic con tro l; installation charges not in cluded. E le c t r ic a l C h a ra cteris tics : B .T.U . hourly rating: 9,000 to 12 , 000 . Volts and a m p eres: 115 volts, 7 l/2 to 12 am p eres; or 230 volts, 7 to 9 am peres. Special Instructions: Th ree volume s e lle r s pric ed in each outlet in the fiv e benchmark cities. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r i c e : Method I (see bulletin 1570-3) 78 HOUSING Household Operations LAUNDRY, FLATW O RK T E L E P H O N E SERVICE 23-924 (C P I) 22-621 (X) Description: Finished s e r v ic e , all washed and ironed and ready fo r use, fo r a 10 pound bundle of laundry, flat work only, including any bundle or s e r v ic e charge or insurance. Description: Monthly rate, local residential telephone s e r v ic e ; 1-party unlimited rate Special Instructions: D elivered and cash, c a r r y and c a ll- f o r s e r v ic e priced in each outlet. Method of Calculating A vera g e P r i c e : Method II a (see bulletin 1570-3). A v e r a g e s Weighted as fo llows: D elivered: 50 percent Cash, c a r r y and c a l l - f o r : 50 percent G E N E R A L HOUSEWORK W ITH LA U N D R Y 23-931 (C P I) Description: Cash entering wage fo r day w orker fo r an 8-hour day; including transportation allowance; general housework with laundry (washing and/or ironing) excluding heavy cleaning. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r ic e : Method II a (see bulletin 1570-3) 79 TR ANSPOR T A T IO N P r iv a t e Transportation A U T O M O B IL E PURCHASE 41-025 (X) The purchased car was considered to be a 1961 model, without allowance fo r trade-in, since the p re viou sly owned car was scrapped. Estim ated 1961 p ric es of fu ll-sia ed C hevrolets and F ords (as described fo r 41-035 (X), the higher standard trade-in) w ere used fo r this standard, except that the full retail price was used, rather than the wholesale price. R E P L A C E M E N T OF A U T O M O B IL E 41-035 (X) The replacement of an automobile in cluded the purchase of a new car fo r 60 percent of the fa m ilies and , fo r the remaining 40 percent, a used car of the same age permitted by the m o d e r ate standard. As in the moderate standard, the replacement cost is the difference in price between the pu r chased car and the traded-in car. The purchased car was a new (1967) model or a 2 l/2 yea r old (1965) m odel. F o r the new car, C P I average pric es fo r Chevrolet Impala and F ord Galaxie 500 2-door hard tops w ere combined (d e a le r ’ s concessions w ere deducted). F o r the 29 la rg e s t cities (having I960 populations of 250,000 or m o r e ) individual city a vera g es were used. F o r the remaining cities, r e gional-stratum a vera g es w ere used, because dealer samples are too small to perm it calculation of relia ble a v e r age pric es in these cities. P r ic e s of the 2 l/2 year old (1965) car are based on average transaction (r e ta il) p ric es as reported to the National Automobile Dealers A ssociation (N AD A ) fo r fu ll- size F o rd s and C hevrolets. The p ric es fo r traded-in (1960 model) cars w ere estimated fro m N A D A data and adjusted to approximate wholesale lev els . N A D A p ric e data are state averages reported separately fo r Chevrolets and F ord s . C P I w eights--60 percent C hevrolet and 40 percent F o r d - - w e r e used to combine p r ic e s of each make fo r each model year. TIR E R E T R E A D 41-193 (C P I) Description: F u ll tire retread applied to ca rca ss meeting the following description: Type: Tubeless; low p ressu re Size: 7.50 x 14 C arcass: Rayon and nylon cord Tread: Regular; excluding snow or or mud treads P ly rating: 4 M aterial: Rubber; synthetic or synthetic and natural rubber. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r i c e : Method I (see bulletin 1570-3) P U B LIC L IA B IL IT Y IN SU R A N C E 41-805 (X) Description: Same as 41-807 (C P I) (see bulletin 1570-3) except fo r the following co vera g e: (a) (b) (c) (d) $25,000 to $50,000 bodily injury $10,000 p rop erty damage $1,000 m edical payments Uninsured m otorist co vera g e where mandatory--$1 0,000/20,000 bodily injury or statutory lim its, if higher. 80 C L O T H IN G M en's Clothing J A C K E T or S P O R T C O A T 31-005 (X) P r i c e estim ated in each city as 163 percent of avera g e p ric e of boys* sp ort coat, 31-662 (F B - G ), benchmark cities, and 31-662 (C P I), non-benchmark cities , as estim ated fo r the res p ec tiv e higher or lo w er standard, based on m a il- o r d e r catalog p r ic e relationships. Estimating P ro c ed u re: Same as E P - 3 except that the a r r a y of p r ic e s in cluded both 33- 001 (C P I) and 33-002 (F B -G ) in the fiv e benchmark cities. The ratio of the a vera g e p r ic e of the upper or low er third of the combined a r r a y was applied to the p r ic e used in the m oderate standard in other cities. B AT H R O B E B AT H R O B E 31-855 (X) 31-375 (X) A pric e of $4.99 was estim ated fo r all cities , based on avera g e reta il p r ic e estim ates fr o m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. A p ric e of $10.92 was estimated fo r all cities, based on average retail pric e estim ates fro m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. S T R E E T SHOES 33-001 (C P I) Style: Oxford M aterial: Upper: Smooth calf, medium quality Outsole: Leather, se m i-fin e grade, 8 to 9 irons Insole: Leather or non-leather, medium quality Lining: L ea th er or non-leather, medium quality Heel: Rubber Construction: Goodyear welt; medium quality workmanship Size Range: 6 l/2 to 12, A to D 81 CLOTHING Women’ s Apparel DUNGAREES, BLUE JEANS BRASSIERE 32-165 (X) 32-392 (FB) Same price as boys’ dungarees, 31-732 (FB-G), benchmark cities and 31- 732 (FB), non-benchmark cities, moderate standard. Style: Bandeau; adjustable straps. SHORTS, PEDAL PUSHERS 32- 175 (X) Same price as girls’ shorts, 32-730 (X), moderate standard. PANTIES F abric: Cups: Nylon lace or nylon tricot or batiste of polyester/nylon/ cotton blends. Cup lining: Cotton, nylon marquisette, or nylon tricot. Sides: Spandex Straps: Nylon ribbon or cotton adjustable stetch; excluding continuous stretch straps. 32-314 (FB) Style: Brief Fabric: Warp knit (2-bar tricot); nylon yarn, 40 denier Construction: Full cut, clean work manship; overlock or merrowed seams; double crotch; may have concealed gusset; elasticized waist, l/2 or 5/8 inch exposed elastic. Size Range: Regular (small, medium and largeK Estimating Procedure: Same as EP-3 except that the array of prices included both 32-313 (FB-G) and 32-314 (FB) in the five benchmark cities. The ratio of the average price of the upper or lower third of the combined array was applied to the price used in the moderate standard in other cities. Construction: Clean workmanship. Cups: Three sections, may have side stays. Size Range: Regular Estimating Procedure: Same as EP-3 except that the array of prices included both 32-391 (FB-G) and 32-392 (FB) in the five benchmark cities. The ratio of the average price of the upper or lower third of the combined array was applied to the price used in the moderate standard in other cities. 82 CLOTHING Women’ s Apparel ROBE, HOUSECOAT 32-345 (X) Same price as g i r l s ’ robe, 32-866 (F B -G ), benchmark cities and 32-866 (C P I), non-benchmark cities, fo r the respective standard. PURSE, HANDBAG 32-455 (X) A price of $10.46 was estimated fo r all cities, based on average retail price estimates from m a il-o rd e r catalogs. 83 C LO T H IN G G i r l s ’ A ppa rel C O A T , LIG H T W E IG H T P A J A M A S , NIGHTGOWNS 32-555, ( X ) 32-855 (X) P r i c e estimated in each city as 70 percent of avera ge p r ic e of g i r l s ’ heavyweight coat, 32-554 (F B -G ), benchmark cities and 32-554 (F B ), non-benchmark cities, fo r the r espective standard, based on m ail order catalog p r ic e relationships. P r i c e estim ated in each' city as 66 percent of a vera g e p r ic e of w om en’ s pajamas, 32-339 (F B - G ) , benchmark cities and 32-339 (F B ), non-benchmark cities, lo w er standard, based on m a il- o r d e r catalog p ric e relationships. JA C K E T HAT 32-575 (X) 32-875 (X) A p r ic e of $5.97 was estim ated fo r all cities based on a vera ge r e ta il p r ic e estimate fr o m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. SHORTS 32-735 (X) A pric e of $4.00 was estim ated fo r all cities, based on a vera g e re ta il p r ic e estimate fr o m m a il- o r d e r catalogs. O V E R A L L S , B LU E JEANS 32-715 (X) Same pric e as boys’ dungarees, 31-732 (F B -G ), benchmark cities and 31-732 (F B ), non-benchmark cities, moderate standard. Same as E P - 3 except that ratios w ere based on the p r ic e a rra y s fo r the woman’ s hat 32-432 (F B -G ). The ratio of the a vera ge p r ic e of the upper third of the a r r a y was applied to the p ric e used in the m oderate standard in the fiv e benchmark and other cities. 84 PERSO N AL CARE S e rv ice s G IR L S ’ H A IR C U T 52-735 (X) Same p r ic e as woman’ s haircut, 52-753 (C P I). 85 M ED ICAL CARE S U P PL E M E N T A L MAJOR M EDICAL INSURANCE 51-950 (X) F o r a description of the plan included in the higher budget, see page 45 of this bulletin. 8 6 OTHER F A M I L Y C O NS U M PTIO N R ecreation T A P E RECORDER 53-097 (C P I) Style: P o rta b le, stereophonic model (rec ord s and plays stereo), 4 track, 2 to 4 speeds, dual speakers and microphones; or, monophonic model, records only monophonic and plays monophonic or stereophonic; im ported or domestic manufacture. Excluding battery powered r e c o r d e r s , tape decks, and professional models. Construction: Case: Lightweight; metal, plastic, or fabric co vered wood; co m pletely self-contained. Tape Capacity: Tape ca rtrid ge s or 3 to 7 inch standard reels. Special Instructions: One model each of two manufacturers priced in each outlet. Method of Calculating A v e r a g e P r ic e : Method I (see bulletin 1 570-3) 87 OTHER F A M I L Y C O N S U M PTIO N Tobacco CIGAR 54-078 (FB ) Description: F i l l e r : A ll domestic tobacco Binder and wrapper: Domestic shade grown tobacco. Size: Regular excluding c ig a r illo s or s im ila r sizes. Estim ating P roc e d u r e : Same as E P - 3 except that the average p ric e of 54-079 (F B ) was used in place of the upper third of the a r r a y of p ric es in the fiv e benchmark cities. The ratio was applied to the p rice used in the moderate standard in other cities. P I P E TOB AC CO 54-154 (F B ) Estimating P roced u re: Same as E P - 3 except that the average pric e of 54-078 (F B ) was used in place of the low er third of the a r r a y of p ric es in the five benchmark cities. The ratio was applied to the p rice used in the moderate standard in other cities. CIGAR 54-079 (FB ) Description: F i l l e r : A ll domestic tobacco; or, all Puerto Rico, Phillippine Republic, Central or South A m e r ic a , or Indonesia tobacco; or any blend of these combinations. Binder and wrapper: Domestic or import, shade grown (dom estic), Sumatra, Java, Puerto Rico, Phillippine Republic, Central or South A m e r ic a or Indonesia tobacco. Size: Regular; excluding c ig a r illo s or s im ila r sizes. Description: A ll domestic or domestic with im ported tobacco; aromatic or special fla v o rs such as rum, maple, walnut and sim ila r fla vo rs . Size: 1 to 2 ounce packageEstimating Proc ed u re: Same as E P - 3 except that the a r r a y of p ric es used included both 54-153 (F B ) and 54-154 (F B ) in the five benchmark cities. The ratio of the average p ric e of the upper or low er third of the combined a rra y was applied to the p ric e used in the moderate standard in other cities. 8 8 O TH ER F A M IL Y C O N S U M PTIO N A lco h o lic B ev era g e s LIQUOR A T HOME 54-401 (F B ) D escription : Straight bourbon whiskey, 4 y ea rs old or m ore, 1 0 0 p ro o f, bottled in bond Unit: F ifth ; or quart Brand: N ation ally a d vertised and distributed. E stim atin g P ro c ed u re: Same as E P -3 except that the a vera ge p ric e of 54-401 (F B ) was used in place of the upper third of the a rr a y of p ric e s in the fiv e benchmark c itie s . The ratio was applied to the p ric e used in the m oderate standard in other c itie s . Appendix C T able C - l Index of Population Weights U sed in the Budgets fo r 3 Standards of L ivin g fo r an U rb an F a m ily of 4 P e rs o n s 1 A re a Population weights 100.00 N o r th e a s t 4 ------- --------------------------------------Boston, M a s s -------------------------------------B uffalo, N. Y --------------------------------------Ha rtf o r d , Conn----------------------------------L a n ca ste r, P a ----------------------------------N ew Y ork —N o rth eastern N ew J e rse y P h iladelphia, P a .—N. J-----------------------P ittsb u rgh , P a ----------------------------------P ortlan d, M a i n e --------------------------------Nonm etropolitan a re a s 3 -------------------- 30 66 2 54 2. 45 North C entral 4 ---------------------------------------C edar Rapids, Iow a -------------------------Cham paign—U rb an a, 111--------------------Chicago, 111.—N orth w estern Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky._ In d------------------Cleveland, O h io ---------------------------------Dayton, O h io --------------------------------------D etroit, M ic h -------------------------------------G re en B ay, W i s ---------------------------------Indianapolis, Ind--------------------------------Kansas City, M o.—Kans -------------------M ilw auk ee, W i s ---------------------------------M inneapolis—St. P a u l, M i n n ------------St. Lo u is, M o.—I ll ----------------------------W ichita, K a n s ------------------------------------Nonm etropolitan a re a s 3 ------------------- 28. 38 1. 26 2. 26 6. 98 . 63 i. 85 1. 70 3. 13 . 57 . 86 . 77 1.26 .91 1.33 1. 14 3. 73 81. 70 18.30 68 1. 76 13. 10 4. 35 1*. 65 . 68 3. 45 Population weights United States urban population— Continued South 4 ----------------------------------------------------------Atlanta, Ga -------------------------------------------Austin, T e x -------------------------------------------B a ltim o re , M d --------------------------------------Baton Rouge, L a ----------------------------------D a lla s , T e x -------------------------------------------D urham , N. C -----------------------------------------Houston, T e x -----------------------------------------N a sh v ille , T en n-------------------------------------O rlando, F l a ------------------------------------------Washington, D. C.—M d.—V a ------------------Nonm etropolitan a re a s 3 ------------------------ 22. 72 1. 64 ( 5) 1.59 1. 32 2. 64 1. 17 . 76 1. 34 2. 30 1. 28 8. 68 W e s t 4 ----------------------------------------------------------B a k e rs fie ld , C a lif --------------------------------D enver, C o l o -----------------------------------------Los A n ge les- Long B each, C a li f ----------San D iego, C a l i f ------------------------------------San F ra n c is c o —Oakland, C a l i f -------------Seattle—E verett, W a s h -------------------------Nonm etropolitan a re a s 3 ------------------------ 17. 75 2. 26 1.31 5. 20 2. 37 2. 26 1. 99 2. 36 Honolulu, H aw aii 6 -------------------------------------- . 41 ; A nch orage, A la s k a 6 ----------------------------------- 0 0 o United States urban population ------------------M etropolitan are as 1 2 -----------------------------Nonm etropolitan a re a s 3 ------------------------- A re a 1 The weight in each urban a re a is the total population of 4 -p e rs o n , hu sban d-w ife fa m ilies having children aged 6 through 17 y e a r s , 1 fu ll-tim e ea rn er in the fam ily; i. e, , the fam ily type in the 1960—61 S urvey of Consum er Expenditures m ost c lo sely approxim ating the fa m ily fo r which the 3 budgets w e re constructed. F o r an explanation of the sam ple selection, see MT echn ical Note— the R evised City Sam ple fo r the Consum er P r ic e Index, " Monthly L a b o r R e v ie w , O ctober I960, pp. 1078-1083. (A ls o issued as B L S Reprint 2352.) 2 F o r a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard M etropolitan S tatistical A r e a s , p re p a re d by the B u reau of the Budget. 3 P la c e s having population of 2, 500 to 50, 000. 4 Regions as defined by the B u re au of the Census: Northeast-— Connecticut, M ain e, M assach u setts, N ew H am psh ire, N ew J e rs e y , N ew Y o rk , Pen nsylvania, Rhode Island, and V erm ont; North C en tral— Illin o is , Indiana, Iowa, K an sas, M ichigan, M innesota, M is s o u ri, N e b ra sk a , North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and W isconsin ; South— A lab am a, A rk a n sa s, D e la w a re , D is tric t of C olum bia, F lo r id a , G e o rg ia , Kentucky, Lou isian a, M a ry la n d , M is s is s ip p i, N orth C aro lin a, O klahom a, South C a ro lin a , T en n essee, T ex a s, V irg in ia , and W est V ir g in ia ; and W e st— A lask a, A riz o n a , C a lifo rn ia, C olorado, H aw aii, Idaho, Montana, N evada, N ew M e xic o, O regon , Utah, Washington, and Wyom ing. 3 A population weight fo r A ustin is not shown sep a ra tely becau se the sam ple which represented this type of city w o rk e r fa m ily was not sta tistically significant. T h e re fo re , the weight was imputed to other cities of the sam e siz e (50,000—250,000 population) in the South. 6 Honolulu and A n ch orage w e re sep a ra te sam pling strata in the B L S 1960—61 C onsu m er E xpenditure S u rvey, and, th e re fo re, a re not included in the total weight for the W est. H onolulu's weight is in the United States and m etropolitan are a totals; A n c h o ra g e 's weight is in the United States and nonm etropolitan a re a totals. 89 Appendix D Technical References 1 . B rackett, Jean C. , "In te r c ity D ifferen c es in F a m ily Food Budget C o s t s ," M onthly L a b or R e v ie w , O ctober 1963, pp. 1189—1194. An analysis of the e ffe c ts on food budget cost estim a tes of using fo r a ll c ities a single set o f w eights rep resen tin g urban U. S. food pattern s, or d iffe re n t w eights fo r each c ity re fle c tin g the food p re fe re n c e s of the reg ion in which the c ity is located. A lso presen ts a discu ssion o f the conceptual im plication s o f va ry in g the w eights in a p la c e -to -p la c e com parison of fa m ily livin g costs. 2. C lo re ty , Joseph A . , "Consum ption S tatistics: Buying Habits Change, chapter X , 1959, pp. A T ech n ica l C o m m en t," How A m e rica n 217—242. Includes a section on "Standard Budgets as In dicators o f P r o g r e s s " (pp. 232—242). A ls o presen ts in sum m ary fo rm a rep resen ta tive c r o s s -s e c tio n of budgets com p iled in this country during the 2 0 th century, showing a vera ge d o lla r cost fig u res fo r the total and fo r the m a jo r components o f each budget. 3. L a m a le, H elen H. , "Changes in Concepts of Incom e A dequ acy O ve r the L a s t C e n tu ry ," Journal of the A m e rica n E conom ic A s s o c ia tio n , M ay 1958, pp. 291—299. An analysis of the relationship o v e r tim e betw een actual le v e ls of livin g in the United States and the goals or standards of livin g which have been accepted in d iffe re n t h is to r ic a l p eriod s and fo r d iffe re n t pu rposes; and a discu ssion o f the im plication s in this relationship fo r p re sen t-d a y concepts o f incom e adequacy. 4. _______________________ " P o v e r ty : July 1965, pp. 822-827. The W ord and the R e a lity ", M onthly Labor R e v ie w , D iscusses the ro le o f standard budgets in p rovid in g an in te llig ib le definition of p o verty , fo r use in evaluating incom e adequacy fo r d iffe re n t fa m ily types and in d if fe r ent g eogra p h ical locations and fo r estim atin g the extent of p o v e rty in the United States. 5. -------------------------------- * M a rg a re t S. Stotz , -"The In terim C ity W o r k e r 's F a m ily B u d g et," Monthly L a b or R e v ie w ,." August I960, pp. 785—808. E stim a tes of the cost o f a "m o d es t but adequate" standard o f livin g fo r a husband, w ife , and two ch ildren (livin g in rented housing), at autumn 1959 p r ic e s , in 2 0 la rg e cities and th eir suburbs (Atlanta, B a ltim o re, Boston, C hicago, Cincinnati, C levelan d, D etroit, Houston, Kansas C ity, L os A n g eles , M in neapolis, New Y o rk , Ph ilad elph ia, Pittsbu rgh , P o rtla n d , O reg. , St. L ou is, San F ra n c isc o , Scranton, Seattle, and W ash ington, D. C. ) Includes a d etailed lis t of the goods and s e r v ic e s con sid ered n e c e s s a ry by fo u r-p e rs o n fa m ilie s to m aintain the sp ec ified livin g standard as determ in ed by le v e ls o f livin g actu ally ach ieved in the 1950's, and d esc rib es how this rep re se n ta tive lis t was developed and p ric ed . (See R e fe re n ce No. 10 fo r d escrip tio n o f o rig in a l B LS C ity W o rk e r's F a m ily B u d g et.) 6 . Orshansky, M o llie , "B u dget fo r an E ld e r ly Couple: In terim R e vis io n by the Bureau o f L a b or S ta tis tic s ," S ocial S ecu rity B u lletin , D ecem ber I960, pp. 26—36. A su m m ary re p o rt on "T h e BLS In terim Budget fo r a R e tire d C ou ple". (See R eferen ce No. 7. ) Includes a discu ssion o f variou s conceptual prob lem s encountered in developing norm ative livin g costs estim ates fo r a r e tir e d couple, and some of the lim itation s o f this p a rtic u la r budget fo r the multitude o f purposes fo r which budgets fo r o ld er persons and fa m ilie s are needed. 91 92 7. Stotz, M a rg a re t S. , nThe B LS In terim Budget fo r a R e tire d R e v ie w , N ovem b er I960, pp. 1141—1157. C o u p le ," M onthly L a b o r E stim a tes of the cost of a "m o d es t but adequate" standard o f livin g fo r a man age 65 o r o v e r and his w ife (liv in g in rented housing), at autumn 1959 p r ic e s , in 20 la rg e c itie s and th eir suburbs (c itie s are the sam e as those lis te d in R e fe re n c e No. 5). Includes a deta iled lis t of the goods and s e r v ic e s co n sid ered n e c e s s a ry fo r r e tir e d couples to m aintain the sp e c ifie d liv in g standard as determ in ed b y le v e ls of liv in g actu ally ach ieved in the 1950's; and d e sc rib es how this rep re se n ta tive lis t was d e velop ed and p ric ed . (See R e fe re n ce No. 11 fo r descrip tio n o f o rig in a l Budget fo r an E ld e r ly Couple. ) 8. U. S. D epartm ent o f L a b o r, Bureau o f L a b o r S tatistics, "E stim a tin g Equ ivalent Incom es o r Budget C osts by F a m ily T y p e ," M onthly L a b or R e v ie w , N ovem b er I960, pp. 1197—1200. D es crib e s a scale fo r m easu ring the r e la tiv e a fte r -ta x incom e req u ire d by fa m ilie s o f d iffe rin g com position to m aintain the same le v e l o f m a te r ia l w e ll-b e in g , or fo r estim atin g com parable costs of goods and s e r v ic e s fo r fa m ilie s of d iffe re n t age, s iz e , and type. (Scale values cannot be used to estim ate r e la tiv e costs of components o f fa m ily budgets— food, housing, taxes, insurance, e t c . ) 9. R ep ort of the A d v isory C om m ittee on Standard Budget R e s e a r c h , June 1963, 26 pp. M em b ers o f the B LS A d v is o r y C om m ittee on Standard Budget R esea rch : P r o fe s s o r Gwen B y m e rs , D epartm ent of Household E con om ics and M anagem ent, C o rn ell U n iv e rs ity ; Ithaca, N. Y. D orothy M. Durand, P r iv a te consultant on the developm en t and use o f standard budgets; S carsd ale, N. Y. G ertrude Lotw in , Home E conom ics Consultant, State of New J e r s e y D ivisio n o f W e lfa re ; Trenton, N. J. C h arles A. P e a r c e , D ir e c to r , D ivision of R e se a rch and S tatistics, D epartm ent o f L a b o r, State o f New Y o rk ; New Y o rk , N. Y. L a z a r e T e p e r, D ir e c to r , R e se a rch D epartm ent, Internation al L a d ie s ' G arm ent W o r k e r s ' Union, A F L - C IO ; New Y o rk , N. Y. G ertrude S. W e iss, C hairm an, Consultant; W ashington, D. C. C. A sh le y W righ t, E con om ist, Standard O il Com pany ( N . J . ) ; New Y o rk , N. Y.. Contains recom m endations o f this com m ittee o f ex p erts on the needs fo r variou s types o f budgets, g en e ra l concepts o f the standards o f liv in g to be d esc rib ed by the budgets, and tech n ical and other prob lem s a ssocia ted w ith estim atin g and publishing budget costs. Includes a se lec te d b ib liograp h y on the m a jo r uses of standard budgets. W o rk e rs ' Budgets in the United States: C ity F a m ilie s and Single 1 0 * ____ P e rs o n s , 1946 and 1947, (B LS B u lletin 927, 1948) 55 pp. D es crib e s concepts, defin ition s, and techniques used C ity W o r k e r 's F a m ily Budget fo r a fo u r-p e rs o n fa m ily , s e r v ic e s p ric e d , and 1946—47 cost estim a tes fo r 34 c itie s . su rve y o f fa m ily budgets, and su m m ary data on State budgets 11 in developing the o rig in a l deta iled lis t o f goods and A ls o contains an h is to r ic a l fo r single w om en w o rk e rs . . U .S . D epartm ent o f Health, Education, and W e lfa re , S ocial S ecu rity A d m in istration , " A Budget fo r an E ld e r ly C o u p le ," S ocial S ecu rity B u lletin , F eb ru a ry 1948, pp. 4-12. Contains estim a tes o f the cost o f a "m o d es t but adequate" standard o f liv in g fo r a couple age 65 o r o ld e r, at M a rch 1946 and June 1947 p r ic e s , in eight la rg e c itie s . (Concepts and techniques used to com p ile this budget w ere the sam e as those em p loyed in developing the o rig in a l BLS C ity W o r k e r 's Budget. See R e fe re n ce No. 10.) U. S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1969 O - 334-641
@FedFRASER