The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
W orkers’ Budgets in the United States:
City Families and Single Persons,
1946 and 1947
[From the Monthly Labor Review, February 1948, with additional data]
Bulletin No. 927
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner
For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D . C,
Price 25 cents
Letter o f Transmittal
U nited States D epartment op L abor ,
B ureau op L abor Statistics,
Washington, March 1, 1948.
T he Secretary
op
L abor :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on a City W orkers Family Budget,
together with related short articles on budgets. The report was prepared at the request of
the Labor and Federal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives. In response to the subcommittee's instruction that the Bureau
find out what it costs a worker's family to live in large cities in the United States, and the
relative differences in living costs between cities, the report shows dollar costs for 34 cities
and comparisons between cities, for March 1946 and June 1947.
With the assistance of a technical advisory committee, the report was prepared by
members of the Prices and Cost of Living Branch, under the general supervision of Lester
S. Kellogg and Dorothy S. Brady.
E w an C lague , Commissioner.
Hon. L. B . SCHWELLENBACH,
Secretary of Labor.
Foreword
the City W orkers Family Budget was first
presented several months ago, many questions
have been raised concerning its implications with
respect to incomes and wages. Some of these
questions are answered—insofar as answers are
possible from the data available— in the detailed
report on the budget and the supplemental
reports presented in this bulletin. Other ques
tions—most of them questions of interpretation
and emphasis— seem to require further clarifica
tion.
The specific question asked is: “ W hy did the
Bureau choose a family of two adults and two
children, when such families are but a small frac
tion of urban families?” There are many good
reasons for the choice of a four-person family as
the basis for the initial budget. The family of
husband, wife, and two children under 15 is some
thing o f a standard in the United States, even if,
at any given time, it is statistically uncommon.
It represents a stage through which almost half
o f the families pass at one time or another: in
1940, about 45 percent of families of two or more
persons with male heads— “ normal” families—
contained four or more persons. The buying
habits of the family of two adults and two children
range over a wide variety of goods and services
common to family life in the United States. And
it has been used as the unit for other budgets
compiled in this country in recent years. These
are among the reasons that led the technical
advisory committee to recommend this type of
family as a starting point for this study of family
budgets.
The four-person family of husband, wife, and
two school-age children, although a logical choice
for such purposes, does not bulk large statistically
in the population at a given time (table A ). Of
the urban families (including single-person families)
enumerated in the census of 1940, about one in
eight was a four-personjfamily with a male head,
S ince
and not all of these, of course, were composed o f
two adults and two children. When single-person
families are excluded, one family in six contained
four persons with a male family head. Similarly,
the male head of a four-person family is not typical,
in a statistical sense, of the entire United States
labor force, which contains many women and
many single persons; but two-thirds of the men in
the labor force were heads of families, and nearly
one-third were heads of families of four or more
persons (table B ).
T able A.— Distribution of urban fam ilies, by fam ily size
and sex of head, 1940 1
Percent of—
Urban fam
ilies, includ
ing oneperson
families
Family size and sex of head
All families. _
_________
100.0
Families of 2 or more persons . __
With female heads.......................................
73.6
63.6
35.2
13.0
15.4
10.0
Families of 1 person...................... ....................
13.8
With male heads_ __
With 2 or 8 persons _
With 4 persons.
With 5 or more persons__
Urban fam
ilies of two
or more
persons
____
100.0
86.4
47.8
17.7
20.9
13.6
1 Source.—U. S. Bureau of Census, February 1948.
T able B.— Distribution of urban labor force, by sex and
fam ily status, 1940 1
Sex and family status
All persons in labor force. _
Heads of families of 2 or more. _
Percent of
persons in
urban labor
force
..... ....
100.0
____
49.4
45.8
25.5
9.3
11.0
3.6
15.3
16.2
19.1
35.3
8.5
6.8
Male____ _____________________________________
Heads of 2- or 3-person families. __
____
Heads of 4-person families..
. . .
Heads of families of 5 or more
Female _
..........
........ ..
Single-person families.
, ...... .....
Male _
__.
Female. __
_ ___ ___ ____
. , J
Relatives of family head.............................................................
Male_______________________________________________
Female.............. ............... ............ ........... ........... ..............
1Source.—IT. s. Bureau of the Census, February 1948.
The choice of this family as the unit for budget
purposes raises question of comparability of the
budget totals with income distributions: “ How
many families have incomes that enable them to
maintain or exceed the modest, but adequate,
level of living described in the budget?” The
extent to which this level of living is actually
achieved, of course, can be estimated only by
in
IV
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
comparing the budget cost with the distribution of
incomes of families of the size and composition
represented in the budget. Unfortunately, avail
able income statistics do not reveal income dis
tributions in large cities in 1946 and 1947 in rela
tion to family size. It is known that expenditure
patterns and needs vary widely among family
types and among communities of different sizes.
It would therefore be confusing and inconclusive
to compare the budget requirements for a family
of four in a large city with income distributions
or averages that did not differentiate between
single persons and families and between various
family types, in cities of different sizes.
The dollar total of the budget can be compared
directly only with the total annual income of the
family of four, preferably of types similar to that
described in the budget, for cities of the same size,
class, and similar economic characteristics. Total
income, of course, includes the family income from
all sources— not just wages or salaries. Since the
budget represents the total which it would cost the
family to live at the indicated level for a year, the
budget total should be compared with annual
income. In this comparison care should be taken
that the income figure used includes income tax
and social security deductions, if the comparison
is with the budget totals including these as costs.
Comparison of the budget with wage rates or
weekly wages must also be made carefully. In the
United States where wages are so commonly de
termined by collective bargaining, wage rates
typically attach to the job, rather than to the
individual worker, and tend to be more directly
influenced by the nature of the work than by
the varying needs of the individuals who com
prise the work force. For example, the union
rate for a given occupation in a given commu
nity will be uniform, regardless of the family
status or other responsibilities of the individual
workers. There is no]fpresumption, therefore,
that the wages in any given occupation at any
given time— and, still less, an average wage—
will correspond to the budget required to support
a family of a specific size at a specified level of
living. (A notable exception is found in some
State minimum wage laws which are specifically
designed to maintain a single person, usually a
woman, at what is usually described as a “ level
of health and decency” (see p. 52). A wage
that would support a family of four at the level
of living described in this budget obviously would
support a smaller family at a higher level and a
larger family at a lower level.
It has been observed that there is a tendency
for earnings of the individual working man in the
American economy, as he progresses through his
working life, to increase and decrease approxi
mately when his family responsibilities increase
and decrease. The young man entering the labor
force earns a relatively low “ beginner’s wage” at
a time when he usually is contributing to the
maintenance of an older family or has only him
self to support. B y the time he marries and
assumes responsibility for his own family, the
chances are that he has gained in experience and
earning power and may continue to gain through
the period of dependency of his children. I f his
earnings begin to decline as he passes middle age,
so, typically, do his responsibilities. This gen
eralization is substantiated by studies of fam ily
incomes since 1935.
This pattern reflects average experience; it
is by no means automatic or universal. In some
industries and occupations, workers continue to
gain in experience and earning power; in others,
maximum earnings are quickly reached. Further
more, the pattern is complicated in individual
cases by a great variety of circumstances of eam ing, spending, saving, and borrowing. T o the
extent that this tendency applies to the budget
family, we might expect to find the husband of the
family, who has been married 15 years or more and
is 35 to 40 years old, well advanced in his trade or
skill. It is likely that his earnings, therefore, are
higher than the average for his occupation and
region. If he has seniority rights, he is less likely
to be laid off; his annual earnings would be
higher on that account.
The assumption, explicit in the budget, that the
husband is the sole wage earner in the family
(except for occasional or part-time earnings of the
son) is entirely consistent with the manner of liv
ing of the United States family with two children
of school age. Although many families (including
many families of four) depend more or less on
secondary workers to supplement the earnings of
the principal wage earner, only a small fraction
of women with children of school age are employed
outside the home. The manner of living and the
expenditures would both be significantly different
if the mother were assumed to be employed
V
FOREWORD
For example, a working woman would likely spend
more for clothes, transportation, household opera
tion, and meals away from home than is allowed in
the budget for the woman of the family.
In order to test the relation of the budget to
family incomes, the Bureau has compared total
incomes of families of different sizes for one fairly
typical city for which the Bureau has income data
for 1945. Of the four-person families with male
heads in this city sample, an estimated 12 percent
had total incomes which were below the cost of
the budget for goods and services as priced in
March 1946; about 88 percent were above. For
other types of families, the proportions of families
with incomes below the corresponding budget level
was significantly higher. These facts are very
significant, for they show that the budget is not a
luxury budget, nor out of reach of most city fami
lies in the United States. On the other hand, it
is a matter of concern that in such a prosperous
year as 1946 one-eighth to one-fourth of the fami
lies could not maintain even that modest level of
living.
The City W orker's Family Budget, of course,
will be compared with income data of many kinds,
as more data become available. That is one of
the purposes for which it was compiled. It is the
hope of the Bureau of Labor Statistics that when
such comparisons are made, whether for purposes
of research or as a basis for practical decision or
action, they will be made with a discriminating
regard for the concepts and facts on which the
budget is based and with an understanding of its
valid uses and inherent limitations.
E w a n C lague .
Contents
Page
Foreword_______________________________________________________________________
The budget in perspective_______________________________________________________
The city worker’s family budget_________________________________________________
Origin and procedure of budget study_______________________________________
The family budget level of living____________________________________________
Concept of the family budget_______________________________________________
Method of determining the family budget----------------------------------------------------The manner of living___________________________________________________
The home and its operation_______________________________________________
Food_____________________________________________________________________
Other consumption groups________________________________________________
Description of purchases__________________________________________________
Budget as combinations of choices________________________________________
Level of replacements and additions---------------------------------------------------------Other types of outlays____________________________________________________
Pricing the family budget__________________________________________________________
Food____ _____________________________________________________________________
Housing______________________________________________________________________
Clothing and housefurnishings_________________________________________________
Medical care__________________________________________________________________
Transportation________________________________________________________________
Other goods and services______________________________________________________
Public school supplies and fees______________________________________________
Cost of budget in 34 large cities_________________________________________________
Intercity differences in cost of budget-----------------------------------------------------------Composition of the budget__________________________________________________
Costs for families of different sizes_____________________________________________
Appendix.— Budget quantities_____________________________________________________
Food budget__________________________________________________________________
Rent, fuel, and utilities budget---------------------------------------------------------------------Housefurnishings budget______________________________________________________
Household operation budget________________________________________________
Clothing budget____________________________________________________________
Medical care budget________________________________________________________
Transportation budget______________________________________________________
Reading and recreational budget_______________________________________________
Personal care budget__________________________________________________________
Tobacco budget____________________________________________________________
Communication budget_____________________________________________________
Gifts, contributions, and miscellaneous budgets______________________________
School expense budget______________________________________________________
Occupational expenses, insurance, and taxes_________________________________
Family budgets: A historical survey_______________________________________________
Development of statistical studies-------------------------------------------------------------------Quantity budgets of goods and services_______________________________________
Change in budget concept__________________________________________________
Selected bibliography on family budgets__________________
Family incomes and cost of family budgets______________________________________
Budget levels for families of different sizes_________________________________________
Measures of family well-being-----------------------------------------------------Indexes of family welfare______________________________________________________
State budgets for single women workers____________________________________________
Annual budgets_______________________________________________________________
Basis for pricing budgets______________________________________________________
Usefulness of budgets_____________________________________________________
Consumer finances, July 1947______________________________________________________
Financial status of consumers_________________________________________________
Consumer expectations________________________________________________________
Consumer expenditures and plans to buy------------------------------------------------
VII
hi
1
3
3
4
6
9
9
10
11
13
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
19
21
21
21
22
22
23
25
27
31
31
32
33
34
34
37
38
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
42
43
44
46
49
49
50
52
52
53
54
55
55
55
55
The Budget
in Perspective
A . F ord H in r ic h s 1
I n the past , fam ily budgets have always been
developed by one of two methods. One method
was to observe the way people actually spent their
money and from this information to develop a
budget for an average family at any given income
level. Such a budget describes the way in which
an average $2,000 or $3,000 family actually spent
its income. This has its uses; but a budget that
depends on income does not furnish a key to
what people think they need to have to attain
conditions of living that are described by such
phrases as “ a minimum of subsistence,” “ a main
tenance budget,” “ a standard of health and
decency,” or “ an American standard of living.”
To get free from this dependence on existing
income, analysts have used a second method.
This method involved reliance on the judgment
of a person or a group of people to draw up a list
of commodities that would yield one or another of
these standards. Thus, within fairly wide limits,
there could be as many “ maintenance budgets”
as there were investigators, painstaking as each
investigation might be.
Furthermore, these budgets were not drawn up
to discover anything about the standard of living
as such. The W PA maintenance budget of 1935,
for example, was drawn up to aid in setting W PA
wage rates. Other budgets have been drawn up
to aid in setting State minimum wages for women.
Still others have been drawn with an eye to theiri
i Mr. Hinrichs was Acting Commissioner of Labor Statistics when the
project which resulted in the City Worker’s Family Budget was initiated,
and in that capacity participated in the early planning and much of the
initial work on the project. He currently is economist for Kiplinger Maga
zine.
783513— 48------- 2
effect on wage bargaining in skilled trades. Thus,
the budgets were not only subjective, but the
judgment of the analyst was influenced by the
objective of the specific budget.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics budget for a city
worker's family of four persons breaks new ground.
The methods used in its preparation are described
in detail in the articles which follow. A t this
point it needs merely to be noted that the stand
ard is determined by objective methods, so that
any other group of workers using the same data
would arrive at a similar conclusion as to what
constitutes this particular kind of standard and
how much it costs to maintain it.
It is hard to describe this standard of living to
people who have been used to thinking in such
elastic terms as “ maintenance” or “ health and
decency” or to people who assume that the chief
use to be made of a budget is to fix wages.
This budget stands on its own feet. It is com
piled from standards of calories and vitamins de
termined by scientific experiment; from housing
standards involving a larger element of judgment,
but still independently arrived at by experts in
housing needs; and from standards that are re
vealed by the ways in which people actually spend
their money.
It can best be described as a single point on a
scale of living patterns that ranges continuously
from a mere existence level to levels of luxurious
living where the consumer is almost surfeited
with goods. The point selected for measurement is
in general the point where the struggle for “ more
and more” things gives way to the desire for
“ better and better” quality. Above this level,
for example, the average family is likely to be
more interested in escaping from an endless round
of the cheaper cuts of meat than in increasing the
number of pounds of meat that it buys. Below
this level, on the other hand, people find it harder
and harder to economize, being unable to shift
extensively to cheaper commodities and therefore
forced to “ do without.”
What the level of the budget would be and what
practical applications could be made of it could
not be foretold. The data, not the investigators,
shaped the budget of goods that people strive for
before they become much interested in quality.
The facts indicate that this budget of goods and
services would have cost $2,800 to $3,000 in most
large cities in June 1947 and that about $300
1
2
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
more needed to be added to cover taxes and insur
ance. One can no more conclude from this state
ment of fact that every unskilled worker should
get a wage of at least $1.50 per hour than one can
say that skilled workers should be content if they
are getting this much.
Actually this budget is primarily a new tool in
the kit of the research worker. Like the micro
scope it opens new horizons to investigation—
makes it possible to ask and find the answers to
new questions. But it does not itself produce
answers any more than the microscope does.
Since it is possible now to measure at least some
one standard of living objectively, it has become
possible to repeat the process at different times
and places to determine how this standard may
change or differ. Even on the basis of such data
as exist, it appears to be possible to say that we
are evolving a national standard of living. Black
or white, in the North or the South, people want
much the same things.
There are almost no income data to compare
with this standard. It would seem to be worth
while to know the cost of this kind of standard for
families of varying size and to know the incomes
of these families, for this level of living represents
essentially a breaking point in our society. It
divides the population into two groups, the lower
of which is struggling to attain a physically more
adequate existence. It is only above this level
that people have enough to begin to think largely
in terms of the quality of their living.
In the unpublished data there is a wealth of
material on the nature of the market in the United
States. The information on consumer spending
used in deriving the budget goes far beyond the
published data in isolating the influence of family
composition on consumption patterns. The un
published data contain more extensive detail than
the printed reports on the physical quantities
purchased at the successive income brackets by
families of specific types.
Even as it stands, the budget clearly indicates
the opportunity to improve living through con
sumer education. This is no luxury budget, but
any experienced and careful shopper will discover
ways in which the average housewife can get
more for her money than she does in this American
“ standard.”
In particular the budget has many lessons for
those who are trying to compare what people get
with what they ought to get and for those who are
anxious to devise methods of bringing these two
values together. The nutritionists, standards
and actual American family practice with respect
to milk consumption are so far apart that this
budget does not provide enough milk to warrant
calling it an adequate budget. The fact is that
the average family in the United States will buy
“ enough” milk only when it is getting a large
oversupply of almost every other nutritional
element. The data do not reveal whether the
scientists are wrong in this definition of what
people need or whether people are making unwise
choices between values. There is nothing to
indicate that people would not buy as much milk
as the scientists prescribe, if they had a greater
purchasing power.
A t almost every point this kind of budget,
that grows out of the way people actually behave,
throws fight on American values. Actually it
shows conclusively that adequacy simply will not
be attained, if the budget is figured only on a fist
of goods determined to be biologically necessary.
Right or wrong, it is a fact that families will allow
their children to have an occasional “ coke” or ice
cream cone even at the expense of an adequate
diet.
The sociologist will ponder some of the findings.
In the United States, people do not communicate
much except by word of mouth; a letter a week
and a few cards for special occasions seem to satisfy
their basic needs. They buy almost no books;
but they go to far more movies in a year than the
movie critics rate as really good.
These examples by themselves are relatively
unimportant. They suggest that we might learn
much about ourselves if international comparisons
of living standards were available.
One of the most important fines of inquiry that
can be pursued—now that we have a tool of
measurement—is the question of how rapidly
this living standard changes. Does an increase
in national income enable us to come closer to
satisfying this standard that is so strongly de
sired; or does the standard itself rise, so that its
attainment keeps receding like a mirage?
To the practical-minded this budget may prove
disappointing. If the scientist will use it as a new
tool over the years, he can enlarge our understand
ing of the world in which we five and our capacity
for happier living.
The City Worker’s Family Budget
General Description of Purpose and M ethods Followed in
Developing the Budget for 34 Cities in the
Spring of 1946 and Summer of 1947
L e s t e r S. K e l l o g g and D o r o th y S. B r a d y 1
Origin and Procedure o f
Budget Study
I n the spring op 1945 the Labor and Federal
Security Subcommittee o f the Committee on Ap
propriations of the House of Representatives
directed the Bureau of Labor Statistics “ to find
out what it costs a worker’s family to live in the
large cities of the United States.” The Subcom
mittee indicated that it wanted to know the rela
tive differences in living costs between cities and, in
addition, the total number of “ dollars required for
the average worker in overalls to live in these cities.”
T o carry out this request most effectively, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the approval of
the Subcommittee, appointed a Technical Advi
sory Committee to assist in developing basic
standards and methods to be used in the project.
The technical committee consisted o f specialists
and technicians who because of their training and
experience are considered responsible authorities
in studies of living costs.
Guided by the standards established by the
technical committee and following the methods
which it outlined, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
first developed the list o f items and quantities
making up a budget for a city worker’s family,
* Former Chief of the Prices and Cost of Living Branch and Chief of the
Cost of Living Division. In the development of the budget, major contribu
tions were made by Ethel D . Hoover, Chief of the Branch’s Consumers’
Prices Division; Margaret E. Thomas, Chief of .the Branch’s Operations
Division; Dorothy M . Durand; Lenore A. Epstein; Helen Humes; Abner
Hurwitz; Floyd C. Mann; Eleanor M . Snyder, and many other members
o f the Branch.
and then obtained prices for this list of goods and
services and worked out dollar totals for 34 large
cities in the United States. In determining this
budget, a family of four was used as the basis for
the calculation; it was expected that budgets
would later be developed for families of larger and
smaller sizes. Pending the eventual development
of such detailed additional budgets, the article on
Budget Levels for Families of Different Sizes
(p. 49) describes a procedure for estimating budget
totals for families of different sizes. This pro
cedure has been found to give dependable over-all
results.
The family of four includes an employed father,
a housewife not gainfully employed, and two
children under 15. The budget was designed to
represent the estimated dollar cost required to
maintain this family at a level of adequate living—
to satisfy prevailing standards of what is necessary
for health, efficiency, the nurture of children, and
for participation in community activities.
This is not a “ subsistence” budget, nor is it a
“ luxury” budget; it is an attempt to describe and
measure a modest but adequate standard of living.
The methods by which the budget items and quan
tities were determined in accordance with these
standards, and the methods of pricing, are
described in detail in the following sections for
each of the major groups in the budget.
In general, whenever appropriate scientific
standards are available they have been used as a
starting point. For foods, the recommendations
of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National
3
4
■WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Research Council set the basic'standards o f nutri
tional adequacy. For housing, standards estab
lished by the American Public Health Association’s
Committee on the Hygiene of Housing and the
Federal Public Housing Administration were
adopted. These technical standards were then
translated into a list of foods and into a description
o f housing by reference to the actual buying and
renting practices of families with moderate
incomes.
For clothing and other goods and services,
allowances were established to meet prevailing
standards of what is necessary for health, effic
iency, and participation in social and community
activities, with adjustments to take account of
geographical differences. Here also, actual lists
were made on the basis of records of family pur
chases obtained in surveys made by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics over a period of years by inter
views with housewives.
The budget is unique in that it represents, not
an “ ideal” budget, or a “ judgment” budget de
vised by a few people, but rather the actual choices
of American families. It was determined objec
tively. In considering this budget, emphasis
should be placed upon the quantities and kinds
of goods of which it is composed. Judgment on
its adequacy should be based upon the level of
living that it represents in a period of more nearly
normal prices rather than upon its dollar cost at
today’s high prices.
Following the selection of the list of items, the
goods and services included in the budget were
priced in December 1945, March 1946, the fall of
1946, and June 1947 by the Bureau’s field staff.
Dollar figures are presented here only for March
1946 and June 1947. Although there have been
important increases in retail prices, especially for
food, since July 1947, estimates for later periods
could not be prepared in time for this report.
The cost of the budget is shown here in two
totals— one includes the cost of goods and services
and the second, a grand total, includes, in addi
tion, a number of requirements for families for
which costs vary according to locality, nature of
employment or occupation, and size of income
and number o f dependents. These requirements
include Federal and State income taxes, other
State and local taxes, old-age and unemployment
deductions from wages, insurance (either private
company or national service life insurance), and
union dues.
The budget is provided for each o f the 34 large
cities for which consumer price indexes are
regularly prepared by the Bureau. Although the
budget has not been priced for other cities, the
Bureau has prepared a procedure which will make
it possible for an experienced staff to estimate
intercity differences in living costs with a minimum
of effort.
The following sections include the report o f the
Technical Advisory Committee, which sets the
general approach and method, a detailed descrip
tion o f the methods followed by the Bureau in
developing the budget and in pricing it, the cost o f
the budget in 34 cities, and finally the list o f items
included in the budget and their quantities. The
statistical documentation o f the procedures with
tests o f their validity are to be presented in de
tail in a later publication.
It is not possible to describe this budget in a
few words or phrases without the possibility o f
misinterpretation. Although it is always tempt
ing to try to put the essence of the ideas in con
centrated form, it is impossible to find a few words
or sentences that mean the same thing to every
reader. The concept of a “ standard” budget
is com plex; it cannot be presented in too con
centrated form, with accuracy. If anything, this
report is too brief.
In constructing the budget the Bureau of Labor
Statistics has had the assistance of the Bureau o f
Human Nutrition and Home Economics o f the
U. S. Department of Agriculture in developing the
section on food and of the Bureau o f Research
and Statistics o f the Social Security Board on the
section on medical care.
The Family Budget
Level of Living
In accordance with the directive of the Labor
and Federal Security Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee of the Seventy-ninth
Congress, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
determined the annual cost o f a worker’s family
budget which includes the kinds and quantities of
necessary goods and services, according to stand
ards prevailing in the large cities of the United
States.
CITY WORKER’ S FAM ILY BUDGET
The budget was derived under the general
guidance of a technical committee- It applies to
an employed worker’s family of four; husband,
aged 38, who is the breadwinner; wife, aged 36,
the homemaker; and two children, a boy 13 years
of age in high school and a girl 8, in grade school.
The family lives in a separate house or apartment;
there are no lodgers or co-tenants, and the husband
has no dependents other than his wife and children.
The family dwelling, which is rented, contains
five rooms, including a kitchen, and a bathroom,
and is supplied with hot and cold running water.
Ordinary safeguards against unsafe or unsanitary
conditions are provided. There is at least one
window in each room, to afford daylight illumina
tion and ventilation, and electric lighting equip
ment is installed in each room. The type of heat
ing equipment and the amount of fuel required to
maintain an average room temperature of 70° F.
in the winter months varies in accordance with the
climate of the locality. The dwelling is located
within reasonable commuting distance of major
centers of employment, high schools, churches, and
shopping, and within walking distance of food
stores and elementary schools.
The wife does all the cooking, cleaning, and
laundry without paid assistance. The home is
equipped with the usual housefurnishings and the
mechanical aids which are considered household
necessities— a gas or electric cook stove, a mechan
ical refrigerator, and a washing machine. Some
furniture, kitchenware, appliances, and household
linens are purchased each year in order to maintain
household inventories. The budget also provides
the supplies of soap and cleaning materials essen
tial to insure cleanliness.
The food budget provides a diet that approxi
mates the nutritional allowances recommended
by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Research Council. The specific foods and their
quantities are typical of those purchased by
families in the United States whose diets are
satisfactory and do not differ greatly in the quan
tities of calories or nutrients from the allowances
recommended. They are not the selections of
experts who may know much more about the
“ best buys” in terms of food values than the
average housewife, but rather what growing
families do eat. Menus may be changed within
the food allowances specified by the budget to pro
vide variety and to satisfy the tastes of individual
5
families. It should be possible, for example, to
serve meat for dinner several times a week, if the
cheaper cuts of beef, pork, lamb, and veal are
served on weekdays; a chicken or a roast may be
served on Sunday and a turkey on Thanksgiving.
About 5 percent of the meals are purchased
away from home, principally lunches bought at
work. M ost of the lunches, however, are pre
pared at home and carried to work or school.
Two nickel ice cream cones, a 5-cent candy bar,
two bottles of soft drinks, and a bottle of beer
could be purchased each week with the small
amount allowed for such items.
The clothing list in the budget provides for the
variations in the practices of families who live in
localities of distinctly different climate. A few
average purchases serve to illustrate the general
level of the clothing budget: for the husband, one
heavy wool suit every 2 years, one light-wool suit
every 3 years, five shirts, and two pairs of shoes
each year; for the wife, a heavy wool coat every 4
years, four dresses and three pairs of shoes each
year; for the boy, one sweater or jacket, two
pairs of trousers, three shirts, and three pairs of
shoes each year; for the girl, one snow suit or
heavy coat every 2 years, four dresses, and four
pairs of shoes each year. As in the case of foods,
the specific items may be varied within the budget
totals to satisfy individual family requirements.
Local transportation needs include travel to
work and to high school and trips to downtown
shopping areas, churches, movies, meetings of
organizations, and social visits. A trip out of
town every 3 or 4 years for a vacation or to visit
relatives and family is also provided. The budget
provides a used automobile for some families
but does not imply that each family must have
one. The automobile appears to be less im
portant in the scale of family wants in a very large
city like New York than in most other large cities.
Accordingly, the budget provides for transporta
tion in terms of preferred forms of travel in the
area. In New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia
most of the travel is assumed to be by public
transportation; in all other large cities the major
ity of families are assumed to have a car.
Other goods and services in the budget are
classified under the general headings of recreation,
education, personal care, tobacco, and communica
tions. The modest character of these require-
6
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
merits may be judged by the following examples.
T he family owns a small radio, buys one daily
newspaper, including a Sunday edition, and 32
copies of some popular-priced magazine in a year.
M ovies are attended by the husband, wife, and
daughter once in 3 weeks and by the son once in
2 weeks. A small sum is allocated for children’s
toys and games, pets, camera supplies, and dues
to social and recreational clubs, such as the Boy
Scouts and women’s civic organizations. School
expenses for the children cover books and supplies
as required in each city and dues for school clubs
and entertainments. The husband has a haircut
about once every 3 weeks, the son every 5 weeks,
and the wife and daughter every 3 months. Toilet
soap, tooth paste, shaving supplies for the hus
band, and inexpensive cosmetics for the wife are
specified. A telephone in the dwelling is not con
sidered essential, but an average of three local calls
is made each week. Stationery and stamps are
included to provide for about one letter a week.
The budget takes account of many o f the buying
habits of United States families. Partial-payment
plan buying, for instance, is taken into consider
ation. On the other hand, no account has been
taken at this time o f the kinds of shifts families
make when prices o f some commodities relative
to others become too high, although obvious
changes, such as the substitution o f canned or
dried vegetables when fresh vegetables are out of
season, have been taken into account.
Although not included in the total of goods and
services, the budget recognizes an average cost for
other essential needs and requirements of families
of this type. Personal taxes, Federal and State
income taxes, and poll taxes are mandatory, as
well as contributions to social insurance, retire
ment funds, and other similar insurances. Some
private insurance is almost universal and the
family budget includes a small amount for the
purchase o f life insurance providing benefits in
addition to those assured under social insurance
and similar group plans. Dues to organizations,
such as unions and business associations, are also
listed among the necessary outlays of an employed
worker. The occupational expenses which must
be met include, in addition, the special clothing
and equipment that the worker must provide for
himself. Allowance must be made for contribu
tions to churches, welfare associations, and other
philanthropic purposes.
Concept o f the Family Budget2
The general concepts of the budget summarized
above were prescribed for the Bureau’s staff in
detail by its Technical Advisory Committee. The
formal report of this committee, which contains
the principles and concepts upon which the budget
was based, is given in full below.
In addition to this formal report, the Bureau
had the benefit o f the technical committee’s advice
on numerous occasions in connection with the
practical solutions devised by the Bureau for the
problems encountered in carrying out this com
mittee’s general directives.
“ The specific recommendations of the com
mittee with respect to the items of the budget and
the quantities of each to be allowed were based
upon certain general concepts, principles, and
assumptions which must be made explicit. The
first task of the committee was to formulate the
level of living that the budget should represent.
W hat the Congress desired, as the committee
interpreted it, was the cost at current prices in
large cities of family living which met American
standards of what is required. The budget
therefore should represent the necessary minimum
with respect to items included and their quantities
as determined by prevailing standards of what is
needed for health, efficiency, nurture of children,
social participation, and the maintenance of selfrespect and the respect of others.
“ Unfortunately, there is no single descriptive
word or phrase that clearly and unequivocably
carries to everyone the same concept of the level
of living aimed at, or furnishes a ‘yardstick’ by
* The report of the Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of the
following members, who served in their individual capacities as experts:
Hazel Kyrk, chairman; Department of Home Economics, University of
Chicago.
Dorothy Dickins, Department of Home Economics, Mississippi Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Amy Hewes, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Mount Holyoke College.
Emily H. Huntington, Department of Economics, University of California.
Samuel Jacobs, Office of Price Administration, and later Mrs. Katherine
Ellickson, Congress of Industrial Organizations.
L. E. Keller (deceased M ay 1947), Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees.
Broadus Mitchell, International Ladies*
* Garment Workers* Union A. F. L ,
Howard B. Myers, Committee for Economic Development.*
Margaret G. Reid, Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
•Note: Mr. Myers was unable to be present at the time the text of the
report was approved by the Committee and did not approve the report. He
has subsequently indicated that while concurring generally in the method of
budget construction developed by the Committee, he objects to the use of the
terms “ minimum” or “ necessary minimum” to describe the standard recom
mended by the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee calls atten
tion to the fact that “ the report states that the Committee was unable to
find any single term wnich would accurately describe the level of living
represented by this budget and that no member of the Committee suggested
such a term.**
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
which what should or should not be included in
the budget can immediately be determined.
Many agencies and individuals in this and other
countries have undertaken the task of making and
pricing budgets, either as necessary tools for public
welfare administration, as guides to public policy,
or for appraising the economic conditions of a
group or community. They have consistently
found it difficult to describe accurately and without
ambiguity the kind of living provided or to
formulate without vagueness what needs are met.
T o say that the recommended budget covers the
‘necessary minimum’ to some may mean that it
includes only the least necessary for physical
survival. But that is far from being the case.
If it were said that it is designed to represent an
‘adequate minimum,’ some would assume that
no more or no better is to be desired; and that also
is far from being the case. If the budget were
described as one providing for health and decency,
the word ‘decency’ would require definition and
amplification.
“ Although the level of living represented by the
budget cannot be briefly described by words
having scientific precision yet the concept of a
necessary minimum is a reality. Judgments are
constantly being expressed as to what is necessary
not only for one’s self and one’s family but for
others. These judgments are expressed in public
policy as well as in the management of private
affairs. The task of the committee may be
described as expressing in precise, measurable
form the social judgment as to what is necessary
for acceptable living. Those who say it is im
possible to define human needs must, if consistent,
refrain from judgments on the matter, a virtual
impossibility.
“ What the recommended budget is designed to
represent may in part be shown by indicating
what it does not represent. It is not an attempt
to reproduce the average consumption pattern of
all or a chosen group of families, such as wage
earners living in large cities. Such data are
available for fairly recent dates and further data
could readily be made available. B y the applica
tion of current prices the dollar cost at the present
time of the manner of living shown could be cal
culated. The items in such a budget and the
amount of the annual purchase would be statistical
facts, varying with the total national income and
its distribution. The budget the committee
7
recommends might under certain circumstances
be near or above such an ‘average’ budget and
under other circumstances far below, although
over time they would be expected to move to
gether. Nor does the recommended budget pur
port to represent the estimated average consump
tion under assumed conditions of full and efficient
production and a given income distribution.
Such a budget could be constructed for compara
tive purposes if desired. The budget recom
mended, in the third place, does not represent the
American ‘ideal’ way of living. Nor does it repre
sent the committee’s ideal level of living, or con
cept of the good life. It is not supposed to repre
sent the dommittee’s tastes, moral judgments, or
ideas of what money should be spent for. Budgets
are frequently constructed to show the ‘best’ or
a good way to spend a given sum. This is not one
of them. Finally, this budget is not a ‘subsistence’
or ‘maintenance’ budget in the sense that directly
or indirectly it attempts to provide only for
physical needs, or what would be necessary
to carry families through a limited period of
stringency.
“ When it is said that the budget recommended
is intended to cover the necessary minimum,
‘ necessary’ is to be given the common interpre
tation as including what will meet the conven
tional and social as well as biological needs. It
represents what men commonly expect to enjoy,
feel that they have lost status and are experienc
ing privation if they cannot enjoy, and what they
insist upon having. Such a budget is not an
absolute and unchanging thing. The prevailing
judgment o f the necessary will vary with the
changing values of the community, with the ad
vance o f scientific knowledge o f human needs,
with the productive power o f the community and
therefore what people commonly enjoy and see
others enjoy.
“ W ith this concept o f the level o f living the
budget was to provide, the next task of the com
mittee was to discover procedures by which the
necessary minimum of food, clothing, medical
care, and other classes of goods and services could
be arrived at. Preliminary to this, certain basic
decisions were made. It was decided that the
budget should be made for a family of four, a
husband, wife, and two children under 18 but
no other dependents, that the family would share
its dwelling with no other persons, and that the
8
■WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
wife would not be gainfully employed. The as
sumption that the husband’s income should be
adequate to provide necessary items usually
purchased, that those outside the immediate
family should be otherwise supported, and that
there should be no lodgers or co-tenants, seemed
to the committee clearly to be prevailing social
judgments with respect to the type o f family
selected.
“ The designation o f a family o f four, composed
as indicated, as the type for which the budget
should be constructed was in some respects an
arbitrary selection. It indicates no judgment as
to optimum size from the standpoint of desirable
population growth. The frequency With which
families o f this size are found may be easily ascer
tained from the Census reports. In 1940 about
17 percent o f urban, husband-wife families of all
ages had two children under 18, about 65 percent
had none or only one, and 18 percent had more
than two. M any of the families with no child or
only one under 18 at home in 1940, earlier or later
had such children. The Census data indicate
that about half of the urban families at their peak
are of this size or larger and about half are smaller.
The fact that the committee would emphasize is
that a single budget cannot represent the require
ments of all family types, nor o f a single fam ily
throughout its life span. A series of budgets
would be required for the latter purpose, starting
with the newly married and ending with the elderly
couple. The outlay required to meet the budget
constructed for a family o f four would not provide
the necessary minimum, similarly defined, for
families with more than two children, in which
more than half o f the urban children are reared,
and would provide something better for those
with only one child or with none.
“ A second decision made by the committee was
that the family for which the budget was con
structed need not be described other than as ‘urban
American’ ; in other words, the occupational class
o f the husband, as skilled or unskilled worker, or
wage earner, was irrelevant for the purpose in
hand. The adequate minimum is essentially the
same for all, and special occupational require
ments, if any, should be separately taken into
account in estimating the income required to
enable a particular class of families to meet
the budget.
“ T o translate the level of living to be repre
sented by the budget into quantities of specific
goods and services the committee relied so far as
possible upon existing objective, verifiable data.
For each category of the budget they sought to
discover the data and methods of analysis that
would yield a measure of the necessary minimum
of items and quantities. Their recommendations
therefore have to do with the data and the pro
cedures to be used in arriving at the items rather
than with the items themselves. The committee,
for example, did not attempt to decide what
quantity of milk or other foods should be included
in the budget, but instead they decided that
nutrients should be provided as recommended by
the Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Research Council and that the specific foods,
yielding these nutrients and set up for pricing,
should be determined by analysis of the food
choices actually made by a representative sample
of urban families. The committee did not attempt
to decide whether the wife’s coat should be furtrimmed or how often she should have a new one,
but instead recommended that these questions
should be answered by specified type of analysis
of data on families’ spending practices. The data
and procedures used to arrive at the items and
quantities for each part of the budget will be
separately discussed.
“ In general, the committee recommended the
use of two kinds of data to arrive at the component
parts of the budget: one, those derived from
laboratory experiments or from scientific observa
tions of the same character; the other, those
showing the spending practices of representative
samples of urban families of the same type as that
for which the budget was to be constructed.
Analysis of the latter type of data seemed the
best way to discover the necessary minimum for
certain purposes. Laboratory experiments, for
example, may indicate the necessary nutrients,
but only the analysis of actual food choices will
show what is considered necessary in the way of
variety and flavor. Similarly, the clothing items
that permit a decent appearance and association
with others on a self-respecting basis must be
derived from a study of the actual choices made
by families living under urban conditions. By
the use of such data not only are unwarranted
assumptions in regard to the tastes and concepts
of need of the generality of families avoided, but
also unwarranted assumptions in regard to fore
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
sight and economy in buying and in the use of
goods after acquisition.
“ T o sum up:
“ (1) The budget resulting from the committee’s
recommendations will represent neither a ‘ sub
sistence’ nor an ‘ ideal’ level o f living.
“ (2) The budget constructed for a husbandwife family with two children under 18 will not
represent the necessary minimum similarly de
fined for families o f other composition.
“ (3) Methods of arriving at the items to be
priced and their quantitative weights are recom
mended rather than specific items and quantities.
“ (4) The data to be used as evidence as to
requirements included both the recommendation
o f scientists and customary consumption sepa
rately or in combination as seemed appropriate
for each category o f the budget.”
Method o f Determining
the Family Budget
The standard as defined by the Technical
Advisory Committee in the previous section is
a dividing point in the consumption of United
States families. The budget is a list of goods
and services that, according to the prevailing
standards o f the community, are considered essen
tial. The definition o f the budget recognizes
that in the actual experience o f families there is
a scale which ranks various consumption patterns
in an ascending order from mere subsistence to
plenitude in every respect. The budget level
described here is at a point on this scale below
which deficiencies exist in one or more aspects of
family consumption.
This consumption scale is established by society.
It can be discovered only through observation of
the expressions of society’s ratings o f the various
existing levels of living. These ratings of the
various levels of living are expressed in the judg
ments of scientists, such as medical and public
health authorities; and secondly, in the behavior
o f individual consumers. Scientific judgments
are based primarily on the studies of the relation
between fam ily consumption and individual and
community health. The expressions of con
sumer judgment appear in the choices made by
consumers as economic barriers are progressively
removed.
783513— 48------- 3
9
The scales based on scientific studies and the
scales expressed in consumer behavior are in
substantial agreement. The consumption pat
terns of each income bracket, from the lowest to
the highest, provide the scale of consumer judg
ments; that is, consumers in general would con
sider each consumption level along the scale of
income as more satisfactory than the preceding
one.
The basic problem in the formulation o f the
budget is to identify the dividing point in this
scale of consumption. T o find the dividing point,
it is necessary to use some indicator of group judg
ment that marks the place in the scale below
which reduction meets greater and greater re
sistance; above which expansions become more
and more limited. The chief indicator of group
judgment which was used in deriving this budget
was the manner in which families increase their
consumption as their purchasing power increases.
As purchasing power increases, the consumption
level expands and more goods and better quality
goods enter into the pattern of living. As pm chasing power decreases, the consumption level
contracts, fewer goods are purchased, and the
quality of the goods purchased is reduced. As
the consumption level approaches the dividing
point in the judgment of society, families resist
further decreases with increasing stubbornness.
As purchasing power increases, consumption
levels above the dividing point expand at slower
and slower rates.
Studies of city family expenditures made
between 1929 and 1941 wereused as a description
of the current mode of United States family living
in deriving this budget. The Bureau’s study of
city consumers’ expenditure experience in 1944
was helpful in providing information on the con
tinuation of trends of consumption which had
started before the war. This period, 1929 through
1941, was selected because of the availability of
the necessary objective information, much of
which was obtained by a reexamination of original
questionnaires and tabulations, although a great
deal o f it is available in published reports.4
The Manner of Living
These studies furnish the detailed description
of the scale of consumption, from lowest levels
* See p. 10 for footnote*
10
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
to very high levels, by showing the goods and
services purchased for each income bracket from
incomes of only a few hundred dollars to incomes
well over $10,000 a year. The determination of
the budget level from the manner in which the
purchases changed from each consumption level
to the succeeding one on the scale is described
below for each consumption group.
The city family almost universally lives in an
individual home— either an apartment or a house.
Family privacy is believed to be so important
that any other living arrangement is considered
only as a last resort. In general, two or more
families share one dwelling only under extreme
pressure of circumstances. The widespread com
plaint against “ doubling up” in the present period
of acute housing shortage is evidence that such an
arrangement is accepted by families only as a
temporary expedient. Thus, according to pre
vailing standards, each family lives in a separate
house or apartment.
The husband is the breadwinner and the wife
devotes her time to child care and homemaking.
This is a second essential characteristic of the
United States way of family life which was kept
in mind in developing the budget. Actually, in
February 1944, during the height of wartime em
ployment of women, only 11 percent of the mothers
with young children worked for pay outside the
home and since VJ-day the percentage has been
declining. The mother of young children, as a
« Expenditure and Savings of City Families in 1944. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Serial No. R. 1818.
Family Spending and Saving in Wartime, 1941-42. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Bulletin No. 822.
Family Food Consumption in the United States. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 560.
Study of Consumer Purchases (Urban Series), 1935-86. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Bulletins Nos. 642-649.
Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, 1934-36.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletins Nos. 636-641,
Study of Consumer Purchases (Urban and Village Series), 1935-37, Family
Food Consumption and Dietary Levels, Five Regions. U. 8. Department
of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 452.
Sixteenth Decennial Census of the United States, 1940. Report on Housing
and Population.
Urban Housing: A Summary of Real Property Inventories Conducted as
Work Projects, 1934-36. U. S. Works Progress Administration, Division of
Social Research.
National Health Survey, 1935-36, Collected Papers. Federal Security
Agency, U. S. Public Health Service.
Medical Care and Costs in Relation to Family Income: A Statistical
Source Book. Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, Bureau of
Research and Statistics, Bureau Memorandum No. 51.
The Incidence of Illness and the Volume of Medical Services among 9,000
Canvassed Families, 1928-31 (a collection of 23 reprints). Federal Security
Agency, U. 8, Public Health Service.
The Incidence of Illness and the Receipt and Costs of Medical Care Among
Representative Family Groups, by I. S. Falk, Margaret Klein, and Nathan
Sinai. Chicago (University of Chicago Press), 1933.
general rule, does not attempt to hold a paid job
unless her husband's earnings are insufficient to
support the family.
The mother, as homemaker, not only prepares
the family meals but also performs the heavier
household tasks, such as cleaning and the laundry
o f household linens and clothing. This is the
pattern of living of city workers’ families in the
United States. Since there is usually no paid
household help, the house is ordinarily equipped
as a workplace with essential facilities for carrying
out these tasks without undue physical strain.
The Home and Its Operation
Prevailing Standards. The home must provide
the fundamental needs— shelter, sanitation, and
privacy for the family group and its individual
members. City dwellings in the United States
characteristically have plumbing and heating
facilities, a separate bath, and a separate kitchen.
Hand pumps, privies, shared toilets, or fireplaces
for heating and cooking exist in cities as substi
tutes only in situations where income is and has
continuously been too low to provide modem
housing.
It is a fact that the four-person city family in
the United States considers five rooms, including
a kitchen, and bath, with modern plumbing, heat
ing and lighting, as basic to satisfactory housing.
This type of dwelling is rented or purchased by
families with children as soon as income permits;
only families with very low incomes occupy
dwellings that do not meet this standard.
Certain types of durable equipment for house
hold operation are also customarily owned by the
family or furnished by the landlord. Of all the
labor-saving devices now available for the home,
three articles are considered so essential that city
families of moderate means possess them and
families with low incomes make considerable
sacrifices to obtain them. These are the gas or
electric cook stove, the mechanical refrigerator,
and the washing machine. The electricity or gas
necessary to operate this equipment, as well as
fuel for house heating, and running water are
considered essential elements in our prevailing
standard of housing.
The city worker’s home ordinarily is within
reasonable traveling distance of his place of em
ployment, schools, and food stores. Neighbor
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
hoods that lack convenient access to these com
munity facilities or those having obviously unsafe
or unsanitary conditions are avoided if possible.
Nevertheless, the neighborhood conditions which
prevail in United States cities generally fall far
short of ideal standards of safety and healthful
outdoor recreation for all members of the family.
Standards of the Specialists. The American Public
Health Association, through its Committee on the
Hygiene of Housing, has recently taken the lead
in formulating specifications for healthful housing.
This committee's most recent recommendations,
presented in Basic Principles of Healthful Housing
have been followed, insofar as practicable, in
formulating the standards for this budget. The
standards clearly correspond with the essentials
as expressed by family choices. There has been
a continuous campaign in the United States for
many years against unsafe or unsanitary condi
tions in dwellings and neighborhoods. This has
led to tenement laws, building codes, community
planning, and other measures for community
protection and improvement. Today, it is the
acknowledged responsibility of the municipal
authorities to protect the community against
hazards of fire, accident, and disease by means of
public health regulations. The emphasis over
this period has shifted from regulation for control
of over-all hazards to the more positive approach
of planning for housing and community develop
ment.
Standards for the Budget. Privacy requires a sep
arate house or apartment containing a common
living room, a kitchen and bathroom, and the
necessary number of sleeping rooms. For a
family of the type described in this budget, the
requirement is five rooms and a bathroom.
Sanitation necessitates a pure water supply,
adequate in quantity for personal and household
cleanliness, to be piped under pressure to kitchen
sink, wash bowl, toilet, bathtub, or shower.
Other requirements are that doors and windows
are screened where necessary; that structure is
protected against contamination from sewage;
and that neighborhood is free from accumulations
of refuse that harbor disease-carrying vermin.
Heating and ventilation involves heating equip
ment installed and the necessary fuel for main
taining a temperature of 70° F. in the dwelling
11
during the winter months. The amount of fuel
and type of heating equipment varies from city to
city in accordance with the length and severity
of the cold season. One or more windows in each
room is a minimum requirement for ventilation.
Lighting requires daylight illumination and
installed electric lighting equipment in each room.
Other equipment includes kitchen sink with
drain; gas or electric cook stove; mechanical
refrigerator; hot water heater with storage tank;
washing machine; and adequate supplies of gas
or electric power to operate this equipment,
Safety precautions are that the dwelling must
be of sound construction, with foundation, roof,
walls, porches, and stairs repaired as necessary to
prevent any danger of collapse; it must have
adequate provision for escape in case of fire; and
safety precautions in electric, plumbing, and
heating installations as required by municipal
authorities. The neighborhood must have space
for outdoor exercise and children's play, and must
be free from worst hazards of traffic, such as rail
road or elevated tracks or unregulated thorough
fares of automobile traffic.
Community facilities, such as high school,
churches, shopping centers, and facilities for rec
reation, entertainment, and medical care, must be
easily accessible by public transportation; food
stores and elementary schools must be within
walking distance of the home, and major employ
ment centers within reasonable commuting dis
tance by public transportation or automobile,
Food
National Research Council Recommendations. A
satisfactory diet must provide the necessary food
allowances—minerals, vitamins, calories—recom
mended by the Food and Nutrition Board of the
National Research Council.6 These allowances
are used in all nutrition programs in the United
States. They are the official yardstick used in *
* This Council was established in 1916 by the National Academy ot Sciences
to assist the Government in organizing the scientific resources of the country.
Its membership is composed of about 220 representatives of scientific and
technical societies, research organizations, Government scientific bureaus,
and a few members at large. It has eight major divisions, one of which is the
Division of Biology and Agriculture. The Food and Nutrition Board is one
of the technical groups established within this division. Its work is carried
on through committees assigned to special subjects. The Committee on
Dietary Allowances, composed of scientists with special competence in the
field of human nutrition, was set up to review and evaluate all available
evidence and to formulate nutrient allowances for use in evaluating foods
consumed by persons and families and in planning adequate diets. The first
recommended allowances were issued in 1941; they were revised in 1945, and
will undergo further revision as needed.
12
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
planning rations for the armed forces, and in
setting specifications for adequate school lunches*
Recommended allowances at present exist for
calories and the following nutrients: protein, calci
um, iron, thiamine (B i), riboflavin (B2), niacin,
ascorbic acid, and vitamin A for persons of varying
age, sex, and activity.
The Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Research Council makes the following statement
in its 1943 bulletin on what the allowances
provide:6
The allowances for specific nutrients are intended to
serve as a guide for planning adequate nutrition for
the civilian population of the United States. The
quantities given were planned to provide not merely
the minimum sufficient to protect against actual
deficiency disease but a fair margin above this to
insure good nutrition and protection of all body
tissues. Since the actual requirements for these pur
poses are not known, it is recognized that the margins
of safety may vary considerably for the different
factors. The Board realizes that the values proposed
will need to be revised from time to time as more
knowledge of nutritive requirements becomes avail
able.
Pattern oj Consumption. A satisfactory diet must
provide the recommended allowances of calories
and nutrients and it must also conform to the
ordinary eating habits of city families. Provision
for customary eating habits is necessary for two
reasons. First, the food Americans eat is not
and never has been simply a matter of nutrition.
People like to eat what they know how to prepare
and have become accustomed to; they will accept
other foods very slowly. If they cannot buy an
adequate diet with their customary foods, there is
little chance that the diet will be adequate.
Second, since nutritional needs are not yet fully
known, customary habits give maximum assur
ance of adequate nutrition. For these reasons
the selection o f items for the budget is based first
upon nutritional standards, and second, upon
customary eating habits of people in the United
States—including not only meals at home, but
ice cream and other between-meal snacks and
lunches put up at home to take to school or work.
The diet thus follows both scientific recommenda
tions and customary practices.
The United States family eats three meals a
day—breakfast and dinner at home, and lunch at
•Recommended Dietary Allowances, January, 1943.
school, at work, or in the home. Between-meal
snacks of certain foods and beverages at soda
fountains, lunch counters, and from street vendors
have become practically universal. Ice cream
cones and soft drinks have become essentials even
for the poorest city family with children, who will
sacrifice an otherwise adequate diet for a minimum
o f these items for their children.
The growth o f services for providing prepared
food for eating away from home has been tremen
dous in recent years. The m ajority o f city fam
ilies with children, however, still prepare a greater
part o f their food at hom e; the custom of carrying
lunches from home is still popular. Poods pre
pared at home are, therefore, the principal source
o f the supply o f vitamins and minerals consumed.
Scale of Food Consumption. The foods eaten
by city families, when arranged in a scale according
to the quantities of the calories and nutrients which
they provide, form a succession o f diets which are
increasingly satisfactory in the judgment both of
consumers and of scientists.
The quantities of the foods included in this
budget were determined at the point in the scale of
diets where the consumption o f calories and nu
trients agreed most closely with the recommenda
tions of the National Research Council. This
method o f deriving the food budget leads to a
grouping of foods in the way that families with
satisfactory diets actually buy them.7 The food
budget, in this sense, was developed by families
themselves. It permits them, in line with their
habits, a satisfactory diet with some choice of
foods.
Food •
11Away from Home.” Food bought and
eaten away from home consists mainly o f meals
at work and at school. Except for families of
highest incomes, outlays for other meals away
from home, for ice cream, candy, and beverages,
are individually small. Outlays for these items,
nonetheless, are closely related to expenditures
for food eaten at home. The provision in the
budget- for food away from home, therefore, was
1 1n contrast with this procedure, the method used in many low-cost food
plans is to start with the customary food habits of low-income families and
to reduce the quantities of some foods and to increase the quantity of others
in order to have an adequate diet at low cost. This type of food plan has
merits in teaching low-income families how to get adequate diets with little
or no increase in the cost of food. As a basis for measuring the cost of an
adequate diet, it has been criticized on the basis that it is developed by people
thoroughly familiar with the scientific value of foods in relation to their
costs—a condition which applies to few housewives.
CITY WORKER’ S FAM ILY BUDGET
determined in relation to the amounts provided
for food at home.
Beverages and Tobacco. Outlays for tobacco and
beverages are also related to outlays for foods
consumed at home. This means that family con
sumption of food and tobacco, as well as food
eaten at home, tend to increase as incomes in
crease. The determination of a certain budget
for food, accordingly, determines the budget
allowance for these items.
All families purchase food for preparation in
the home.*8 Almost all families spend something
for food away from home. Meals away from home,
tobacco, and beverages, however, do not appear
in the consumption o f every individual family.
Provision for these items in the budget are, accord
ingly, presented as an average and each is smaller
than the amounts spent by the individual families
who use them.9
Other Consumption Groups
Scale oj Consumption. The quantities of goods
and services purchased in each o f the other con
sumption categories— clothing, household furnish
ings and equipment, transportation, recreation,
medical care, and miscellaneous—increase syste
matically from the lowest income bracket to the
highest. A t the lower end of this scale of pur
chases the differences between the successive levels
are primarily in quantity, the housewife buys more
dresses and the husband more suits; at the upper
end o f the scale the differences are primarily in
quality, wives and husbands buy more expensive
dresses and more expensive suits.
Each of the consumption groups is composed of
a combination of articles and services which
includes many sets of substitutes. Accordingly,
the scale can be expressed in terms of the total
quantities purchased of articles and services that
form a related set. Thus, in the case of clothing,
the wife’s whole wardrobe may be considered as
a related set within which there are many sub
stitutes, such as the housedress, the coverall, the
smock, and perhaps the slack suit.
Determination oj the Budget Level. T o locate the
dividing point for the budget level o f goods and
services other than housing and food, it is neces8 The surveys have indicated that very few families with children eat all
of their meals away from home.
8 See the section on The Budget as Combinations of Choices, p. 16.
13
sary to rely solely on indicators of consumer
judgments— other “ scientific” criteria do not exist.
“ Scientific” standards do not now exist, and per
haps never will, for meeting those needs for which
physical requirements are less important than
psychological and social requirements. The
budget level must be sets of goods and services
regarded as so necessary that families would go
into debt or reduce their level o f savings to main
tain consumption at that level when, for example,
prices in general were increased. In other words,
it must represent the level o f consumption that,
once experienced., would persist even to the extent
of increasing the total spent on consumption and
reducing the level of savings.
Accordingly, the relation between amounts
bought and changes in income were charted, and
that point where the increase in buying showed a
tendency to decline relatively was interpreted as
the point to be used as the budget level.10 This
method permitted an objective test, based on facts,
o f quantities that were put on the list in those
parts of the budget where “ scientific” standards
do not exist. If families continued to increase the
rate o f buying as incomes went up, they obviously
had an urgent and unfilled need for more of a
particular group o f articles. A t that point where
they started to buy in decreasing proportions with
larger incomes the budget level was determined.
Clothing. The clothing budget was determined
by the procedure just described. Separate studies
88 The goods and services within a group were summarized as a total by
combining the quantities of each item purchased with the use of a fixed set
of prices as weights. The prices selected as weights were those characteristic
of the family choices at the lower end of the income range. The character
istic graphic pattern of the changes in the weighted total quantity of goods
and services is an elongated S-curve, resembling the well-known growth
curves. Quantities at first increase relatively more and more rapidly with
increases in purchasing power; then, the increase becomes relatively smaller
and smaller. The relative change of purchases with income is called the
income elasticity. The income elasticity of the weighted total quantity for
each category rises to a maximum and then declines along the income scale.
This pattern of consumption in relation to income is more characteristic of
recent periods than of periods before the First World War. Although conelusive statistical analysis has not been completed, it is possible to infer that
the form of relationship is a reflection of the changing “ standard of living” of
the urban population. Families with the lowest incomes at the present time
are unable or unwilling to confine themselves to the level of purchases charac
teristic of families with equivalent incomes in, say, 1901. A particularly
interesting example is found in the transportation expenditures. Transpor
tation was so unimportant that it was not separately recorded and was not
even mentioned in the report on the survey made in the year 1901. The
recent surveys show that among urban families today there is a level of trans
portation so necessary that even the families with the lowest incomes must
make expenditures for this requirement.
The accompanying chart showing the relation between incomes and quan
tities of goods and services purchased by urban families demonstrates the
shape of this curve and indicates the point on the curve at which the budget
level falls.
14
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
were made o f the purchases by husbands, wives,
boys in the age group 11-16, and girls in the
age group 6-10. These studies covered families
with incomes from $250 to $15,000 in the year
1941. Husbands’ clothing purchases varied from
an average o f 30 articles in the lowest income group
to 60 in the highest income group. The variation
in total number o f articles purchased for other
family members was 25 to 55 for wives, 20 to 60
for boys, and 25 to 55 for small girls. The dividing
point for the budget corresponded to the purchase
of approximately 50 articles for the husband, 40
articles for the wife, 35 articles for the boy, and
40 articles for the g ir l.11
DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVEL
Q U AN TITY (PERCENT
OF BUDGET LE VE L)
QUANTITY (PERCENT
OF BUDGET LEVEL)
U N ITE D STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Housefumishing8. Family purchases of furniture
and equipment and o f textile housefurnishings
were analyzed by the same procedure to deter
mine the budget level o f the number o f articles
purchased per year.
Purchase rates for furniture showed no signficant variation over the income scale for families
of the type described for this budget, presumably
because these families needed only occasional
replacements to the basic stock o f furniture ac
quired in earlier years. As no satisfactory informa
tion was available for furniture and equipment
purchases in relation to inventories owned, the
method used to determine purchase rates o f these
items is somewhat less satisfactory than in the
case of other goods and services.
Textile housefurnishings (bedding, towels, cur
tains, etc.) which are replaced with greater regu-*
u Se* p. 15 for discussion of clothing received as gifts
larity than furniture showed the usual variation
in number o f articles bought with increasing
amounts of purchasing power. Purchases of these
items varied from about 4 a year in the lowest
income group to more than 20 in the highest.
The budget level appeared to be about 13.
Transportation. Transportation is measured as a
composite of miles traveled in automobiles and on
railroads and of number of trips in local public
conveyances. The amount of transportation used
by urban families living in metropolitan districts
varies along the income scale from about 2,200
car-miles and 515 local fares to 22,000 car-miles
and 200 local fares. The budget level corre
sponds to about 6,000 car-miles and 300 local fares
per year.
Because the mode of transportation, as well
as its volume, is related to the size, location,
and characteristics of the community, the budget
presented here applies to metropolitan districts
with central cities o f at least 50,000 population.
Within the metropolitan districts distinct differ
ences in the preferable forms of travel appear
between the largest (1,900,000 population) and
those of smaller size. The budget, accordingly,
reflects a variation between 2 groups of cities—
New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, and all
others—which is principally a difference in the
volume of automobile ownership and the balanc
ing use of local public transportation.
Medical and Dental Care. The amount of med
ical care received by the families studied can best
be measured in the number of home and office calls
on physicians. These ranged from a low of about
2.3 calls per person in the lower brackets to about
6.0 calls per person in the higher income brackets.
The budget level is determined at about 4.4 calls
per person.
The dental care budget was worked out in the
same fashion and is slightly over 1 case every 2
years per person.
The needs for medical and dental care, as serv
ices directly related to physical health, probably
will eventually be formulated in a set of actuarial
standards approved by the medical and dental
profession and other informed authorities. At
present, the detailed and authentic statistical data
necessary to the formulation of such a set of
standard requirements do not exist. It is, there
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
fore, not possible to adapt the budget determina
tion of the medical care requirements to any set
of standards corresponding to those used for food
and housing.
The medical and dental standards established
in this budget are characteristic of an income level
above that of the other groups of goods and
services. This corresponds to the generally ac
cepted observation that the m ajority of United
States families have not been receiving a satisfac
tory volume of these essential services. There is
considerable evidence that the medical care sought
by families at all income levels is gradually in
creasing. This increase reflects both more wide
spread use of insurance plans, credit arrangements,
and medical prepayment plans and also increased
public education in the necessity of more adequate
medical and dental care.
^
s
Other Goods and Services. The budgets for the
goods and services included in the groups “ reading
and recreation,” “ personal care,” and “ communi
cation” were derived by the general method de
scribed above. For education, the budget in
cludes the books, school supplies, fees, and other
outlays required by the public schools, as deter
mined by direct inquiries of officials in the 34
cities.
The two groups, “ gifts” and “ miscellaneous,”
include purchases that vary greatly from family
to family and, accordingly, can be specified only
in relation to the total cost of the budget. The
practice of exchanging gifts with relatives and
friends is almost universal. A t the level of con
sumption described by the budget, the cost of per
sonal gifts to persons outside the immediate family
amounts to approximately 1 percent of total ex
penditures. The miscellaneous group, also about
1 percent of total expenditures, covers goods and
services not classified in the main consumption
groups and includes such varied things as garden
seeds, lodging away from home, music lessons,
legal service, cemetery lots, etc.
The inclusion o f gifts in the budget means that
the quantities specified for many articles do not
represent the full family consumption of such
items. The articles commonly exchanged as
presents appear as a dollar total for the gifts
given, not as the dollar value of the particular
presents received. T o have described the budget
in terms of the amounts received would have
15
represented consumption more accurately but in
an unrealistic manner. The importance of gifts
is illustrated by the low rate of purchases of such
articles as ties and robes by the family for its own
members— these are well-known items On the
gift list.
Contributions. The budget must also include a
provision for contributions to churches and wel
fare organizations which are almost universal,
and in some localities have become standardized
in relation to the economic position of families.
Lack of general standardization, however, pre
vents inclusion of this item in quantitative terms.
On the basis o f customary practices, contributions
are included in the budget at 1 percent of its total
cost.
Description of Purchases
The description o f the purchases at the budget
level involves, first, a statement of the average quan
tities of each item purchased; second, a descrip
tion of these items in the form o f specifications.
The first of these operations is a simple case of list
ing and statistical summary. The second opera
tion is a process of standardization—i. e., the se
lection of one typical item that best characterizes
the group choices at the budget level.
The precision in description or specification
depends upon an interpretation of the changes in
families, choices with alterations in the market
and price structure. Three tendencies appear:
(1) For some articles families apparently attempt
to buy similar quality from time to time.
Examples are clothing, textiles, articles o f per
sonal care, and personal services. (2) For some
articles there is a marked tendency to follow price
lines so long as a general type of durability is as
sured. Examples are furniture and housewares.
(3) For some articles there is a marked tendency
to accept simpler and less expensive (and some
times second-hand) models as these become avail
able on the market. Examples are radios and
automobiles. Each of these tendencies is recog
nized in the specifications selected to describe the
items included in the budget.
Specifications have been developed for all of the
most commonly purchased items. However, spec
ifications are not presented for certain of the
articles and services included in the budget, such
16
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
as accessories and other articles for which the
quality cannot be defined readily. These are, in
the main, articles for which families show a pref
erence for considerable variety and, accordingly,
can be described only in terms o f the average level
o f expenditure.
Budget as Combinations of Choices
The budget, as derived, represents combinations
of choices which families make. It specifies for each
family a dwelling, certain equipment, and certain
foods o f general categories, but it does not specify
for each family exactly what food, clothing, and
other goods and services are purchased. It lays
out only the general level o f purchases for each
category and describes the choices made by groups
o f families.
The budget is accordingly a description o f the
way in which families at the budget level make
their choices among the alternatives presented.
In the transportation section, the element of
choice is clearly indicated; part of the families
have automobiles, while part of the families rely
on public transportation. The budget as a
whole implies that the families with automobiles
have chosen the more expensive mode of trans
portation and have balanced this choice by
simplifying their choices for other goods and
services. Some balance the cost o f the auto
mobile by living in suburban homes renting for
less than the equivalent in the central city.
Some simplify their clothing choices or those of
recreational facilities.
The variety of choices possible cannot be des
cribed except in most general terms. The budget
describes average choices. Families that select a
level above the average in one category select a
level below the average in another. In terms
o f the general relationships observed through sur
veys o f family consumption, expenditures for indi
vidual families’ food choices vary relatively little
from the average. There is more variation in
housing, and still more in clothing, transportation,
and recreation, where individual families effect
some balance among their choices so that the total
outlay does not vary very much from family to
family. On other expenditures, such as those
for furnishings and medical care, the expenditures
in a given year vary widely from family to family.
Over a period o f years the variation in the expendi
tures of an individual family may be extreme.
The budget quantities, when interpreted for the
individual family, accordingly can be described
as having the character of an amortization sched
ule or an insurance plan.
Level of Replacements and Additions
The budget quantities are based on existing
inventories in the possession o f families and
hence are significantly affected by the extent to
which goods are acquired by the individual family
through inheritance, gifts, “ hand-me-downs,” and
barter outside of the market process. M any
homes are partially furnished through gifts or
inheritances. Articles like sewing machines, small
pieces of furniture, and bric-a-brac descend from
grandmother to mother to daughter. Friends
exchange good clothing “ outgrown” by their
children. For all such articles the budget quan
tities appear low when interpreted as replacement
rates, but they are, in fact, what families buy.
For other articles the budget quantities may
appear too high when construed simply as re
placement rates. On such articles as washing
machines, vacuum cleaners, and electric irons,
for instance, the budget quantities reflect some
net addition to inventories that results both from
initial purchases and replacements before the end
of the useful life of the item.
Other Types of Outlays
Occupational Expenses. A worker’s family budget
must obviously provide for those outlays that are
essential to his employment, such as special cloth
ing and equipment, and dues for membership in
an organization, such as a labor union or a pro
fessional association. Occupational expenses vary
greatly from one situation to another and cannot
be detailed in a budget of general application.
Organization dues likewise vary greatly among
different groups and therefore cannot be exactly
specified in the budget. These costs are included
in the budget total as a general average and should
obviously be altered when the budget is taken to
apply to any particular group.
Insurance. The great m ajority o f families, except
those in the lowest income groups, purchase some
life insurance, including national service life
insurance. Some 30 millions of workers con
tribute 1 percent of their wages or salaries to old
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
age and survivors insurance and more than 5
millions contribute from 3K to 5 percent of their
wages or salaries to retirement funds set up by
governments (railroad retirement, and Federal,
State, and local retirement systems). Thousands
make some contribution to retirement plans spon
sored by private enterprises, perhaps in addition
to Federal social insurance. In four States
workers must contribute to the unemployment
compensation funds.
The specification and costs of insurance cannot
be stated in the budget because the provisions
vary so greatly among the various industrial and
occupational groups. As in the case of occupa
tional expenses, insurance is included as a general
average and should be adapted to specific applica
tions.
Savings. Insurance, although in a sense a substi
tute for savings in other forms, does not constitute
the total set aside by workers’ families. Except
in the lowest income brackets, the m ajority of
city families manage to add something to savings
accounts or purchase Government bonds during
the course of a year. Savings, however, cannot
be specified in general terms representing all
situations and are therefore not included in this
budget.
Taxes. Personal taxes are included. When the
budget total has been ascertained, income taxes,
both State and Federal, are calculated for each
city and included.
Pricing the Family Budget
T o obtain the total dollar cost of a city worker's
family budget, once the items and quantities
are determined it is necessary to obtain prices
for the kinds of commodities and services families
buy. The prices must be real; they must be the
prices for which goods actually sell in the stores
where workers' families buy; they must be ob
tained in the same kinds of stores and from the
same kinds of barbers and doctors to which the
United States city workers go for supplies and
services. The prices must be for those goods and
services that can be described and identified and
for the kinds of housing now occupied.
783513— 48------- 4
17
It is practically impossible to obtain prices for
everything purchased by the city worker in each
o f the 34 cities; moreover, such a procedure is
unnecessary. Prices are obtained, therefore, only
for a sample of the goods and services in the budget
— that is, rents are obtained for a sample of homes;
prices are obtained for important commodities
from a sample of stores; costs of services are ob
tained from a representative group of doctors,
etc. The homes, stores, and services priced,
however, have been carefully chosen to be rep
resentative of all stores, homes, and services used
by the city worker.
The pricing procedures, samples of commodities
and services, samples of respondents, and averag
ing processes used for the Bureau's consumers'
price index are the foundation for calculating the
total o f the family budget. The actual collection
of prices in the 34 large cities is made by personal
visits of Bureau representatives to retail and service
establishments for all goods and services except
gas, electricity, heating fuels, school supplies and
expenses, and miscellaneous costs in connection
with automobile operation, such as inspection and
registration fees. Prices of the latter are obtained
through specially designed mail questionnaires.
Actual prices were collected for more than 85
percent of the goods and services included in this
budget. The remaining goods and services were
classified for pricing as follows: (1) Those which
are purchased infrequently or which represent an
insignificant portion of a total budget; (2) those
for which families ordinarily spread choices over a
wide variety of qualities; (3) those for which there
is little, if any, geographical difference in price.
Price collection for such items was limited to
stores in one city (usually Washington, D . C.)
or estimates were made on the basis of known
relationships. For groups of related miscellane
ous items which are impractical to price, such as
mending supplies, etc., estimates in terms of an
average total expenditure were used.
The definitions of the qualities of goods and
services included in this budget represent, as in
the case of the quantity allowances, the group
judgment of workers' families. For most of the
m ajor groups of commodities and services in the
budget, the quality levels were determined from
the same basic data as those used to derive the
quantities— that is, expenditure studies for the
years 1929 to 1941. Where widely accepted stand
18
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN TH E UNITED STATES
ards exist, as in the case of housing, they were
adopted, as previously described.
The size and distribution of the sample from
which prices were obtained necessarily varied with
the kind of com m odity and service. Quotations
were obtained from more sources than are usually
used for the consumers’ price index; they included
stores in both downtown and residential areas;
chain and independent types of operation; large
and small establishments; and specialty and gen
eral types o f stores. Neighborhood representa
tion was stressed particularly for foods, drugs,
cleaning supplies, barber and beauty shop service,
and other items which are typically obtained in
the communities where families live.
Clearance and other sales prices were accepted
if the sale extended over a period of 2 weeks or
longer— 1 week in the case of food— since it was
assumed that a large proportion of families could
and would take advantage of sales lasting this
length of time. In the spring of 1946 there was a
minimum number of special offers of any kind
being made by stores, so that sales prices were
unimportant in the totals for this budget. By
the summer of 1947 sales had again become fre
quent, although they were still not as frequent
nor in as great volume as in the prewar period.
Close-out prices for articles of limited consumer
acceptance were not used.
Where a State or city retail sales tax was in
effect, the appropriate tax was included. Prices
for cosmetics, fur-trimmed coats, gasoline, tobacco,
and other items subject to Federal excise or other
State and Federal taxes included such taxes
wherever applicable.
The quantity budget represents a worker’s
fam ily’s needs for a year. If the total dollar esti
mate of the budget is to represent the needs for a
year ahead or the estimated cost for the year
passed, the prices used must be those which
represent the whole year; they should not be those
characteristic of a single point of time unless
prices at that point may be considered representa
tive for the year. This is especially important in
the cases of seasonal items. For flour the period
o f pricing is probably immaterial, since flour is
normally purchased and consumed throughout the
year. Oranges, on the other hand, are normally
bought by city families only in the winter when
they are relatively cheap; at other times the house
wife substitutes canned juices or other foods. In
these cases seasonally weighted average prices
were used.
It has not been possible to collect all the prices
necessary for a complete round of seasons. A c
cordingly, the budget has been calculated in the
main on the basis of the prices prevailing at a
single point of time. For the highly seasonal
articles, prices for the last month in which there
was a considerable volume of sales were used.
Winter items of clothing which are ordinarily not
on the shelves in the spring and summer were
priced in December. The cost of the budget has
been calculated in this way for two dates, March
1946 and June 1947.
Food
There are about 200 different foods customarily
purchased by American workers’ families which in
the budget were combined into 22 groups. The
Bureau selected 79 foods for pricing— those which
are consumed in largest quantity and which most
accurately represent the price level o f all the foods
in each group. Prices for all the foods in each of
the groups shown in the quantity budget were
determined on the basis of known relationships
with selected items.
The records of family purchases of food do not
include information on the quality of foods pur
chased. The specifications used by the Bureau
for the collection of price data in grocery stores,
therefore, represent for each food, the grades and
sizes sold in largest volume— e. g., prices were
obtained for canned green beans of U.S. Grade C
(standard) in N o. 2 cans; for canned com the
grade specified was U.S. Grade A (fancy).
Retail prices of food were obtained from about
1,800 reporters representing about 7,700 stores
in the 34 cities. All important chain organiza
tions in each city reported food prices. The
sample of independent stores was large enough
in each city to represent (1) types of stores in
terms of kinds of food sold— e. g., grocery stores,
meat markets, etc.— (2) sizes of stores in terms of
annual sales volume, and (3) locations of stores
within the city.
The average prices for each food in a city were
obtained by combining the independent store
average prices and the chain store average prices,
with weights representing the relative volume of
food sales by all independent and all chain stores
CITY WORKER’ S FAM ILY BUDGET
in the city. The independent store sample was
“ self weighting” so that the independent store
prices were combined as a simple average. Chain
store quotations were combined with weights
representing the proportion which each company's
sales were of all chain store food sales in the city.
Housing
Rental rates for dwellings which meet the
standards established by the American Public
Health Association's Committee on the Hygiene
of Housing and the Federal Public Housing
Administration were obtained from the Bureau's
comprehensive surveys of housing characteristics
and rents, made between December 1945 and
June 1947 in the 34 cities. T o bring these
comprehensive surveys up to date for March 1946
and June 1947 the Bureau's rent index was
applied to the rentals as determined.
The Bureau's comprehensive surveys of rental
housing are made at intervals of 12 to 30 months
in each of the cities for which a consumers' price
index is published. The surveys obtain detailed
information on housing through personal visits
by Bureau representatives. The large samples of
dwellings used are carefully selected so as to be
representative of all sizes and types of dwellings
and of all sections of the city and those suburbs
which are considered by housing officials to be part
of the city housing market. The detailed infor
mation obtained includes data on rents paid,
facilities and services included in the rent, com
plete description of the dwelling, and a compre
hensive description of the neighborhood.
In order to identify the dwellings of the type
specified for the budget, the following description
o f standard was used:
Five-room dwelling—house or apartment— includ
ing kitchen, with sink and installed stove, hot and
cold running water; with a complete private bath in
cluding wash bowl, flush toilet, and tub or shower;
electricity for lighting; and installed heating, either
central or other type, such as base burner, pipeless
furnace, or stoves, depending upon the climate of the
specific city. (Central heating was generally required
in cities where the normal January temperature is
40° F. or colder, and central or other installed heating
for cities with warmer climates.)
Dwellings which were reported as needing major
repairs— i. e., structural repairs such as roof, walls, or
foundation— were not included, but those needing
19
minor repairs such as painting or papering were in
cluded in the study.
Located in a neighborhood with play space for
children (yards, playground, park, or roped off street,
accessible without serious traffic hazards), public
transportation available within 10 blocks, not adjacent
to a refuse dump nor to more than one of the following
hazards or nuisances: railroad or elevated tracks,
noisy or smoke and fume developing industrial installa
tions, main traffic artery, or intercity truck route.
Dwellings were considered above the standard
and were not included if they had more than one
complete private bath, rooms or lots substantially
larger than the normal size room or lot for fiveroom dwellings in the specific city, or if they were
located in apartment structures which provided
central telephone switchboard service, maid serv
ice, doorman service, etc.
Prices were also obtained in the 34 cities for
water, gas, electricity, heating fuel, refuse disposal,
and durable household equipment, such as stoves
and refrigerators which may or may not be the
property of the occupant. Since the average
monthly contract rent in some cases included
shelter only and in other cases included the cost
of shelter, water, heating, lighting, cooking fuel,
refrigeration, furniture, etc., the proportion of
dwellings having each facility included in the rent
was obtained. The total housing cost for each city
was calculated as the sum of the average of
contract rents for dwellings of the stated standard
and the average cost of fuel and furnishings for
that proportion of households paying for these
items separately.
Clothing and Housefurnishings
For clothing and housefurnishings the quality
to be priced was determined by reference to the
prices paid by families at the budget level in 1941.
These prices were compared with the prices for
different specifications reported to the Bureau by
retailers in 34 cities in 1941. The specifications
which had approximately the same average price
as the consumer paid was chosen as the specifica
tion to be used in pricing for the budget. The
large file of data that the Bureau has obtained in
its regular consumers' price index surveys made
this procedure possible. In some cases it was
necessary to adjust specifications to take account
of current market conditions, especially in 1946.
For example, the prices paid by families indicated
20
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
that the quality of men’s pajamas purchased in
1941 was as follows:
Printed percale; 68 x 72 construction; colors fast
to washing. Minimum workmanship; coat or middy
style; 60 to 51 yd./doz. based on 36-inch fabric and
size scale A to D.
The change during the war years made it neces
sary in M arch 1946 to price pajamas of the quality
specified below:
Printed percale; 64 x 64 or 64 x 66 construction,
printed patterns; colors fast to washing. Minimum
workmanship; coat style; 51 to 53 yd./doz. based on
36-inch fabric and size scale A to D.
These pajamas take into account two wartime
constructions; better grades of cotton had been
set aside for military uses. B y June 1947, the
restrictions had been eliminated and the 1941
specification was again being used.
Every effort was made to make the specifications
as precise as possible, but the degree of precision
varies from commodity to commodity and most of
the specifications allow for some variation. Some
range in quality was provided in order that prod
ucts of more than one manufacturer would be
included. Accurate pricing requires that the
specification be stated in terms familiar to retail
store personnel who are asked to furnish data.
Shortages in most lines of textiles and household
equipment in M arch 1946 made it difficult to
obtain data on exactly the same quality in all
stores in all cities; this difficulty had practically
disappeared by the summer of 1947. In such cases
alternate articles o f approximately the same qual
ity— e. g., pajamas and nightgowns—were priced.
Prices were obtained on all articles meeting the
specifications as just described in all departments
in four or more outlets in each of the 34 large cities
in December 1945 and in M arch 1946. Thus, if
women’s dresses were sold in four departments in
one store and three dresses in each department
fell within the range of quality specified, 12 price
quotations were obtained in that store. For com
modities under uniform ceiling prices at those dates
only a single quotation was obtained in each
store.
The arithmetic mean of price quotations ob
tained in each city was used as the typical price
for that city. Because of scarcities, it was not
possible in the case of some commodities to obtain
enough prices in each city in March 1946 to deter
mine reliable averages. In such cases, all prices
reported for several adjacent cities were averaged
together and ascribed to each city within the area.
Commodities treated in this fashion included
washing machines, sewing machines, and mechan
ical refrigerators. B y June 1947, supplies had
improved so that the regular procedure could be
followed.
The average prices for each city obtained by
visiting all departments in each store did not prove
to be significantly different from the average prices
based on the department in each store visited
regularly for the Bureau’s consumers’ price index.
Accordingly, in December 1946, March 1947, and
June 1947, the information collected for the budget
was limited to the departments regularly visited
in each store.
The stores visited depended upon the buying
habits of people in the locality, the distribution of
retail trade and the concentration of workers’
homes in each city, and were primarily the larger
downtown department and specialty stores. Sales
of those stores accounted for a large part of the
total sales of articles of the specified qualities.
For some groups of items, particularly furniture
and household equipment, prices were also ob
tained from stores located in outlying neighbor
hoods.
For some commodities, chiefly those for which
there is no geographical difference in price, the
average prices were obtained from retail outlets in
one city. Washington, D . C., prices were used
for this purpose and were assumed to be the
same for each of the 34 cities. For example,
the prices of clothespins, ironing boards, and
garbage cans were obtained in this way. The
items in this class are comparatively unimportant
in the total cost of the budget.
Other commodities, particularly those for which
precise definitions could not be developed, such
as cosmetics, kitchen utensils, etc., were not
priced in any of the 34 cities. For the m ajority
of these, prices were estimated on the basis of
known price relationships for each city from prices
of other closely related commodities which were
priced. When price relationships could not be
ascertained, a uniform dollar allowance was made
for each city.
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
Medical Care
Prices and fees were obtained for the supplies
and services which were required most frequently
in the medical care budget. The costs of other
services and supplies were estimated from the
relationships shown on various schedules of fees.
Usual fees for office and home visits and for
tonsillectomies and appendectomies were obtained
from a sample of at least 8 physicians and surgeons
in each of the 34 cities; those for the various eye
services from a minimum of 6 optometrists in
each city; and dental charges were obtained from 6
dentists in each city. In all cases the group of
reporting professional men represented downtown
districts and outlying areas and included those
whose patients were primarily wage earners and
who did not charge exceptionally high fees to
discourage certain types of cases.
The costs of group hospitalization insurance
plans were used in those cities in which such
plans were generally accepted and were providing
comprehensive service. For cities in which the
plans were limited in kinds of service or population
groups covered, or where the plan was not in
general use, the prices for a number of specified
services were secured from local hospitals. For
registered nurses the usual fee was obtained from
local hospitals or nurses* registries; and for practi
cal nurses the United States Employment Service
reported fee was used as a flat sum in each of the
cities.
Prices for prescriptions were obtained from a
minimum o f four drug stores in each city with
representation of both chain and independent
stores, and neighborhood and downtown areas.
The prices used in the computation of the budget
were arithmetic averages of the fees and prices
reported.
Transportation
Cash, ticket, or token rates (whichever was least
expensive) for public transportation within the
city and to selected suburbs were obtained from
the local transportation companies in all 34 cities.
School fares, to provide for children^ travel to
school, were also obtained. Railroad fares were
obtained from a central source.
Prices for gasoline, m otor oil, and tires and tubes
were obtained in each city from at least four serv
21
ice stations scattered throughout the city, repre
senting both distributors* outlets and independ
ently owned stations. Manuals furnished by
State and national automobile associations and
insurance agencies were used to compute the
annual costs for automobile insurance, licenses,
and fees.
Costs of the most frequent types of automobile
repairs, as determined by leading automobile
manufacturers, were obtained from four repair
establishments in each city including both dealer
and general repair shops.
Under conditions of the budget which permit
family ownership of an automobile, the car is
specified as an “ old one.** Ordinarily this would
mean a car 6-9 years old. The budget does not
allow for the replacement of automobiles at 1946
and 1947 prices because used automobiles at these
dates were selling at approximately what new cars
cost in 1941. A dollar amount equal to that
spent in 1941 was provided in the budget.
Other Goods and Services
The prices of the kinds and qualities of the other
commodities or services included in the budget
were determined by methods similar to those used
for clothing and housefumishings, i. e., those which
were most commonly bought and for which there
was fair uniformity in the quality chosen by
families.
The supplies necessary for household operation
such as soaps, matches, etc., were priced in the
sample of grocery stores with the number of
quotations varying from about 20 to almost 100
depending on the size of the city. Prices for each
of the articles and services necessary for personal
care were obtained from at least four drug stores,
barber shops, etc., located in both downtown and
neighborhood areas.
Prices for cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco were
obtained in drug stores and in chain and inde
pendent tobacco stores.
Prices were obtained for all important news
papers in each city and admissions to movies in
the downtown and neighborhood areas were also
obtained.
All average prices for these groups of goods and
services were simple averages of the prices
reported.
22
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Public School Supplies and Fees
T o provide for school expenses which must be
paid by students for instructional and recreational
activities, when such expenses are not borne by
the State, county, or city school system, data were
obtained from city superintendents of schools and
supervising principals of 500 elementary and
secondary schools in the 34 cities by mail ques
tionnaire.
For computing the budget, the average cost for
each of the types of expenditures was obtained by
weighting the costs in each school by the number
o f pupils affected.
Cost o f Budget In 34 Large Cities
The cost of goods and services included in the
city worker’s family budget for four persons in
June 1947 ranged from $2,734 in New Orleans to
$3,111 in Washington, D . C., the lowest and the
highest cost cities among the 34 surveyed by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The estimated total
cost of the budget for these two cities—including
taxes, insurance, and occupational expenses, which
add from 8 to 12 percent to the cost of goods and
services— amounted to $3,004 and $3,458, respec
tively, in June 1947. These totals do not take
account of the rise in retail prices of living essen
tials— especially food-—which took place after
June 1947.
In March 1946, when the budget was first
priced, and prior to the rapid rise in prices of
living essentials which accompanied the discontin
uation of price controls in the summer of 1946,
the total cost of goods and services ranged from
$2,345 in Houston to $2,718 in Washington, D . C.
Addition of taxes, insurance, and occupational
expenses brought the totals at that time to $2,532
in Houston and $2,985 in Washington.
The cost of the city worker’s family budget for
each of the 34 cities surveyed for the Bureau’s
consumers’ price index is shown in table 1, in
which the cities are arranged in descending order
of the total cost of goods and services (only) in
June 1947.
The three cities in which it cost workers most
to live in June 1947 were Washington, D. C.,
Seattle, and New York. The same three cities
were among the five highest in March 1946. The
three lowest-cost cities in June 1947 were New
Orleans, Kansas City, and Houston. These same
cities were the three lowest in M arch 1946,
although Houston rather than New Orleans was
last on the list in March 1946. Between the
highest three cities and the lowest three there is
considerable shifting of position, indicating that
there is probably little significance to small dollar
differences.
T able 1.— Total cost o f goods and services with estimated
total cost o f budget, $4 cities, March 1946 and June 1947
June 1947
City
March 1946
Total cost
of goods
and serv
ices
Estimated
total cost
of budget
Total cost
of goods
and serv
ices
Washington, D. C ...........
Seattle, W a sh .................
New York, N. Y .............
Milwaukee, Wis..............
Boston, Mass...................
Detroit, Mich..................
Pittsburgh, Pa.................
$3,111
3,054
3,019
2,988
2,981
2,974
2,973
$3,458
3,388
3,347
3,317
3,310
3,293
3,291
$2,718
2,660
2,583
2,575
2,598
2,578
2,535
$2,985
2,913
2,820
2,811
2,842
2,813
2,761
Minneapolis, M inn.........
Chicago, 111......................
San Francisco, Calif........
Baltimore, M d.................
St. Louis, M o..................
Mobile, Ala......................
Norfolk, Va......................
2,965
2,965
2,964
2.944
2,928
2,925
2,919
3,282
3,282
3,317
3,260
3,247
3,276
3,241
2,550
2,561
2,582
2,565
2,580
2,557
2,563
2,779
2,793
2,853
2,797
2,824
2,826
2,804
Memphis, Tenn..............
Los Angeles, Calif...........
Birmingham, Ala............
Richmond, Va.................
Cleveland, Ohio..............
Portland, Maine..............
Denver, Colo...................
2,912
2,910
2,904
2,904
2,897
2,894
2,870
3,220
3,251
3,251
3,223
3,200
3,200
3,168
2,524
2,512
2,521
2,542
2,495
2,511
2,494
2,750
2,766
2,781
2,776
2,712
2,735
2,711
Philadelphia, Pa..............
Scranton, Pa....................
Portland, Oreg.................
Atlanta, Ga......................
Jacksonville, Fla..............
2,867
2,866
2,855
2,854
2,853
2,843
3,203
3,163
3.150
3,161
3,150
3,135
2,442
2,422
2,502
2,521
2,475
2,466
2,681
2,623
2,721
2,748
2,691
2,677
Manchester, N. H ...........
Cincinnati, Ohio..............
Buffalo, N. Y__................
Indianapolis, Ind_______
Kansas City, M o............
Houston, Tex...................
New Orleans, La.............
2,837
2,830
2,810
2.790
2,739
2,735
2,734
3,132
3,119
3,095
3,098
3,010
3,007
3,004
2,481
2,467
2,415
2,440
2,405
2,345
2,381
2,700
2,678
2.615
2,667
2,603
2,532
2,573
Savannah, Ga________
Estimated
total cost
of budget
The ranks of the cities in both periods are
changed slightly when they are arranged in
descending order of the estimated total cost of
the budget (including taxes, insurance, and occupa
tional expenses). This is due in part to the
differences in State and local income tax require
ments and the existence in Alabama and Cali
fornia of State pay-roll tax levies for purposes of
unemployment insurance.
Although the Bureau’s consumers’ price index
is prepared for the average of all large cities as a
measure of changes in prices, no national average
is prepared for the city worker’s family budget.
Such an average would require surveys in many
23
CITY WORKER’ S FAM ILY BUDGET
additional small and middle-sized cities. M ore
over, dollar totals have meaning mainly in terms
of a single city and not as a national average.
of cities. Food costs at the lower end of the
range contributed to the relatively low position
of Houston, Indianapolis, and Kansas City.
Intercity Differences in Cost of Budget
T able 2.— Relative differences in the cost of goods, rents t
Among these 34 cities there is a total difference
of about $375 in June 1947 in the cost of goods
and services for a four-person family. When
taxes and other expenses are taken into account
the difference increases to approximately $450.
That the differences among most of the 34 cities
are not great is clear when the 3 highest and 3
lowest are not taken into account. The difference
is then reduced to less than $200. This condition
was even more striking in March 1946, when the
difference was slightly over $150 with the three
highest and three lowest excluded from the com
parison. Lack of differences is even more clear
when the 10 middle cities are compared; the
differences among these 10 cities range between
$50 and $60 in both periods.
The relative differences in the costs of goods
and services (only) among the 34 cities, with
Washington, D . C., as 100, are shown in table 2.
The principal factors in these intercity differ
ences are the cost of housing, which depends on
many local circumstances, variations in fuel and
clothing costs, which depend mainly on differences
in climate, transportation, and taxes. Of these,
the most important in explaining the differences
is housing. Where the cost of housing is relatively
high, the total cost of the budget for goods and
services is at the upper end of the range; where it
is relatively low, the cost of the budget is at the
lower end of the range. The differences in the cost
of housing of the specified standard among the
34 cities in June 1947 was about $300, or more
than three-fourths of the total variation in the
cost of the budget among the 34 cities. Thus,
Washington and New York are among the high
cost cities largely because the cost of housing is
high, New Orleans and Houston are among the
low cost cities largely because the cost of housing
there is lower.
The cost of the food budget has a narrow
range—less than $100— and, accordingly, does
not account in any important degree for the
relative position of the different cities. However,
food costs at the upper end of the range helped to
place Seattle and Boston in the highest cost group
and services in 84 cities, June 1947 and March 1946
[Washington, D , C. = 100]
City
Total cost
of goods
and
services
Foods
Clothing
Housing
Other
1947 1946 1947 1946 1947 1946 1947 1946 1947 1946
Atlanta, Ga............
Baltimore, M d___
Birmingham, A la..
Boston, Mass.........
Buffalo, N. Y ........
Chicago, 111............
Cincinnati, Ohio__
92
95
93
96
90
95
91
91
94
93
96
89
94
91
100
101
102
102
100
101
96
100
101
102
105
102
102
98
90
90
92
91
94
98
96
91
94
87
89
90
94
95
82
89
81
85
73
91
79
81
88
80
84
71
91
79
92
95
97
102
95
91
94
93
95
101
104
95
90
94
Cleveland, O h io...
Denver, Colo.........
Detroit, Mich____
Houston, Tex.........
Indianapolis, In d ..
Jacksonville, Fla...
Kansas City, M o ..
93
92
96
88
90
91
88
92
92
95
86
90
91
88
101
100
102
99
97
100
98
100
100
102
100
99
102
100
99
94
96
87
89
90
89
98
95
94
81
89
84
89
77
79
82
71
77
77
70
76
78
81
70
78
77
71
98
96
103
93
94
98
94
98
96
105
94
94
99
97
Los Angeles, Calif.
Manchester, N. H .
Memphis, T enn .. .
Milwaukee, W is...
Minneapolis, Minn
Mobile, Ala............
New Orleans, La__
94
91
94
96
95
94
88
92
91
93
95
94
94
88
101
102
101
99
99
101
102
102
103
101
99
99
105
104
92
89
92
100
103
90
92
87
92
89
93
97
84
89
75
77
84
88
89
89
65
75
76
83
87
87
87
65
106
94
96
99
93
93
93
107
96
98
100
94
96
95
New York, N. Y.__
Norfolk, Va............
Philadelphia, Pa__
Pittsburgh, Pa____
Portland, M aine...
Portland, Oreg___
Richmond, Va.......
97
94
92
96
93
92
93
95
94
90
93
92
93
94
105
101
102
102
103
98
98
105
102
103
101
104
101
100
102
94
94
98
90
90
90
97
93
92
94
91
94
87
90
81
79
82
82
77
89
91
81
77
82
80
75
89
90
99
93
100
95
100
94
86
102
90
97
95
104
96
94
St. Louis, M o........
San F ra n cisco,
95
Calif.
Savannah, Ga____
92
Scranton, Pa.......... 92
Seattle, Wash......... 98
Washington, D. C . 100
95
95
100
102
101
103
91
97
90
93
88
78
88
79
96
105
99
106
92
89
98
100
102
101
105
100
102
101
106
100
85
98
99
100
87
88
99
100
83
76
84
100
83
75
81
100
93
95
105
100
94
94
108
100
Clothing costs do not vary greatly among cities
except where climate is a factor. The range in
clothing costs amounted only to $78 in March
1946 and to $85 in June 1947. Climatic differ
ences in part explain the position of Minneapolis
toward the upper end of the range and the low
position of Jacksonville, the “ coldest” and the
“ warmest” cities among the 34.
The cities of the far West— Seattle, Portland,
San Francisco, and Los Angeles—ranked rela
tively high with respect to the cost of medical
care, but the position of other cities does not
appear to be related to location. New York,
Chicago, and Philadelphia had lower budget costs
for transportation than other cities because public
transportation is used to a very great extent there
and the percentage of families allowed automobiles
24
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN TH E UNITED STATES
in the budget was determined to be lower. M is
cellaneous goods and services cost the most in
Seattle, San Francisco, and D etroit in March
1946, and in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Chicago in
June 1947.
This and other studies of family budgets show
that the relative position of a city in the cost
scale does not remain fixed indefinitely. For
example, before the war the cities of the Pacific
Northwest were among the lower-cost cities in
the United States. The rapid rise in living costs
accompanying the great wartime growth of
those cities brought them into the higher-cost
brackets. M oreover, dollar differences in living
costs between cities have narrowed greatly with
increased efficiency of transportation and com
munications. During World War II, retail prices
of living essentials went up most in southern
cities and in west coast cities, where war activity
was great, as shown by the consumers, price
index, thus further narrowing the differential.
Consequently, it is almost impossible to say of
costs, except for housing, which remains com
paratively stable over longer periods of time, that
city A is in any permanent sense a “ cheaper”
place to live than city B.
Further, it is clear that the variation within a
region may be as great as among all the cities in
the country, and that it is impossible to come
to any conclusion concerning relative differ
ences in living costs, either by region or by size of
city. Table 3 shows the number of cities in
each population group by regions in the United
States and the number of cities for which city
worker’s family budgets have been prepared,
together with the differences of costs of this
budget for cities in each region. It will be
observed that there is very little difference
between the costs by regions. In fact, the East
South Central and South Atlantic cities show the
greatest difference— $268. This is due to the
location in this region of Washington, D . C., the
highest cost city and, Jacksonville, one of the
cities in the lower-cost range. It also has five
cities— Birmingham, Memphis, N orfolk, Rich
mond, and M obile— all with totals approximating
$2,900 in the medium-cost range. Atlanta and
Savannah, the 2 remaining cities of the 10, are
only $10 and $12, respectively, above Jacksonville.
There is a smaller difference, $200, between the
highest- and lowest-cost cities in the western
region, where Seattle is highest and Portland,
Oreg., lowest; Denver is only $16 above Portland.
Los Angeles and San Francisco, only $54 apart,
are in the middle of the range of these western
cities.
When arranged by size of their population, the
34 cities in June 1947 also showed substantial
differences among cities of the same size. There is
a difference, for instance, of $301 between the
highest and lowest of all the cities with over
500,000 population. Again, Washington, D . C.,
is highest and Buffalo is lowest. The difference
is larger, $320, in the cities in the 100,000-500,000
population group (the survey included a sample of
16 of the 78 cities in this size class), with Seattle
the highest and New Orleans the lowest. The
4 cities in the 50,000-100,000 population group
are not representative of this size class which
includes 107 cities. The difference of $88 here
represents the difference between Manchester
and M obile.
T able 3.— The 84 city sample in relation to all cities in the United States of 50,000 or more population, by regions and popu
lation groups, and intercity differences in total cost of goods and services, June 1947
Number of cities by population group
Item
All cities
Total
600,000 and over
Sample
Total
100,000-500,000
Sample
Total
50,000-100,000
Sample
Total
Sample
Dollar differ
ences in total
goods and
services in
cities by
regions
All cities..................................................................................
199
34
14
14
78
16
107
4
$377
North Atlantic.......................................................................
East North Central...............................................................
West Central..........................................................................
East South Central and South Atlantic..............................
67
41
33
37
21
8
6
5
10
5
5
4
1
2
2
5
4
1
2
2
25
14
15
14
10
1
2
4
6
3
37
23
17
21
9
2
0
0
2
0
209
198
231
268
200
Dollar differences in total goods and services in cities by
population groups................................ .............................
$377
$301
$320
$88
CITY WORKER'S FAM ILY BUDGET
Composition of the Budget
The relative cost of different elements in the
budget can be best illustrated by the analysis
of the figures for a single city. For this purpose
the city of Birmingham has been chosen, because
its costs are in the middle of the range of the 34
cities. In June 1947, the total budget for goods
and services made up about 89 percent of the
estimated total cost; taxes, insurance, contribu
tions, etc., accounted for about 11 percent.
Within the budget for goods and services alone,
food costs at June 1947 price levels took a little
over 36 percent of the total. In March 1946,
before the rapid rise in food costs, the proportion
spent for food was closer to one-third, as shown
in the second column of table 4.
T able 4.— Distribution of the cost of the city worker's
fam ily budget in Birmingham, March 1946 and June 1947
M arch 1946
June 1947
Item
Percent
of total
Amount
Percent
of total
Amount
Food...............................................
Housing........... .............................
Clothing........................................
M edical care..................................
Transportation..............................
Other goods and services.............
$824
671
357
155
248
266
32.7
26.6
14.2
6.1
9.8
10.6
$1,057
702
425
161
261
298
36.4
24.2
14.6
5.5
9.0
10.3
Total goods and services...
2,521
100.0
2,904
100.0
Housing costs took another 24 percent, includ
ing housefurnishings, fuel, and light, in addition
to rent. Clothing for the family required about
15 percent of the total, medical care, 5% percent,
transportation, 9 percent, and other goods and
services, 10 percent. The only m ajor change from
March 1946 to June 1947 was the rise in the pro
portionate expenditure for food and the reductions
in the proportionate expenditures for housing
(since neither rents nor utility rates rose appre
ciably during this period) and for transportation.
Food.— The largest single item in the family budget
is the cost of food. In the 34 cities as a group it
ranged in June 1947 from about $1,000 in Cincin
nati to a little under $1,100 in New York and
Seattle, that is, a total of approximately $20 a
week, or 23 to 24 cents a meal. This represented
a substantial increase from M arch 1946, when the
totals were $850 in New York, $854 in Seattle, and
$792 in Cincinnati, or about $15 a week, or 18
cents a meal.
25
Food costs in the 34 cities are shown in table 5
in descending order of their costs 12 in June 1947.
T able 5.— City worker's fam ily food costs in 84 large cities
City
New York, N . Y ..
Seattle, Wash.......
Portland, M aine..
Boston, Mass.___
Pittsburgh, Pa___
Philadelphia, P a..
Manchester, N . H
June 1947
March 1946
$1,095
1,094
1,068
1,064
1.063
1.063
1.063
$850
854
836
844
818
828
832
1,060
1,058
1.057
1.057
821
Detroit, M ich..........
New Orleans, La___
Birmingham, A la ...
San Francisco, Calif.
Savannah, Ga..........
Chicago. Ill..............
Memphis, Term____
1,055
1,054
826
820
815
Scranton, Pa.........
Baltimore, M d___
Los Angeles, Calif.
Norfolk, Va...........
M obile, Ala...........
Cleveland, Ohio__
Atlanta, Ga...........
1,052
1.050
1.050
1,048
1,047
1,046
1,044
817
815
822
823
847
810
811
Buffalo, N . Y .........
Denver, Colo..........
Washington, D . C .
St. Louis, M o.........
Jacksonville, F la ...
Milwaukee, W is___
Minneapolis, M inn.
1,042
1.040
1.040
1,036
1,035
1,029
1,026
822
811
807
814
820
800
799
Houston, Tex___
Kansas C ity, M o.
Portland, O reg...
Richmond, V a ...
Indianapolis, Ind.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
1,025
1,021
1,020
1,019
1,010
1,000
804
803
819
805
797
792
Housing. The cost of housing, which in this budget
is measured by rented houses or apartments of 5
rooms, ranged in June 1947 from $446 in New
Orleans to $766 in Washington, D . C., for the
contract rent of the home, including heat and
utilities. Housefurnishings added approximately
$80 and household operations $30 in all the cities.
Thus, the total varied from a little under $600 to
about $870 in June 1947, or from $47 to $72 a
month. In March 1946, the cost was only slightly
lower, about $46 to $70 a month. Since June
1947, with the amendment of the Bent Control
Act, rents have risen further.
Clothing. The clothing for the city worker’s family
of four ranged from a little under $400 to about
$475 in June 1947. Clothing is the major group,
in addition to housing, that reflects differences in
costs due to climate. Clothing costs are there
fore lowest in the warmer cities and highest in
the colder cities. The difference is shown be
tween Jacksonville, where the clothing cost in
i2 Break-downs by food groups will be available in subsequent detailed
publications by the Bureau.
26
•WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
June 1947 was $415 a year, and Minneapolis,
where it was $477.
Clothing costs are shown in this report for each
o f the four members of the fam ily, not separately
by items purchased. The largest clothing cost is
for the husband, which ranges from $128 in Port
land, Maine, to $159 in New York City. The
next largest is for the wife, ranging from $111 in
Savannah to $139 in Minneapolis. There is a
tendency for the son’s clothing costs ($80-$92) to
be slightly higher than that of the daughter
($66-$91), but the differences from city to city
are relatively unimportant. Differences in cloth
ing costs are probably due, in the main, to chance
factors in pricing, which are affected by style,
qualities, and supplies of merchandise.
Transportation. The average cost of transporta
tion of all kinds varied from $170 to $280 among
the 34 cities in M arch 1946, and from $183 to $290
in June 1947. It was $258 in June 1947, for in
stance, in Manchester, Minneapolis, Portland
(Oreg.), San Francisco, and Scranton.
Transportation covers both local transportation
and travel outside o f the city. It provides for
travel to work, to schools, to shops, to recreation
centers, and to churches; for infrequent trips
“ home” to visit parents and other relatives; and
the travel necessary to a change o f residence from
one city to another for a small proportion of these
families. Transportation as a group in the family
budget has increased substantially in importance
during the past two decades as cities have ex
panded and the m obility of the population has
increased.
In all but the three largest cities—New York,
Chicago, and Philadelphia— the budget specifies
an automobile for about 7 out of 10 families.
Typically, the cars owned by families at the budget
level are about 8 years old and cost about
$350 (after trade-in allowances) in 1941. At
that time, cheap second-hand automobiles were
available. This budget does not allow for the
replacement o f automobiles at the current high
prices. It makes an allowance o f only $107 a
year toward the purchase o f a car. If inexpensive
second-hand cars do not return to the market as
current inventories are scrapped, the budget
pattern will necessarily be changed in the coming
period toward a lower percentage of automobile
owners, with related changes in all the other
segments of the budget.
Medical Care. The budget allowance for medical
care ranged from $127 to $202 in the 34 cities in
March 1946 and from $132 to $222 in June 1947.
The medical care budget, which accounts for 5 to
7 percent of the total cost o f goods and services,
is in the nature of insurance or even of savings for
families who have good health. In any one year
the m ajority of families do not require medical
care costing as much as the budget allowance,
while a few families find it necessary to spend con
siderably more than the annual allowance. In
certain cities, particularly Birmingham and
Seattle, families participating in insurance plans
can finance a comprehensive medical service at a
somewhat lower cost than is here specified. In
other cities the insurance plans for medical service
do not yet cover the essential services compre
hensively enough to permit a significantly lower
annual allowance for total medical service.
In Birmingham, for instance, the cost of medical
care was $161 in June 1947. Of this total, $122
(about 75 percent) is for medical and dental
services, $21 (or 13 percent) for hospital services,
and $18 for medicines and eyeglasses. Approxi
mately, these proportions hold for all 34 cities.
The largest budget allowance for medical care
is for the wife, who gets almost uniformly in all
cities about two-fifths of the total. The other
three members of the family divide the remaining
three-fifths almost equally, although there is a
slight tendency for the husband’s costs to be largest
of the three, the daughter’s next and the son’s the
smallest.
Other Goods and Services. All other goods and
services, accounting for approximately one-tenth
of the budget for goods and services, ranged from
$235 to $285 in March 1946 and from $278 to $330
in June 1947. This group includes reading and
recreation, which cost $52 to $84 in March 1946
and $63 to $95 in June 1947. It also includes
personal care— for barber and beauty shop serv
ices, cosmetics, etc.— which varied in a narrow
range among all the cities from $51 to $68 in June
1947. Tobacco amounted to less than $40, and
gifts $70 to $80. There is a considerable variation
in school expense because of the difference in the
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
extent to which books and supplies are furnished
by the school at public expense. The allowance
for gifts represents contributions to church and
charity and the exchange of customary presents at
a modest level.
Costs for Families of Different Sizes
Budget totals are presented in detail in this re
port only for families of four persons. A method
for estimating costs for families of other sizes is
presented in another article in this bulletin,
page 49. In summary, however, the dollar
costs of goods and services for a family of two
persons is about 65 percent of the costs for a
family of four; a family of three persons is about
84 percent of the costs for the four-person fam ily;
and for a family of five, about 115 percent of the
total for a four-person family. For Kansas City,
for instance, the estimated total cost of goods and
services for June 1947 would be—
2-person
3-person
4-person
5-person
family____________________$1, 780
fa m ily ,__________________
2, 290
family— budget---------------- 2, 739
family____________________ 3,140
It should be emphasized that the cost of the
budget measures the average situation in a given
city, with respect to the maintenance of the speci
fied level of living. In the experience of individual
families the cost of maintaining this consumption
level would vary several hundred dollars from the
average within a year or over a period of years.
Some families are in a position to purchase the
budget level of living for substantially less than
the average cost; others are compelled to spend
considerably more than the average cost.
The major cause of differences in the cost to in
dividual families is the location of their home and
whether it is owned or rented. Among families
who rent their homes, the cost of housing ranges
widely—more than $200 above or below the
average. Families that have recently moved into
the city or that were forced to move from their
rented homes during or since the war almost uni
formly spend more than the average for housing of
27
a specified standard, while those who have lived
in the same homes over a period of years spend less.
The m ajority of families who own their homes
have smaller current outlays for the same quality
of housing than renters, except in some cases
where homes have been bought in recent years.
Here current costs often exceed the budget level.
The outlays of home owners were not taken into
account in the calculation of the budget, chiefly
because the cost of renting the family home is a
fairly representative figure for the families in
large cities whose level of living corresponds
with the budget level. In smaller communities
where home ownership is almost the rule— and
which were not covered by this study— the cost
of housing in the budget would have to be deter
mined from home owners’ costs.
The pattern of family expenditures is also
affected by the location of their home. It affects
the choices among budget items and, consequently,
the total cost of the budget. Families living in
the suburbs spend less for housing than families
living in the central part of the city and thereby
manage to finance a part of the cost of an auto
mobile. Those living in more costly dwellings,
centrally located, have the advantage of conven
ient public transportation and do not use an
automobile.
The location of the home also affects food costs.
Even in the large cities there are sections where it
is possible for families to have home gardens,
to store home-canned products, or to use freezer
lockers.
The cost of other items in the family budget
depends mainly upon how skillfully the wife
“ shops.” This is particularly true of food, where
there are wide variations between prices for similar
articles in various stores in different sections of the
cities. Home dressmaking, which is still custom
ary in many families, also affects the cost of the
budget. Home production and home processing
of foods, home sewing, and other similar economies
in most cases represent a reduction in the total
cost of the family budget, bringing it somewhat
below the average, although they usually mean
larger outlays in other segments of the budget.
28
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
T able 6.— City worker’* fam ily budget— 4 persons— 84 large cities of the United States, March 1948 and June 1947
Atlanta
Item
March
1046
Baltimore
June
1947
March
1946
June
1047
Birmingham
March
1046
June
1947
Boston
Buffalo
March
1946
June
1947
March
1046
Cincinnati
Chicago
June
1047
March
1046
June
1947
March
1046
June
1947
Food *____________________ — ____
Food at hom e8.............................
$811
713
$1,044
024
$815
716
$1,050
929
$824
724
$1,057
035
$844
743
$1,064
041
$822
723
$1,042
022
$820
721
$1,055
033
$792
606
$1,000
884
H ousing8________ ________________
Rent, heat, and utilities 4............
Housefumishings«_____________
Household operation *..................
678
686
71
21
713
507
85
31
740
646
72
22
773
660
81
32
671
576
73
22
702
589
81
32
702
606
75
21
738
624
81
33
500
505
73
21
633
522
80
31
762
664
76
22
787
671
85
31
664
566
76
22
686
573
82
31
C lothing7.............................................
Husband................... - ........... ......
W ife...............................................
B o y ..._______________________
G irl................................................
371
118
107
78
68
414
135
117
82
80
384
121
115
77
71
415
131
125
80
79
357
111
107
78
61
425
140
120
88
77
363
114
110
73
66
420
132
121
84
83
368
111
116
74
67
434
133
135
82
84
386
125
112
76
73
451
140
133
87
82
387
123
116
76
72
444
141
128
83
92
M edical care._____ _______________
M edical and dental services____
Husband___________ ______
W ife........................................
B oy_______________________
Girl.........................................
Hospital services8........................
Supplies and eyeglasses................
142
108
24
42
20
22
16
18
153
119
26
47
22
24
16
18
140
08
22
30
18
19
24
18
162
119
27
47
22
23
24
10
155
117
26
46
22
23
21
17
161
122
26
48
23
25
21
18
146
00
22
30
19
10
30
17
165
116
26
45
22
23
30
19
132
04
20
37
18
10
20
18
143
104
22
41
20
21
20
10
134
02
20
37
17
18
24
18
149
105
23
42
10
21
24
20
127
00
10
36
17
18
20
17
142
103
22
42
19
20
20
19
Transportation •_______ ___________
Automobile owners10...................
Nonowners of automobiles...........
234
289
77
248
307
78
251
304
102
266
322
104
248
310
73
261
327
73
280
341
107
200
354
100
246
300
91
266
327
92
184
308
101
190
335
108
232
282
00
247
301
92
Other goods and services..................
Reading and recreation11_______
Personal care « . . . ............ . ..........
T obacco13.....................................
Public school expenses14..............
Gifts and contributions18............
Miscellaneous *•........... ................
230
55
45
33
5
67
34
281
69
56
36
5
78
37
235
52
44
29
5
70
35
278
66
55
34
5
80
38
266
53
51
30
20
69
34
208
63
57
41
20
79
38
263
60
48
35
5
71
35
304
83
56
40
5
81
39
248
64
48
32
5
66
33
292
77
62
35
5
76
37
275
76
51
33
10
70
35
324
93
63
30
10
81
38
265
72
49
33
10
67
34
311
84
66
37
10
77
37
Total cost of goods and services...........
2,475
2,853
2,565
2,044
2,521
2,004
2,508
2,081
2,415
2,810
2,561
2,965
2,467
2,830
329
102
200
66
285
148
232
97
317
180
211
77
289
152
3,310
2,615
3,095
2,793
3,282
2,678
3,119
Other outlays 17._ ...............................
T axes18.........................................
216
82
207
160
232
97
316
179
260
08
347
178
244
108
Estimated cost of the budget19...........
2,610
3,150
2,707
3,260
2,781
3,251
2,842
Cleveland
Item
Houston
Detroit
Denver
Indianapolis
June
1047
March
1046
$1,010
803
$820
721
$1,035
016
$803
705
$1,021
902
652
560
71
21
671
561
79
31
648
557
70
21
668
560
77
31
598
505
71
22
610
407
80
33
403
135
113
86
69
366
117
108
73
68
413
140
116
84
73
344
114
08
74
58
415
140
122
87
66
364
113
109
73
69
410
133
117
81
79
150
107
23
42
20
22
25
18
167
123
26
49
23
25
25
19
128
03
20
37
17
19
18
17
139
102
22
40
10
21
18
19
170
128
29
51
24
24
24
18
182
139
31
55
26
27
24
19
146
107
24
43
19
21
21
18
152
112
25
45
20
22
21
19
256
310
104
228
282
75
241
299
76
228
282
75
254
310
93
239
301
62
262
321
04
236
286
94
253
309
95
326
05
65
31
15
81
30
2,074
319
182
3,293
241
61
44
35
5
64
32
2,345
187
54
2,532
270
70
55
38
5
75
36
2,735
272
135
3,007
260
71
50
20
20
66
33
2,440
227”
03
2,667
303
75
64
31
20
76
37
2,790
308”
170
3,008
245
58
45
36
5
67
34
281
65
58
39
5
77
37
2,843
292"
155
3,135
258
68
44
33
15
65
33
2,405
108
64
2,603
293
76
55
36
15
75
36
2,730
271
134
3,010
June
1947
March
1946
$1,040
020
$821
722
$1,060
038
$804
707
$1,025
006
$707
700
659
565
71
23
683
571
79
33
670
581
76
22
707
503
83
31
501
498
72
21
620
506
83
31
459
142
134
87
06
380
120
116
77
76
434
143
128
83
80
385
113
117
81
74
445
139
135
90
81
331
108
06
73
54
154
116
26
46
21
23
20
18
161
121
27
40
22
23
20
20
143
103
23
41
10
20
22
18
159
118
26
46
22
24
22
10
172
123
27
49
23
24
31
18
180
128
28
51
24
25
32
20
Transportation •..................................
Automobile owners10. .................
Nonowners of automobiles_____
235
248
03
254
308
100
230
280
86
256
315
88
240
288
102
Other goods and services....................
Reading and recreation81---------Personal care13.............................
Tobacco 13_....................................
Public school expenses14..............
Gifts and contributions1{. ...........
M iscellaneous18............................
Total cost of goods and services_____
Other outlays 17_..................................
Taxes 18_.................................. .
Estimated cost of the budget18______
250
63
53
31
10
68
34
2,405
217
83
2,712
310
83
65
35
10
70
38
2,897
303
166
3,200
262
71
49
30
10
68
34
% 404
217
83
2,711
208
80
59
33
10
78
38
2,870
208
160
3,168
281
80
52
20
15
70
35
2,578
235
100
2,813
June
1947
March
1946
F ood 1___ ______ __________________
Food at home
..........................
$810
712
$1,046
026
$811
713
Housing *__________ _____ _________
Rent, heat, and utilities .........
Housefumishings *_......................
Household operation •.................
635
638
74
23
667
552
83
32
C lothing7_____________ ______ ____
H usband.....................................
W ife..............................................
B o y ...................................... ......
G irl...............................................
402
123
123
78
78
M edical care........................................
M edical and dental services____
Husband—......... ................ .
W ife............. ..........................
B o y ......................................
Girl.........................................
Hospital services3........................
Supplies and eyeglasses...............
June
1947
Kansas City
March
1946
March
1946
March
1046
Jacksonville
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
211
77
2,677
June
1947
See footnotes at end of table.
N o te .—-The total dollars necessary to provide family health, worker efficiency, nurture of children, and social participation by all members of the fam ily.
29
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
T able 6.— City worker's fam ily budget— 4 persons— 84 large cities o f the United States, March 1948 and June 1947— Con.
Los Angeles
Item
March
1946
June
1947
Manchester
M arch
1946
June
1947
Memphis
March
1946
June
1947
Milwaukee
March
1946
June
1947
Minneapolis
March
1946
June
1947
New Orleans
M obile
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
$822
723
$1,050
929
$832
732
$1,063
941
$815
716
$1,054
932
$800
702
$1,029
910
$799
702
$1,026
907
$847
745
$1,047
926
$836
735
$1,058
936
Housing t _
__
■Rent, heat, and utilities 4
___
Housefurnishings« ..... ___ ...
Household operation •
_
626
629
75
22
651
534
85
32
637
542
74
21
668
557
78
33
699
604
74
21
727
611
85
31
734
640
73
21
766
656
80
30
731
635
75
21
772
656
83
33
730
634
74
22
771
657
84
30
549
449
77
23
563
446
84
33
Clothing T
___ __
Husband
__
W ife___________
B oy_.
Girl
_
-----------
356
116
104
76
60
427
144
122
86
75
377
118
113
74
72
411
129
119
81
82
362
118
108
75
61
423
142
126
86
69
382
117
114
77
74
460
143
135
91
91
396
119
125
76
76
477
152
139
89
97
343
105
107
74
57
416
135
118
85
78
365
124
104
80
57
424
139
119
91
75
Medical care
M edical and dental services____
Husband.
___ _
W ife__________
B oy.
. ...
G irl_________
Hospital services *
Supplies and eyeglasses . „ ____
202
154
34
60
29
31
29
19
222
172
38
67
32
35
29
21
133
91
20
37
17
17
24
18
152
109
24
44
20
21
24
19
155
112
25
44
21
22
26
17
162
118
26
46
22
24
26
18
131
95
21
38
18
18
18
18
142
104
23
42
19
20
19
19
139
94
21
38
17
18
27
18
146
101
22
41
19
19
26
19
129
91
20
36
17
18
20
18
132
92
20
37
17
18
21
19
144
107
24
42
20
21
19
18
151
113
25
45
21
22
19
19
Transportation
.
Automobile owners io _ _ ____
Nonowners of automobiles
,
233
281
98
247
298
101
245
305
76
258
322
77
236
293
74
251
313
75
247
301
92
261
320
92
239
294
83
258
320
84
243
303
70
256
321
71
240
298
78
253
314
79
Other goods and services _____
Beading and recreation u ___
Personal care «_
Tobacco is___ _
Public school expenses u
Gifts and contributions u
Miscellaneous »•............................
273
78
58
30
5
68
34
313
93
65
33
5
79
38
257
71
44
35
5
68
34
285
76
51
38
5
78
37
257
59
46
34
15
69
34
295
71
56
36
15
79
38
281
82
48
31
15
70
35
330
101
60
34
15
81
39
246
60
49
28
5
69
35
286
73
59
30
5
81
38
265
56
46
39
20
70
34
303
68
56
41
20
80
38
247
56
48
40
5
65
33
285
68
58
43
5
75
36
Total cost of goods and services.........
2,910
2,481
2,837
1.... ■
295
219
158
85
2,524
2,925
2,557
2,965
2,550
2,988
l —JS -- ~T~T=S= = = = =
'---"" sn.rr"1- ■= - .M
351
269
317
329
229
182
105
180
94
192
2,381
2,734
Other outlays if _ _
Taxes18.........................................
2,512
_
254
92
Estimated cost of the budget19 .......
2,766
3,251
3,132
2,750
Fnndl________________
Food at homo l
_ .. _
n
341
175
New York
Item
March
1946
June
1947
2,700
2,912
2,575
= = = —„ i - —
308
236
226
101
171
91
3,220
Philadelphia
Norfolk
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
2,811
3,317
Pittsburgh
2,779
3,282
2,826
3,276
Portland, Maine Portland, Oreg.
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
270
133
192~
59
2,573
3,004
Richmond
March
1946
June
1947
$850
748
$1,095
969
$823
724
$1,048
927
$828
728
$1,063
941
$818
719
$1,063
941
$836
735
$1,068
945
$819
720
$1,020
902
$805
708
$1,019
901
____
Housing 3 _
Bent, heat, and utilities V
_ ..
Housefurnishings 3_ .
Household operation •_________
764
662
79
23
783
664
86
33
684
592
71
21
703
592
80
31
644
549
74
21
683
569
83
31
689
594
74
21
716
607
78
31
676
579
75
22
708
594
81
33
631
527
74
30
672
547
84
41
746
656
70
20
772
661
80
31
Clothing f. _ ____ _
Husband
_____
W ife____________
B oy_____
G irl___________
397
133
119
75
70
473
159
138
90
86
381
122
113
75
71
433
138
128
89
78
376
120
110
77
69
432
138
125
87
82
384
121
118
77
68
453
148
138
87
80
372
112
113
72
75
416
128
129
78
81
384
126
115
80
63
417
144
125
77
71
357
116
105
77
59
416
143
117
85
71
M edical care
___
___
M edical and dental services........
Husband
W ife________
B ov
___
___
G irl__________
Hospital services 8_______ ____
Supplies and eyeglasses
143
110
24
44
20
22
16
17
165
130
28
52
24
26
16
19
152
108
24
43
20
21
26
18
156
111
25
44
21
21
26
19
145
103
23
41
19
20
24
18
166
123
28
50
22
23
24
19
133
97
22
39
18
18
18
18
157
120
27
48
22
23
18
19
130
98
22
39
18
19
15
17
134
101
22
40
19
20
15
18
173
125
27
49
24
25
29
19
178
129
27
51
25
26
29
20
138
96
21
38
18
19
25
17
145
101
22
40
19
20
25
19
Transportation •____
Automobile owners io
___
Nonowners of automobiles _
170
323
68
183
351
70
271
322
124
286
347
125
184
307
102
207
338
119
242
295
71
265
326
93
244
296
99
267
326
100
244
299
88
258
317
90
251
311
79
266
331
80
259
68
48
33
5
70
35
2,583
237
101
2,820
320
99
59
36
5
82
39
3,019
328
191
3,347
252
60
48
30
10
70
34
2,563
241
105
2,804
293
76
57
32
10
80
38
2,919
322”
185
3,241
265
77
47
32
10
66
33
2,442
239~
104
2,681
316
93
59
38
10
78
38
2,867
336
198
3,203
269
70
54
32
10
69
34
2,535
226
91
2,761
319
88
62
39
10
81
39
2,973
318
181
3,291
253
63
44
33
10
69
34
2,511224“
90
2,735
301
84
55
35
10
79
38
2,894
306
169
3,200
270
72
50
30
15
69
34
2,521
227
93
2,748
309
82
65
32
15
78
37
2,854
307”
171
3,161
F ood i_____________
Food at home *_
Other goods and services
___
Reading and recreation u ___
Personal care n_ _ _____
. _
Tobacco 13___ ____________
Pnblic school expenses M . . .
Gifts and contributions 15_
M iscellaneous19............................
Total cost of goods and services_____
Other outlays if.
Taxes18..........................................
Estimated cost of the budget !•
245
58
45
29
10
69
34
2,542
234"
101
2,776
286
72
55
32
10
79
38
2,904
319
181
3,223
See footnotes at end of table.
N ote .—T he total dollars necessary to provide family health, worker efficiency, nurture of children, and social participation b y all members o f the family.
30
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
T abus 6.— City worker’ s fam ily budget— 4 persons— 84 large cities o f the United States, March 1946 and June 1947— Con.
San Francisco
St. Louis
Savannah
Scranton
Washi]a|ton,
Seattle
Item
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
March
1946
June
1947
Food 1...........................................................
Food at home *......................................
$814
716
$1,036
916
$830
730
$1,057
936
$826
727
$1,056
935
$817
718
$1,052
931
$854
752
$1,094
969
$807
710
$1,040
919
Housing *......................................................
Kent, heat, and u tilities4.....................
Housefumishings *................................
Household operation •_.........................
742
649
71
22
762
664
77
31
665
568
79
28
678
667
83
38
697
602
74
21
720
607
81
32
628
535
72
21
659
551
78
30
683
585
75
23
725
610
83
32
840
746
72
22
868
756
80
32
C lothing7.....................................................
Husband................................................
W ife........................................................
Boy.........................................................
Girl.........................................................
369
116
110
74
69
420
136
128
84
72
382
128
112
75
67
449
149
136
87
78
355
115
107
76
57
392
132
111
80
69
358
108
110
73
67
453
138
132
92
91
404
126
130
79
69
459
148
136
90
85
409
125
127
83
74
462
149
134
89
90
M edical care.................................................
M edical and dental services.................
Husband.........................................
W ife.................................................
Boy..................................................
Girl..................................................
Hospital services •.................................
Supplies and eyeglasses........................
148
106
23
42
20
21
24
18
149
106
23
42
20
21
24
19
186
134
29
52
26
27
33
19
205
151
33
59
29
30
33
21
157
115
26
46
21
22
24
18
164
120
27
48
22
23
25
19
135
101
22
40
19
20
17
17
155
119
26
47
22
24
17
19
191
143
32
57
26
28
29
19
196
147
33
58
27
29
29
20
173
130
30
52
23
25
25
18
184
139
31
57
25
26
26
19
Transportation •..........................................
Automobile owners »•............................
Nonowners of automobiles...................
236
286
90
264
311
91
237
286
95
268
310
111
227
283
69
243
304
70
238
290
87
258
317
89
243
297
87
260
321
88
227
276
88
250
302
103
Other goods and services________ _______
Reading and recreation « .....................
Personal care11......................................
Tobacco 11..............................................
Public school expenses14......................
Gifts and contributions
.................
M iscellaneous74............. ......................
272
76
48
33
10
70
36
307
81
62
36
10
80
38
282
84
67
31
5
70
35
317
94
66
33
5
81
38
240
57
44
32
5
68
34
280
70
54
36
5
78
37
246
59
45
33
10
66
33
289
71
54
39
10
78
37
285
76
60
36
5
72
36
320
85
69
39
5
83
39
262
65
53
29
5
74
36
307
79
67
31
5
85
40
Total cost of goods and services...... ...........
2,680
2,928
2,582
2,964
2,502
2,855
2,422
2,866
2,660
3,054
2,718
3,111
Other outlays17. ..........................................
Taxes 18_.................................................
246
109
319
182
271
107
353
186
219
84
295
157
201
68
297
160
253
117
334
198
267
129
347
210
Estimated cost o f the budget19....... ...........
2,825
3,247
2,863
3,317
2,721
3,150
2,623
3,163
2,913
3,388
2,985
3,458
t Includes meals and between-meal food and beverages purchased and
consumed away from home.
• Food and beverages purchased for meals prepared at home, including
lunches that are carried to work or to school.
• Kent, heating fuel, utilities, housefumishings, and household supplies.
4 Average rent paid in each city for tenant-occupied dwellings that conform
to the housing standards specified for the budget plus the cost of required
amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, and water, and refrigerator. Varia
tions in local practices with respect to the inclusion of these items in monthly
rental quotations are taken into account in computing net costs. Differences
in requirements of heating fuel in relation to climate are also taken into
account in calculating costs for this item.
•Furniture; equipment and appliances such as washing machine, electric
iron, toaster, and fan; housewares such as dishes, cooking utensils, brooms,
and mops; textile housefumishings.
• Soaps and other supplies for house cleaning and laundry, matches, house
hold paper supplies, charges for refuse disposal, etc.
7Includes shoe repairs, dry cleaning, and supplies for home cleaning and
mending. Differences in requirements of heavy and light clothing due to
climate are taken into account in the computation of clothing costs in each
city.
®Cost of hospital service represents family membership in group hospitali
sation plan in cities where such plans exist and do not exclude any sizable
proportion of the population. In other cities cost of hospital services repre
sents costs of families not members of group hospitalization plans.
•Average costs of automobile owners and nonowners weighted by the
following proportions of families: for cities with population over 1,900,000,
40 percent for automobile owners, 60 percent for nonowners; for cities with
population of 60,000 to 1,900,000, 74 percent and 26 percent, respectively.
10 Includes average annual allowance for automobile purchase.
u Newspapers, magazines, radio, movies, toys, games, pets, dues to civic
and social clubs.
11 Barber and beauty shop services, toilet soap, dentifrices, shaving supplies,
cosmetics, etc.
i* Cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco.
h Textbooks and other supplies not furnished by the public schools, and
average outlay for school games and entertainment.
15 Christmas and birthday presents to persons outside the family, contribu
tions and community welfare.
i® Lodging away from home, music and dancing lessons for the children,
legal service, and other items. In the 34 cities. $10 of the cost of miscellaneous
items represents costs of communication (telephone calls, stamps, and sta
tionery supplies).
ii Taxes, life insurance, employment insurance and occupational expenses
such as dues to unions, business or professional associations, and special
clothing and equipment required for the occupation.
18 Personal taxes, such as poll taxes and other capitation taxes; Federal,
State, and local income taxes.
19 This grand total is called “ Estimated Cost of the Budget” because in
surance and occupational expenses have been estimated from national aver
ages; taxes have been estimated after adding these costs to the Total Cost of
Goods and Services, on the basis of local and national requirements. For an
explanation of these estimates, see p. 16.
N ote .—T he total dollars necessary to provide family health, worker efficiency, nurture of children, and social participation by all members of the family.
31
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
Appendix.— Budget Quantities
Food Budget
F ood
at
H ome (80.4 meals per week, 4,179 meals per year)
Quantity
per year
Group
Subgroup 1 and item
Unit
Baked goods and cereal pro
ducts.
Bread__________________________________________________
Crackers, other baked goods____________________________
Flour___________________________ _______________________
U ncooked cereals, e t c .... .
Ready-to-eat cereals____________________________________
Fluid m ilk________________________________________________________
Pound________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
Canned m ilk
Pound________
Pint__________
Q uart _
Pound________
......... do............. ..
_____do________
_____ do________
Pint...................
_____ do________
Pound________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do...............
Dozen________
Pound________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
_____ do________
......... do...............
_____ do________
......... do...............
......... do...............
_____ do________
......... do...............
_____ do________
Milk, cream, and cheese_______
Fats and oils__________________
___
Cream_________________________________________________
Ice cream____ __________________________________________
Cheese_________________________________________________
Butter, margarine______________________________________
Peanut butter _ ______
Lard, vegetable shortening
T a b le, cooking oil
~
M ayon n aise, other salad dressings
Stews, ham burger, frankfurters, fish, etc
Meat, poultry, and fish
_ _ _
Roasts, round steak, pork chops, etc____________________
_
Eggs__________________________
Vegetables: Fresh
_ . _
Canned
_ _ . .
Dried
_ _
Fruits: Fresh__________________
Canned
D ried
Sugar, sweets, and desserts_____
Chocolate.
Beverages
C ondim ents
Steak, chops, rib roast, p oultry, etc
B acon, salt pork
Ego-s
P otatoes, sw eetpotatoes
L ettu ce, asparagus, peas, etc
_ _
Cabbage, snapbeans, carrots, etc________________________
Celery, cauliflower, corn, etc____________________________
Onions, beets, e tc .....
__
Tomatoes______________________________________________
Peas, spinach, etc_
____
_ _
Corn, beets, etc_________________________________________
Tomatoes, tomato products_____________________________
Beans, peas, e t c . _
...
_
_
Citrus fruit
___ _
__
_
Apples, berries, bananas, etc____________________________
Grapefruit, citrus juices___
_ _ _
Peaches, apple products, etc____________________________
Prunes, raisins, etc _
Sugar 2
_
M olasses sirups, jellies, candy
_ _
Packaged desserts______________________________________
N u ts
_ _ _
__
Chocolate and cocoa _ _
_ -
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
Coffee
T ea _
_
_
M a lted m ilk beverage m ixtures
O ther beverages fl 9 4 7 dollar allocation)
_
_ _
Q uart
Condiments (1947 dollar allocation)
289.0
115.3
186.3
116. 0
37. 6
594. 9
67. 0
8. 2
15. 1
27. 0
79. 0
14. 7
58.8
3. 8
20. 8
272. 7
116. 9
33.0
40.9
85. 2
391.0
73.4
175.9
82.4
89.9
60.8
78.2
81.7
47. 6
30.4
238.4
400. 2
14.3
84.6
39. 1
181.7
39. 4
2 .7
7.5
3 .6
36. 2
3 .7
2 .8
$29. 25
$2.98
F ood A w ay F rom H ome (3.6 meals per week, 189 meals per year)
Meals _
Other_____________________ ____
Lunches a t work _
Lunches a.t school
_ __
___
Other meals_____________________________________ ______
Ice cream cones, sodas, sundaes, candy (1947 dollar allo
cation) .
Soft drinks, beer (1947 dollar allocation)________________
Meal
M eal
M eal
_ _
103
74
12
$9. 60
$12. 55
i For additional items included in subgroups see explanatory notes on
ration of 5 pounds per person every 4 months, it was assumed for pricing the
p. 32.
budget for the spring of 1946 that the sugar that could not be purchased was
'Since the quantity of sugar shown in the above table exceeded the 1946
obtained in the form of sirup, jellies, candies, etc
32
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Explanatory Notes:
Additional foods included in specified subgroups are shown below:
F ood a t H om e.
M ajor group
Baked goods and cereal
products.
Meat, poultry, and fish.
Subgroup
Additional foods included
Uncooked cereals, etc____________
Stews, hamburger, frankfurters,
fish, etc.
Roasts, round steak, pork chops,
etc.
Steaks, chops, rib-roast, poultry,
etc.
Vegetables: Fresh_____
Lettuce, asparagus, peas, etc____
Cabbage, snapbeans, carrots, etc.
Celery, cauliflower, com , etc____
Onions, beets, etc,
___________
Canned____
Peas, spinach, etc_______________
Com, beets, etc_________________
Dried______
Fruits: Fresh_________
Tomatoes, tomato products.
Beans, peas, etc____________
Apples, berries, bananas, etc.
Canned.
Peaches, apple products, etc
Dried,.
Prunes, raisins, etc.
Cornmeal, hominy, rice, rolled oats, wheat cereal, tapioca,
sago, spaghetti, noodles, macaroni, cornstarch.
Beefy boding, corned, canned, chuck roast; Veal, stew;
Lamb, stew, roasts other than leg; Pork, fresh, except
chops and loin roast; Liver; Bologna.
Beef, roasts except rib and chuck, dried; Veal, roast;
Lamb, leg; Pork, loin roast, smoked ham (whole, half),
sausage; Poultry, chicken, stewing; Canned, Cooked
meats; Game.
Beef, porterhouse, sirloin steak; Veal, steak, chops; Lamb,
chops; Pork, cooked ham, smoked ham slices; Chickens,
roasting, broiling; Turkey; Other poultry.
Brussel sprouts, lima beans, peppers.
Spinach, winter squash, pumpkin, broccoli, okra, kale,
collards.
Spring onions, eggplant, cucumbers.
Winter onions, parsnips, summer squash, turnips,
rutabagas.
Asparagus, lima beans, snapbeans.
Mushrooms, sauerkraut, soup (except tom ato), pickles,
olives.
Tomato juice, puree, soup, paste, chili sauce, catsup.
Lentils, dry corn, baked beans.
Apricots, cherries, grapes, peaches, pears, pineapples,
plums, melons.
Same fruits as in preceding group and also other canned
fruits, cider, grape juice, noncitrus fruit juices.
Peaches, apricots, dates, figs, currants.
F o o d A w a t F r o m H o m e . The budget allows 21 meals per person per week or 4,368 meals per year for the family.
The
quantities of food presented in the above table provide 4,179 meals to be eaten at home or 80.4 meals per week for the
family. The budget includes the other 189 meals as meals eaten away from home.
Rent, Fuel, and Utilities Budget
Group
Rent of dwelling 12___
W a te r
Electricity 12 2________
Gas i
Heating fu e l14_______
Item
Containing specified number of rooms and installed equipment-- Month__________
(See description of housing standards adopted for the
budget).
C ubic fo o t .
W a te r ....
_
.
_................ . .
For lighting, refrigeration, and electrical appliances_____________ Kilowatt-hour___
For cooking and hot water heating_________________________ ___ Therm
Requirements average 4 ,5 6 5 degree days for 3 4 cities but vary
from city to city
B. t. u.’s - _______
i Requirements specified for fuel and utilities do not apply when the cost
o f these items is included in the m onthly rent figure.
3 If mechanical refrigerator is not furnished in rented dwelling the amortized
cost, equivalent to 6 percent of the purchase price, is a required addition to
the annual cost of rent. It is assumed that a cook stove is normally furnished
with the dwelling. If not, an amount equal to 6 percent of the purchase
price must be added to the annual rent.
3 In some cities electricity is the predominant type of fuel used for cooking
and hot water heating. In these cities 3,360 kilowatt-hours should be sub
stituted for 235 therms of gas.
* Heating fuel requirements vary in relation to the length and severity of
he cold season, type of structure, and type of heating equipment. The
Unit
Quan
tity
per
year
12
9, 6 0 0
1, 2 0 0
235
77
variation caused by climate is measured in standard British thermal units
(convertible to equivalent quantities of coal, fuel oil, etc.) and the normal
number of annual degree days in a given city, as published by the U . 8.
Weather Bureau. The average number of B . t. u .’s required in a given city
may be computed as follows:
M illion of B . t. u .’s « -384.323 + 128.156 times the logarithm of the
normal number of annual degree days.
For example, for M inneapolis the calculation gives 115.8 m illion B . t. u .’s;
for Houston it gives 15.7 m illion B . t. u .’s.
The quantity of the most common type of heating fuel used in a given city
can be determined by converting the required number of B . t. u .’s into the
quantities of the type of fuel used*
33
CITY WORKER'S FA M ILY BUDGET
Hoasefarnishings Budget
The quantities in this list are shown in two forms for convenience of interpretation.
Furniture:
Living room_____________________
Bedroom________________________
Dining room and kitchen________
Other____________________________
Equipment, appliances, tableware and
housewares:
Electrical equipment and appli
ances.
Tableware and housewares
Quantity
per
family
Item
Group
Upholstered davenport, chair (set)____________________
Upholstered davenport_______________________________
Chair, upholstered seat_______________________________
Chair, other__________________________________________
Table, occasional_____________________________________
Desk_________________________________________________
Bookcase_____________________________________________
Bed, chest, dresser (set)______________________________
Chest____1___________________________________________
Bed_________________________ __________________ _____
Bedspring____________________________________________
Cot____________ _____________________________________
Dinette set___________________________________________
Kitchen table________________________________________
Kitchen cabinet______________________________________
Kitchen chair________________________________________
Porch furniture, other unspecified items_______________
0.058
.039
.068
.077
. 116
.029
.019
.048
.048
. 106
. 150
.048
.020
.048
.019
.309
0)
Cook stove___________________________________________
Refrigerator__________________________________________
Washing machine_____________________________________
Ironing machine__ ___________________________________
Sewing machine______________________________________
Vacuum cleaner______________________________________
Lamp________________________________________________
Fan__________________________________________________
Toaster______________________________________________
Iron_________________________________________________
Waffle iron___________________________________________
Dishes, dinner set____________________________________
Water glasses________________________________________
Pressure cooker______________________________________
Pots, pans____________________________________________
Garbage pail_________________________________________
2. 06
*.06
.0 7
.01
.01
.0 6
.2 0
.0 3
.0 4
.0 9
.0 3
. 15
6.00
.0 1
.7 9
.5 0
.0 3
1. 40
.4 0
. 10
1. 00
. 13
8.00
(8)
C arpet sweeper
_
_
_
Broom_______________________________________________
Floor mop____________________________________________
Ironing board________________________________________
Clothespins, box of 2 dozen___________________________
Clock________________________________________________
Electric light bulbs___________________________________
Flat silver, kitchen utensils, insurance on furnishings,
other unspecified items.
Textile housefumishings:
Rugs____________________________
Blankets_________________________
Other bedding___________________
B athroom linen
Axminster, 9' x 12'___________________________________
Wool, scatter, 2 7 " x 4 5 " _____________________________
Cotton, scatter, 2 4 " x 4 8 "____________________________
Wool, 50 percent or more_____________________________
W o o l, less than 5 0 percent.
___
_ _
Cotton_______________________________________________
Sheets________________________________________________
Pillowcases___________________________________________
Pillow________________________________________________
Bedspread____________________________________________
Mattress_____________________________________________
Mattress pad_________________________________________
Bath towel___________________________________________
Hand towel__________________________________________
Face cloth_______ ____________________________________
i Porch furniture and other unspecified items: Cost of this group of items is
9 percent of annual allowance for the itemized furniture items.
* Included in rent if furnished by landlord. See footnote 2, p. 32.
* Flat silver, kitchen utensils, etc.: Cost of this group of items is 15 percent
.0 6
.2 5
.5 0
. 24
. 15
.2 0
2.16
1. 98
.0 3
.2 9
.21
.2 0
3.17
1. 29
2.00
Per year
per 1,000
families
58
39
68
77
116
29
19
48
48
106
150
48
20
48
19
309
0)
60
60
70
10
10
60
200
30
40
90
30
150
6,000
10
790
500
30
1,400
400
100
1, 000
130
8, 000
(*)
60
250
500
240
150
200
2,160
1, 980
30
290
210
200
3,170
1,290
2, 000
of annual allowance for the itemized equipm ent, appliances, tableware and
housewares.
* Slip covers, yard goods, etc.: Cost of this group of items is 9 percent
of annual allowance for the itemized textile housefumishings.
34
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Honsefurnishings Budget—Continued
Item
Textile housefurnishings— Con.
Dining room and kitchen linen____
Luncheon set (cloth, napkins)_________________________
K itch en towel _
See footnotes on preceding page.
640
1, 580
1, 000
2, 000
1, 660
0)
0. 64
1. 58
1. 00
2. 00
1. 66
(4)
__
Dish cloth____________________________________________
Pot holder____________________________________________
Pair__________________________________________________
Slip covers, yard goods, other unspecified furnishings__
W in d o w cu rta in s. ___
O ther .... . _
_
______
Per year
per 1,000
families
Quantity
per
family
Group
Household Operation Budget
Group
Laundry supplies . .
Cleaning supplies. .
Household p a p er...
Matches__________
Other_____________
Quantity
per year
Item
Unit
Laundry soap, bar
_ ___
Laundry soap, flakes, powder_________________________
Laundry starch_______________________________________
Bluing_______________________________________________
Scouring powder______________________________________
Scouring balls, copper________________________________
Polish, furniture______________________________________
Ammonia, household_____ ___________________________
Moth preventative___________________________________
Toilet paper__________________________________________
Wax paper___________________________________________
Shelf lining___________________________________________
Napkins______________________________________________
Matches______________________________________________
Refuse disposal. (Depends on city.) _
......
Bar _
24-ounce package.
Pound__________
B o y __
_ _
Can____________
Ball......................
14-ounce bottle__
Quart
Cake
Boll— 650 sheets.
Roll— 125 feet__
Roll
Package of 8 0 .B oy
72. 7
30.5
8. 3
4. 9
26.3
3 .4
.7
1. 5
2. 6
51.0
3 .7
.4
4. 1
37.5
Clothing Budget
Quantity per
year
Quantity per
year
Group and item
Group and item
Hus
band
Hats:
Felt............................................................
Straw_______________________________
C ap , wool
Cap, cotton_________________________ }
Coats:
0 .7 6
.1 6
.3 4
0 .2 9
.0 2
.3 0
.0 8
Topcoat____________________________
. 15
. 10
R ain coat
.0 8
. 18
.0 3
.0 8
.3 5
. 19
.0 6
.0 4
.8 3
.2 4
.0 6
. 10
.4 4
. 33
.0 5
.0 7
. 19
.3 5
.3 1
.8 9
1.19*
O vercoat
.
_ _ _ ______
_ __
Sweaters, jackets:
Sweater, wool_______________________
Jacket, wool_________________________
Jacket, le a th e r _____
_
_
Jacket, cotton_______________________
Suits:
Wool, heavy weight_________________
Wool, light weight___________________
Tropical worsted
Cotton______________________________
Trousers, slacks, overalls:
Wool
Cotton, dress________________________
Hus
band
Boy
.2 5
Trousers, slacks, overalls— Continued
Cotton, work (boys’, corduroy)______
R ayon
___
_
_
Overalls_____________________________
Coveralls____________________________
Shirts:
C otton , work (h o ys', polo) „
Cotton, other_______________________
R a yo n and cotton _
W o ol
_
_
____
Sportswear:
Slack suit___________________________
Short,s
Bathing suit or trunks_______________
Underwear:
Undershirt, cotton__________________
U ndershirt, part-w ool
TTnderdrawers, cotton
TTnderdrawers, part-w ool
Union suit, cotton _ _
__ _
_
_ _
Union suit, part-wool_______________
Boy
0. 30
.0 3
. 50
.3 3
0.51
2.21
2.69
. 12
. 10
1. 00
2.68
.2 9
.0 5
. 13
. 54
. 16
.3 5
3.07
. 17
3.41
. 15
.4 6
.2 6
2 .32
.0 4
2.77
. 14
.5 8
. 14
35
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
Clothing Budget—Continued
Quantity per
year
Quantity per
year
Group and item
Group and item
Hus
band
Nightwear:
P ajam as, cotton _
Pajam as, flannelette
Bath-mho, wool
_ _ _
___
0. 71
. 13
.0 8
0. 54
.1 3
Socks:
C otton , dross
C otton , hoavy
R a yo n
___ T_
W o o l. _.
.
___
.
_
_
. __ _
_ _
. _ _ ___
5.
4.
2.
.
Wife
Boy
84
79 } l0 . 36
38
51
. 11
Shoes:
Skirts:
W ool __________________________________
Cotton______________________________
Blouses:
Cotton______________________________
R ayon _
Housewear, sportswear:
Apron, smock_______________________
Overalls, slacks______________________
Shorts
Loath or, work _
__
_ _
Street_______________________________
Fabric______________________________
Boots_______________________________
H ou se slippers . . ________
Rubbers, arctics:
Rubbers____________________________
Arctics ________________ ______________
Accessories:
G loves, cotton
.
Gloves, leather___________ ___________
Gloves, wool________________________
Handkerchiefs_______________________
T ie
Belt_________________________________
S u s p e n d e r s . _ ..
Shoe repairs:
Half soles and heels (number)_______
Heels only (number)________________
Dry cleaning:
.8 0
1. 23 } 2.87
.0 4
. 12
. 15
.0 6
.0 4
. 17
.2 9
.0 8
.2 3
.21
3. 95
. 35
. 26
6.42
3. 05
. 50
.5 0
. 12
.2 9
. 33
3. 23
1. 36
1.00
1. 50
.2 0
2.00
Playsuit____________________________
House coat, cotton (girls' bathrobe)..
H ou se coat, raynn
B athing suit
_____
Underwear:
Slip, rayon__________________________
Slip, cotton_________________________
Panties, cotton______________________
Panties, rayon
Panties, part-w ool
___
_
Underwaist, cotton__________________
TTnderwaiRt, part-w ool
Union suit, cotton ...
____
Union suit, rayon ____________________
Union suit, part-wool________________
Brassiere
___
__
Girdle, corset________________________
Nightwear:
N ightgow n, p ajam as, cotton
. . . . .. . .
Nightgown, pajamas, rayon __________
D r y cleaning, pressing (garm ent)
9.00
Other:
Cleaning supplies (1947 dollar alloca
tion) ______________________________ $0.25
M iscellaneous accessories
___
P)
N igh tgow n , flannelette.
B athrobe, wool
$0. IS
0
Wife
Girl
0 .1 6
.0 6
0 .40
.0 8
.2 0
.2 8
.8 8
.0 7
.5 5
.2 7
.1 1
.4 6
.1 8
.0 6
. 13
2.11
.4 7
2. 44
.0 8
.2 5
.0 5
.0 8
.0 3
1. 21
.7 2
.4 6
. 69
. 19
.0 5
Felt.
Straw, fabric________________________
Cap, beret
.
_ _ _
Head scarf__________________________
Coats:
Heavy, with fur____________________
With no fur_________________________
L igh t, wool
1. 06
. 61
. 13
.2 3
0. 45
.2 8
. 27
.2 0
. 16
. 12
.2 3
. 32
.3 3
.3 7
. 14
Snow suit___________________________
Raincoat. .
_
.01
Sweaters:
_
____
. .
Cotton______________________________
Jackets:
W o ol
. _ _ ___ . _ _
____
Cotton______________________________
Suits: W ool_____________________________
W o ol
W ool________
Cotton, street.
House dress..
Rayon_______
.31
.0 6
.5 9
.0 4
Stockings, rayon 8 _ _
Stockings, nylon 8
.......
Stockings, cotton _____________________
Socks, anklets, cotton_____________ _
Socks, anklets, wool______________. . .
}
.1 3
. 11
.1 8
.13
1.10
3.08
1.17
1. 72
.2 4
* Miscellaneous accessories: Cost of this group of items is a specified percent of the annual allowance of clothing per person. The percents are as
follows: Husband and wife, 3 percent; boy and girl, 2 percent.
Leather _ _ _
Fabric
_
H ou se slippers
____
_________
Rubbers, arctics:
Rubbers_____________ _______________
Arctics______________________________
Accessories:
G loves, cotton .
___
_
Gloves, leather_______________________
Gloves, rayon___ ____________________
Gloves, w ool________________________
H an d ba g
H andkerchief
Umbrella___________________________
Y a rd goods, cotton (yards)
.0 4
. 80
.1 3
.2 8
.3 4
1. 22
3.3 0
1. 37
.2 3
1. 26
.3 7
.4 2
.0 9
. 39
.3 1
.2 4
.0 8
Hosiery:
. 99
10.09
. 19
1. 61
Socks, anklets, rayon________________
Shoes:
Hats:
Girl
_
Shoe repairs:
Half soles and heels (number)_______
H eel lifts (num ber)
D r y cleaning, pressing (garm ent)
..............
Other:
Cleaning supplies (1947 dollar alloca
tion).
Miscellaneous accessories_____________
11.80
.3 4
.4 0
2.18
. 38
.4 6
a 24
. 15
.2 9
.0 5
. 17
. 51
.5 2
.21
. 16
.0 4
.8 6
3.44
. . 14
3.00
.0 3
. 15
.0 3
.6 3
.2 4
1. 95
.0 6
3.00
.5 0
2. 50
8.00
1. 50
$0. 20
$0.10
P)
(‘)
* Estimated allocation for spring of 1946 was 10.01 rayon stockings and 1.07
nylon stockings,
36
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Explanatory Notes:
Method of adjusting annual purchases of clothing for
intercity variations caused by climatic factors:
The basic clothing budget is the average for United
States cities. For each city, the quantities of specified
clothing articles, grouped as “ heavy” and “ light” items,
are adjusted upwards or downwards in accordance with
local climatic conditions. The basis of the adjustment is
the normal number of annual degree days. Degree days
are defined as the sum of the deviations below 65° in the
daily mean temperature, as published by the U. S. Weather
Bureau. The adjustment factors are stated as percent
ages of the average for all cities. For the group of “ heavy”
articles, the percentage adjustment factors for a given
city are related to the number of degree days as follows:
Men and boys: 64.44-0.0072 X normal number of
annual degree days.
Women: 54.24-0.0093 X normal number of annual
degree days.
Girls: 18.74-0.0165 X normal number of annual degree
days.
For the group of “ light” articles, the adjustment factors
are obtained as follows:
Men and boys: 148.8—0.0099 X normal number
of annual degree days.
Women: 107.9—0.0016 X normal number of annual
degree days.
Girls: 111.3—0.0023 X normal number of annual de
gree days.
The clothing articles classified as heavy and light are
listed below.
Heavy Items of Clothing
Husband
Hat, felt.
Overcoat.
Topcoat.
Jacket, wool.
Jacket, leather.
Suit, wool, heavy weight.
Trousers, wool.
Shirt, wool.
Undershirt, part-wool.
Underdrawers, part-wool.
Unionsuit, part-wool.
Pajamas, flannelette.
Rubbers.
Arctics.
Gloves, cotton.
Gloves, leather.
Gloves, wool.
Boy
Hat, felt.
Cap, wool.
Overcoat.
Topcoat.
Jacket, wool.
Jacket, leather.
Suit, wool, heavy weight.
Trousers, wool.
Undershirt, part-wool.
Underdrawers, part-wool.
Unionsuit, part-wool.
Pajamas, flannelette.
Rubbers.
Arctics.
Gloves, cotton.
Gloves, leather.
Gloves, wool.
Wife
Girl
Hat, felt.
Coat, wool, heavy weight,
with fur.
Coat, wool, heavy weight,
no fur.
Dress, wool.
Arctics.
Rubbers.
Gloves, cotton.
Gloves, leather.
Gloves, rayon.
Gloves, wool.
Hat, felt.
Snow suit.
Coat, wool, heavy weight,
no fur.
Dress, wool.
Panties, part-wool.
Underwaist, part-wool.
Unionsuit, part-wool.
Nightgown, pajamas, flan
nel.
Socks, wool.
Arctics.
Rubbers.
Gloves, wool.
Gloves, cotton.
Gloves, leather.
Light Items of Clothing
Hat, straw.
Raincoat.
Jacket, cotton.
Suit, wool, light weight.
Suit, tropical worsted.
Suit, cotton.
Trousers, cotton, dress.
Trousers, cotton, work.
Shorts.
Shirts, cotton, work.
Shirts, cotton, other.
Shirts, cotton and rayon.
Slack suit.
Bathing suit.
Undershirt, cotton.
Underdrawers, cotton.
Unionsuit, cotton.
Pajamas, cotton.
Hat, straw.
Cap, cotton.
Raincoat.
Jacket, cotton.
Suit, wool, light weight.
Trousers, cotton.
Shorts.
Shirt, cotton, polo.
Shirt, cotton, other.
Slack suit.
Bathing trunks.
Undershirt, cotton.
Underdrawers, cotton.
Unionsuit, cotton.
Pajamas, cotton.
Hat, straw, fabric.
Coat, wool, light weight.
Raincoat.
Overalls, slacks.
Bathing suit.
Shorts.
Hat, straw, fabric.
Coat, wool, light weight.
Raincoat.
Play suit.
Overalls.
Bathing suit.
37
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
Medical Care Budget
Quantity per year
Group and item
Medical, surgical procedures:
Physicians’ calls— home 1_________________________
Physicians’ calls— office 1_________________________
Tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy____________________
Appendectomy___________________________________
Other surgical procedures_________________________
Nursing care: ~
Private nurse— graduate__________________________
Private nurse— practical__________________________
Eye care:
Refraction_______________________________________
Lenses___________________________________________
Frames__________________________________________
Dental care:
Prophylaxis______________________________________
Extractions______________________________________
Fillings__________________________________________
Crowns__________________________________________
Bridges and dentures_____________________________
X -ra y ___________________________________________
Hospital service:
Group hospitalization insurance p la n 2___________
X -ra y ___________________________________________
Laboratory services______________________________
Physiotherapy services___________________________
Anaesthesia______________________________________
Other medical services, not in hospital:
X —ray___________________________________________
Laboratory services______________________________
Physiotherapy services___________________________
Prescriptions_________________________________________
Drugs and medical supplies* (1947 dollar allocation)
Unit
Family
of 4
persons
Hus
band
Wife
Boy
Each_________
_____ do_______
_____ do_______
......... do_______
......... do_______
4. 458
11. 476
. 133
.027
. 187
0. 775
3. 087
. 018
.004
. 040
1. 569
4.552
.014
.007
.067
0.864
1. 806
.035
.010
.047
1. 250
2.031
.066
. 006
. 033
D a y _________
_____ do_______
.391
.644
. 000
.042
.217
.452
.088
.081
.086
. 069
Each_________
Pair_________
_____ do_______
.332
.316
. 133
.059
.059
. 021
. 120
. 118
. 042
.086
.079
.040
.067
.060
. 030
Case_________
1. 596
1. 104
4.066
. 155
. 170
. 236
.328
. 272
. 762
.065
.058
.081
.451
.442
1. 277
.081
. 108
. 109
.462
. 164
1. 152
.008
.003
.028
.355
. 226
. 875
.001
.001
.018
. 059
.247
. 013
.347
.012
.058
.004
.062
.022
.090
.005
.088
. 011
. 045
.002
.092
. 014
. 054
. 002
. 105
. 126
. 105
. 076
2.979
$12. 60
.027
.026
. 019
.566
.035
.031
. 028
.818
. 027
. 018
. 012
.690
.037
. 030
. 017
.905
Each ___
......... do_______
_____ do_______
Case_________
C ase_________
Family mem
bership.
Case
_____ do_______
......... do_______
Each
Case
_____ do_______
_____do_______
E a ch
i Physicians* office calls include clinic calls, both public and private,
specialists* calls and calls of nonmedical practitioners, such as osteopaths,
faithjhealers, etc.
* The budget includes one family membership in a group hospitalization
insurance plan in cities where such plans exist and do not exclude any sizable
proportion of the population. In places where plans are not available to all
families the budget allows the following days of hospital care:
Days per
year
Husband.........................................................................................0.626
W ife.............................................................................................. 1.019
B oy.............................................................- .............................. - . 694
Girl.....................................................................................................495
Group hospitalization insurance plans vary as to the extent of X-ray,
laboratory, physiotherapy, and anaesthesia services which they offer. When
a group hospitalization plan is included in the budget, the following qualifi
cations apply to the hospital X -ray, laboratory* and physiotherapy weights
presented in the above tables:
_
Girl
1. 000
(a) When a group hospitalization plan includes complete coverage of X-ray,
laboratory, ana physiotherapy services, the budget excludes separate weights
for hospital services of this type.
(b) w hen a group hospitalization plan offers no X -ray, laboratory or
physiotherapy services, the budget includes separate weights for hospital
services of this type.
(c) When a plan offers some but not all of these services, the budget in
cludes the portion of hospital services not covered by the plan.
In places where hospital plans are not available, the budget includes
separate weights for hospital X -ray, laboratory, physiotherapy, and anaes
thesia.
* Included as m edical supplies are bandage, gauze, ice bag, thermometer,
etc.
N ote.—W here “ case** has been entered as a unit of quantity, it represents
the various services attendant upon an illness, operation, etc., for a family
member. A case of X -ray, for example, may involve one or a series of visits,
either for diagnosis or treatment.
38
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Transportation Bndget
Quantity per year in
cities with popula
tion of—
Group and item
Unit
50.000 to
1.900.000
Automobile owners— lfiOO fam ilies______________________________________
Automobile:
Gasoline_____________________________________________ _____________
Oil— ...................................................................................................... ..........
T ires1______________________________ ~_____________________________
Tubes____________________________ - _______________________________
Insurance 2___________ ____________________________________________
Registration_______________________________________________________
Inspection*
. ...
__ _
_
_
_ __ __
Operator's permit., renewal
.
_
■Repairs and replacements 4 (1947 Hollar allocations)
Parking and garage rent
Tolls, fines, damages, accessories, and automobile association dues
Allowance for automobile purchase (1947 dollar allocations)
Public transportation:
Local __ __
. ___
_ ____
Trips out of c it y 7_________________________________________________
Moving household effects—
L oca l8 (1947 dollar allocations)_______________________________
T o another city®
740
400
435. 00
43. 5
1. 18
.4 7
.4 5
1. 00
435. 00
43. 50
1. 18
.4 7
.4 5
1. 00
2. 00
$15. 14
(5)
(*)
$106. 75
2. 00
$15. 14
(5)
(«)
$106. 75
Ride________________
Railroad mile_______
145. 00
98. 80
295. 00
98.80
Mile........................... ..
$4.66
16.38
$4. 66
16.38
Gallon______________
Quart_______________
Each___
_____do______________
Annual policy_______
Nonautomobile owners— 1,000 fam ilies__________________________________
Public transportation:
Local_____________________________________________________________ R ide
Trips out of city__________________________________________________ Railroad mile_______
Moving to another c it y 7________________ __________________________ _____do__, ___________
Moving household effects—
L oca l8 (1947 dollar allocations)_______________________________
T o another city ®
__
___
» Tires,-—Includes 0.97 new and 0.21 recapped tires. Estimated allocation
for the spring of 1946 was 0.88 new tires and 0.30 recaps for tires owned by
automobile owner.
* Insurance.—The weight of 0.45, i. e., 45 percent of the automobile owners,
is applicable to all cities o f60,000 or more in States where automobile insurance
is not compulsory. In cities in States where it is compulsory, a weight of
1.00 is substituted.
* Inspection fee.—Periodic inspection of automobiles is required in some but
not all cities. For each city in which inspection is required and a fee charged,
the appropriate weight is to be used, e. g., if semiannual inspection is required
a weight of 2.0, etc.
* Repair and replacement.—$15.14 is the average cost in 1947 of 34 cities.
This total varies for individual cities according to differences in cost of labor
and parts.
* Parking and garage rent.—Cost of this group is a specified percent of the
1,900,000
or more
M ile
.
__________
260
600
855. 00
235. 60
16. 38
925. 00
372. 40
16.38
$4. 66
16. 38
$4.66
16.38
total of operating costs listed above, as follows: 3.7 percent for cities with
populations 50,000 to 1,900,000; and 6.5 percent for cities with populations
1,900,000 or more.
• Tolls, fines, etc.—Cost of this group is 1 percent of the total of operating
costs listed above.
7 Trips out of city.—The number of miles shown represents one trip, totaling
760 railroad miles each year, for the following proportions of families: Auto
m obile owner: all cities, 13 percent; nonautomobile owner—cities with popu
lation 50,000 to 1,900,000, 31 percent, and cities with population 1,900,000 or
more, 49 percent.
s Local moving.—$4.66 is the average cost in 1947 of 34 cities. This total
varies for individual cities according to regional differences in m oving rates.
•Moving to another city.—The number of miles shown represents one m ove
of 390 miles each year for 4.2 percent of the families.
39
CITY WORKER’ S FA M ILY BUDGET
Beading and Recreational Budget
Group
Quan
tity
per
year
Item
Explanatory Notes:
Additional items included in specified subgroups are as
follows:
Subgroup and additional items included
Paid admissions.
Other_______
Newspapers__________________ 365.0
M agazines _
_
____
32.0
1.0
Books_______________________
Paid admissions - - Movies, adults_______________ 34 4
Movies, b oy _________________ 26. 1
Movies, girl__________________ 17. 3
40
Plays, concerts, sport events. .
Purchase____________________
Radio
. 11
Repairs______________________
(*)
Ot.hfir
Unspecified recreational items.
(2)
Reading materials
Plays, concerts,
sport events.
Unspecified rec
reational items.
Bowling, dances,tennis,
golf, etc.
Hobbies, toys, games,
social and recrea
tional club dues;
party favors and ac
cessories; supplies,
equipment, and li
censes for pets.
i Radio repairs.—Cost of this item is 45 percent of the annual allowance for
radio purchase.
* Unspecified recreational items.—Cost of this group of items is 28.5 percent
of total cost of reading material, movie admissions, and radio purchase.
Personal Care Budget
Unit
Group and item
Services:
Husband,
Wife____
Children .
Commodities:
Husband.
Wife.
All family members
14.6
1.7
4 .2
2.9
Haircut________
Shave__________
Haircut________
Finger wave____
Permanent wave.
Shampoo_______
Haircut, b o y .__
Haircut, girl____
Razor___________
Razor blades____
Shaving brush__
Shaving cream. ..
Shaving soap___
Shaving lotion__
Face powder____
Cold cream_____
Rouge com pact..
Lipstick_________
Hand lotion_____
Nail polish______
Deodorant______
Sanitary supplies.
Cleansing tissues.
Toilet soap_____
Toothpaste_____
Tooth powder___
Mouth wash____
Toothbrush_____
Hairbrush______
Comb___________
Quantity
per year
.6
.8
9.6
4 .7
.2
Package of 5.
7 .7
6-ounce tube____
Cake___________
5-ounce bottle__
2.5ounce box________
3.5ounce box________
Large size______
Small___________
13M-ounce bottle
Small size______
lM-ounce jar____
Box of 12_______
Box of 200______
Cake....................
3-ounce tube___
4.5ounce can________
14-ounce bottle—
2.2
.2
3. 2
.2
1.0
1.0
.5
1.0
.2
1.0
1 .5
10.0
4 .0
67. 1
10.2
1.0
1.4
6.0
.5
1.0
40
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Tobacco Budget
Item and unit
Cigarettes (pack)...................................................
Cigars (each)________________________________
Pipe tobacco (1%-ounce)___________ __________
School Expense Budget
Quantity per
year
166. 8
38. 6
20.1
Communication Budget
Quantity per
year
Item
Telephone calls, coin box____________________
Stamps, 3-cent---------------------------------------------Writing supplies (1947 dollar allocation)---------
145
65
$1. 25
Gifts, Contributions, and Miscellaneous Budgets
Gifts and Contributions. This group includes Christmas,
birthday, and other presents to persons outside the im
mediate family and contributions to church and charities.
Cost is 2.7 percent of total cost of goods and services.
Miscellaneous Items. This group includes lodging away
from home, music and dancing lessons for the children,
legal expenses, and other unspecified items. Cost of these
items is 1 percent of total cost of goods and services.
Item:
Instructional supplies
Athletic supplies
Associations, entertainment
Quantity per year:
As required in each community for boy (in ninth
grade) and for girl (in third grade)
Explanatory Notes:
(1) The budget assumes both children attend public
school and purchase only those items third and ninth
grade pupils are expected to have and which are not sup
plied free by the school.
(2) Additional items included in specified subgroups
are as follows:
Additional items in subgroup
Instructional sup
plies.
Textbooks, writing supplies, maps,
crayons, laboratory fees, work
shop supplies, classroom sub
scriptions to periodicals, instruc
tional trips and excursions.
Athletic supplies____ Fees for gymnasium locker, lock,
towels; athletic equipment and
clothing.
Associations, enter Student body associations, school
tainment.
entertainments in which pupils
participate.
Occupational Expenses, Insurance, and Taxes
Occupational Expenses. Dues to unions, business or pro
fessional associations; special clothing and equipment re
quired for the occupation. These items, which are in
cluded in the estimated total cost of the budget as an
average outlay of $22, should be determined for each
individual situation.
Insurance. A life insurance policy to provide for the
family during a period of adjustment in event of the death
of the breadwinner. The premium should be determined
for individual situations by taking into account the group
insurance in effect. Insurance is included in the estimated
total cost of budget at the average outlay of $85.
Taxes. Personal taxes, poll taxes, and other capitation
taxes; income taxes, Federal, State, and local taxes are in
cluded in the estimated total cost of the budget as legally
required in each city.
Family Budgets:
A Historical Survey
D o r o th y S. B r a d y 1
T h e l e v e l o f l i v i n g expressed in a family budget,
of course, varies from time to time, and from place
to place, according to the customs and standards
of the society and the productivity of the economy.
That the level of living necessary for social satis
faction does not rest on material needs alone was
recognized by Aristotle:
Man, nevertheless, being human, needs some ex
ternal prosperity. His nature alone is not sufficient
to support his thinking; it needs bodily health, food,
and care of every kind. We must not however sup
pose that, because one cannot be happy without some
external goods, a great variety of such goods is neces
sary for happiness. For neither self-sufficiency nor
moral action demands excess of such things. We can
do noble deeds without being lords of land and sea, for
moderate means will enable a person to act virtuously.**
Y et the slow progress of economic development,
and the recurrent plagues and famines had left
unsatisfied so many of the basic wants that as late
as the fourteenth century Langland supposedly
sang in Piers Plowman:
These three, no more; but three are needful,
The one is clothing to save thee from chill,
The one is meat, for thy health’s sake,
The third is drink when thou driest. *
By the sixteenth century, Sir Thomas More had
visions in Utopia of a level of living that would
include windows in every cottage and meat once
1 Of the Bureau's Prices and Cost of Living Division. Mrs. Brady also
prepared the article on Budget Levels for Families of Different Sizes (p. 49)
* Aristotle: On Man in the Universe, Ethics Book V II.
•Piers Plowman, Passus 1,20. Circa 14th Century.
a week; but he realized that these might be among
the “ many things in the Utopian weal publique,
which in our cities I may rather wisshe for then
hoope after.” This was simply a recognition o f
the reality of want in a world where the simplest
requirements could not be realized. Sir Thomas,
even in his Utopian dreams, could not look for
ward two centuries to the time when freedom and
invention had made much more than his wish
possible; to the time when English social scientists
compared estimates of family needs and actual
living patterns with all the assurance that their
studies revealed not only the need but also the
possibility for social action to eliminate levels o f
living below acceptable standards.
During the seventeenth century England be
came the most advanced country in Europe in
mining and manufacturing, with a general level o f
living higher than in any other country. The
living conditions of wage earners were improving
but the agricultural population remained at a low
level of subsistence. It was in this period of
growth in material welfare that the “ political
arithmeticians” began to describe the economy in
statistical terms and to measure the minimum level
of living. Gregory King 4prepared his remarkable
picture of the economic level of western countries
toward the end of that century. France and
other countries sent technical experts to study
English methods of manufacturing and these
observers returned with the conviction that free
dom, invention, and high levels of living among
all population groups were interrelated.
Development of Statistical Studies
Statistical studies of family living began in the
nineteenth century as the advance of modern
industrialism promised improvement in living con
ditions of the masses of the population. Signifi
cantly it was two engineers who gave lasting impe
tus to this kind of study at a time when the
European nations were again trying to imitate the
the progress of England. Frederic Le Play began
a long series of intensive studies of individual
families in the 1830's. Ernst Engel, a student of
< King, Gregory: Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions
upon the State and Condition of England, 1698.
41
42
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
Le Play’s, analyzed the data collected by Le Play
and E. Ducpetiaux 6 and formulated his theory of
the relationship between income and the propor
tionate expenditures on food, which was published
in 1895.
The intense belief in the possibility and desira
bility of improvement in living conditions began to
stimulate statistical studies of living conditions in
the United States during the years after the Civil
War. State bureaus of labor statistics made more
than 100 studies of family living between 1870
and 1900 and the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics began making such studies in 1888, as
instructed by the Congress.
The bureau of statistics of labor of the State
of Massachusetts, under the guidance first of
Henry Kemble Oliver and then of Carroll D .
Wright, carried through many studies which
became the pattern for the work of other States
and the Federal Government. The results of a
survey on housing conditions in Boston were
presented in the first annual report of that agency
in language to arouse the public conscience.8 In
the seventeenth annual report (1886), Wright
published a study of Food Consumption in which
Prof. W. O. Atwater studied the data in terms
of nutrition; and in a cost-of-living section in the
fifteenth annual report (1884), he presented
statistical analyses of the Massachusetts surveys
made in 1875 and 1879, comparing the results
with Engel’s analyses of Belgian data and with
English studies.
Carroll D . Wright, as the first Commissioner of
Labor, was responsible for investigations of
fam ily living on a scale scarcely matched since
that time.
The adequacy of the level of living displayed in
these statistical studies was generally appraised
by the simple financial criterion, the balance
between income and expenditures. If the average
worker’s family at a certain income had managed
• Ducpetiaux, in charge of a questionnaire study conducted by the Belgian
Statistical Bureau, made many comparisons of the adequacy of worker's
fam ily living with other population groups.
||to An example: “ Now the owners of the heathenish dens which we have
visited, reeking with pestilent filth, and germinating the spores of disease—
dens contrived and constructed as with a purposed stoppage of light and air,
G od's free, priceless gift to all, yet given to all without money and without
price, seem not only to act on the principle of getting the most money for the
least good supplied, with little regard to weal of individual or of society, but
to act, also, on the principle of shutting out, besides, all the light and air of
wholesome morals, thus robbing the soul of its normal rights, as they have the
body of the decencies of life /'
to “ save” something out of that income over the
course of the year, it was concluded that that
income was sufficient to provide the family needs.•
7
At the same time, a large number of the studies
introduced observations on the adequacy of the
housing conditions of the workers’ families, and
accordingly helped to focus public attention on
the need for improving urban housing.
Because of significant changes in the price level
and a growing awareness of the substantial differ
ences in the prices of the same goods and services
in different places, it was realized around the
beginning of this century that the uses of budget
levels (such as the balance of expenditures and
income), based simply on studies of family expen
ditures, were definitely limited. Such determina
tions could not be applied to later dates if the price
level had changed. They could not be applied
to different localities without first ascertaining
whether the prices in the different places were
the same. Studies of family living expenditures
began in the twentieth century to include more
and more data on the quantities of goods purchased.
The comprehensive survey made by the U. S.
Department of Labor in 1901 included data on
the quantity and cost of the important foods
purchased. The survey made by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in 1917—19 included data on
quantities of foods, clothing, furnishings, and
some miscellaneous articles. The studies made
by Federal agencies since 1930 have further in
creased the information recorded on the quantities
of goods and services purchased.
Quantity Budgets of Goods and Services
This development in the basic studies of family
living made possible the construction of quantity
budgets (lists of goods and services) in a realistic
manner. While budget fists have been based on
an individual’s experience, only those with a basis
in statistical fact have been given any widespread
recognition. To a large extent, in this country,
7 A large number of the studies compared their findings with those of
Ernst Engel. The writers appeared to be groping for a position in the
scale of expenditure percentages that could be used as a norm. Such an idea
has persisted to the extent that recent discussions of the housing problem have
made use variously of a figure of 20 or 25 percent as the “ standard” propor
tion of income that should be spent on housing. For a discussion of the
indefinite basis for such “ standards,” see Helen M . Humes: Rent and
Income, What Is the Relationship? in The Journal of Housing, April 1946
(pp. 72, 73).
FA M ILY BUDGETS.* A HISTORICAL SURVEY
quantity budgets 8 were constructed initially upon
request of some legal authority; and the determi
nation of the budget level was, to a considerable
extent, dependent upon the immediate use to be
made of the results.
In accordance with an act of Congress approved
in 1907, which provided for an investigation of the
condition of women and child workers, the Com
missioner of Labor prepared, with other informa
tion, a study of living conditions and the cost of
a “ minimum standard of hving,, and the cost of a
“ fair standard of living” in cotton-mill communi
ties. These were the first budgets in this country
expressed in quantities of goods and services to
which prices were applied in the determination
of the total cost of the budget.
In 1917, Prof. William F. Ogburn of the Univer
sity of Washington on the request of the Arbitration
Board for the Seattle Street Railway Industry,
prepared a detailed budget for families of street
railway employees which became known as a
“ minimum com fort budget.”
In 1915, the New York City Bureau of Personal
Service in cooperation with the Bureau of Munici
pal Research prepared a budget for the purpose of
standardizing the salaries of city employees. For
the same reason the Bureau of Municipal Research
of Philadelphia prepared a budget with calculations
of its cost in 1917.
A t the request of the Joint Reclassification Com
mittee of the Congress in 1919, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics prepared “ tentative” quantity
and cost budgets for a Government worker’s family
of five persons and for a single man and single
woman in Government service.
Professor Ogburn presented an adaptation of the
Government worker budget for coal mining fami
lies with calculations of its cost, for the U. S.
Bituminous Coal Commission, in January 1920.
For the calculation of the cost of the budget,
Professor Ogburn used prices collected by agents
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in several coal
mining communities.
§gpn June 1920, the Bureau published a quantity
budget for a worker’s family of five but did not
present any calculations of its cost.
§§:In 1921, the California State Civil Service Com
mission appointed a special committee to prepare*
* Except those constructed by welfare agencies for use in determining family
allowances.
43
budgets for laborers’, clerks’, and executives’
families and for unmarried clerks, male and female.
These budgets were the forerunners of those pre
pared and priced annually by the Heller Com
mittee for Research in Social Economics of the
Department of Economics of the University of
California. Arbitration boards and commissions
in the period immediately after World War I were
responsible for many determinations of the cost
of family budgets, which sometimes were adapta
tions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics budgets and
sometimes budgets specially developed.
Beginning in 1919, the National Industrial
Conference Board prepared budgets and estimated
their cost for a number of specific industrial
communities.
All of these budgets recognized nutritional needs
in the construction of the list of foods; most of
them accepted the generally available housing in
determining the housing cost; all of them included
some provision for recreation and education.
M ost of them were developed by “ common sense
judgment” from data on family expenditures in
the area*
Change in Budget Concept
The remarkable center of all the discussions of
family budgets in the period after the First W orld
War was the unexpressed faith that the United
States economy could approach a level unmatched
in all of human history in providing a tolerable
level of living to all families. Employers and
employers’ organizations also made budgets for
specific situations and these budgets fundament
ally agreed more than they differed with the
budgets prepared by Government agencies or
academic groups. When it appeared that budget
totals implied a far greater national income than
existed at the time, the reaction was not an echo
of Sir Thomas M ore’s pessimism but rather a
puzzled “ something must be wrong with our
calculations.” Perhaps it was wrong to compare
the budget with the earnings of one individual,
especially in view of the pressures to allow women
to enter the labor force in almost all occupations
with equal pay for equal work. Perhaps it was
wrong to assume that all workers support four
or five persons on their earnings.
Many of these conceptual problems might have
44
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN TH E UNITED STATES
been solved before now but for the depression of
the 1930’s which presented a new and difficult
challenge. In 1936, the Works Progress Ad
ministration published Quantity Budgets for
Basic Maintenance and Emergency Standards of
Living. The very names of these budgets convey
the outlook during most of the decade, and the
reasons for [to quote the reportj “ an effort to set
up a technique for determining the cost of main
taining an adequate standard of living at the
lowest economic level, and to establish quantity
estimates of goods and services necessary to
maintain that standard, on the basis of which
costs at an identical standard in different localities
may be compared. Because of the economic
situation prevailing during the period within
which this budget was constructed, an attempt
was also made to ascertain how cuts below this
basic maintenance standard may be made under
emergency conditions, with least harm to indi
viduals and the social group. While the approach
to this study has necessarily been from the stand
point of relief, the resulting budgets are applicable
generally, with little or no modification, to lowcost living in urban areas, and should be of service
in any field where information of this nature is
required.”
Although these budgets served their purpose of
appraising relief, in both the original calculations
of their cost in March 1935 and the later estimates
prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics they
presented a problem of long standing: the varia
tions in the cost of the same goods and services ®
from place to place.
After the Nation entered the Second World War
and workers were induced to migrate to centers of
war production, these place-to-place variations
became important. The budgets typical of the
depression decade point of view proved an inade
quate tool to use for measuring place-to-place
differences or for the determination of budget
levels for such purposes as an appraisal of income
tax exemptions. Congressman Albert Engel of
Michigan expressed in remarks on this subject a
dissatisfaction 10 with the lack of information on *
* W ith proper recognition of the climatic factor.
m “ Unless the Labor Department can give us cost of living figures based on
the right of every American to a decent living, including decent food, decent
housing and decent clothing, it had better discontinue publishing informa
tion along this line.” Congressional Record, 79th Congress, 1st Session, V ol.
91, Part 2, pp. 2442-2449.
this subject, and later the Congressional Subcom
mittee of which he was a member instructed the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to supply the necessary
information. The budget the Bureau has prepared
in accordance with this directive is being presented
under circumstances similar to those when the
budget was prepared by the Bureau in 1919: prices
had increased to a high level compared to the
experience of the previous two decades. The same
uses will be made, the same questions will be
asked, and the search for a solution to the con
ceptual problem interrupted by the depression and
the Second W orld War will have to be resumed.
After the First World War, far-reaching changes
occurred in the variety and abundance of goods
available to the great m ajority of families in the
United States. Such foods as milk, citrus fruits,
and canned juices became important in customary
diets. Electric power and indoor plumbing were
installed in the ordinary urban household. Small
electric appliances as well as mechanical refrigera
tors and washing machines and automobiles came
within the buying range of the average family.
Ready-made clothing at reasonably low prices
made its appearance and silk hose were trans
formed from a luxury to a necessity. Similar
developments in this period after the Second
World War may well assure the continuation of
our progress toward providing all families with the
“ necessaries of life.”
The budget describes in statistical terms the
challenge to our economic order. A t the present
time, this country comes close to providing all
groups in the population with at least the neces
saries of life that are the prerequisites of an inven
tive and productive population. Is it possible to
continue to progress until there are no households
living in want and insecurity? Or will the cost
of the essential goods and services become so pro
hibitive that large segments of the population
will, here as in other times and places, sink to a
level of mere subsistence?
Selected Bibliography on Family Budgets
Labour and L ife of the People in London. By Charles
Booth. Williams and Norgate, 1891; and Macmillan
& Co., 1892.
Standards of Living in New York City. By Robert Coit
Chapin. New York. Charities Publication Com
mittee, 1909.
FAM ILY BUDGETS: A HISTORICAL SURVEY
The Standard o f Living Among the Industrial People of
America. By Frank Hatch Streightoff. Houghton
and Mifflin Co., 1911.
Cost o f a Workingman’s Standard of Living in Philadelphia
at August 1920 Prices. Bureau of Municipal Research
of Philadelphia, September 1920.
Standards o f Living, A Compilation of Budgetary Studies.
Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., Bulletin No. 7,
1920.
The Cost o f Living' Among Wage Earners, N. Hudson
County, N. J., January 1920. National Industrial
Conference Board, Special Report No. 7.
The Cost o f Living Among Wage Earners, Cincinnati, O/wo,
May
National Industrial Conference Board,
Special Report No. 13.
The Cost o f Living Among Wage Earners, Greenville, &. C.,
Pelzer, S. C. and Charlottet N. C.; January and Feb
ruary 1920. National Industrial Conference Board,
Special Report No. 8.
45
Family Budgets of American Wage Earners, A Critical
Analysis. National Industrial Conference Board, Re
search Report No. 41. New York. Century Com
pany, September 1921.
The New Survey o f London L ife and Labour, Volume 8,
Survey of Social Conditionsf the Eastern Area. London
School of Economics and Political Science. P. S. King
and Sons, 1932.
Quantity Budgets o f Goods and Services Necessary for a
Basic Maintenance Standard o f Living and for Opera
tion Under Emergency Conditions. W. P. A. Division
of Social Research, Series 1, Number 21, 1936.
Intercity Differences in Costs o f Living, March 1985, 59
Cities. W. P. A. Division of Social Research, Research
Monograph X II. U. S. Government Printing Office,
1937.
Quantity and Cost Budgets for Three Income Levels, Prices
for San Francisco, September 1946. Heller Committee
for Research in Social Economics, University of Cali
fornia Press, 1946.
Family Incomes and
Cost of Family
Budgets
A b n e r H u r w it z *1
A measure of the sufficiency of family incomes
is obtained from the cost of family budgets repre
senting a satisfactory level of living. M ost
budgets, and, in particular, the one presented in
this issue, are a reflection of community experience
and, as such, do not represent a level of living far
beyond the reach of the great m ajority of families.
They are then useful in pointing out areas where
programs can be developed to eliminate un
satisfactory levels of living. They serve to gauge
the effect of a rise in prices when there is no cor
responding increase in family income.
The
budgets thus provide the basis for estimating the
number of families that would under these condi
tions, fall in the group whose purchasing power is
too low to provide the level of living described by
the budget.
Before a completely valid general comparison
of incomes with the costs of family budgets can
be made, it would be necessary to develop budgets
for all the common types of family, to assemble
accurate figures on the distribution of income for
each size of family, and to estimate the cost of the
budgets in communities of different sizes through
out the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
has constructed a budget for a family of four
living in large cities. T o complete the work would
require, at the least, budgets for single persons,
budgets for families of 2 at different points in the
age scale, budgets for families of 3, 5, and 6
persons of the most usual age composition, and
collection of prices in representative cities under
46
50,000 population. T o assemble the data on.
income distribution would require continuous
collections of data from various sources and then
combining these collections into the best possible
series of figures showing the number of families of
each type in each income bracket.
In the absence of valid figures on cost of budgets
for families of different size and age composition
and the distribution of their incomes, it is desirable
to use rough estimates for both series for a typical
large city in order to appraise the budget level and
to gauge the effect of its cost at current prices.
For this purpose, ratios2 of an equivalent level
of living for different size family groups have been
applied to the cost of the budget for families o f
four persons in Indianapolis, Ind., in March 1946,
to estimate the budget level for single individuals
and families with male heads. Data available do
not permit the estimation of the budget for families
of two or more with female heads. An estimate
of the distribution of 1945 annual family incomes
for Indianapolis was prepared from data obtained
in connection with the Bureau's survey of prices
paid by families in that city in early 1946. These
estimates were made for incomes and for budget
costs, excluding personal taxes and occupational
expenses, and are shown in the accompanying
table. The estimated percent of families below
the budget level shown on the last line of the table
is a measure of the adequacy of incomes with
respect to the level of living described by the
budget.
This estimated income distribution, based on a
sample too small to be completely reliable, is
supported by the findings of all recent studies of
income distributions, that the larger families are
at higher levels on the income scale. Increases
in income with size of family, as shown by the
median incomes, are to a large extent an auto
matic reflection of the age cycle in earning power.
Large proportions of the single persons and the
two-person families are either young, just starting
development in earning capacity, or old peoplea
with small pensions, many of whom are partially
supported by contributions from their children.
The heads of larger families are in their middle
i Of the Bureau's Prices and Cost of Living Division.
1 See Budget Levels for Families of Different Sizes, p. 49.
* See C ity Family Composition in Relation to Income, 1941 and 1944, in
the February 1946 issue of the M onthly Labor Review.
47
FA M ILY INCOM ES AND COST OF FA M ILY BUDGETS
proportionate to the relative cost of maintaining
the family.
While at early 1946 prices, 22 percent of the*
Indianapolis families of two or more with malt
head were below the budget line, single individuals
with insufficient incomes were proportionately
more numerous (over 30 percent). While only 20
percent of single males were below the budget line,
more than one-third of all single women bad
incomes too low to maintain the budget level of
living. This group, it must be remembered,
years. For example, heads of four-person families
are, in the greatest number, between the ages of
35 and 55. They are, in all likelihood, well
advanced in their trades or skills and will typically
have earnings somewhat higher than the average.
Also, families higher in the age cycle are more
likely to include secondary earners and receive
part of their income from sources other than the
earnings o f the head.
It is apparent that, on the average, the relative
income position of the family size group is roughly
Estimated percentage distribution o f Indianapolis, Ind., fam ilies, by 1945 income and fam ily size, in relation to the city
worker’s fam ily bvdgetfor March 1946
Families o f 2 or more with—
Item
Male head
M ale
Female
Total
2
3
4
5 or more
Female
head, all
sizes
Percent o f families of each size.......................................................................
4.1
12.2
16.3
27.7
17.9
15.8
11.9
10.4
M oney income less taxes and occupational expense:
Under $1,000.............................................................................................
$1,000 to $2,000..........................................................................................
$2,000 to $3,000..........................................................................................
$3,000 to $4,000..........................................................................................
$4,000 and over.........................................................................................
12.4
43.4
23.0
12.4
8.8
28.0
39.8
23.6
4.2
4.4
24.0
40.7
23.5
6.3
5.5
10.5
25.7
31.3
18.1
14.4
1.9
15.3
26.8
33.7
22.3
1.0
2.0
22.1
34.8
40.1
.7
7.4
17.0
26.9
48.0
6.6
40.5
31.0
13.2
8.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
$2,100
Total......................................................................................................
100.0
100.0
Median income...............................................................................................
Estimated cost of budget, less taxes and occupational expenses.................
$1,850
$1,170
$1,550
$1,170
$1,650
$1,170
$2,400
$1,660
$3,100
$2,140
$3,700
$2,552
$3,950
$3,110
Estimated percent of families below budget level.......................................
20
35
31
28
20
12
28
includes a large number of old people on pensions
or supported by others, and many young persons
still receiving aid from their parents. Neverthe
less, a substantial number are “ on their own” 4
and point to the need for community action
toward the improvement of their incomes or their
earning power through increased retirement bene
fits, increased minimum wage, better training for
employment, and other measures.
About 10 percent of all families and single indi
viduals in Indianapolis were families of two or
more persons with female heads. This group has
been separated from families of other types because
neither the cost of the budget nor the implica
tions of the comparison of the budget with in
comes are strictly applicable. Among families
with male heads are those with disabled bread
winners and others probably in need of aid from
welfare programs. On the other hand, this
group also includes a substantial number o f mul
tiple-earner families in which the wife or other
members contribute to the total family income.
These families should, if possible, also have been
eliminated from the tabulations. The develop
ment and application of budgets for families in
which one or more members are not engaged in
normal activities, or in which the male bread
winner is absent, should be taken as a separate
problem.
It appears that about two out of every nine
families with male heads were below the budget
line in a “ typical” large city in early 1946. This
fraction of the population presents a problem to
the community that cannot be fully formulated
until information is assembled on their economic
and social characteristics. The Bureau’s surveys,
while too small to yield the necessary information
in quantitative terms, nevertheless suggest the
complexity of the problem. The male heads of
families “ below the budget line” included many
self-employed (store keepers, tavern keepers,
garage operators, urban farmers, cleaners, tailors,
shoemakers, painters, and paperhangers) and
workers employed in small shops and other small
4 According to the 1940 census, 62 percent of all single females and 86 percent
of single males were in the labor force.
48
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
businesses; domestic, personal service, and similar
workers (cooks, waiters, chauffeurs, elevator
operators, janitors, watchmen); clerks and sales
men, on salary and on commission; some profes
sional workers; some government employees; some
persons dependent on pensions or on rents; as
well as some laborers and skilled workers. The
diversity o f these groups is so great that each
represents a different problem in terms of social
activity.
T o trace the effect of the rise in the price level
it is necessary to observe the concentration of
incomes just above the budget line. If incomes do
not increase with prices, large numbers of families
with “ sufficient" incomes find themselves below
the budget line after a rapid rise in prices. About
8 percent more Indianapolis families, whose in
comes in 1945 allowed the budget level of living
in early 1946, would have been faced with a reduc
tion below the budget level in June 1947 if their
incomes did not increase proportionately to the
rise in prices which occurred during that period.
M ost families do not have sufficient resources out
side current income, in savings or property, to use
in financing rapid additions to living costs. The
budget level is, by definition, the level of living
from which further reductions meet the greatest
resistance.* The many families forced below the
budget line by price increases are, accordingly, the
strongest center of dissatisfaction with the level
of prices in relation to income.
This group is broadly representative; it includes
wage and salary workers— wage earners, clerical
workers, and professional workers employed in
every type of industry and those who are selfemployed in characteristic small businesses. The
problem of meeting the price situation faces all
groups in the community and will be solved only
by developments that affect all groups in the
community.
• See p. 13, under M ethod of Determining Family Budget.
Budget Levels for
Families of
Different Sizes
c o s t o f f a m i l y b u d g e t s has been used as a
convenient measure of the adequacy of incomes to
support a satisfactory level o f living in an entire
population or in any segment of it. When the
distribution of families according to the amount
of their incomes is known, the cost of the budget
can be used to estimate the number of families
with incomes above, and the number with in
comes below, the amount necessary to support the
level of living described by the budget.1
Usually, such estimates have depended upon
the selection of a specific family type which is
taken as representative of a population in which
both incomes and expenditures vary widely
according to the size and composition of families.
Thus, for example, it has often been assumed that
a “ typical” family of man, wife, and two school
children could be used to represent all families in
the population; and that while many families were
smaller and many larger, the proportions of
families above and below the budget level o f living
would be about the same for all family types as
for the “ typical” family.
This assumption cannot be justified, because
neither family incomes nor the costs of family
maintenance vary in direct proportion with the size
o f the family. Even if it were possible to describe
an “ average” family, in terms of the numbers and
ages of its members, the costs of maintaining such
a family would not prove to be the average for
all family types.
T he
1 The latest calculations of this type in this country appear in the Twentieth
Century Fund’s report, “ America’s Needs and Resources.”
Living costs, in relation to size o f family, may
be considered of two kinds: First, those which
vary more directly with differences in the number
and ages o f family members; and second, those
which are in the nature of “ overhead” costs and
vary comparatively little among different family
types. Food, clothing, personal care, medical
care, and movies are typical of costs that vary
directly with family size. On the other hand,
expenditures for household equipment, much of
the home furnishings, and even the cost of housing
itself are at least partly “ overhead” costs. Ac
cordingly, the cost o f maintaining a family at a
given level of living does not increase in direct
proportion to the size o f family. Successive addi
tions to the family result in smaller and smaller
additions to the cost. Although it is not true that
“ two can live as cheaply as one,” it is quite clear
that it does not cost twice as much for two as
for one.
T o determine accurately a scale of the cost of
maintaining families o f different sizes at the same
level of material well-being, budgets analagous to
the one presented in this bulletin should be prepared
for the most representative types of each family
size. These should include, at least, the single
individual, both under and over 60 years of age,
perhaps separately for men and women; the couple,
under and over 60; the husband-wife family with
two children and with three children; and the
broken family with one and with two children.
Such a scale of budgets, all expressing the same
level of living, may eventually be completed.
In the meantime, there are pressing needs for
estimates that will approximate the scale of differ
ences in budget costs for families of different sizes.
Such estimates, developed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, are presented here.
Measures of Family Well-Being
Lacking over-all budget costs for different family
types at the same level of living, we can infer the
differences from characteristics which are them
selves measures of general material well-being. For
example, if the adequacy of diets is such a measure,
the income or expenditure levels at which families
of different types attained the same percentage of
adequate diets can be compared; and from the
49
50
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
relationships between these income or expenditure
levels, the differences between budget costs among
fam ily types at a given level of living can be
deduced. Thus, if 50 percent of single-person
families bad adequate diets at $1,200 incomes, and
50 percent of two-person families at $1,800, and
50 percent of three-person families at $2,400, we
might deduce that the costs of budgets at the same
level of living would be about half again as much
for two persons and twice as much for three persons
as for one.
The last two decades have provided a wide
variety of data by which we can relate one or more
aspects o f fam ily living to the amount o f family
income. These range from general consumption
studies to detailed studies of dietary adequacy,
medical needs and medical care, and housing and
household facilities. Comparisons o f families of
different sizes with respect to their actual expend
itures would not yield a scale of differences in
budget costs because they would include families
at many different levels of living. On the other
hand, families attaining the same degree of ade
quacy o f diet or housing or medical care may be
considered as at the same level of living; and the
income levels at which families o f different sizes
attain the same degree of adequacy may be used
to approximate the scale of differences between
family types in the costs maintaining a given level
of living. Other measures might be used, such as
the percent of families owning various types of
durable equipment; or the percentage of income
spent on food or housing; or the percentage of
income saved. Any one or a combination of these
measures of family well-being could be used as a
basis for determining a scale of equivalent incomes
for families of different sizes at the same level of
living.
Indexes of Family Welfare
Two separate scales have been developed, one
based on the percentage o f families with good or
fair diets in terms of nutrition and another based
on the percentage of income allocated to savings.
These two indexes o f family welfare are probably
more independent o f each other than any other
pair that could be selected from the available
information.
Analysis of the data revealed that the different
family sizes tended to have the same set of per
centage differences in income at each level of the
index of family welfare.2 For example, when fourperson families managed to allocate 10 percent of
their incomes to insurance, bonds, and other sav
ings at an income level o f about $3,200, three per
son families “ saved” 10 percent of their incomes
at an income level of about $2,700 and five person
families “ saved” 10 percent of their incomes at an
income level of about $3,600. The relation be
tween the income positions for families of different
size was approximately the same when other levels
of savings, such as 5 percent, were used in the
calculation.
The percentage differences are shown in the
table, in which the income of families of four
persons is taken as 100. It should be noted that
the two indexes of family welfare yielded quite
similar scales of percentage differences.*
* The data on the percentage of familes in each income bracket having good
or fair diets appear in table 16 in Miscellaneous Publication No. 452 (U . S.
Department of Agriculture), Fam ily Food Consumption and Dietary Levels.
The incomes at which the same percentage of the families of several types
achieved good or fair diets were determined from the table values by inter
polation. Five levels were used, 60,65,70,75, and 85 percent of families with
good or fair diets. The incomes at which each size o f family reached the
specific percentage with good or fair diets were then related to the size of
family and were found to be straight lines on a logarithmic scale. Further
more, these lines were approximately parallel so that it may be concluded
that the same relative scale for different sizes of family applies at each level
of the indicator. The average relationship found was in algebraic form as
follows:
log y= a+ .62 log x
Where “ y ” is family income, “ x” is the size of family and “ a” depends on the
level of the indicator.
The data on the percentage of income saved by families of different size
are found in tables 3 and 4 of Serial No. R.1818 (Bureau of Labor Statistics),
Expenditures and Savings of C ity Families in 1944; in table 19, Bulletin N o.
822 (Bureau of Labor Statistics), Family Spending and Saving in W artime,
and in the bulletins on family expenditures from the Consumer Purchase
Study. The incomes, at which families of different sizes had savings or
deficits amounting to the same percentage of income were determined from
the table values by interpolation. Seven levels were used, deficits of 15
percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent; no savings or deficit; savings of 5 percent,
10 percent, and 15 percent. As in the case of the quality of diets, the incomes
at which each size of family reached the specified level on the savings scale
were found to be logarithmic straight lines in relation to the size of family
and the lines were approximately parallel. The average relationship in this
case was in algebraic fo r m log y= a+ .59 log x
Where “ y ” is the family income, “ x” is the size of family and “ a” depends on
the level of savings.
BUDGET LEVELS FOR FAM ILIES OF DIFFERENT SIZES
Family incomes providing the same level o f well-being among
fam ilies o f different sizes relative to incomes o f 4-person
fam ilies______________________________________________
Relatives based on—
Size of family
1 person __
_ .........
2 persons__ . _ _ _ _ _
...
3 persons
________
4 persons
_
. _
. .. ...
R
persons . . . . . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 persons....................................................................
Adequacy
of diets
65.1
83.7
100.0
114.8
128.6
Amounts
of savings
46.0
66.4
84.4
100.0
114.1
127.0
Although earlier budget studies have sometimes
provided the basis for determining the quantities
in the budget among families of different sizes,
there have been only a few calculations of the
cost of such budgets in the same place at the
same time. It is of some interest to compare
such calculations with the scale derived in this
analysis. In its study, The Cost of Living
Among Wage Earners in Cincinnati, Ohio, M ay
1920, the National Industrial Conference Board
presented the cost of budgets for families of three
to six persons. The costs of these budgets in
relation to the four-person family were as follows:
51
Size of family:
Cost of budget
3 persons___________________________ 81. 0
4 persons____________________________ 100. 0
5 persons__________________________ - 113. 9
6 persons_____________________________127. 8
The scale derived through the simple analysis
of the data on family living agrees very well with
this scale determined by calculating the cost of
family budgets.
The estimated scale can, accordingly, be used
to estimate the cost of budgets for families of
different sizes until more precise determinations
are made available. Since the scale does not
differentiate families by the age of the family
head, it should be noted that the relative position
of the one-person and two-person families is an
averaging of the young and the old. It is quite
possible that there are significant differences
between “ young” families and “ old” families
in the amount of income required to maintain
the same level of living. Such differences need
to be explored in further analyses of family
living data and further development of budget
studies.
State Budgets
for Single Women
Workers
H a ze l K e f a u v e r 1
S t a t e c o s t - o f - l i v i n g b u d g e t s for working women
are an outgrowth of certain provisions in State
minimum-wage laws, and are primarily designed
to show the annual income necessary to maintain
a self-supporting woman in health. In nearly all
the State laws that provide for the setting of mini
mum rates by administrative action, cost of living
is one of the factors that the wage board must
consider in recommending rates; in about half of
them it is the only factor. Therefore, ever since
1913, when the first State minimum-wage law
became effective, States have used a variety of
means to arrive at an estimate of the money neces
sary for minimum-adequate living. Although
none of the laws actually requires the construction
of a budget, 11 States have found that specialpurpose budgets are the most effective means of
showing the needs of working women.
These budgets, developed by the States to meet
this special situation, show the actual goods and
services needed to maintain a woman in health and
the amount of money necessary to purchase them
at retail prices. W ith one exception they are built
around the needs of an employed woman living
alone. The current budget of Massachusetts,
however, is unusual in that it is based on pricing
for both men and women. Its official figure is for
a “ single person,” a combination of separately
priced budgets for the employed man and the
employed woman, the total costs of which were in
very close agreement.
1 Of the Women’s Bureau, U . S. Department of Labor.
52
The hypothetical woman (or person) for whom
the State budgets are built is conceived to be
completely self-supporting, i. e., she is not sub
sidized by her parents, by organized charity, or
by any other source. She has no dependents.
She has a job and leads a normal life, living in a
respectable neighborhood, reasonably close to
some form of public transportation. She eats
nourishing food, properly prepared, and she is
clean and well groomed, dressing in the same
manner as her co-workers and her friends. The
minimum-wage woman has the same expectancy
as to the need for medical, dental, and optical
care as does any other person. She participates
in the life around her, reads newspapers and maga
zines, enjoys some type of recreation, and takes
vacations. She eats candy and sodas and smokes
cigarettes. She exchanges gifts with her friends
on appropriate occasions and contributes annually
to some charitable organization. In other words,
the cost-of-living figure arrived at in these budgets
represents the minimum needed by an employed
worker without dependents to live adequately in
terms of contemporary ideas and practices.
Annual Budgets
Cost-of-living budgets have been developed in
11 minimum-wage jurisdictions: Arizona, Colo
rado, Connecticut, D istrict of Columbia, Ken
tucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. Selected
figures from each of these budgets are given in
the accompanying table. However, no strict
comparisons should be made of the figures of one
State with those of another, as there are too many
variables in the data to permit anything but
general comparison. For example, the living
arrangements on which the budgets are set up
differ and the costs of the different modes of living
are not comparable in detail. Variations in the
commodity and quantity allowances from budget
to budget must also be taken into consideration
when analyzing the figures. In addition, the
differences in the insurance, savings, and tax allow
ances, which are not calculated on an entirely
uniform basis, will bias a strict comparison of
the total costs. O f particular significance in a
period of rapidly changing prices is the fact that
the money totals of these budgets relate to vari
a
53
STATE BUDGETS FOR SINGLE W O M E N WORKERS
percent increase in prices from March 1946, the
date of the earliest budget here presented, to
September 1947, the date of the latest cost-ofliving estimate contained in the table.
ous dates in the past 2 years. The effect of the
differences in prices at those dates is apparent
from changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics
consumers' price index. This index shows a 25.8
Annual cost o f a minimum adequate budget for a self-supporting woman without dependents
Commodities and services
State
Date o f pricing or estimate
Total
A rizona..............................
C olorado............................
Connecticut.......................
District o f Colum bia........
Kentucky *........................
M assachusetts4.................
New Jersey..................... .
New Y ork..........................
Pennsylvania.............. ......
U tah.......... ........................
W ashington...... ................
March 19471.......................... $1,663.00
March 1947 *..........................
1,444.00
March 1946............................
1,268.66
1,363.44
June 19471.............................
1,340.97
M arch-April 1946................. /\ 1,253.87
1,336.38
September-October 1946___
1,746.99
December 19461....................
September 1946......................
1,348.85
December 19464....................
1,610.83
September 1947 *...................
1,512.90
1,721.64
M ay 1947...............................
Housing
$234.00
201.00
262.76
824.72
274.79
748.26
233.48
(4)
666.75
198.39
755.82
321.36
* Revised estimate of budget priced at an earlier date.
* Food costs included with housing.
* Second set of figures for Kentucky represent costs for woman who lives in
boarding house where all meals are provided.
* Figures apply to both men and women.
* N o break-down available.
The budgets of Connecticut, Kentucky, Mas
sachusetts, New York, and Washington are the
results of recent surveys. Five of the budgets 2
are estimates arrived at through application of
appropriate components of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics index to the surveys made in 1937, 1938,
or 1939. New Jersey's budget is a revision of a
1942 survey. Although from time to time re
visions and additions will be required to keep
the lists of commodities and services current, the
revised estimates based on the original studies
are still valid and useful.
[E d it o r ’ s n o t e : An interesting commentary on the
budget for a single working woman in the District of
Columbia is afforded by comparison of the total cost of
commodities and services with the total for commodities
and services found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ City
Worker’s Family Budget for the District in the table on
page 30. Both were priced in June 1947. If the ap
propriate factor of .46 (see p. 51) is applied to the District
total for the 4-person city worker’s family to obtain the
equivalent cost of commodities and services for one person,
a total of about $1,430 is obtained. This compares with a
$1,363 total required by a single working woman in the
District.]
* Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
Food
Clothing
$651.00
589.00
593.02
(*)
560.56
00
617.07
$276.00
261.00
167.55
264.68
237.20
237.20
168.99
8
729.26
299.25
276.00
277.97
244.56
(2)
681.87
Other
living
essentials
$402.00
393.00
245.22
274.04
268.42
268.42
316.84
(«)
382.85
407.18
479.11
473.85
P rivate
insurance
and
savings
$42.82
30.29
Taxes
177.78
22.39
22.39
$247.53
217.67
202.61
236.58
198.86
178.65
97.30
211.16
81.03
228.88
•50.00
318.24
236.34
273.09
289.87
276.85
Total
budget
$1,853.35
1,691.96
1,461.16
1,777.80
1,562.22
1,454.91
1,336.38
2,162.53
1,796.35
1,964.95
2,031.65
2,048.49
• Insurance only.
N o t h — Reprints showing detailed money allowances for each category o f
each budget and tabulations of the commodity and service allowances for
selected categories may be obtained from the Women’s Bureau, U. S. Depart
ment of Labor.
Basis for Pricing Budgets
In addition to the presumption of self-support
and minimum-adequacy, each of the budgets
makes use of available scientific and technical
knowledge in the fields of nutrition, medicine,
housing, and clothing, for the purpose of setting
standards and ascertaining the worker's needs.
Each budget is built around a given type of living
arrangement. The budgets for Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington base costs
of food and housing on prices of a furnished room
and three restaurant meals a day. Utah, and Ken
tucky in its alternate budget, priced a furnished
room in a boarding house where all meals are
furnished. The District of Columbia bases costs
for food and lodging on the average cost for a
room in a boarding house where two meals a
day are furnished and provides a supplemental
food allowance for lunches eaten in restaurants.
New York determines the budget for a woman
hving as a member of a family group, the woman's
costs being derived from pricing food and housing
as items of family expense, and allowing in the
64
WORKERS’ BUDGETS IN T H E UNITED STATES
budget the employed woman’s proportionate share
of the family expense for rent; for fuel used for
lighting, heating, cooking, and refrigeration; for
expense connected with replacement of household
equipment; and for expense involved in laundry
and other household operations, the latter in
corporating the cost of the mother’s services in
connection with marketing and preparation of
meals. The food allowance provides also for
lunches eaten in restaurants.
Under “ Other living essentials” all of the bud
gets provide for clothing upkeep, which is related
to the clothing allowance; for personal care, which
includes beauty-parlor services; for medical,
dental, and optical care; recreation; education and
reading; transportation; and miscellaneous ex
penses, such as contributions and gifts, candy and
cigarettes, stationery, and postage. Only Ken
tucky does not specifically provide for vacation as
part of recreation. The budgets for Arizona,
Pennsylvania, and Washington make special
allowances for occupational expense.
Private insurance, savings, and tax items are
usually considered an integral part of a budget
reflecting minimum needs. All but two of the
States include private insurance and/or savings,
and all but one of the States provide for taxes.
Failure to include compulsory taxes would bring
the actual standard of living below the adequacy
level.
Usefulness of Budgets
Budgets are not meant to dictate the way in
which a worker should spend her income. Differ
ing preferences will result in different patterns o f
expenditure. Budgets serve their purpose if
they provide an amount sufficient to permit a
single working woman to keep her job and main
tain her health and self-respect.
Although these 11 cost-of-living budgets were
developed especially by minimum-wage agencies
for use in the administration of their respective
laws, they have been very useful for other pur
poses as well. Unions have used them to show the
need for a higher contract rate in an industry to
meet the cost of living. Personnel offices of both
Government agencies and business houses have
used them to indicate whether wages are adequate
and to counsel with individual employees as
to how earnings can be allocated to the best
advantage.
Consumer Finances,
July 19471
A n i n t e r i m s u r v e y of consumer finances was
made by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System in July 1947. It covered approx
imately 700 spending units 2residing in 20 counties
and 5 metropolitan areas scattered throughout
the country. The methods and procedures were
largely similar to those followed in the second
annual survey conducted earlier in 1947, which
was summarized in the September (p. 329) and
November (p. 558) 1947 issues of the M onthly
Labor Review. Since the sample was consider
ably smaller in July 1947 than in the previous
surveys, however, the sampling error is larger and
the findings less reliable than in the larger surveys.
Nor was there as much information obtained as
in the previous surveys.
Financial Status of Consumers
Almost two-fifths of the spending units inter
viewed indicated that their incomes were larger
than a year earlier; only about one-fourth of the
units said they were making less money. Fre
quent indications of wage-rate and salary in
creases in this survey, together with increases
shown during the year in the Department of Com
merce aggregate data for the rate of personal
income, make it appear likely that the median
income of all spending units increased further
from 1946 to 1947.
Liquid asset holdings (U. S. Government bonds
and bank accounts) of large numbers of spending
units were reduced during the first 7 months of
i Federal Reserve Bulletin, October 1947. The article summarized gives
the results of the interim Survey of Consumer Finances of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, based on interviews taken during
the last 2 weeks of July 1947. The results of the first annual Survey of Con
sumer Finances, made early in 1946, and the second survey in early 1947 were
published in the June, July, and August issues of the Federal Reserve Bulle
tin for those years.
* Defined as all persons living in the same dwelling and belonging to the
same family who pooled their incomes to meet their major expenses.
1947, although other units continued to augment
their holdings. M ost consumers who spent their
liquid assets, particularly those in the lower
income groups, used them to meet general living
expenses. The purchase of houses and other
types of investments was next in frequency.
Consumer Expectations
Consumers were generally optimistic about
their future financial status. The m ajority of
spending units expected good times to continue
during the next year, and more units expected
their incomes to increase than to decrease.
Price expectations changed considerably during
the period of these surveys. In February 1946,
53 percent of the spending units expected prices
to go up and only 8 percent expected a decline;
by the beginning of 1947 these attitudes were
largely reversed— 13 percent expected price in
creases and 46 percent, price decreases. B y
midyear 1947, a greater proportion of the spend
ing units (32 percent) again anticipated rising
prices and relatively fewer (29 percent) expected
prices to decline. However, it seems that many
consumers’ price expectations have not had any
substantial effect on their buying plans, particu
larly for consumer durable goods.
Consumer Expenditures and Plans to Buy
About two-thirds of the spending units inter
viewed reported that they had spent more for
food since the beginning of the year, and about
three-fifths felt that they were buying less clothing
than usual. The proportion of spending units
that had bought automobiles and other selected
durable goods in the first 7 months approximated
the percentage which had indicated intentions to
do so in the previous survey. However, home
purchases through July totaled only about half of
the prospective purchases of houses at the begin
ning of the year.
In general, this survey does not indicate that
the level of prices in July had discouraged con
sumer plans for purchase of durable goods or
houses in the year following July 1947 to such a
degree as to suggest an early decline in expenditures
for these items. Nevertheless, a considerable
number of spending units stated that they were
not planning to purchase automobiles or houses
in the next year because of high prices.
0 . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE* 1 9 4 8
55
@FedFRASER