)570~7

city worker’s family budget

F O R A M O D E R A T E

LIVING STANDARD

A u t u m n 1 9 6 6 - B u lle tin N o . 1 5 7 0 -1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
city worker’s family budget

F O R A M O D E R A T E

LIVING STANDARD

A u tu m n 1 9 6 6 -B u I let in N o . 1570-1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

WillardWirtz, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 

Arthur M. Ross, Com missioner

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 30 cents

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v

Costs in urban areas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

A moderate standard: Present and past ------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Intercity differences---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Data sources and estimating methods -------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Food------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

Shelter costs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 8

Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

Medical care ---------- 19

Other goods and services -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

Other costs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

T able s:

1. Annual costs of the city worker’s family budget by major

components urban United States, 39 metropolitan areas,

and nonmetropolitan areas by regions, autumn 1966 ----------------------------- 9

2. Indexes of comparative living costs based on the city

worker's family budget, autumn 1966 --------------------------------------------------- 13

Appendix contents ------------------- — -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

Digitized for FRASER 

iii

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Introduction

The City Worker’ s Family Budget

described in this bulletin provides one

answer to the question, "How much does

it cost to live? " The question, however,

is deceptively simple. The answers are

multiple and complex, depending primarily on: (1) the age, size, and type

of family; and (Z) the standard of living

to which the family aspires.

All benchmark estimates of living

costs are based on specific family situations. The cost estimates of the City

Worker! s Family Budget are for a family of 4 persons: an employed husband,

age 38; a wife not employed outside the

home; and two children, a girl age 8

and a boy 13. This type represents a

middle stage in the typical family life

cycle. The man is presumed to be an

experienced worker and well-advanced

in his trade or profession. He has been

married for 15 years or more. The

family group is well established and has

average inventories of clothing, housefurnishings, major durables, and other

equipment. Three-fourths of such families are homeowners with mortgages

they contracted for 7 years earlier.

Benchmark living cost estimates for

larger families or those with older

children will be higher, and estimates

for smaller or younger families or retired couples will be lower, than those

for the type of 4-person family used in

the City Worker1 s Family Budget. In

short, there is no single answer to the

question "How much does it cost to

live? ", since family size, age, and type

have a significant effect on spending

patterns, manner of living, and family

needs.

The other major consideration in

developing family budgets is the standard of living for which cost estimates

are made. "Standards of living" refer

to the goals we set for ourselves as

consumers of goods and services and

as users of leisure time.

The living standard represented

by the current City Workerfs Family

Budget is described as moderate. It

provides for the maintenance of health

and social well-being, the nurture of

children, and participation in community activities. This generalized concept of a moderate standard has been

translated into a list of commodities

and services which can be priced. (See

appendix A. )

The content of the new budget for

a moderate standard is based on the

manner of living and consumer choices

in the 1960’ s. Two kinds of data were

used to derive the list of goods and

services included in the budget. First,

nutritional and health standards, as determined by scientists and technicians,

were used for the food-at-home and the

housing components. The selection

among the various kinds of food and

housing arrangements meeting the

standards was based on actual choices

made by families as revealed by surveys of consumer expenditures. Second, where scientific standards have

not been formulated, analyses of the

data reported in the Bureau’ s Survey

of Consumer Expenditures and related

consumption studies were used to determine the specific items, and the

quantitatives and qualities thereof, to

be included in the budget.

These analytical procedures result

in basing some parts of the budget upon

the collective judgment of consumers as

to the kinds and amounts of consumption

required, rather than upon scientific

standards. In such analyses, some

exercise of the budget-maker’ s own

judgment is involved; however, in this

budget, such judgment has been confined

to selection of the basic data and determination of the procedures to be followed in deriving the items and quantities making up these parts of the budget.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The specific decisions that were made

with respect to each component of the

new City Worker's Family Budget are

documented in this bulletin.

The moderate living standard does

not show how an "average” family actually spends its money, nor does it

show how a family should spend its

money. Individual families may spend

more on one item and less on others

than the amounts indicated in the budget.

Furthermore, many families can and

do spend less than the total amount

specified in this budget without feeling

deprived and without impairing their

health or their ability to contribute constructively to our society. In general,

however, the representative list of

goods and services comprising the

standard reflects the collective judgment of families as to what is necessary and desirable to meet the conventional and social as well as the physical needs of families of the budget type

in the present decade.

The new City Worker's Family

Budget is the third study published by

BLSwhich translates a generalized concept of a moderate standard of living

into a list of commodities and services

that can be priced. The original City

Worker's Family Budget was issused in

1947. The quantities and qualities of

goods and services included in that

budget were based on the manner of

living and standards prevailing in the

early 1940's. The pricing of the original budget in 34 large cities was discontinued after October 1951 because

the budget was outmoded.

In I960, the Bureau issued The Interim City Worker's Family Budget.

It was based on a new list of goods and

services representing "modest-butadequate" living in accordance with

standards prevailing in the 1950’s. Because the basic data used in the analysis

related to the early 1950's, and because

of the limited scope of this revision,

it was considered "interim, " pending a

more complete review of the procedures

and the availability of data from the

Bureau's Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1960—61. The interim budget

was priced only once, in autumn 1959,

in 20 large cities.

Both of these earlier budgets were

for a family of the same size, age, and

type as that in the new budget. Similarly, the living standard in all 3 studies provides for the maintenance of

health and social well-being, the nurture

of children, and participation in community activities. For the most part,

the procedures used to translate this

generalized concept of the living standard into a list of goods and services

were also the same, but the kinds and

quantities of items comprising the

standard differ, because the budget reflect the conditions of living in 3 different decades. Changes in educational

levels, cultural developments growing

out of travel and migration, and growth

in purchasing power affect the level of

living of American families and their

ideas about what constitutes a moderate

living standard.

Technological advances also influence the composition of the standard.

New types of consumer goods and services are developed, mass production

increases their availability, and mass

communication and advertising stimulate the demand for them. As real

income rise, certain aspects of living,

once considered attainable only by a

few, come within the reach of many

and are accepted as part of the American way of life. In a dynamic society,

therefore, the relative position of a

moderate living standard on a scale of

all living standards may remain fixed,

but the description of what constitutes

that standard will be ever-changing.

The present study differs from the

earlier budgets in two major respects.

These differences have affected the

level of the 1966 costs and comparative

living cost indexes, particularly in relation to the costs and indexes of the

1959 interim budget.

1. For the first time, the budget

has been priced in a sample of mediumsized and small cities. Thus, it is

possible to estimate the average U.S.

urban budget cost and to compare metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area

costs. (See appendix B. )

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2. Costs of maintaining an owned

home have been included in the moderate standard. Shelter costs in the

earlier budgets were limited to rental

housing. Use of rental housing only

was appropriate for large cities in

terms of the 1940 modest standard of

the original budget, but it was recognized as a limitation in the 1959 interim

budget in terms of the standard of the

1950's. The addition of homeowner

costs provides, for the first time, comparative budget costs for renter and

owner families and intercity indexes of

homeowner maintenance costs for

equivalent housing.

The effects of these and other changes

on the moderate standard are discussed

in detail in this bulletin.

A list of the Bureau's previous

budgets and related references, is provided in appendix C, including the Report of the Advisory Committee on

Standard Budget Research, June 19&3.

This report summarizes the recommendations of a special committee of

experts, representing users of standard

budgets in State and local welfare administration, academic research, labor

unions, and business organizations.

The committee advised the Bureau on

the direction that its research on standard budgets should take, and its recommendations formed guidelines for the

Bureau in the development of the current budget.

Subsequent bulletins in the current

series will report results of other

phases of the standard budget research

programs.

Bulletin 1570-2 will describe the

Revised Equivalence Scale for estimating budget costs for families of different size, age, and type.

Bulletin 1570-3 will report the autumn 1966 Budget Pricing Procedures,

Specifications, and Average Prices.

Bulletin 1570-4 will give the autumn

1966 costs for a Retired Couple's Budget

for a moderate standard of living.

Subsequently, there will be bulletins

on the spring 1957 costs for the moderate standard, and for a lower and a

higher standard for the 4-person family

and for the retired couple. The lower -

standard budget will represent a minimum of adequacy. Substantial downward adjustments will be made in the

content and/or manner of living of the

moderate standard, where this is possible without compromising the family's

physical health or self-respect as members of their community.

In contrast with the moderate budgets, the lower-standard budgets will not

conform in certain respects to prevailing customs and buying practices— that

is, to the collective judgments of families of these types concerning what is

necessary for a satisfactory standard

of living. The lower standard budgets

are expected to be more appropriate

than the moderate budgets for use in

establishing goals for public assistance

and income maintenance programs in

the current decade.

The higher standard budget will reflect a more comfortable level and

manner of living sometimes known as

the "American standard of living. " It

will be useful in determining the ability

of self-supporting families to pay for

fee services, or their eligibility for

scholarships, etc., and in certain general economic analysis.

In the future, estimates of the cost

of the three standard budgets for the

4-person family and for a retired couple

will be made as of the spring of the

year and published periodically for the

same metropolitan areas and regional

classes of smaller cities as those included in the present study.

This bulletin was prepared by

Jean C. Brackett under the supervision

of Helen H. Lamale, Chief of the Division of Living Conditions Studies and the

general direction of Arnold E. Chase,

Assistant Commissioner. Elizabeth

Ruiz supervised the research for all

budget components except food and

medical care, for which Mary H. Hawes

was responsible. Other staff members

whose work contributed substantially to

the project were Miriam A. Solomon,

Roseann C. Cogan, Alice B. Curry,

and M. Louise McCraw.

vii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
City Worker’s Family Budget for a Moderate 

Standard of Living, Autumn 1966

Costs in Urban Areas

The annual cost of living at a moderate standard for a family of four persons (husband 38, wife not employed

outside the home, boy 13, and girl 8)

averaged $ 9,191 in autumn of 1966 in

urban areas of the United States. The

cost averaged $9,376 in metropolitan

areas and $8, 366 in smaller cities. 1

About 80 percent of the total cost of the

budget is allocated to family consumption items— food, housing, transportation, clothing, personal care, medical

care, and other items used in family

living. Such costs averaged $7,329,

about $795 higher in metropolitan areas

than in smaller cities. In addition

to consumption items, the total budget

includes allowances for gifts and

contributions, basic life insurance,

personal income and social security

taxes, and occupational expenses. Distributions of costs, by major components of the budget, are shown in the

tabulation below.

Budget costs were about $800

higher for homeowner than for renter

families. 2 However, this figure includes an average of about $450 in

1 Table 1 shows annual costs of the budget for

urban United States, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas, 39 individual metropolitan areas, and 4 nonmetropolitan regions. (See p. 9 .)

^ Since the majority of families of the budget type

are homeowners, their costs constitute 75 percent, and

costs for renter families 25 percent, of the weighted average cost of shelter for urban United States and each

individual area.

Distribution of costs by major components, autumn 1966

_________ Total cost of budget____________ _____ Cost of family consumption_______

Total Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Total Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

Component urban areas areas urban areas areas

Total cost------------------------------------ $9, 191 $9, 376 $8,366 $7,329 $7,474 $6, 681

Percent distribution------------------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total family consumption--------------- 7 9.7 7 9.7 7 9.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Food-------------------------------------------- 23.3 23.2 24.0 29.3 29. 1 30.0

Housing*-------------------------------------- 24. 1 24.4 22.6 30.2 30.6 28.3

Transportation----------------------------- 8 .9 8 .7 9 .7 11.1 10.9 12.2

Clothing and personal c a re ------- 10.6 10. 5 10.8 13.2 13. 2 13.5

Medical care------------------------------ 5. 1 5. 1 4 .9 6 .4 6 .4 6.2

Other family consumption--------- 7 .8 7 .8 7 .8 9.8 9.8 9 .8

Other costs---------------------------------------- 4 .5 4 .5 4 .7

Gifts and contributions-------------- 2 .8 2.8 2.8

Personal life insurance--------------- 1.7 1.7 1.9

Occupational expenses------------------ .9 .9 1.0

Social security and disability

paym ents-------------------------------------- 3. 1 3. 1 3.3

Personal taxes1 -------------------------------- 1 1.8 11.9 1 1 . 1

1 Weighted average cost for homeowner (75 percent) and renter (25 percent) families.

278-870 0 - 67-2

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2

payments on mortgage principal, an

element of "savings" not included in the

budget for renter families. The additional income required to cover these

payments also results in higher personal taxes for homeowner families,

despite the fact that their mortgage

interest payments are tax deductible.

Few families of the type represented by

this budget claim contributions, interest, and other eligible deductions in

excess of the standard deduction.

Total budget costs were highest for

homeowner families in metropolitan

areas and lowest for renter families

in smaller cities, averaging $9,588 and

$7,946, respectively. (See the following

tabulation. ) This difference reflects not

only the variation in the costs and manner of living associated with renting or

owning a home but also the difference in

transportation requirements and spending patterns for clothing, personal care,

recreation, meals away from home,

etc. , between metropolitan areas and

smaller cities. 3

^ See appendix A for separate quantity lists for

families residing in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas. These lists were developed for all budget components that were derived by analysis of the choices of

goods and services made by consumers in successive

income groups.

Differences in total budget costs by type of area and tenure

Tenure

Urban

United States

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Cost difference

by type of area

Total budget c o st ---------------- $9, 191 $9, 376 $8,366 $1,010

Homeowner fam ilies---------------------- 9, 390 9, 588 8,506 1,082

Renter fam ilies------------------------------ 8,594 8, 739 7,946 793

Cost difference by tenure----- 796 849 560 XXX

A Moderate Standard: Present and Past

Defining the Standard

"Standards of living" refer to the

goals we set for ourselves as consumers of goods and services and as users

of leisure time and to our norms for

conditions of living. Standard budgets

measure the total costs of maintaining

the levels and manners of living represented by these goals. "Level of living"

is defined as actual consumption of

goods and services; "manner of living"

as the way or style of life (city or

country, homeowner or renter, etc.)—

in other words, how the goods and

services are consumed.

In a standard budget, the "goals

of consumers" are translated into a list

of goods and services which describe a

specific standard that can be priced.

To provide meaningful estimates of its

costs, the budget standard must be

related to a specific size and type of

family, and specific assumptions must

be made with respect to the family's

manner of living. If these assumptions

are reasonable and factually based, and

if the list of goods and services has

been determined by objective methods,

then the standard budget provides an

independently derived cost estimate for

measuring income adequacy and evaluating the actual levels of living of families as revealed by consumer expenditures and other consumption data.

The 1966 budget continues to represent, as did the original and interim

budgets, a moderate standard of living

for an urban family of four, consisting

of an employed husband, age 38, a

housewife not employed outside the

home, and two children— a girl age 8

and a boy age 13. The concept of this

standard budget was described in the

original budget as follows:

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3

"The budget was designed to represent the estimated dollar cost required

to maintain this family at a level of

adequate liv in g -— 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. " 4

Two kinds of data were used to

arrive at the component parts of the

budget: "One, those derived from laboratory experiments or from scientific

observation; 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. *' Since budgetary requirements vary with climate and other

local conditions, the quantities and types

of goods and services required to provide the moderate standard must be adjusted to describe an equivalent standard of living from place to place.

In defining the standard for the

original budget, the Technical Advisory Committee recognized that "such

a budget is not an absolute and unchanging thing. The prevailing judgment of

the necessary will vary with the changing values of the community, with the

advance of scientific knowledge of

human needs, with the productive power

of the community, and therefore with

what people commonly enjoy and see

others enjoy. " 5

Income and Budget Costs

The City Worker’s Family Budget

provides a measure of income adequacy

for a self-supporting family of a specific

size, age, composition, residence, and

employment status. Thus, the total cost

of the budget should be compared directly only with the total annual income

of four-person families of similar type

living in urban areas. The budget total

should not be compared directly with

general levels of industrial wages and

wage rates or with average income of

all urban families. Estimates of the

costs of consumption for other family

types can be derived from the revised

scale of equivalent income or budget

costs noted in the Introduction. These

scale values cannot be used, however,

to estimate total budget costs including

taxes, life insurance, etc. , or costs for

the components of consumption, such

as housing or food.

The level of living represented by

the budget is not "minimum" in the

sense in which that term is used in relation to standards or goals for public

assistance or welfare programs. On

the other hand, the standard of living

represented by the items and quantities

included in the moderate budget is below

that enjoyed by a majority of American

families of this specific type. Most

such families, comparing in detail the

items and quantities with their own consumption, may regard them as inadequate in some respects.

In urban United States in the BLS

survey for 1960—61, average income before taxes was $9,095 for families of

the general type specified for the budget

(hereafter called a budget-type family).

This was composed of husband and wife,

and two children ages 6—17 years; it

contained only one full-time earner.

Increases in median incomes from 1959

to 1965 (the latest data available), as

reported in the Current Population Surveys of the Bureau of the Census,

ranged from 20 percent for all urban

families of two persons or more, to

27 percent for urban families with two

children. These trend data applied to

the 1960—6 1 average income for budgettype families suggest that their 1966

average income before taxes amounted

to at least $ 11,000. Although this

method of estimating 1966 income of

budget-type families is not precise, it

provides a reasonable approximation.

4 Techncial Reference 10, p. 40, appendix C.

5 The City Worker’s Family Budget, Monthly Labor

Review, February 1948, p. 137.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4

The level of the moderate standard,

therefore, is at least 16 and more likely

20 percent below the average level of

living for families of this type. A

similar analysis of the level of the

interim budget in 1959 indicated that it

was "about 15—20 percent below the estimated average 1959 income of budgettype families. " 6 Thus, the standard of

the new budget is at approximately the

same relative position on the current

scale of consumption as were the standards of the original and interim budgets.

The new budget continues to represent

the necessary conventional and social

as well as biological requirements of a

self-supporting family.

Comparison with Earlier Budgets

The original budget was defined as,

"modest but adequate" in terms of

standards prevailing in the years immediately preceding and following World

War II. For goods and services other

than food and shelter, the quantities

and pricing lists were derived primarily from analyses of expenditure studies made in 1934—36 and 1941. The

nutritional standard for food was based

on the 1945 allowances recommended

by the National Research Council, but

the selection of foods to meet these

standards was made from the 1941 and

earlier food survey data. Specifications

for healthful housing, formulated by the

American Public Health Association in

the mid—1940’s , were used as guides in

defining the shelter standard. This

budget was priced in 34 large cities in

March 1946, June 1947, and autumn

1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951. Pricing

was discontinued, because the modest

standard of the 1940’s was no longer

appropriate for measuring budget costs

in the 1950’s.

The modest standard of the interim

budget for the food, shelter, and medical care components was based on

standards and purchasing practices of

the mid—1950 fs. For other goods and

services, the budget q u a n t i t i e s and

pricing lists were derived primarily

from the Bureau's Survey of Consumer

Expenditures in 1950. The interim

budget was priced only in Autumn 1959,

in 20 large cities.

The current budget is based on the

standards of the 1960fs. The pricing

date is autumn 1966. These three

studies provide the basis for approximating the change in the standard over

the past two decades. For 18 of the

39 metropolitan areas in the current

budget study, cost estimates are also

available from the two previous studies.

The estimates for 1951 and 1959 are

for renter families only; those for 1966

are for renters and for renters and

owners combined.

Changes in Total Costs

In the 18 cities priced in all three

studies, the total cost of a moderate

standard of living for the four-person

family averaged about $4,200 in 1951.

In 1959 the total cost of the interim

budget for the same 18 was $6, 100, or

45 percent higher than in 1951. The

cost of the current moderate standard in

the same cities in 1966 averaged $8,700

for renter families and $9,283 for renter and owner families combined. These

levels were 43 percent and 52 percent

higher than in 1959. These increases

in the level of total budget costs reflect

increases in Federal, State, and local

income taxes and social security taxes

as well as the rise in prices and in the

standard of living represented in these

budgets.

Personal income taxes, which accounted for 7 percent of the total budget

cost in 1951, made up 11 percent of the

budget in 1959, and 12 percent of the

combined renter-owner budget in 1966.

Social security taxes amounted to 1

percent of the 1951 budget, 2 percent

in 1959, and 3 percent in 1966. The

cost of family consumption items averaged 87 percent of the total budget cost

in 1951, 83 percent in 1959, 80 percent

in 1966 reflecting the relatively larger

increases in personal income and social

security taxes than in the cost of the

family consumption items.

^ Subsequent analysis indicated that both the estimated average 1959 income of budget-type families and

the level of the interim budget costs were understated.

See discussion, p. 39 of Technical Reference 5, appendixC.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5

Changes in the Consumption Standard

In 1951, the cost of family consumption items in the modest standard

for a family of four averaged about

$3,750 in the 18 cities represented in

the budgets for all three periods. By

1959, the cost of the interim budget

was about $5,180, or 38 percent higher.

The 1966 moderate standard for these

cities averaged $7,189 for commodities

and services purchased by renter families, and $7,655 for renter and owner

families combined. These costs were

39 and 48 percent above the 1959 level,

respectively, and about double that of

1951. The advance in costs reflects

both the rise in the standard of living

represented in the budgets and the increase in prices over this period.

A precise measure of the change

in living costs attributable to changes

in the standard or manner of living, as

distinguished from that caused by increased prices, is almost impossible

to achieve, because many of the commodities and services constituting the

standard for an earlier period cannot

be priced in current markets. However, the Consumer Price Index can be

used to provide a very rough approximation of the effects of price change.

The procedure followed was to update

the costs of the earlier standards to

1966 by changes in the Consumer Price

Index at the subgroup level for each of

the 18 cities. Then, the differences

between the costs of the 1966 standard

in these cities and the updated estimates

of the 1951 and 1959 standards were

deflated by the change in the CPI over

the appropriate period to adjust for the

higher price levels prevailing at the

later date. The residual differences in

costs between the new and the previous

budgets in these 18 cities can be attributed to the upgrading of the standard.

The average difference has been used

hereafter in this report as a reasonable

approximation of the change in the moderate standard for all urban U.S. budgettype families.

About 1 5 of the total 39 percent increase in the budget costs from 1959 to

1966 for renter families can be identified as resulting from advances in

prices, leaving about 24 percent to represent the upgrading of the standard.

For owner and renter families combined, the new standard reflects a 32

percent increase in the standard and

manner of living after factoring out a 16

percent advance in prices. Compared

with 1951, the new standard reflects

approximately a 40 percent rise in

prices, plus increases in the standard

amounting to about 50 percent for

renter families only and 60 percent for

owner and renter families combined.

Hence, over this 15-year period, the

rise in the moderate standard (after adjustment for price changes) would average about 3. 5 to 4 percent a year.

Over approximately the same period (1950 to 1965), the increase in real

after-tax income (also adjusted for

price change) has been estimated at

about 66 percent for families of the

budget type, or approximately 4. 5 percent a year. Average after-tax income

for budget-type families was $4,515 in

1950 and $7,969 in 1960—61, based on

the BLS Survey of Consumer Expenditures for these dates. Current Population Surveys by the Bureau of the

Census for 1959 and 1965 indicate an

increase of 27 percent in median incomes of urban families with two children. Applying this trend to the 1960—61

reported average results in an estimated income of $10,120 in 1965 for

budget-type families. In 1950 dollars,

the averages are $4,515, $6,442, and

$7,497 in 1950, 1960-61 and 1965, respectively. The estimated increase in

real income between 1960—61 and 1965,

amounting to 16 percent, is confirmed

by the Department of Commerce, Office

of Business Economics data on per

capita personal income, per capita disposable income, and per capita personal consumption expenditures.

Therefore, almost all of the improvement in the real level of living of

the average budget-type family has been

reflected in the standard, which continues to represent the same relative

position on the scale of consumption

over the two decades.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6

Upgrading the Food Standard

The cost of the food standard in the

1966 budget reflects both the choice of

the specific Department of Agriculture

(USDA) food plan used to meet the nutritional standard and changes in the

regional preference patterns since 1955.

(Preference patterns are regional variations in the choice of foods which provide the nutritional standard.) The

1959 interim budget food standard was

based on 1955 regional preference patterns; the 1966 budget, on 1965 patterns.

One of the major sources of upgrading in the 1966 standard was in the

food component, which was based on the

USDA moderate-cost food plan. In the

1959 budget, food costs were calculated from an average of the low- and

moderate-cost plans. The cost of food

at home in the 1966 standard is about

12 percent higher than it would have

been if an average of the low- and

moderate-cost plans based on 1965

preference patterns had been used.

Since food at home represents 25 percent of the total cost of consumption in

the 1966 budget, the use of the higher

food standard accounts for about 3 of the

24 percent increase in the overall

standard.

Although families can achieve nutritional adequacy from the low-cost

food plan, it has been estimated that

only 23 percent of those who spend

amounts equivalent to the cost of this

plan actually have nutritionally adequate

diets. The foods included in the plan

require a considerable amount of home

preparation and skill in cooking. Many

of the families existing on low-cost food

budgets have neither the time nor the

technical knowledge to produce interesting, varied, and nutritionally adequate meals at this cost level.

The 1959 budget used 1955 data on

regional variations in the choices of

foods to determine the costs of the food

standard. In the 1959 budget, foodat-home costs were lowest in Atlanta

and Houston and highest in Boston and

Pittsburgh, with a 24 percentage point

spread among the 18 cities common to

the interim and current budget studies.7

These differences resulted primarily

from variation in food choices. When

only price differences were allowed to

affect the costs of the food plans, cities

in the South were not among the least

expensive.

The new standard is based on 1965

data on regional variations in food

choices. The change in food preference patterns over the decade has resulted in relatively lower food costs,

in all except the Southern cities, than

would have been obtained if the 1955

preference patterns had been continued

in the new budget.

In Detroit and Pittsburgh, for example, autumn 1966 moderate-plan food

costs, based on the 1965 preference

patterns, were 4 and 6 percent lower,

respectively, than autumn 1966 costs of

the 1955 preference patterns in these

cities. In Houston and Atlanta, however, they were 2 and 4 percent higher.

As a result, the range in food costs

was reduced from 24 to 16 percentage

points among these 18 cities. Between

1955 and 1965, regional differences in

food patterns lessened. Thus, food

buying habits in the South have moved

closer to the patterns in other parts of

the country.

The new food standard also reflects

the increase in the number of meals

bought and eaten away from home by

families of this type. The 1966 allowance provides for 261 and 310 meals

away from home in metropolitan areas

and small cities, respectively, compared with 212 in the 195 9 budget and

189 in the original budget. The number

of times the family group might eat out

in a restaurant increased from five

visits a year (20 meals) to a visit approximately once a month (42 meals).

7 See Technical Reference 1, appendix C for a

complete explanation of the extent to which regional

variations in food choices, as opposed to variations in

prices, contributed to this overall difference in the cost

of the food standard in the interim budget. A similar

analysis is planned for the 1966 budget.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7

Effect of Changes in Housing

In the housing component of the new

standard, rental costs were based on a

narrower range of dwelling unit quality

(i. e. , the average of the middle third of

the distribution of autumn 1966 contract

rents for units that met the budget

criteria of adequacy) than was used for

the 1959 budget, in which costs were

based on average rents for all units

meeting the adequacy criteria. As a

result, the published costs for rental

housing in Atlanta, Cincinnati, and

Pittsburgh were lower in 1966 than the

estimates published in 1959, despite the

increase in fuel and utility costs over

this period to the tenants who pay separately for them.

The narrower quality range used

for the 1966 budget provides a more

precise basis for measuring the cost of

the moderate standard, but the 1966 estimates understate the change in rental

housing costs in comparison with 1959.

This has relatively little effect on the

overall cost level of the new budget,

however, since only 25 percent of the

budget-type families were assumed to

live in rental housing. The more significant change in the new standard is the

previously discussed inclusion of homeowner costs for three-fourths of the

families.

Increase in Auto Ownership

Accompanying the change in the

housing pattern is a revision of the proportions of automobile owners. In the

1959 budget, New York, Philadelphia,

and Boston were specified as low (48

percent) ownership cities. In the new

budget for these cities, and also for

Chicago, auto ownership is specified

for 80 percent of the families. 8 For

other areas in the 1959 budget, 76 percent of the families were assumed

to own cars, but auto ownership is

specified for 95 to 100 percent of the

families in these areas in 1966. These

upward revisions in the proportions of

auto owners were based on trend information from the 1950 and 1960—61 Surveys of Consumer Expenditures and

from transportation surveys of the Bureau of the Census. Increased ownership and use of automobiles accompanied the trend to homeowner ship and

the extension of suburbs in large metropolitan areas to areas not served by

public transportation.

Better Health Care

Since the m id-1950's, there has

been a substantial extension of hospital

and surgical insurance coverage under

provisions of wage and salary contracts

to families of the budget type. The

medical care budget includes the family's share of the premium for a group

hospitalization plan and out-of-pocket

expenses for other medical services

and supplies. In accordance with the

trend in prevailing practices, the new

budget provides fewer visits to physicians than the 195 9 budget. Quantities

for both budgets were based on utilization rates derived from U. S. Public

Health Service data, which reported a

decline in home and office visits, from

15. 7 to 13. 7 annually, for the age-sex

groups in the budget-type family. The

number of physician's visits to family

members in the hospital increased

during this same period. There are

two reasons for the change in the budget costs for physician's visits, (1) the

extension of insurance to include surgical services in the new budget provides an alternative method of payment

for physician's in-hospital services,

and (2) the 1966 budget specifies some

partial or complete payment of health

insurance premiums by employers. 9

As a result, the cost of the family's

direct payments for physician's visits

was lower in the new than in the interim

standard, despite the increase in physician's fees between 1959 and 1966. The

new budget provides for a substantially

higher standard for dental care than the

previous budget, particularly for periodic examinations, straightening of

teeth, gum treatment, and denture work.

8 For a detailed description, see p. 19.

9 For description, see p. 19.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8

Different Kinds of Clothing

For all of the components derived

by the quantity- or emenditure-income

elasticity technique, 1(* the new budget

allowances reflect changes in the standard of living which accompany changes

in the level of real income. For example, the quantity of the women's casual

shoes tripled, reflecting an increasingly

informal way of life and the wider

choice of such shoes in stores today;

but the quantity of dress shoes declined.

The husband’s clothing budget includes

fewer topcoats, heavy wool suits, and

dress shirts but more wool jackets,

lightweight suits, sports coats and

slacks, and casual shoes— a reflection

of the fact that men also are wearing

less formal apparel. Improved heating

of homes, automobiles, and places of

work requires less protection from cold

weather and also contributes to the

change of men's apparel.

In personal care, the quantities

of haircuts declined for the boy but increased for the man, woman, and girl.

Individual preferences play a large part

in the way families spend their money,

however, and the allowances provided

for these items are not suggested as a

spending plan for an individual family.

10 This technique is described on p. 20.

Intercity Differences

The new budget provides a wide variety of comparative living cost indexes,

not only for total budget costs but for

the major categories of consumer goods

and services (table 2). For the first

time in the Bureau’s program of standard budget research, separate budget

cost estimates and comparative indexes

are provided fo r individual mediumsized metropolitan areas and for broad

regional groupings of nonmetropolitan

areas. The average costs for the items

which make up the budget in each area

are shown in table 1. Also, for the

first time, comparative housing cost

data for renter and owner families are

included separately.

The intercity indexes reflect not

only the difference among areas in price

levels but also climatic or regional differences in the quantities and types of

items required to provide the specified

standard of living, and differences in

State and local taxes. They are comparative living cost indexes and not

comparative price indexes.

Variations in Total Costs

The total annual cost of the budget

in autumn 1966 ranged from $7,855 in

the small southern cities to $11,190 in

Honolulu. (New York had the highest

cost of the mainland cities.) Since

Honolulu costs were also significantly

higher than those in the mainland cities

for most categories of the budget, 11 the

following discussion will be limited to

the 42 mainland areas.

Indexes of relative costs for the

total budget (U.S. urban average cost=

100) ranged from 85 in smaller cities

in the South to 111 in New York— a

spread of 26 percentage points (table 2).

The allowances for life insurance and

occupational expenses were $160 and

$80, respectively, the same in all

cities. The social security deduction,

$277, was also the same, since in all

cities the total budget exceeded the

maximum level of earnings for withholding tax for Federal old-age and survivor’s insurance, i. e. , $6,600. Provision for gifts and contributions,

estimated as 3. 2 percent of total family

11 All major categories except homeowner shelter,

clothing, personal care, and medical care.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
278-870 0 - 6 7

Table 1. Annual Costs of the City W orker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,

39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966

Urban United States Northeast

Item

Food at home ----------------------------------------

Food away from h o m e ------------------------

Housing: T o ta l------------------------------------------------

Renter fam ilies -----------------------------------------

Homeowner fa m ilie s --------------------------------

Shelter: Total 4 -----------------------------------

Rental costs 5 ----------------------------------

Homeowner costs 6 ------------------------

Housefurnishings ---------------------------------

Household operations--------------------------

Transportation: T otal7 ---------------------------------

Automobile ow n ers-----------------------------------

Nonowners of automobiles ---------------------

Clothing ------------------------------------------------------------

Husband -------------------------------------------------

Wife --------------------------------------------------------

Boy-----------------------------------------------------------

G ir l----------------------------------------------------------

Clothing m aterials and se rv ic e s ------

Personal care -------------------------------------------------

Medical care: T o ta l--------------------------------------

Insurance 8 ---------------------------------------------

Physician's visits -------------------------------

Other m edical care ----------------------------

Other family consum ption----------------------------

Reading---------------------------------------------------

R ecreation---------------------------------------------

Education------------------------------------------------

Tobacco -------------------------------------------------

Alcoholic beverages ---------------------------

Miscellaneous expenses---------------------

Cost of fam ily consumption: T otal9 ---------

Renter fam ilies -----------------------------------------

Homeowner fa m ilie s ---------------------------------

Other c o s ts -------------------------------------------------------

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

Life insurance -------------------------------------

Occupational expenses ----------------------------------

Social security and disability payments —

Personal taxes: Total9 ---------------------------------

Renter fam ilies -----------------------------------------

Homeowner fa m ilie s ---------------------------------

Cost of budget: T otal9 ----------------------------------

Renter fam ilies -----------------------------------------

Homeowner fa m ilie s --------------------------------

Total Metropolitan

areas 2

Nonmetropolitan

areas 3

Boston,

M a ss.

Buffalo,

N. Y.

Hartford,

Conn.

Lancaste r,

Pa.

New Y o rk -

Northeastern

New Jersey

Philadelphia,

Pa. —N. J.

P ittsburgh ,

Pa.

Portland,

Maine

Nonmetropolitan

areas 3

$2 , 143 $2 , 173 $ 2 ,0 0 5 $ 2 , 317 $2 , 209 $ 2 , 377 $ 2 , 286 $ 2 , 380 $ 2 , 289 $ 2 , 225 $ 2 , 264 $ 2 ,179

1,824 1,840 1,7 54 2,010 1,8 83 2,0 15 1,951 1,9 96 1,957 1,887 1,970 1,904

319 333 251 307 326 362 335 384 332 338 294 275

2, 214 2,286 1,8 94 2, 732 2, 378 2, 538 1,9 45 2, 655 2,1 30 1,9 66 2,1 97 2, 131

1,736 1,776 1,557 1,875 1,765 1,949 1,651 1,780 1,5 34 1,561 1,659 1,511

2, 374 2,457 2,0 06 3,018 2, 581 2 ,7 3 4 2,0 43 2,9 45 2, 329 2, 100 2, 377 2, 338

1,733 1,808 1,402 2, 245 1,891 2,0 83 1,50 3 2, 181 1,655 1,507 1 ,7 04 1,653

1,255 1,298 1,0 65 1,388 1,279 1 ,4 9 4 1,209 1,307 1,059 1,1 02 1,1 66 1,033

1,893 1,978 1,5 14 2, 531 2,0 95 2, 279 1,601 2, 472 1 ,8 54 1,641 1,8 84 1,860

265 266 258 260 272 260 247 266 270 253 266 256

216 212 234 227 215 195 195 207 205 207 227 222

815 815 813 812 878 909 773 731 739 790 819 820

860 870 813 964 878 909 773 874 873 820 819 820

151 184 - 206 202 204 186 159 203 229 194 _

756 767 709 756 791 783 755 789 766 758 815 7 30

174 174 179 174 171 175 166 176 169 167 180 175

187 191 169 191 202 186 184 197 186 190 202 173

168 169 164 153 169 171 159 174 171 162 164 176

154 159 132 169 179 170 170 175 169 164 191 140

72 74 66 69 70 80 75 68 71 75 78 65

214 218 194 210 218 224 201 217 213 214 203 193

468 481 411 471 461 481 413 497 449 433 466 440

219 225 191 259 233 203 167 210 229 208 268 226

89 94 69 91 88 109 68 119 81 78 94 79

284 290 259 269 273 285 273 288 270 266 256 264

719 734 654 746 722 774 730 763 732 729 727 672

65 70 41 73 73 73 63 73 73 76 80 42

306 310 291 297 291 340 319 308 299 306 291 304

55 60 35 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 35

134 133 139 143 134 129 129 154 138 128 131 142

72 72 69 78 73 76 75 73 75 75 76 64

87 89 79 95 91 96 84 95 87 84 89 85

7,329 7 ,4 74 6, 681 8 ,0 45 7 ,6 57 8 ,0 86 7 ,1 0 4 8,031 7,3 19 7,1 17 7,491 7,1 66

6, 850 6 ,9 64 6, 343 7,1 88 7 ,0 45 7,4 97 6,809 7, 157 6,7 22 6, 712 6,9 53 6, 546

7,488 7,6 43 6,7 93 8, 331 7,861 8 ,2 8 2 7, 202 8, 322 7,5 18 7,251 7,6 70 7,373

413 419 391 438 425 440 406 438 413 406 419 408

253 259 231 278 265 280 246 278 253 246 259 248

160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

289 291 280 277 293 277 277 295 277 277 277 290

1,080 1,112 935 1,300 1,269 1,117 1,0 23 1, 351 1,1 04 1,039 990 1,041

961 985 852 1,065 1,101 992 958 1,1 05 969 949 879 891

1,119 1,155 962 1, 379 1,326 1,159 1,045 1,433 1,149 1,069 1,027 1,091

9, 191 9, 376 8, 366 10,141 9 ,7 2 4 10,000 8, 890 10,195 9, 193 8,9 19 9,2 57 8,9 85

8, 594 8,739 7 ,9 46 9,0 49 8 ,9 43 9 ,2 8 6 8, 530 9 ,0 7 5 8 ,4 62 8 ,4 2 4 8 ,6 08 8,2 14

9,3 90 9,5 88 8, 506 10,505 9 ,9 8 5 10,239 9,0 10 10,568 9,4 37 9 ,0 8 4 9 ,4 7 3 9 ,2 42

See footnotes at end of table.

CD

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs of the City Worker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,

39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued O

North Central

Item Cedar

Rapids ,

Iowa

Cham -

paignUrbana,

111.

Chicago,

111 - —

North -

western

Ind.

Cincinnati,

O h io -K y .-

Ind.

Cleveland,

Ohio

Dayton,

Ohio

Detroit,

Mich.

Green

B ay,

W is.

Indianapolis ,

Ind.

Kansas

City,

M o .-

Kans.

M ilwaukee ,

W is.

Minneapolis—

St. Paul.

Minn.

St. Louis ,

Mo.-111.

Wichita,

Kans.

Nonmetropolitan

areas 3

F o o d ------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 2 ,0 7 8 $ 2 ,1 1 3 $ 2 ,1 5 3 $ 2 ,0 9 8 $ 2 ,091 $ 2 ,0 6 3 $ 2 , 149 $ 1 ,9 9 7 $ 2 ,0 9 9 $ 2 ,1 3 9 $ 2 ,0 6 4 $ 2 , 058 $ 2 , 199 $ 2 , 123 $ 1 ,9 9 4

Food at home --------------------------------------- 1,7 73 1,812 1,835 1,782 1,751 1,778 1,7 96 1,722 1,796 1,827 1,728 1,7 64 1,8 65 1,838 1,767

Food away from h o m e------------------------ 305 302 318 316 340 286 353 276 304 313 336 294 334 285 227

Housing: T o ta l------------------------------------------------ 2, 337 2,480 2, 549 2, 170 2,466 2 ,0 45 2,0 76 2, 101 2, 336 2,0 83 2,508 2, 286 2,2 02 2,0 74 2 ,0 6 4

Renter fam ilies ----------------------------------------- 1,941 2,218 1,961 1,616 1,731 1,798 1,588 1,545 1,819 1,7 38 1,787 1,813 1,719 1,745 1,721

Homeowner fa m ilie s--------------------------------- 2, 469 2, 567 2 ,7 44 2, 355 2,713 2,1 27 2, 239 2, 286 2, 509 2, 199 2,7 48 2, 444 2, 363 2, 183 2, 179

Shelter: T otal4 ----------------------------------- 1 ,8 24 2,0 02 2,075 1,701 1,988 1,585 1,6 05 1,630 1,8 44 1,5 83 2,039 1,828 1,709 1,586 1,5 65

Rental cost 5 ----------------------------------- 1,4 28 1,740 1,488 1,147 1,252 1,3 38 1,1 16 1,0 74 1,3 26 1,236 1,318 1,3 54 1,2 26 1,257 1,222

Homeowner costs 6 ------------------------ 1,9 56 2,089 2, 271 1,886 2,2 34 1,667 1,767 1,815 2,0 16 1,698 2, 279 1,9 85 1,870 1,695 1,680

Housefurnishings --------------------------------- 277 268 258 261 256 259 262 260 272 277 243 248 265 270 260

Household operations-------------------------- 237 211 215 208 222 201 210 211 221 225 226 211 228 218 239

Transportation: T otal7 --------------------------------- 842 794 770 832 822 819 817 826 887 871 829 834 839 848 790

Automobile ow n ers----------------------------------- 842 794 913 832 854 819 850 826 887 871 829 834 872 848 790

Nonowners of automobiles ---------------------- 193 193 201 222 209 186 199 172 196 198 186 199 225 191 -

Clothing ------------------------------------------------------------ 777 764 770 758 781 764 776 765 784 762 758 759 760 747 731

Husband ------------------------------------------------- 178 175 183 171 174 177 177 177 181 175 170 175 170 175 193

Wife -------------------------------------------------------- 189 196 189 191 194 194 194 198 192 190 184 187 189 186 174

Boy----------------------------------------------------------- 171 155 164 168 172 173 171 159 177 173 161 160 165 164 155

G ir l--------------------------------------------------------- 162 164 156 156 165 149 157 151 155 155 165 157 162 151 137

Clothing m aterials and se rv ic e s ------ 77 74 77 72 76 70 78 80 79 69 78 81 74 71 71

Personal care ------------------------------------------------- 227 211 229 193 215 198 223 198 219 234 213 226 222 208 199

M edical care: T o ta l-------------------------------------- 435 480 484 401 429 402 465 427 431 441 443 446 443 445 398

Insurance 8 --------------------------------------------- 212 255 255 170 257 170 278 199 241 207 238 291 217 248 204

Physician's visits ------------------------------- 73 85 86 76 86 77 87 69 84 80 79 76 85 85 66

Other m edical care ---------------------------- 271 286 289 252 233 251 258 272 244 272 262 244 264 253 245

Other fam ily consum ption---------------------------- 748 726 729 721 719 726 735 744 747 741 732 720 710 745 642

R eading--------------------------------------------------- 65 56 71 76 76 70 76 70 74 67 74 71 67 66 40

R ecreation --------------------------------------------- 331 324 307 310 309 325 311 328 318 319 303 293 30 3 330 289

Education ---------------------------------------------- 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 35

Tobacco ------------------------------------------------- 137 128 133 117 117 119 131 138 129 142 142 136 131 135 129

Alcoholic beverages---------------------------- 67 68 67 73 68 69 71 64 77 67 64 73 62 69 68

M iscellaneous expenses--------------------- 88 90 91 85 89 83 86 84 89 86 89 87 87 85 81

Cost of fam ily consumption: T otal9---------- 7 ,4 4 6 7,5 68 7,6 85 7,1 73 7,5 25 7 ,0 1 6 7,241 7,0 57 7 ,5 0 3 7 ,2 7 2 7,5 47 7, 329 7 ,3 7 6 7, 189 6, 819

Renter fam ilies ----------------------------------------- 7 ,0 50 7,3 06 7,0 98 6,619 6,789 6,769 6,7 53 6 ,5 02 6,9 85 6,9 26 6,827 6 ,8 56 6 ,8 9 4 6,861 6 ,4 75

Homeowner fa m ilie s --------------------------------- 7 ,5 7 7 7,6 55 7,881 7,357 7,771 7 ,0 98 7 ,4 0 4 7 ,2 43 7,6 76 7, 387 7,7 87 7,4 87 7,5 37 7,2 98 6 ,9 33

Other costs ------------------------------------------------------- 418 422 426 408 420 40 3 410 404 419 412 421 413 415 409 396

Gifts and contributions----------------------- 258 262 266 248 260 243 250 244 259 252 261 253 255 249 236

Life in suran ce-------------------------------------- 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Occupational expenses ---------------------------------- 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Social security and disability payments — 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277

Personal taxes: T otal9 --------------------------------- 1,201 1,003 1,0 38 1,038 994 935 972 1,262 1 ,1 14 1,1 48 1,415 1, 395 1,0 92 1,097 963

Renter fam ilies ----------------------------------------- 1, 101 949 916 912 842 883 868 1,098 992 1,0 08 1 , 198 1,247 979 1,015 881

Homeowner fa m ilie s --------------------------------- 1 ,2 3 4 1,021 1,079 1,080 1,0 44 953 1,007 1,3 16 1,155 1, 195 1,487 1,4 44 1,130 1, 125 991

Cost of budget: T otal9 ---------------------------------- 9 ,4 21 9 ,3 5 0 9 ,5 0 6 8,9 76 9,2 97 8,711 8,981 9 ,0 8 0 9 ,3 9 4 9 ,1 8 9 9 ,7 4 0 9 ,4 9 5 9,241 9 ,0 5 2 8 ,5 3 5

Renter fam ilies ----------------------------------------- 8 ,9 2 6 9 ,0 3 4 8, 797 8,2 9 5 8,409 8,411 8, 388 8, 361 8 ,7 5 4 8 ,7 0 3 8 ,8 0 3 8 ,8 7 4 8 ,6 4 5 8 ,6 42 8,1 09

Homeowner fa m ilie s --------------------------------- 9 ,5 8 6 9 ,4 55 9,7 43 9 ,2 0 3 9 ,5 93 8,811 9, 178 9,3 20 9 ,6 08 9,3 51 10,052 9 ,7 0 2 9 ,4 4 0 9, 189 8,6 77

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs of the City W orker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,

39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966---- Continued

South

Item Atlanta,

Ga.

Austin,

T ex.

Baltim ore,

Md.

Baton Rouge,

La.

Dallas,

Tex.

Durham,

N. C.

Houston,

Tex.

Nashville,

Tenn.

Orlando,

Fla.

Washington,

D. C .- M d .-

Va.

Nonmetropolitan

areas3

Food ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------- $2 , 016 $ 1 ,9 9 5 $2 , 026 $ 2 , 028 $2 , 021 $ 1,961 $ 2 , 039 $ 1,964 $ 1,988 $ 2 , 135 $ 1,925

Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------ 1,717 1,700 1,702 1,724 1,700 1,687 1,710 1,677 1,687 1,819 1,675

Food away from h om e--------------------------- 299 295 324 305 321 275 329 287 302 316 250

Housing: Total ------------------------------------------------- 1,808 1,676 1,997 1,882 1,891 2, 016 1,794 2, 021 1,961 2, 325 1,676

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------- 1,596 1,462 1,859 1,490 1,714 1,628 1,535 1,604 1,696 1,841 1,452

Homeowner fam ilies ---------------------------------- 1,878 1,748 2, 043 2, 013 1,951 2, 145 1,880 2, 160 2, 050 2,487 1, 751

Shelter: T o ta l4 -------------------------------------- 1,312 1, 205 1,491 1,431 1,421 1, 549 1,310 1, 529 1,477 1,833 1, 188

Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------- 1, 100 991 1, 353 1,038 1,243 1, 161 1,051 1, 112 1, 212 1, 349 964

Homeowner costs 6 --------------------------- 1, 382 1,277 1,537 1,561 1,480 1,678 1, 397 1,668 1,566 1,995 1,263

Housefurnishings ----------------------------------- 267 249 262 258 254 267 263 263 269 255 254

Household operations --------------------------- 229 222 244 194 217 200 221 229 215 237 234

Transportation: T otal7----------------------------------- 826 806 810 896 821 804 860 832 827 823 810

Automobile ow n ers-------------------------------------- 826 806 842 896 821 804 860 832 827 856 810

Nonowners of automobiles ------------------------ 213 167 204 189 187 162 199 183 198 204 _

Clothing --------------------------------------------------------------- 714 703 722 686 702 715 686 741 696 733 671

Husband ---------------------------------------------------- 170 158 173 161 162 169 157 171 165 170 169

Wife ............................................................ ........... 185 178 181 176 180 181 176 192 178 186 162

B o y ------------------------------------------------------------ 161 164 168 154 162 165 161 166 155 163 156

G ir l------------------------------------------------------------ 137 133 137 130 131 133 128 147 131 142 123

Clothing m aterials and services — — 62 71 63 65 67 68 64 66 68 71 60

Personal care ---------------------------------------------------- 227 195 211 221 214 207 216 207 199 221 187

M edical care: ^otal --------------------------------------- 437 420 450 426 478 444 466 427 433 464 394

In suran ce------------------------------------------------- 174 135 222 172 190 213 166 173 165 204 169

Physician's visits ---------------------------------- 87 84 87 89 88 89 89 78 94 93 65

Other m edical care ------------------------------- 275 278 267 263 309 263 306 274 269 283 256

Other fam ily consumption------------------------------- 746 710 7 09 723 734 690 733 736 716 718 648

Reading----------------------------------------------------- 70 64 70 70 66 66 69 68 68 70 40

R ecreation------------------------------------------------ 299 301 297 302 304 314 306 299 300 321 282

Education------------------------------------------------- 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 35

Tobacco ---------------------------------------------------- 144 143 127 139 150 97 149 142 134 113 143

Alcoholic beverages ___________________ 93 65 72 71 73 72 68 85 73 66 73

M iscellaneous ex p e n se s ----------------------- 80 77 82 81 81 81 81 82 81 88 75

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l9 ------------ 6,7 74 6, 505 6, 924 6,8 63 6, 861 6,8 38 6, 794 6, 928 6, 820 7 ,4 19 6, 310

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------- 6, 563 6, 291 6, 785 6 ,4 7 0 6, 683 6 ,4 50 6, 534 6, 511 6, 555 6, 935 6, 086

Homeowner fa m ilie s ----------------------------------- 6, 845 6, 577 6, 970 6,9 94 6, 921 6, 967 6 ,8 8 0 7, 067 6 ,9 08 7, 581 6, 385

Other costs -------------------------------------------------------- 394 385 399 397 397 396 395 400 396 417 378

Gifts and contributions-------------------------- 234 225 239 237 237 236 235 240 236 257 218

Life insurance --------------------------------------- 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Occupational expenses ------------------------------------- 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Social security and disability paym ents------ 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 277

Personal taxes: T o ta l9 ---------------------------------- 908 780 1, 118 920 856 1, 115 841 867 843 1, 188 810

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------- 856 736 1,082 831 819 1, 005 788 781 789 1,061 757

Homeowner fam ilies ---------------------------------- 925 795 1, 130 950 868 1, 152 859 896 861 1,231 827

Cost of budget: T otal9 ----------------------------------- 8,4 34 8, 028 8, 798 8, 538 8 ,4 7 2 8, 707 8, 387 8, 552 8 ,4 16 9, 381 7,855

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------- 8, 170 7, 769 8, 624 8, 056 8, 257 8, 209 8, 074 8, 049 8, 097 8 ,7 7 0 7, 578

Homeowner fa m ilie s ----------------------------------- 8, 522 8, 114 8,8 56 8 ,6 9 9 8, 544 8, 873 8,4 91 8, 719 8, 523 9, 585 7, 947

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs of the City W orker’s Family Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States,

39 Metropolitan Areas, and Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued 10

West

Item Bakersfield,

Calif.

Denver,

Colo.

Honolulu,

Hawaii

Los A n gelesLong Beach,

Calif.

San Diego,

Calif.

San Francisco—

Oakland,

Calif.

Seattle—

Everett,

Wash.

Nonmetro -

politan

areas 1 23 4

Food__________________________________________ $ 2 , 07 3 $ 2 , 111 $ 2 , 551 $ 2 , 100 $ 2,0 32 $ 2 , 188 $ 2 , 268 $ 2 , 037

Food at home .. 1,761 1,797 2, 216 1,7 39 1,686 1,824 1,900 1,786

Food away from hom e______________ 312 314 335 361 346 364 367 251

Housing: T otal______________________________ 1, 916 2, 208 2, 848 2, 164 2,2 11 2 ,4 0 8 2, 314 2, 023

Renter fam ilies _________________________ 1,525 1,775 2, 376 1,862 1,715 2, 092 1,993 1,698

Homeowner fa m ilie s ___________________ 2, 046 2, 352 3, 005 2, 265 2, 377 2, 513 2 ,4 2 0 2, 132

Shelter: Total 1______________________ 1,430 1,709 2, 256 1,698 1,7 36 1,919 1,811 1,508

Rental costs 5_____________________ 1, 039 1,276 1,784 1, 396 1,240 1,6 03 1,491 1, 182

Homeowner costs 6_______________ 1, 560 1,853 2, 413 1,799 1, 902 2, 024 1,918 1,616

Housefurnishings____________________ 293 267 314 280 289 286 266 274

Household operations_______________ 193 2 32 278 186 186 203 2 36 242

Transportation: Total 7____________________ 894 860 993 873 900 896 923 847

Automobile ow n ers_____________________ 894 860 993 910 900 936 923 847

Nonowners of automobiles ____________ 193 204 170 172 238 148 205 -

C lothin g______________________________________ 769 787 7 37 794 766 819 827 782

H usband_______________________________ 173 183 171 172 164 177 183 193

Wife ___________________________________ 189 191 190 198 191 201 195 178

B o y ____________________________________ 178 180 169 179 180 180 188 192

G ir l____________________________________ 155 156 134 159 158 168 173 142

Clothing m aterials and se r v ic e s... 75 77 73 86 72 93 89 77

Personal care _______________________________ 218 220 222 231 215 253 236 209

M edical care: T o ta l_______________________ 542 476 469 626 579 550 495 441

Insurance 8____________________________ 262 247 224 262 262 207 203 205

Physician's visits ___________________ 91 84 90 118 100 110 96 72

Other m edical care _________________ 338 286 282 395 367 351 312 281

Other fam ily consumption_________________ 691 701 806 725 702 745 758 669

Reading________________________________ 61 64 70 72 73 72 69 46

Recreation____________________________ 305 297 354 324 301 333 304 307

E ducation_____________________________ 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 35

Tobacco _______________________________ 107 125 137 107 107 114 157 134

Alcoholic beverages ________________ 74 69 83 73 73 73 76 64

Miscellaneous expenses ___________ 84 87 102 89 88 93 93 83

Cost of fam ily consumption: T otal9-------- 7, 103 7, 36 3 8,626 7 ,5 1 4 7 ,4 05 7, 860 7, 821 7, 008

Renter fam ilies _________________________ 6 ,7 1 2 6 ,9 30 8, 155 7 ,2 12 6 ,9 0 9 7, 544 7, 501 6 ,6 8 3

Homeowner fa m ilie s ___________________ 7, 233 7, 507 8, 783 7,6 15 7, 571 7, 965 7, 928 7, 117

Other c o s ts __________________________________ 406 415 458 420 416 432 430 402

Gifts and contributions_____________ 246 255 298 260 256 272 270 242

Life in suran ce_______________________ 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Occupational expenses ------------------------------- 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Social security and disability payments — 351 277 277 351 351 351 277 277

Personal taxes: T o ta l9------------------------------ 981 1, 100 1,748 1, 080 1, 054 1, 164 1,057 1, 158

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------- 890 990 1,578 1,010 938 1,0 90 991 1,066

Homeowner fa m ilie s------------------------------ 1,011 1, 137 1,805 1, 104 1,092 1, 188 1,079 1, 188

Cost of budget: T otal9-------------------------------- 8, 921 9, 235 11, 190 9,4 45 9, 307 9, 886 9, 665 8, 925

Renter fam ilies _________________________ 8 ,4 39 8,692 10,548 9, 072 8 ,6 9 4 9,4 96 9 ,2 79 8, 508

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------ 9, 082 9, 416 11,404 9, 569 9, 511 10,017 9, 794 9, 065

1 The family consists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy.

2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A re a s, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget.

3 P laces with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 .

4 The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for fam ilies living in rented dwellings, 75 percent for fam ilies living in owned homes.

5 Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents.

6 Interest and principal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas, electricity, and specified equipment; and home repair

and maintenance costs.

7 The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners were weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for

automobile owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltim ore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D. C. , with 1 .4 m illion of population

or more in I960, 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners.

8 The average costs of hospitalization and surgical insurance (as a part of total medical care) were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost

of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid for by em ployer).

9 The total represents the weighted average costs of renter families (25 percent) and owner fam ilies (75 percent).

NOTE: See appendix A for items and quantities included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city. Because of rounding, sums of individual items

may not equal totals.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Indexes of Comparative Living Costs Based on the City W orker’s Family Budget,1 Autumn 1966

___________ _____________ (U. S. Urban Average Cost = 100)______________________________________________________

Cost of family consumption

Area Total

budget Total Food

Housing (shelter, housefurnishing,

household operations) Transportation 5Clothing and

personal

care

Medical

care 6

Other

family

Total consumption

Shelter

Combined2 Renter

costs 3

Homeowner

costs 4

Urban United S tates-------------------------------------------------- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Metropolitan areas 7-------------------------------------------- 102 102 101 103 104 103 104 100 102 103 102

Nonmetropolitan areas 8-------------------------------------- 91 91 94 86 81 85 80 100 93 88 91

Northeast:

Boston, M a s s ------------------------------------------------- 110 110 108 123 130 111 134 100 100 101 104

Buffalo, N . Y -------------------------------------------------- 106 104 103 107 109 102 111 108 104 99 100

Hartford, Conn---------------------------------------------- 109 110 111 115 120 119 120 112 104 103 108

Lancaster, P a ----------------------------------------------- 97 97 107 88 87 96 85 95 99 88 102

New York—Northeastern New J e rse y ------- 111 110 111 120 126 104 131 90 104 106 106

Philadelphia, P a .—N. J -------------------------------- 100 100 107 96 96 84 98 91 101 96 102

Pittsburgh, Pa ---------------------------------------------- 97 97 104 89 87 88 87 97 100 93 102

Portland, Maine ------------------------------------------- 101 102 106 99 98 93 100 101 105 100 101

Nonmetropolitan areas 8------------------------------- 98 98 102 96 95 83 98 101 95 94 93

North Central:

Cedar Rapids, Iow a-------------------------------------- 103 102 97 106 105 114 103 103 104 93 104

Champaign— Urbana, 111 ------------------------------- 102 103 99 112 116 139 110 97 101 103 101

Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Indiana--------- 103 105 100 115 120 119 120 95 103 103 102

Cincinnati, Ohio—K y .—Ind --------------------------- 98 98 98 98 98 91 100 102 98 86 100

Cleveland, O h io--------------------------------------------- 101 103 98 111 115 100 118 101 103 92 100

Dayton, C h io-----'--------------------------------------------- 95 96 96 92 92 107 88 101 99 86 101

Detroit, M ic h ------------------------------------------------- 98 99 100 94 93 89 93 100 103 99 102

Green Bay, W is --------------------------------------------- 99 96 93 95 94 86 96 101 99 91 103

Indianapolis, Ind------------------------------------------- 102 102 98 106 106 106 107 109 103 92 104

Kansas City, M o .—Kans------------------------------- 100 99 100 94 91 99 90 107 103 94 103

Milwaukee, W is --------------------------------------------- 106 103 96 113 118 105 120 102 100 95 102

Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn---------------------- 103 100 96 103 105 108 105 102 102 95 100

St. Louis, M o .—Ill --------------------------------------- 101 101 103 99 99 98 99 103 101 95 99

Wichita, Kans------------------------------------------------- 98 98 99 94 92 100 90 104 98 95 104

Nonmetropolitan areas 8------------------------------- 93 93 93 76 90 97 89 97 96 85 89

South:

Atlanta, G a ----------------------------------------------------- 92 92 94 82 76 88 73 101 97 93 104

Austin, Tex ---------------------------------------------------- 87 89 93 76 70 79 68 99 93 90 99

Baltim ore, Md ---------------------------------------------- 96 94 95 90 86 108 81 99 96 96 98

Baton Rouge, L a ------------------------------------------- 93 94 95 85 83 83 83 110 94 91 101

Dallas , T e x ---------------------------------------------------- 92 94 94 85 82 99 78 101 94 102 102

Durham, N. C ------------------------------------------------- 95 93 92 91 89 93 89 99 95 95 96

Houston, Tex ------------------------------------------------- 91 93 95 81 76 84 74 106 93 100 102

Nashville, Tenn--------------------------------------------- 93 95 92 91 88 89 88 102 98 91 102

Orlando, F la -------------------------------------------------- 92 93 93 89 85 97 83 102 92 93 100

Washington, D .C .—M d .—V a ------------------------ 102 101 100 105 106 108 105 101 98 99 100

Nonmetropolitan areas 8------------------------------- 85 86 90 76 69 77 67 99 88 84 90

West:

Bakersfield, C a lif---------------------------------------- 97 97 97 87 83 83 82 110 102 116 96

Denver, Colo ------------------------------------------------- 100 100 99 100 99 102 98 106 104 102 97

Honolulu, Hawaii------------------------------------------- 122 118 119 129 130 142 128 122 99 100 112

Los Angeles—Long Beach, C a lif---------------- 103 103 98 98 98 111 95 107 106 134 101

San Diego, C a lif------------------------------------------- 101 101 95 100 100 99 101 110 101 124 98

San Francis co-Oakland, C a lif------------------ 108 107 102 109 111 128 107 110 111 118 104

Seattle—Everett, Wash -------------------------------- 105 107 106 104 105 119 101 113 110 106 105

Nonmetropolitan areas 8------------------------------- 97 96 95 91 87 94 85 104 102 94 93

1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, aged 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy.

2 The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for fam ilies living in rented dwellings, 75 percent for fam ilies living in owned homes.

Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents.

Interest and principal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas, electricity, and specified equipment; and home repair and

maintenance costs.

5 The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners were weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for automobile owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltim ore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D. C. , with 1 .4 m illion of population or

more ^in I960, 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners.

The average costs of hospitalization and surgical insurance (as a part of total medical care) were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost

of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid for by employer).

J For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical A reas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget.

Places with population of 2,5 00 to 50,000 . "

NOTE: See appendix A for items and quantities included in each component, and appendix B for the population weights for each city. Because of rounding, sums of individual items may

not equal totals.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14

consumption less miscellaneous expenses, varies from city to city, as do the

allowances for Federal, State, and local

income and personal taxes, which depend on the level of the total budget and

the provisions of the specific State and

local laws. Personal taxes ranged from

$780 in Austin to $1,415 in Milwaukee,

or from 10 to 15 percent of the total

cost of the budget.

Variations in Consumption Costs

The total cost of family consumption

ranged by 24 percentage points around

the U.S. urban average of $7,329. Metropolitan areas as widely dispersed as

Philadelphia, Minneapolis—St. Paul, and

Denver equaled the U.S. urban average.

The 17 metropolitan areas that ranged

above the average in costs of family

consumption all were located in the

North or West, except for Washington D. C. The five areas which exceeded the average by more than 5 percent were Hartford, Boston, New YorkNortheastern New Jersey, San Francisco—Oakland, and Seattle.

Below-average family consumption

costs were represented by the smaller

cities throughout the country, and all

metropolitan areas (except Washington, D. C. ) in the South. Such northern

metropolitan areas as Detroit, Kansas

City, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, also

fell within this category.

The new budgets, like those which

have preceded them, show that wide differentials in housing costs are the most

important factor causing variations in

total family consumption costs among

areas. Differentials in food costs are

next in importance. The three highest

cost areas, Hartford, New York-Northeastern New Jersey, and Boston, had

housing costs which ranged 15 to 23

percent above the average, and food

costs 8 to 11 percent above the average.

Housing costs were higher than average

for all but 3 of the 17 areas which

ranged above the average in total consumption costs. Food costs were higher

than average for nine of the same areas.

On the other hand, housing costs

ranged downward from the average for

all of the smaller (nonmetropolitan)

cities throughout the country; for all

metropolitan areas in the South, except

Washington, D. C. ; and for about onethird of the metropolitan areas in the

North and West. The same pattern was

evident in food costs, except that they

were above average in all cities of the

Northeast. Transportation costs averaged the same in small cities as in

metropolitan areas on a countrywide

basis. Differentials in costs other than

for housing, food, and transportation

did not follow a consistent regional pattern. Medical care showed the widest

differentials, except for shelter.

F ood

The U.S. urban average annual cost of food12 for the budget-type

family was $2,143. Total annual food

costs were highest in the New York area,

where they averaged $2,380. In smaller

cities in the South, a nutritionally comparable diet could be purchased for

$1,925. The diffe rence in cost, amounting to $455, reflects not only variation

in prices but also regional food preference patterns used to calculate the cost

of the nutritional standard for cities

within regions. A special analysis of

the food budget data will be made later

to determine what part of these cost

differentials was due to price and what

part to regional preference patterns.

Budget food costs were almost $200

higher, on the average, in cities in the

Northeast than in the North Central and

the West, and hosts in the last two regions were about $100 above costs for a

nutritionally comparable food plan in

the South. Variations in food costs within each region, which reflect price differences only,were nonetheless sizable.

In the North Central region they ranged

from $1,994 in small cities to $2,199

in the St. Louis area. The annual cost

of food in Washington, D. C. , where the

U.S. preference pattern was used in

the calculation, was $2,135.

12 See p. 17 for a detailed description of sources

and methods used to derive budget quantities for food.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15

Housing

The U.S. urban average outlay for

maintaining an owned home amounted to

$1,893, or half again as much as the

average cost ($1,255) for equivalent

rental housing. Shelter costs for homeowners, however, include regular

monthly payments on the mortgage

principal, in addition to interest

charges, insurance, taxes, repair and

replacement expenses, fuel, and utilities. When principal payments are excluded, homeowner costs were 15 percent above rental housing costs

(including fuel, utilities, and insurance

where these are not part of the contract

rent). The differential was largest in

metropolitan areas with over 1 million

population, where owner costs (including principal payments) averaged 57

percent above renter costs. In smaller

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas ,

owner-renter cost differentials were

38 and 42 percent, respectively. The

budget allowance for the housing component covers shelter, household operation costs, and an amount for replacement of hous efurnishings, assuming the

family had average inventories of these

items at the beginning of the year. 13

Shelter costs for owners (75 percent) and renters (25 percent) combined,

averaged $1,733 for urban U.S., but

varied from $ 2, 245 in Boston to $1,188

in the smaller cities of the South. Compared with the U.S. urban average

($1,255) equal to 100, shelter costs for

renter families were 139 in Champaign—

Urbana, 111., and 77 in the smaller

southern cities. The range in homeowner shelter costs was wider, from

134 in Boston to 67 in small cities in

the South.

Transportation 14

These costs are based on automobile ownership and operation for all

families, except in Boston, Chicago,

New York, and Philadelphia where 1 in

5 families was assumed to use public

transportation exclusively. Also, in

Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los

Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco,

St. Louis, and Washington, D. C. , the

same assumption was made with respect to 1 in 20 families. The variation in the pattern of automobile ownership reflects the greater availability of

public transportation in some areas than

in others and, together with price differences, is a factor in the intercity

cost differential for this component.

Transportation costs ranged from

$923 in Seattle to $731 in New York.

Seattle's costs were 13 percent above,

and New York’s costs 10 percent below,

the U.S. urban average cost ($815).

Clothing and Personal Care 15

Since these costs reflect both differentials in prices and variation in the

kinds and quantities of clothing required

by the climate, they were lowest in the

South. However, costs differed by almost $100 (10 percentage points) between Nashville, which had the highest

of the southern metropolitan areas, and

the small cities in the South. Clothing

and personal care costs were highest

in three large west coast cities— San

Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles----

mostly because prices averaged higher

than elsewhere in the country.

Medical Care 16

The medical care budget includes

the family’s share of the premium for

a group hospitalization and surgical insurance plan and out-of-pocket expenses

for other medical services and supplies.

Costs were highest in the four California cities and lowest in Dayton,

Cincinnati, and small cities in the North

Central and South. Compared with the

U.S. urban average cost ($468) equal

to 100, costs were 134 in Los Angeles

and averaged downward by 50 percentage points to 84 in nonmetropolitan

areas of the South. Since the same

medical care standard was used in all

cities, the intercity differences in cost

are the result of price differences.

Stable Differentials

Comparative costs indexes for

1931, 1959, and 1966, with a few notable

13 For a detailed description, see p. 18.

14 For data sources and a detailed description,

see p. 19.

15 For a detailed description, see p. 20.

^ For a detailed description, see p. 19.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16

exceptions, indicate considerable stability of intercity differentials. Among

the 18 large cities included in all three

studies, the range from high to low was

11 percentage points in 1951, and 20

points in both 1959 and 1966. Among

all 34 large cities covered in 1951,

the range was 14 points; for the 20 large

cities covered in 1959, 20 points; and

for 38 metropolitan areas (excluding

Honolulu) and four regional groupings

of nonmetropolitan areas covered in

1966, the range was 26 points. Inclusion of smaller areas and homeowner

maintenance costs in 1966 might have

been expected to cause a wider range

of variation than that actually observed.

The 18 metropolitan areas covered

in both the 1959 and the 1966 budgets

were arrayed in three groups based on

their relative standing in 1959 with respect to total budget costs. Four of

Data Sources and

The theoretical basis for the procedures used to develop the budget

quantities and pricing lists is summarized in the following quotation from the

report on the original budget:

”... In the actual experience of

families there is a scale which ranks

various consumption patterns in an ascending order from mere subsistence

to plenitude in every respect . . . This

consumption scale is established by

society. It can be discovered only

through observation of the expressions

of society*s ratings of the various existing levels of living. These ratings

of the various levels of living are expressed in the judgments of scientists,

such as medical and public health authorities; and secondly, in the behavior of individual consumers. Scientific

judgments are based primarily on the

studies of the relation between family

consumption and individual and community health. The expressions of consumer judgment appear in the choices

made by consumers as economic barriers are progressively removed. ” 17

the six areas in the upper third of the

distribution in 1959 remained in that

bracket in 1966 (Chicago, Seattle,

Boston, and San Francisco). Los

Angeles and St. Louis fell to the middle

third in 1966. Among the middle third

in 1959, two were in the same group

in 1966 (Washington, D. C. , and Cleveland); Minneapolis moved into the top

third; and the other three (Pittsburgh,

Cincinnati, and Detroit) dropped to the

lowest group. Of the six cities ranking

lowest in 1959, the New York—NorthEastern New Jersey area jumped from

13th to 1st place, primarily because of

the inclusion of homeowner costs and

the expansion of geographical coverage

to additional suburban areas in both

New York and New Jersey. Two cities

(Kansas City and Philadelphia) moved

into the middle bracket, and three

(Baltimore, Atlanta, and Houston) remained 16th, 17th, and 18th, respectively, in the ranking.

Estimating Methods

In 1963, the Bureau's Standard

Budget Research Advisory Committee,

in reviewing the procedures used in the

original and interim budgets, affirmed

"the previous decision to use standards

of adequacy based on the judgment of

scientists and experts to the extent that

such standards are available, supplemented by the analysis of statistical

data on consumer practices. " 18

Budget quantities and pricing specifications which describe the 1966 moderate standard were derived in a variety

of ways. For food-at-home and shelter,

which constitute 48 percent of the total

cost of family consumption, allowances

were based on scientific findings or expert technical judgments concerning requirements for physical health and

social well-being. For transportation

and medical care, accounting for 18

percent of family consumption, the prevailing practices of budget-type families

17 Technical Reference 10, p. 40, in appendix C.

1® Technical Reference 9, p. 40, in appendix C.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17

were used as a guide indeveloping budget allowances. Quantities for the remaining third of the consumption total

were based on analytical studies of the

Bureau's 1960—61 Survey of Consumer

Expenditures. 19 These studies determined by objective procedures the

choices of goods and services made

by consumers in successive income

classes.

The complete list of items and

quantities per year is shown in appendix A. Pricing procedures and specifications for the majority of items in

the budget will be described in Bulletin 157 0—3. A few items, which are

purchased infrequently or represent an

insignificant proportion of the total budget, were not priced. Values for these

items were estimated as described in

appendix A. Procedures for estimating

food, shelter, and health insurance

costs are described in the text. Explanatory notes on the tables describe

variations in the basic budget quantities

as required for use in individual cities.

The following is a general description of

the major sources of data and methods

of estimating quantities for the major

components of the moderate budget.

F ood

The Food and Nutrition Board of

the National Research Council has developed scientific standards for what

constitutes adequate diets for various

sex-age g r o u p s . The U.S. Department of Agriculture has translated

these standards into food plans at different cost levels. The food-at-home

component of the budget was based on

the "moderate-cost" food plan considered suitable for the a v e r a g e U.S.

family. 20 The plan contains 11 food

categories which group foods according

to similarity of nutritive value and uses

in meals. The quantities suggested

furnish the NRC's recommended allowances for nutrients when average food

selections within each group are used.

Regional consumption patterns for

specific foods within the food groups

in the income class containing the median income ($5, 800) of the middle

third of the income distribution were

used in estimating costs. The data

were taken from the USDA 1965 Household Food Consumption Study. The

pattern for the region in which the city

is located was used in the budget for

all cities except Washington, D. C. ,

where the U.S. pattern was used. The

U.S. weights were used for Washington

because its population comes from all

parts of the United States and cannot

be considered typically southern.

The unit costs within the food

groups in the mode rate - cost food plan

were estimated by applying a set of

weights to the prices of the individual

food items included in each major food

group. The weighting factors take into

consideration the regional patterns for

individual items. The spring 1965 level

of prices in each region was determined

from the average prices paid for individual items by urban families in the

$ 5, 000—$ 5, 999 income class in the

USDA survey. Individual city average

prices were estimated from the regional survey averages by applying the

spring 1965 city-to-region ratios of

prices collected by BLS for the same

or comparable items. The spring 1965

estimated average prices in each city

were adjusted to October 1966 by a

special calculation of item price

changes. Prices used for food at home

were those collected regularly for the

Consumer Price Index from a representative sample of food chain stores

and independent stores of various types

(e. g. , groceries and meat markets),

stores at different levels of annual

sales volume, and stores in different

locations within the city. Average

prices for each food were obtained by

averaging independent and chain store

prices separately and then combining

them with weights representing the

relative volume of food sales by all

food stores of each type in the city.

19 For a description of this survey, see Handbook

of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458,

1966), pp. 54—64.

20 Family Food Plans, 1964, CA 62—19, November

1964, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. In this revision of the food

plans the National Research Council's 1963 recommended

dietary allowances, 1963 USDA nutritive values, and the

USDA's most recent estimates of food consumption patterns were used.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18

The Department of Agriculture food

plans provide for 21 meals per person

per week to be eaten at home or carried

from home. In the budget for metropolitan areas, the food-at-home component was adjusted to provide 4, 107

meals a year at home and 261 meals

away from home. In nonmetropolitan

areas, these quantities were 4, 058 and

310, respectively, mainly reflecting the

purchase of more school lunches in

small cities. The costs of lunches at

work and other meals away from home

were calculated by using luncheon and

dinner prices collected for the Consumer Price Index. School lunch costs

were supplied by the public school systems in each budget area.

Shelter Costs

Standards for the shelter component

of the budget were those established by

the American Public Health Association

and the U.S. Public Housing Administration. They relate to sleeping space

requirements, essential household

equipment (including plumbing), adequate utilities and heat, structural condition, and neighborhood location.

For renter families, the shelter

standard called for an unfurnished fiveroom unit (house or apartment) in sound

condition and with a complete private

bath, a fully equipped kitchen, hot and

cold running water, electricity, central

or other installed heating, access to

public transportation, schools, grocery

stores, play space for children, and

location in residential neighborhoods

free from hazards or nuisances.

Rates for dwellings which met this

standard were obtained from tenants

during the regular rent surveys for the

Consumer Price Index between August

1966 and January 1967. The cost of

the rental shelter standard was calculated from the average rent in the middle third of the distribution of autumn

1966 rents. Since monthly contract

rents in apartment structures usually

include water, heat, light, cooking

fuel, refrigerator, etc. , the cost for

these items was added to the contract

rent for dwellings whose tenants paid

separately for them. Insurance on

household contents and against injury

to persons on the property, comparable

with the coverage provided for homeowner families, also was included in

rental housing costs.

For homeowner families, the cost

of maintaining the shelter standard was

calculated for a five- or six-room, 1-

or lV2 -t>ath house that met the same

dwelling unit and neighborhood specifications as described above for rental

units. Cost included mortgage principal and interest payments, the assumption being that the family purchased the

home 7 years ago with a 15-year first

mortgage which represented 75 percent

of the purchase price. Terms of the

mortgage and the ratio of mortgage to

purchase price were based on practices

of all urban families reporting the purchase of homes of the budget type in the

1960—61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. Purchase price was determined

separately for each metropolitan area

(and within areas for the city proper

and the suburbs) and for each small

city. It represented the average price

in the middle third of the distribution

of market values for dwellings which

met the housing standard in the BLS

1959“ 60 Comprehensive Housing Unit

Survey.

The average U.S. urban purchase

price for such dwellings was $14,480

in 1960—61. Principal and interest

costs were estimated separately for

conventional mortgages and mortgages

insured by the Federal Housing Administration or by the Veterans Administration. They were combined by

weights representing the distribution

of type of mortgage reported by U.S.

urban buyers in this purchase-price

class. In addition, the cost included

appropriate taxes, reflecting varying

assessment practices and rates in individual cities. On insurance, the most

economical comprehensive homeowner's

policy was used which would provide insurance up to 80 percent of the 1960—61

market value of the house, in addition

to some coverage on its contents and

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19

for injury to persons on the property.

An allowance for repairs and replacement costs was included, based on an

analysis of the 1960—61 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for budget-type

families.

Costs of fuel and utilities also were

included. The housing specifications

required central heating equipment in

cities where the average January temperature is 40° F. or colder, except

in five cities where other installed

heating equipment was accepted as

more typical of the manner of living.

Central or other installed heating equipment (base burner, pipeless furnace,

or stove, with flue) was required for

cities with warmer climates, except for

Honolulu, and McAllen, Tex. , where

average January temperatures were

72° and 61° , respectively. A space

heater also was included for each of

the second group of cities except

Honolulu.

To adjust for climatic differences,

fuel requirements fo r maintaining an

indoor winter temperature of 70° F.

were estimated. The basis for these

estimates was the amount of fuel used

to heat homes of approximately the

budget specification, as reported in a

1962 trade association survey of 62

cities (supplemented by data from individual utility companies). These data

were related to annual degree days in

these cities, as recorded by the U.S.

Weather Bureau. In the BLS analysis,

the quantities of fuel were expressed

in standard BTU's converted, fo r

pricing purposes, to the predominant

type of heating fuel used in each city.

Estimates of electricity and other utilities for the appliances specified for the

budget were obtained from utility companies and associations.

Transportation

The standard for transportation

reflects the high level of automobile

ownership reported in the 1960—61

Survey of Consumer Expenditures,

for budget type families at all income

levels. Only a small f r a c t i o n did

not own an a u t o m o b i l e , and most

commonly these families lived in the

central cities of the largest metropolitan areas where public transportation is readily accessible. Automobile

ownership was specified, therefore, for

80 percent of the budget families in

Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia; 95 percent of the families in

other metropolitan areas with 1.4 m illion population or more in I960; and

100 percent of the families in all other

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

In the tables showing budget costs

and indexes, the cost of transportation

for nonowners was estimated and published for all areas as a convenience to

budget users. In areas in which 100

percent auto ownership was specified,

the estimates for nonowners were not

used in calculating the total cost of

transportation for the budget.

The standard provides for the purchase of a used car every 4 years,

based on the customary purchases of

families of the budget-type. Data on

home-to-work travel were obtained

from the 1963 Passenger Transportation Survey of the Bureau of the Census.

These were used to adjust the average

number of miles driven by automobile

owners in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, since the proportions of workers reporting use of a

private automobile or carpool to get

to work were lower in these than in

other metropolitan areas. A corresponding increase in the allowance for

public transportation in these four

areas also was made.

Medical Care

The medical care allowance includes a family group insurance contract (or contracts) obtained through the

husband’s place of employment. This

was consistent with the prevailing practices of budget-type families, as reported in the I960—61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures and confirmed by

data from the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare. It covered the

cost of hospitalization and surgical

services. First quarter 1967 costs

of a standardized contract in the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20

areas priced for the budget were estimated for the commercial carriers by

the Health Insurance Association of

America. The contract provides full

coverage for 70 days1 care in a room

of two beds or more for each hospital

confinement, all supplies and ancillary

services normally provided, and surgical benefits. 21 Costs were also obtained for Blue C r o s s -B lu e Shield

contracts most nearly comparable to

the commercial insurance provisions.

Budget costs were based on the lower

of the two premiums (either for the

commercial or the Blue Cross contracts) in each area.

A majority of families of the budget

type do not bear the full cost of their

health insurance, since part or all of

the premium is paid by the employer.

The cost of the plan selected for each

area, therefore, was weighted by the

following proportions of families:

30 percent paying the full cost of their

insurance; 26 percent paying half of

the cost; and 44 percent making no contributions (the entire cost being paid

by the employer).

Quantities of medical care services

not covered by i n s u r a n c e — visits to

physicians and dental care— were derived from 1963-64 utilization data from

the National Health Survey. Allowances

for eye care, prescription and nonprescription drugs, and other miscellaneous medical care were developed

from the 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure Survey data.

Average fees and prices for medical services and supplies were those

collected for the Consumer Price Index,

supplemented by prices obtained specifically for budget use.

Other Goods and Services

Food at home, shelter, transportation, and medical care, as specified for

the budget, account for two-thirds of

family consumption. The remaining

third includes housefurnishings, household operation, clothing, personal care,

education, reading, recreation, meals

away from home, alcoholic beverages,

and tobacco. For these components,

budget allowances were developed by

examining the quantities of, or expenditures for, various items purchased at

successive income levels by budget-type

families found in the Bureaus 1960-61

Survey of Consumer Expenditures. The

purpose of the analysis was to determine the income level at which the rate

of increase in quantities purchased, or

expenditures, begins to decline in relation to the rate of change in income,

i. e. , the point of maximum elasticity.

The average number and kinds of items

purchased at these income levels are

the quantities and qualities specified for

the budget. Thus, they represent a

composite of individual choices. This

technique uses the consumers1 collective judgment as to what is adequate

and is based on the assumption that

increasing elasticity indicates increasing urgency of demand, and decreasing

elasticity indicates decreasing urgency.

The point of maximum elasticity has

been described as the point on the income scale where families stop buying

"more and m o r e " and s t a r t buying

either "better and better" or something

else less essential to them. 22

For a majority of the items in the

housefurnishings, clothing, personal

care, and recreation components, the

quantities could be standardized for

quality (by use of a constant price)

across income classes; for the remainder of the components, only expenditure-income elasticities could be

calculated. The point of maximum

elasticity for the majority of subgroups

in the clothing component was located

21

See Wage and Related Benefits. Part II: Metropolitan Areas, United States and Regional Summaries,

1964-65 (BLS Bulletin 1430-83, 1966), pp. 97 and 106;

Walter W. Kolodrubetz, "Growth in Employer-Benefit

Plans, 1950-65, " Social Security Bulletin, 1967, p. 18.

22 This technique was developed for the original

City Worker's Family Budget and is described in detail

in Technical Reference 10, appendix C. It was also

used, with some refinements, in deriving quantities for

The Interim City Worker's Family Budget in 1959 (Technical Reference 5). A mimeographed report providing

a more detailed description of its use in the current

budget will be available on request.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21

in the initial (after tax) income class

($ 3, 000—$ 4, 000) for this family type.

(There were no budget-type families,

with a full-time earner, whose 1960—61

after-tax income was below $ 3,000.)

In the housefurnishings component, the

characteristic pattern, in which quantities at first increase relatively more

rapidly than income and then increase

at a relatively slower rate than income,

was found. The inflection, i. e. , the

point of maximum elasticity, was most

commonly in the $ 5, 000—$ 6, 000 class.

For reading, recreation, personal

care, household operations, and tobacco, the inflection point occurred

most frequently in the next highest

class ($ 6, 000-$ 7, 500). Elasticities

for food away from home and alcoholic

beverages were ever-increasing, and

quantities for these components also

were derived from the $ 6, 000—$ 7, 500

class. In the main, therefore, the

budget allowances for these other goods

and services reflect the collective judgment of families in the income class

containing the median 1960—61 after-tax

income ($7,277).

Other Costs

The allowance for gifts and contributions was based on an upward adjustment of the ratio estimate used

in the interim budget; this adjustment reflected both the change in the

level of living and the increase in

prices between 1959 and 1966. The

average outlay for life insurance in the

interim budget was revised in a similar

manner. Occupational expenses in the

new budget represent the average outlay

in the median income class for budgettype families, as reported in the I960—

61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures.

Social security and Federal, State, and

local income taxes were calculated from

rates applicable in 1966, as required

by the level of the total budget.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appends-----Contents

Page

Appendix A. Annual quantities of items provided in the components of

the City Worker’ s Family Budget, autumn 1966 ------------------------------------------- 23

Tables:

A - 1. Food budget quantities--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

A. Food at home ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

B. Food away from home ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

A - 2. Housing budget quantities---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

A. Shelter: Renter fam ilies------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25

B. Shelter: Homeowner families --------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

C. Housefurnishings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

D. Household operations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27

A - 3. Transportation budget quantities --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

A. Automobile owners---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

B. Nonowners of automobiles --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

A -4 . Clothing budget quantities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29

A. Husband------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29

B. Boy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29

C. Wife ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

D. Girl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

E. Clothing materials and services ----------------------------------------------------------------- 31

A - 5. Personal ca re ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33

A - 6. Medical care ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33

A -7 . Other family consumption -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

A. Reading m aterials------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34

B. Recreation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

C. Education -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

D. Tobacco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

E. Alcoholic beverages--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

F. Miscellaneous expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

A - 8. Other costs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

A. Gifts and contributions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

B. Life insurance------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 35

A -9 • Occupational expenses and taxes --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

A. Occupational expenses----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

B. Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

Appendix B. Index of population weights used in the City Worker's Family Budget--------- 37

Appendix C. Technical references ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 39

NOTE: The tables which follow list, for each component of the City Worker's Family

Budget, the annual average quantities of items for which autumn 1966 prices were obtained

or estimated to determine the annual costs of the budget. The quantities describe a modest

living standard for a family of four— an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed

outside the home, and two children, a girl age 8 and a boy 13. The methods and

sources used to derive the budget quantities are described in the text of this bulletin.

The codes in the tables identify the specifications used in pricing the commodities and

services for the budget. For some budget items for which no code is shown, only an

estimated cost in 1966 for all cities is indicated. These estimates were obtained by:

(1) Updating the cost of the item, as reported in the 1960—61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, to 1966 by change in the appropriate subgroup, group, or "a ll item s" Consumer Price

Index; (2) updating the level of consumption, using data reported in trade journals, U.S.

Department of Commerce's industry reports, and other sources; or (3) calculating the current

cost of the item as a ratio of the cost of other items based on comparable ratios reported

in the 1960—61 CES. For further information on priced items see Bulletin 1570—3, Pricing

Procedures, Specifications, and Average Prices, Autumn 1966 (to be published at a later

date),"which covers all priced items in the budget, other than food and shelter, for urban

United States and five metropolitan areas (Chicago, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, and

Washington, D .C .).

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A

Table A-l. Food Budget Quantities

A. Food at home 1

Item

Metropolitan areas i Nonmetropolitan areas :

Quantity

Per week Per year Per week

19.00 929. 1 19-00

17. 50 855. 8 17. 50

2. 25 110. 0 2. 25

. 88 43. 0 . 88

12. 25 599.0 12. 25

9.00 440. 1 9. 00

8. 50 415. 6 8. 50

25. 00 1,222.5 25. 00

2. 75 134. 5 2. 75

3. 38 165. 3 3. 38

(6) (6) M n

1.96

$0. 27

1.96

$0. 27

Per year“

Milk and milk products 4 ----

Meat, poultry, and fish------

E ggs--------------------------------------

Dry beans, peas, and nuts -■

Grain products 5 -------------------

Citrus fruit and tomatoes----

Potatoes--------------------------------

Other vegetables and fruits -

Fats and oil -------------------------

Sugar and sweets ----------------

Accessories:

Coffee------------------------------

Tea ----------------------------------

— quartpound —

dozenpound -

— do----

— do----

— do----

— do----

— do----

— do----

Soft drinks -

Other 7 ------

---------- do-----

---------- do-----

- 72 ounces —

917. 7

845. 2

108. 7

42. 5

591.7

434. 7

410. 6

1,207.5

132. 8

163. 2

B. Food away from home

Meals - — ---- —----------------------------- ---- ------— -------- —

Pricing code

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Quantity per year

261

82

137

42

$75. 34

3 310

57

3211

42

$42. 67

Lunches at work ------------------------------------------------------

Lunches at scho01 --------- ------—-------------------— —

54-510X----------------------

54 590v

Othe r - - 54-530X----------------------

OIlclLi\.D . ......

1 Quantities from the moderate-cost food plan published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. (See

footnote 20, p. 17. )

2 The quantity allowances in metropolitan areas provide 84 meals weekly, and 4,107 meals annually after

adjustment for 261 meals away from home.

3 The quantity allowances in the nonmetropolitan areas provide 84 meals weekly, and from 4,139 to 4,267 meals

annually because of variation in the number of school lunches in different cities. Quantities shown are for a nonmetropolitan U.S. average of 4,058 meals at home and 310 meals away from home.

4 Includes fluid whole milk and milk products; quantities are converted to units containing the same calcium

content as milk, by using the following equivalents: 1 cup of milk equals 3U pound of cottage cheese (creamed),

1 pound of cream cheese, IV3 ounces of cheddar cheese, or 1 scant pint of ice cream.

5 Weight in terms of flour and cereal. IV2 pounds of bread or baked goods are counted as 1 pound of flour.

6 The coffee and tea quantities shown below are for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas within a

region and reflect regional preference patterns:

Quantity per week

(in pounds)

Region Coffee Tea

Northeast ----------------------------- 0.438 0.048

North Central---------------------- .562 .034

South------------------------------------ . 370 . 058

W est-------------------------------------- .384 .028

7 Estimated cost in 1966 in all cities.

Explanatory notes: The annual allowance for food at home used in the calculation of the City Worker's Family

Budget is the estimated cost of the moderate-cost food plan after adjustment for meals eaten away from home. The

selection of specific foods which meet the nutritional standard and reflect regional preference patterns also affects

the food budget cost. In estimating the unit cost of each of the major food groups for individual cities, regional

preference patterns were taken into account for all cities except Washington, D. C. , where the U.S. pattern was

used. (See explanation, p. 17.) Specifications for pricing individual food items are available upon request.

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25

A . Shelter: R enter fam ilies1

Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities

Item Pricing code Quantity per year,

all cities

Contract rent:

Unfurnished 5-room dwelling unit containing

specified installed equipment ---------------- month —

Heating fuel:

Most common type heating fuel used in

each city----------------------------------------------------------------

Water ------------------------------------------------------- cubic foot —

Electricity:

Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical

appliances ---------------------------------- kilowatt-hour —

Power for heating equipment------------------------- do----

Gas:4

Cooking------------------------------------------------------- therm —

Hot water heating-------------------------------------------- do----

Furnace pilot -------------------------------------------------do------

Refuse disposal:

Trash and garbage removal —

Equipment:

Refrigerator --------------------------

Range --------------------------------------

Insurance on household contents

21-010X

22-748

22-500X

22-370X

22-380X

22-390X

23-387 -----------------

23-399, 23-399A,

23-970X --------------

12

(2)

14, 560

1,800

(3 )

120

300

120

(5)

23-399C----

. 06

. 06

1 . 00

B. Shelter: Homeowner families

Shelter (5- or 6-room dwelling):

Mortage interest, principal payment --------------------

Property tax ------------------------------------------------------------

Homeowner insurance premium-----------------------------

Repairs and maintenance:

Repairs contracted out:

Painting and redecoration-----------------------------

Repair of roof ------------------------------------------------

Other---------------------------------------------------------------

Repair materials:

Painting and redecoration------------- gallons —

Other---------------------------------------------------------------

Heating fuel:

Most common type heating fuel used in

each city ----------------------------------------------------------------

Water -------------------------------------------------------- cubic foot —

Electricity:

Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical

appliances ---------------------------------- kilowatt-hour —

Power for heating equipment-----------------------do------

Gas :4

Cooking------------------------------------------------------- therm —

Hot water heating------------------------------------------do------

Furnace pilot -------------------------------------------------do------

Refuse disposal:

Trash and garbage removal -----------------------------------

Equipment:

Refrigerator ________________________________________

Range _______________________________________________

Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

21-11 OX ----------------------------------- 1. 00 1. 00

21-120X ----------------------------------- 1.00 1.00

21-140X ----------------------------------- 1.00 1.00

21-527 ------------------------------------- . 09 . 14

21-437 ------------------------------------- . 03 . 05

(6) (6)

21-181 ------------------------------------- 3.82 2. 35

(7) (7)

(2) (2)

22-748 -------------------------------------- 14, 560 14, 560

2 2 -5 0 0 X ------------ ------------------ 1,800 1,800

(3) (3)

22-370X ----------------------------------- 120 120

22-380X ----------------------------------- 300 300

22-390X ----------------------------------- 120 120

23-984FB -------------------------------- 1. 00 1. 00

23-387 _________________________ . 06 . 06

23-399, 23-399A, 23-399C___ . 06 . 06

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26

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

C. Housefurnishings

Quantity per year

Household textiles:

Item Pricing code Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Bedding:

Sheets ---------------------

Pillow cases ---------

Pillows ------------------

Blankets and quilts

Bedspreads------------

Towels:

23-001, 23-001A

23-008FB -----------

23-013 ----------------

23-022FB -----------

23-031 ----------------

1. 44

.81

. 16

. 27

. 40

1. 30

1. 08

. 13

. 64

. 34

B ath-----------------

Other----------------

Window coverings:

Curtains-----------

Draperies--------

Other---------------------

Floor coverings:

Room-size rug -----

Other---------------------

F urniture:

23-050FB

23-085, 23-085A

23-091FB -----------

1.23 1.41

(8 )

.83

. 25

(9 )

.90

. 13

(9)

23-335, 23-335A, 23-336, 23-377FB — . 06

(10)

. 06

(10)

Living room:

Living room suite ---------

Chair, fully upholstered

Table-------------------------------

Sofa---------------------------------

Other-------------------------------

Bedroom:

23-132, 23-133, 23-133A

23-130X ----------------------------

23-169FB -------------------------

23-192 ------------------------------

. 04

.09

. 08

. 04

(U )

. 04

. 09

. 08

. 04

(“ )

Bedroom suite--------------

Bed --------------------------------

Mattress and bedspring

Dresser and chest--------

23-211, 23-211 A, 23-211B

23-200X ------------------------------

23-204X, 2 3-204----------------

23-210X ------------------------------

. 03

. 02

. 36

. 01

. 03

. 02

. 36

. 01

Dining room:

Dining room suite ---------------------

Dining room table ---------------------

Dining room chairs ------------------

Dinette se t---------------------------------

Porch and garden---------------------------

Other-----------------------------------------------

Electrical equipment and appliances:

Vacuum cleaner-----------------------------

Washing machine ---------------------------

Toaster--------------------------------------------

Fryer, food mixer, etc-----------------

Iron--------------------------------------------------

Sewing machine -----------------------------

Air conditioner-------------------------------

Fan --------------------------------------------------

23-228, 23-228A

23-230X -------------

23-240X -------------

23-220X -------------

23-250X -------------

23-411 -------

23-423 -------

23-465 AUX

2 3 -4 7 0 X -----

23-471 AUX

23-460X -----

23-440X -----

23-450X -----

. 01 

. 04

. 05

. 03

. 30

(12)

. 07

. 15

. 03

. 10 

. 09

. 04

(13)

. 06

. 01 

. 04

. 05

. 03

. 30

(12)

. 07

. 15

. 03

. 10

. 09

. 04

(13)

. 06

Housewares, tableware, miscellaneous

equipment:

Heater, room -size--------------------

Carpet sweeper --------------------------

Dishes, se t ---------------------------------

Other serving pieces -----------------

Light bulbs ---------------------------------

Lam p-------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous equipment----------

Other:

Servicing, repairs, and rentals

Lawn mower -------------------------------

Tools, paint brush, etc-------------

23-480X ---------------------------

23-591 ------------------------------

23-531, 23-531C, 23-533

H-954

23-608

23-680X

17

. 02

. 04

. 09

(14)

15. 00

. 24

(15)

(16)

. 04

$ 8. 20

. 02

. 04

. 09

(14)

15. 00

. 24

(15)

(16)

. 04

$ 8 . 20

D. Household Operations

Laundry and cleaning supplies:

Laundry soap:

Soap flakes, chips----------

Detergent powder,

granules ------------------------

Detergent, liquid ------------

Starch, spray -----------------------

Bleach, liquid ----------------------

13 ounces — H-802 --------------------------------------------------- 4. 22 5. 08

20 ounces — H-804 ---------------------------------------------------- 56. 70 74. 36

1 5 ounces — H-807 ---------------------------------------------------- 25. 28 31.03

14 ounces — H-952FB ----------------------------------------------- 3. 98 4. 65

llz gallon — H-950FB ----------------------------------------------- 13. 46 16. 14

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities--- Continued

D. Household Operations— Continued

Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

areas areas

Laundry and cleaning supplies— Continued

Floor w ax-------------------------------------27 ounces --

Scouring powder ----------------------14 ounces --

Scouring pads-------------------------- box of 10 —

Air deodorizer ------------------------ 7 ounces —

Other-------------------------------------------------------------

Paper supplies:

Paper napkins --------------------------box of 80 —

Toilet tissue --------------------650-sheet roll —

Paper towels, shelf, wax paper,

foil, etc -----------------------------------------------------

Services and miscellaneous supplies:

Launderettes----------------------------------pound —

Miscellaneous supplies ------------------------------

Communications:

Residential telephone service:

Basic charge-------------------------------------------

Long distance-----------------------------------------

Postag<

Stationery, greeting cards, etc

H-951FB

H-953FB

H-901 -----

H-906 — -

H-764

H-799

34-754 •

22-624

3. 88 5. 03

17. 41 22. 59

5. 56 7. 22

3. 76 4. 70

(18) (18)

13. 97 20. 82

95. 34 95. 34

(19) (19)

139.30 139.30

(Z°) (2 °)

12. 00 12. 00

(21) (21)

$15. 56 17 $18. 28

$ 12. 93 17 $ 10. 81

1 Allowances specified for fuel, utilities, and equipment do not apply when the cost of these items is

included in the monthly rent.

2 Heating fuel requirements vary with the length and severity of the cold season, type of structure, and

type of heating equipment. The variation caused by climate is measured in standard British thermal units (B .t.u . )

(convertible to equivalent quantities of fuel oil, gas, etc.) and the normal number of annual degree days in a

given city, derived from annual data published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. (A degree day is a unit, based upon

temperature difference and time, which measures the difference between the average temperature for the day and

65° F. when the mean temperature is less than 65° F. ; the number of degree days for any one day is equal to

the number of Fahrenheit degrees difference between the average and 65° F. ) The average number of B .t.u .'s

required in a given city may be computed as follows:

Million of B .t. u. 's= -302. 817962 -+* 110. 285800 times the logarithm of the

normal number of annual degree days.

The quantity of any type of heating fuel used in a given city can be determined by converting the required number

of B .t .u .'s into quantities of the type of fuel used. In the determination of the total amount of fuel required,

both the average B .t.u . content and an assumed efficiency factor must be taken into consideration for each

specified fuel.

3 The kw.-hrs. of electricity required to operate gas or oil heating equipment vary according to the amount

of fuel used. The average required number of kw.-hrs. assumed here is 0. 25 per therm of gas and 0. 44 per

gallon of fuel oil.

4 In cities where either electricity or oil was the predominant fuel used for cooking and/or hot

water heating, it was substituted for gas. The annual allowances for electricity are as follows: Cooking, 1800 kw. -hrs. ; hot water heating, 5220 kw. -hrs. For oil, the annual requirement of hot water heating

is 2 32 gallons.

5 Cost is included in the rent.

6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 120. 1 percent of cost of contracting for itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 122.6 percent.

7 In metropolitan areas, cost is 64.6 percent of cost of paint and redecorating materials; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 128.3 percent.

8 In metropolitan areas, cost is 19. 5 percent of cost of bath towels; in nonmetropolitan areas, 24. 5 percent.

9 In metropolitan areas, cost is 63. 3 percent of total cost of itemized textiles; in nonmetropolitan areas,

13.9 percent.

'l0 Cost is 66.9 percent of cost of room-size rug in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

11 Cost is 5. 0 percent of cost of itemized living room furniture in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

12 Cost is 7. 2 percent of cost of itemized furniture.

13 An annual allowance of 0. 04 air conditioners is limited to cities with an average July-Aug. temperature

of 85° and over, and a relative humidity of at least 85 percent; cities with an average July-Aug. temperature

of 90° or over, regardless of relative humidity; and Los Angeles, with average July-Aug. temperatures close

to 85° and relative humidity nearly 85 percent, as reported by U.S. Weather Bureau.

14 Cost is 96.0 percent of cost of sets of dishes.

15 Cost is 9.7 percent of total cost of furniture, equipment, and housewares.

16 Cost is 11.6 percent of total cost of furniture and equipment.

17 Estimated cost for all cities.

18 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.7 percent of cost of itemized laundry and cleaning supplies; in nonmetropolitan areas, 22.0 percent.

*9 Cost is 150.0 percent of cost of itemized paper products.

20 In metropolitan areas, cost is 21.6 percent of total cost of laundry, cleaning, and paper supplies; in

nonmetropolitan areas, 17.4 percent.

21 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.9 percent of cost of basic telephone service; in nonmetropolitan areas,

43. 6 percent.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28

Table A-3. Transportation Budget Quantities1

Quantity per year

Item Pricing code Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

areas areas

A. Automobile owners

Private transportation:

Replacement of automobile------------------------------------ 41-030X -------------------- 0. 243 0. 296

Automobile operating expenses:

Gasoline------------------------------------------------ gallon — 41-065 _______________ (1 2) 661. 20

Motor oil----------------------------------------------- quart — 41-097 ---------------------- (2) 26. 08

Lubrication---------------------------------------------------------- 41-355 _______________ 2. 00 2. 00

Antifreeze-------------------------------------------- gallon — 41-11 OX-------------------- (3 4) (3)

Tires, tubeless -------------------------------------------------- 41-161 _______________ 1. 22 1. 56

Battery---------------------------------------------------------------- 41-22 6 F B ----------------- . 33 . 33

Repairs and parts:

Motor tuneup-------------------------------------------------- 41-483 _______________ 1. 00 1. 00

Front-end alignment-------------------------------------- 41-675 ---------------------- . 23 . 30

Brakes relined---------------------------------------------- 41-6 4 3 F B ----------------- . 29 . 27

Other repairs------------------------------------------------- (?) (?)

Other operating expenses ---------------------------------- (5 ) (5)

Insurance:

Public liability---------------------------------------------- 41-807 _______________ 1. 00 1. 00

Comprehensive---------------------------------------------- 41-81 OX-------------------- . 50 . 50

Registration fees:

State---------------------------------------------------------------- 41-870 ---------------------- 1. 00 1. 00

Local--------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1-87 1 F B ___________ 1.00 1. 00

In sp*3 r>ti fo** 41 - 88nTTR (6 ) (6 )

Personal property tax --------------------------------------- (7) (7 )

Operator's perm it-----------------------------renewal — 41-902 ---------------------- 2. 00 2. 00

Tolls, parking, fines, etc ------------------------------- (8) (8)

Public transportation:

Local:

,9r}innl rpfi rirlp 4?_ninv (9) 53. 00

A.11 nfb ^ r faT'f>s H n 4?_n?nv (10 1) 56. 00

O-Q'f city .......- __ 11 $9. 48 11 $ 2. 19

B. Nonowners of automobiles

Public transportation:

Local:

5-> rh <"><"> 1 - .... - d 4 ?.m n x 148.00

442. 00

11 $60. 11

All other fares ......... Hn 4?-n?nv ___ ....

Oy|f nf r"ify _ _ _ _ __ _

1 The mode of transportation within cities and metropolitan areas is related to location, size, and characteristics of the community. The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners were weighted by the following

proportions of families: For 4 cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago), 80 percent for automobile owners, 20 percent for nonowners; for 8 cities (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. ,

San Francisco, and Los Angeles), 95 percent for automobile owners, 5 percent for nonowners; for 27 other metropolitan areas, and all nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners.

2 The annual allowances for gasoline and motor oil vary by the extent that automobile owners drive to work.

In New York, the allowance is 553.0 gallons of gasoline, 21.8 quarts of motor oil; in Boston, Philadelphia, and

Chicago, 598.8 gallons of gasoline, 23.6 quarts of motor oil; in 35 other metropolitan areas, 644.6 gallons of

gasoline, and 25. 4 quarts of motor oil.

3 The annual allowance is 1. 25 gallons for all cities with an average minimum temperature of 32° —15° during

January. For cities with below 15° January minimum temperatures, the allowance is 2. 00. No antifreeze is

provided for mild climate cities.

4 In metropolitan areas, cost is 56. 9 percent of cost of itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 36.2 percent.

5 In metropolitan areas, cost is 4.7 percent of cost of itemized operating expenses; in nonmetropolitan areas,

8. 0 percent.

6 The number of inspections required by law in each city.

7 Cost required by law in each city.

8 In metropolitan areas, cost is 4. 6 percent of annual allowance for itemized operating expenses; in nonmetropolitan areas, 1. 0 percent.

9 The annual allowance is 183 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 51 in all other metropolitan areas.

10 The annual allowance is 220 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 97 in all other metropolitan areas.

11 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities

A. Husband

Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

ireas areas

0. 13 0. 08

.51 .61

. 24 . 22

. 12 . 07

. 27 . 30

. 08 • 09

1. 22 1. 33

2. 02 2. 49

. 10 . 13

1. 49 1. 57

1. 18 1.42

1.79 n

2. 03

(*)

4. 84 4. 43

3. 89 4. 17

(2) (2)

. 38 . 34

. 05 -

9.96 10. 14

1. 01 . 72

. 60 . 64

. 27 . 28

. 13 . 15

. 18 . 19

(3) (3)

. 17 . 26

. 05 . 16

. 14 . 20

1. 77 3. 54

$2. 93 4$3. 96

!$3. 62 4 $ 5„ 27

(5) (5 )

Outerwear:

Topcoats*----------------------

Jackets, sport coats* —

Sweaters-----------------------

Raincoats*---------------------

Suits:

Year-round weight*

Tropical weight* ----

Slacks:

Dress -----------------------

W ork-------------------------

Shorts, walking* ---------

Shirts:

D r e s s -----------------------

W ork-------------------------

Sports -

31-018 series -

31-010X ______

31-154 ________

31-020X ______

31-052, 31-053-

31-050X ------------

31-086, 31-087 series.

31-171 ---------------------------

31-080X ------------------------

31-273, 31-273A —

31-222, 31-222A —

31-292 --------------------

Other outerwear* —

Underwear, nightwear:

Undershorts, briefs .

Undershirts --------------

31-342FB .

31-324 -----

Other underwear* .

Pajamas----------------

Bathrobes--------------

Hosiery-----------------------

F ootwear:

Shoes:

Street---------------

W ork----------------

Loafers-------------

Houseslippers

Rubbers, galoshes, boots*.

Other footwear*-------------------

-do—

-do—

-do—

-do—

_do—

31-376F B ------------

31-37 OX---------------

31-409, 31-409A

33-002, 33-002A

33-046 -----------------

33-01 OX---------------

33-050X ---------------

33-226F B ------------

Hats, gloves, accessories:

Hats:

Felt* ---------------------------

Straw *-------------------------

Gloves:

31-427FB .

31-420X ...

Dress* -

Work* -

-pair—

— do—

31-430X .

31-440X .

Ties, handkerchiefs .

Jewelry, watches-----

Other accessories* -

B. Boy

31-57 OX--------------------------------------------- 0. 26 0. 08

31-662 ------------------------------------------------ . 98 1. 26

31-714FB-------------------------------------------- . 78 . 56

31-577________________________________ . 09 . 19

31 - 660X— —— —— — — —— — — — . 26 . 26

31-646FB___ ________________________ 3. 57 3. 26

. 31-732FB..................................................... 2. 23 2. 93

31-640X ______________________________ . 25 . 17

3 1 -6 5 0 X ----------- ------------------------------- . 45 . 55

31-81 OX--------------------------------------------- 1.72 1. 53

31-817F B ------------------------------------------- 4. 56

i1 )

4. 81

i1 )

31-832, 31-832A ------------------------------ 5. 25 4. 87

31-830X --------------------------------------------- 4. 01 4. 03

31-840X --------------------------------------------- .61 . 50

3 1-85 0 X --------------------------------------------- . 12 -

31-883FB ------------------------------------------- 12. 24 10. 31

(6)

33-542F B ------------------------------------------- 2. 75 2. 47

33-586 _______________________________ 1. 36 1. 04

33-550X --------------------------------------------- . 19 . 11

33-560X --------------------------------------------- . 23 . 22

31-860X --------------------------------------------- . 78 . 82

(5 ) (S)

Outerwear:

Coats, all purpose* —

Jackets, sports coats*

Sweaters*--------------------

Raincoats --------------------

Suits-----------------------------

Slacks---------------------------

Dungarees

Shorts-------

Bathing trunks ---------

Shirts:

Dress -------------------

Sport--------------------

Other outerwear* —

Underwear, nightwear:

Undershorts -------------

Undershirts --------------

Pajamas -

Bathrobes---------

Hosiery:

Socks----------------

Other hosiery* .

Footwear:

Shoes, street —

Sneakers ----------

Houseslippers-----------------------------

Rubbers, galoshes, boots* --------

Hats, gloves, accessories:

Gloves* ---------------------------------------

- pair.

— do-

— do-

-do—

-do—

Other accessories* .

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities--- Continued

C. Wife

Item

Outerwear:

Coats:

Heavyweight * --------------------------

Lightweight -----------------------------

Carcoats, jackets ------------------

Sweaters ---------------------------------------

Suits-----------------------------------------------

Dresses:

Street ---------------------------------------

H ouse---------------------------------------

Skirts, jumpers, culottes-----------

Blouses, shirts ---------------------------

Slacks--------------------------------------------

Dungarees, blue jea n s ----------------

Shorts, pedal pushers* ---------------

Other outerwear*-------------------------

Underwear, nightwear:

Slips, petticoats --------------------------

Girdles -----------------------------------------

Brassieres -----------------------------------

Panties, briefs-----------------------------

Nightgowns -----------------------------------

Pajamas----------------------------------------

Robes, housecoats ----------------------

Other underwear and nightwear*

Hoisery:

Stockings---------------------------------------

___Anklets ------------------------------------------

F ootwear:

Shoes:

Street ---------------------------------------

Casual-------------------------------------

Houseslippers -------------------------

Rubbers, galoshes, boots*--------

Other footwear* --------------------------

Hats, gloves, accessories:

Hats*----------------------------------------------

Gloves*-----------------------------------------

Purses, handbags -----------------------

Jewelry, watches -----------------------

Other accessories* ---------------------

Quantity per year

Pricing code Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

areas areas

32-001, 32-002 series

32-010X -----------------------

32-105 -------------------------

32- 118, 32- 118A -------

32-120X -----------------------

0. 22

. 15

. 11 

. 80

. 16

0. 16

. 15

. 10 

. 73

. 10

32-222, 32-223, 32-226, 3 2 -2 2 6 A -

32-248 ------------------------------------------------

32-144, 32-144A

32-172 ----------------

32-170X -------------

32-180X -------------

1. 67

. 56

4$3. 55

1. 67

. 83

. 06

. 87

( M

1. 56

. 60

4 $ 3. 31

1. 33

. 63

. 09

. 72

( M

32-287-----------------

32-378, 32-378B

32-391 ----------------

32-313 ----------------

32-327F B -----------

32-339F B -----------

32-340X -------------

1. 36

. 57

2. 69

4. 65

.59

. 38

. 22

(7)

1. 57

. 46

2. 73

5. 05

. 55

. 35

. 25

(7 )

pair

- do32-405, 32-405A 12. 79

4 $0. 84

11 . 10

4$0. 51

do----

do----

do----

do----

33-271, 33-272

33-361 -------------

33-406 -------------

33-410X -----------

1. 36

1. 39

.43

. 14

(3)

1.41

1.48

. 38

. 11 

(3)

32-432FB

32-443 —

32-450X -

. 66

.63

1 . 01 

$4. 95

(5)

. 56

.47

. 97

5. 35

(5)

D. Girl

Outerwear:

Coats:

Heavyweight* ----------

Lightweight* -----------

Raincoats* -------------------

Jackets -------------------------

Sweaters -----------------------

Dresses ------------------------

Skirts-----------------------------

Blouse ---------------------------

Tee shirts, polo shirts

Slacks----------------------------

Overalls, blue jeans —

Shorts----------------------------

Playsuits-----------------------

Other outerwear* -------

32-554F B ------------------------------------------- 0. 35 0. 31

32-550X --------------------------------------------- . 15 . 12

32-579, 32-579A ------------------------------ . 23 . 11

32-580X --------------------------------------------- . 37 . 19

32-631FB ------------------------------------------- . 98 1. 27

32-744, 32-744A ------------------------------ 2. 69 3. 19

32-644, 32-644A ------------------------------ . 85 . 62

32-657F B ------------------------------------------- 1. 34 1. 16

4 $ 1. 23 4 $ 1. 22

32-71 OX--------------------------------------------- 1. 30 1. 25

32-720X --------------------------------------------- . 28 . 19

32-730X --------------------------------------------- 1. 50 1. 24

32-740X --------------------------------------------- .69

(1 )

. 38

\ / f1 ) V /

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities— Continued

D. Girl— Continued

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

areas areas

2. 07 2. 13

6. 73 7. 12

l $ l. 11 4 $0. 51

1. 16 1.04

.16 . 08

(1 2345*7 ) (7 )

9. 33 8. 46

(6 ) (6 )

2. 38 1. 86

1.69 1. 86

. 35 . 25

. 38 . 30

(3) (3)

. 61 . 45

. 80 . 66

Underwear, nightwear:

Slips, petticoats-------

Panties , b riefs--------

Undershirts---------------

Pajamas, nightgownsBathrobes-------------------

Other underwear and nightwear* -

Hosiery:

Anklets, socks-------------------------------

Other hosiery* -----------------------------

Footwear:

Shoes:

Street ----------------------------------------

C asual---------------------------------------

-pair—

Houses lippersBoots, rubbers* -

Other footwear* —

-p air—

— do —

— do —

— do —

Hats, gloves, accessories:

H ats*--------------------------------

Gloves* --------------------

Other accessories*-

— pair—

32-801------

32-827FB32-860X

32-866—

32-891FB33-541 A, 33-541B , 33-766

33-760X --------------------------------

33-770X -------------------------------

33-901FB------------------------------

32-870X

32-880X

(5 ) n

E. Clothing materials and services

Materials:

Wool, wool blends-------------------------------- yards —

Cotton, cotton blends---------------------------------do —

Rayon, acetate ---------------------------------------do —

Nylon, orlon, dacron---------------------------------do —

Other yard goods -------------------------------------------

Notions (yarn, pins, etc.)-----------------------------

Services:

Cleaning and pressing:

Men's suits---------------------------------- garment —

Women's d resses------------------------------do —

Shoe repair:

Men's and boys' half soles

and h eels-------------------------------------number —

Women's and girls' heels--------------------- do —

Shoe shines, polish, laces, etc -------------------

Other clothing services---------------------------------

34 4">0V’ - . 0. 58

8. 69

. 25

. 10 /8\

34-438, 34-438A, 34-449A U X -----------

34 460v ................... - —

34..AAqp-R

i J

/9 )

3-1 70ft 3/1 70RA 8. 84

6. 12

(10)

J l" 1 U O , JT* ( \J O-TX ———---- — —

J*± - f JX , JT" ( A -k-1 7 A 7 'X A 7 21 A ......-

3a A3q fr - - - 1.05

3. 25

(n )

Jt-UJ7T JD

24 A A 7 24 A A 7 A M

0. 75

11. 37

15. 54

8. 26

(10)

.09

2. 63

(“ ) (12)

1 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized outerwear, adjusted for intercity variations due

to climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 5.7; boy, 5 .2 ; wife, 19.6; and girl,

27. 6. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 7. 4; boy, 4. 3; wife, 16. 7 and girl, 15. 0.

2 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear, adjusted for intercity variations due

to climatic differences. The percentage in metropolitan area is husband, 5.8. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 15.4; wife, 4 .4; and girl, 3.7.

3 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized footwear, adjusted for intercity variations due to

climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 1.9; wife, 1.4; and girl, 2 .0. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 5.7; and girl, 3. 3.

4 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

5 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of clothing, adjusted for intercity variations due to climatic

differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 0 .7; boy, 3.8; wife, 1.3; and girl, 3.1. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 0. 9; boy, 5. 6; wife, 0. 9; and girl, 2. 2.

* Cost is a specified percentage of cost of socks, adjusted for intercity variations, due to climatic differences.

The percentages in metropolitan areas are boy, 2 .1 ; and girl, 8.5. In nonmetropolitan areas, the percentage

is girl, 11.9.

7 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear and nightwear, adjusted for intercity

variations due to climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are wife, 2 .4 ; and girl, 3.0. In

nonmetropolitan areas the percentage is wife, 4 .4.

8 In metropolitan areas the cost is 8.0 percent of cost of itemized yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,

3. 6 percent.

9 In metropolitan areas the cost is 114.9 percent of cost of all yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,

32. 5 percent.

10 In metropolitan areas the cost is 28. 3 percent of cost of itemized cleaning and pressing; in nonmetropolitan areas, 9.0 percent.

11 In metropolitan areas the cost is 35.5 percent of cost of shoe repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 74.9 percent.

12 In metropolitan areas the cost is 13.3 percent of cost of itemized clothing services; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 13.4 percent.

* See explanatory note, p. 32.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32

Explanatory note: Quantities of starred items vary from city to city. The basic clothing budget is the U.S.

average quantity, both for metropolitan areas and for nonmetropolitan areas. For each city or metropolitan area,

the quantities of clothing articles specified in the following tabulation are adjusted upward or downward in accordance

with local climatic conditions, on the basis of the normal number of annual degree days as published by the U.S.

Weather Bureau. The tabulation shows the quantities of specified items of clothing required in metropolitan areas

when the normal number of annual degree days average 0 and 8,392; and in nonmetropolitan areas when the average

is 489 and 10,864. (For definition of degree days, see footnote 2, table A-Z. ) The quantities required for specific cities were determined by straight-line interpolation.

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities--- Continued

Normal number annual degree days

Item

Husband

Topcoats --------------------------------------------------------------

Jackets, sport coats-------------------------------------------

Raincoats ------------------------------------------------------------

Suits:

Year-round weight ----------------------------------------

Tropical weight ---------------------------------------------

Shorts, walking --------------------------------------------------

Other outerwear -------------------------------------------------

Other underwear-------------------------------------------------

Footwear:

Rubbers, galoshes, boots-----------------------------

Other footwear -----------------------------------------------

Hats:

F elt------------------------------------------------------------------

Straw---------------------------------------------------------------

Gloves:

Dress --------------------------------------------------------------

Other accessories -----------------------------------------------

Boy

All-purpose coats -----------------------------------------------

Jackets, sport coats-------------------------------------------

Sweaters --------------------------------------------------------------

Other outerwear--------------------------------------------------

Rubbers, galoshes, boots----------------------------------

Other accessories -----------------------------------------------

Wife

Coats, heavyweight -----------------

Shorts , pedal pushers---------------

Other outerwear ------------------------

Other underwear and nightwear

Rubbers, galoshes, boots---------

Other footwear --------------------------

Hats --------------------------------------------

Gloves ----------------------------------------

Other accessories ---------------------

Girl

Coats:

Heavyweight--------------------------

Lightweight---------------------------

Raincoats -----------------------------------

Other outerwear ------------------------

Other underwear and nightwear

Other hosiery -----------------------------

Boots, rubbers--------------------------

Other footwear --------------------------

Hats --------------------------------------------

Gloves ----------------------------------------

Other accessories --------------------- 123456

Metropolitan areas Nonmetropolitan areas

8 , 392 0

0. 19 0

. 58 0. 42

. 18 . 05

. 29 . 24

. 05 . 11

.03 . 19

1 5. 1 1 10. 7

28. 8 2.5

. 27 . 07

3 2. 7 31. 6

. 20 . 13

0 . 13

. 27 0

3. 63 0

4.8 4. 5

. 30 . 22

1.06 . 88

. 84 . 71

1 4. 8 1 7. 7

0 5 2. 4

.46 0

1.80 0

4 3. 8 4 3. 4

. 33 . 08

. 41 1.42

21.6 121. 8

6 1. 3 6 3. 3

. 26 0

3. 5 32.1

.96 . 30

. 88 . 32

41.9 4. 7

. 53 . 14

. 21 . 08

. 16 . 31

27. 1 1 26. 9

62. 6 61. 8

5 3. 3 0

. 88 0

3 2. 9 3 3. 7

. 88 . 28

1.41 . 03

4 2. 9 4 4. 9

10,864 489

0. 18 0

. 73 0. 51

. 16 0

. 33 . 27

. 05 . 12

. 01 . 21

112. 9 1 5. 5

2 38. 4 2 4. 0

. 33 . 08

38. 1 31 .0

. 33 . 20

. 05 . 24

. 34 . 07

6. 46 1. 33

4 1.0 4.8

. 10 .06

1.45 1. 12

. 61 . 50

16. 6 12. 1

0 0

. 58 0

2. 30 0

49. 1 4 3. 7

. 33 . 0 3

0 1 . 29

1 9 . 5 1 1 2 . 5

61 .9 6 5 . 9

• 29 0

1.03 . 21

. 8 6 . 18

4 1.4 4 .8

, 58 . 10

. 21 .05

0 . 19

19.7 1 17. 0

6 2. 5 64. 9

5 5. 0 5 23. 8

1.08 0

39. 0 31.0

. 87 . 13

1. 64 0

4 3. 6 42. 2

1 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized outerwear.

2 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized underwear.

3 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized footwear.

4 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized clothing.

5 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of socks.

6 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized underwear and

nightwear.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33

Table A-5. Personal Care

Item

Services:

Husband:

Haircut--------------------

Wife:

Haircut--------------------

Permanent wave------

Shampoo and s e t -----

Tinting and coloringBoy: Haircut---------------

Girl: Haircut---------------

Family: Other--------—

Supplies:

Toilet soap--------------------

Toothpaste--------------------

Shaving cream --------------

Cleansing tissue-----------

Shampoo------------------------

Face powder------------------

Home permanent kit-----

Sanitary supplies----------

Other-----------------------------

Pricing code

— medium bar--

----------------ounce—

--------------- ouncebox 200 double—

--------------- ounce—

-------re fillbox of 12—

52-697-

52-753-

52-825-

52-849-

52-729FB

52-730X—

52-001----------

52-025----------

52-073----------

52-625----------

52-193AUX—

52-529-------

52-649AUX

Quantity per year

22. 7

3. 3

. 9

4. 1

(M

12. 3

1. 5

(2)

110. 2

64. 8

23. 2

27. 4

50. 9

3 $ 2. 12 

. 6

20. 7

(4)

25. 7

1. 9

1. 1

6. 9

(M15. 2

. 4

(2)

143. 8

62. 6

11 . 6 

27. 0

31. 8

3 $ 1. 36

. 4

13. 0

(4)

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

1 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 3. 1 percent of total cost of itemized services for the wife; in nonmetropolitan areas, 1.8 percent.

2 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 1.4 percent of annual allowance for itemized personal services; in

nonmetropolitan areas, 0.2 percent.

3 Estimated cost in 1966 for all areas.

4 In metropolitan areas, the cost is 110.4 percent of annual allowance for itemized supplies; in nonmetropolitan areas, 96.6 percent.

Table A-6. Medical Care 123456

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

All cities

Prepaid care:

Hospital surgical insurance c ^ n t r ^ 51 940v 1. 00

. 6

Medical care not covered by insurance:

Physicians' visits:

t; i og-?

Uiiice visits ————— — _ — “ 51 901 13. 1

1. 4

(2 \

Hospital visits (nonsurgical) ——————— ————————— —— 51 8 3 8FR

Other medical care ———*——— ---- — ———-------------------

—> i - o jor ------- — — ————————————— ————— —

Dental care:

51 465 3. 55

1. 07

5. 01

Fillings------------------------------------------------------------------

Ext ractions ——— ——— —— — __ __ ___ — — 51 466

Cleaning and cxaHiination"*”-- —— — ~ £ 1 A A O TTT3

Other dental care ———— ——— ———---- -----------— ------

DA ^*±0/1? ID ——————— —— ——— ————— — ——— ——— ———— —

Eye care:

51-518 5 1 5 1 9 - ......

v )

. 44

. 70

(4)

Examination for glasses ——————————————— ————————— —

Eyeglasses------------------------------------------------------------- 51-518i 51-519, 51-520, 51-521FB —

Drugs:

51 061 flirmirVi 51 151

\ 1

15. 9

4 3

Prescription— —----------------------- —-------------------------—

Nonpres c ription:

"V" i t am ms — —— ————————————————————— ———— ——— 51-001 - - -............................ .........

( h

A ___ 1: j _______ Appliances and supplies--------------- ---------- —---------------------------------------— (61 ))

1 The budget includes group hospital and surgical insurance for all family members. This insurance provides full coverage for 70 days' care in a room of 2 beds or more for each hospital confinement, all supplies

and ancillary services which are normally provided, and surgical benefits.

2 Cost is 16. 5 percent of cost of physicians' office visits.

3 Cost is 91. 1 percent of total cost of itemized dental procedures.

4 Cost is 4. 6 percent of total cost of eyeglasses and examination.

5 Cost is 268. 0 percent of cost of vitamins.

6 Cost is 8. 5 percent of total cost of prescription and nonprescription drugs.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34

Table A-7. Other Family Consumption

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

A. Reading materials

Newspapers (subscription) —

Books (not school)------------------

Magazines--------------------------------

Other expenses-----------------------

53-806 through 53-819------- 1. 00 

$ 18.75

$ 15. 10

(1 2)

1. 15

1 $ 7. 20

1 $ 8. 40

B. Recreation

Radios, musical instruments, etc. :

Television se ts------------------------------------------------

Phonographs-----------------------------------------------------

Musical instruments---------------------------------------

Repairs, including parts---------------------------------

Phonograph records----------------------------------------

Admissions:

Movies:

Adults----------------------------------------------------------

Children------------------------------------------------------

Other admissions--------------------------------------------

Other recreation:

Participant sports-------------------------------------------

Toys and play equipment -------------------------------

Club dues, memberships-------------------------------

Hobbies------------------------------------------------------------

Pets, pet supplies, and other recreation

expenses---------------------------------------------------------

53-033, 53-033A, 5 3 -0 3 4 - . 41 . 22

53-001, 5 3-018------------------- . 12 . 03

53-082FB----------------------------- . 10 . 10

(3 4)

53-565FB--------------------------

v )

1. 21 1. 50

53-177---------------------------------- 5. 26 3. 59

53-612 ------------------------------ 9. 90 5. 27

53-613---------------------------------- 26. 50 23. 78

1 $ 10. 16 1 $ 10. 06

/4\ \ ) 1 )

/4\

v )

4

(4\ 4

1 $29. 57

V )

1 $32. 22

C. Education

School and college:

Books, supplies, tuition, fees, etc ------------- 1 $60. 00 1 $35. 00

D. Tobacco

Cigarettes------------------------------------------------carton—

Cigars----------------------------------------------------------each—

Pipe tobacco--------------------------------------------- ounce —

54-002, 5 4-00 6 ------------------

54-077----------------------------------

54-153FB-----------------------------

40. 9

86. 6

20. 9

(5)

40. 9

86. 6

20. 9

P ipe and sm o k e r s supplies (5)

E. Alcoholic beverages

At home:

Beer and ale----------------------------------72 ounces —

Liquors (whiskey, etc.)---------------V5 gallon—

Wine---------------------------------------------- V5 gallon—

54-309----------------------------------

54-384, 54-399 ------------------

54-429, 54-431 ------------------

26. 5

4. 7

5. 3

(6)

24. 7

3. 1

2. 2

Aws.y from home (6) ----------- — — —— — — —-------

F. Miscellaneous expenses

Miscellaneous expenses:

Lodging away from home, bank service charges, legal expenses, allowances to children, music and dancing lessons for children, and other

expenses that cannot be allocated elsewhere.

. 2 percent of all other

costs of family consumption.

1 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

2 Cost is 2. 1 percent of total cost of itemized reading materials.

3 In metropolitan areas, cost is 20.1 percent of total cost of radios, television sets, and phonographs; in

nonmetropolitan areas, 68.9 percent.

4 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of radios, musical instruments, etc., and admissions. The

percentages in metropolitan areas are as follows: Participant sports, 36.8; toys and play equipment, 23.1; club

dues, 7.1; hobbies, 21.3. In nonmetropolitan areas, the percentages are participant sports, 42.8; toys and play

equipment, 28.4; club dues, 13.6; hobbies, 28.5.

5 Cost is 1.5 percent of annual allowance for itemized tobacco products.

6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 18.7 percent of total cost of itemized alcoholic beverages; in nonmetropolitan areas, 34.7 percent.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35

Table A-8. Other Costs

Item Quantity per year

all cities

A. Gifts and contributions

Gifts and contributions:

Christmas, birthday, and other presents to persons outside the

immediate family; and contributions to religious, welfare, medical,

educational, and other organizations.

3. 5 percent of total cost of family

consumption, less miscellaneous

expenses.

B. Life insurance

Life insurance policy:

A 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 any

group insurance in effect, as well as the type of protection

provided.

Insurance is included in the estimated total cost of the budget

at an average outlay of $ 160.

Table A-9. Occupational Expenses and Taxes

Item Quantity per year,

all cities

A. Occupational expenses

Occupational expenses:

Dues to unions, business and professional associations; licenses, tools,

and special equipment other than clothing required for the job; nonreimbursed costs for travel or for use of the family's car for

business.

These items, which are included in

the estimated total cost of the

budget as an average outlay of $ 80,

should be determined for each individual situation.

B. Taxes

T axe s :

Employee contributions for Federal old-age, survivors' , disability insurance, and Medicare (OASDHI); for temporary disability and unemployment taxes where required by State law.

Personal income taxes (Federal, State, and local); and capitation

taxe s .

As required by the level of the

total budget.

Rates applicable in 1966 in each

city; in metropolitan areas, the

applicable rates in each urban

part were used.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B

Table B-l. Index of Populations Weights Used in the City Worker’s Family Budget1

Area Population

weights

Population

weights

United States urban population ------------------

Metropolitan areas 2 ------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 -------------------------

Northeast 4 ----------------------------------------------

Boston, M ass-------------------------------------

Buffalo, N. Y ---------------------------------------

Hartford, Conn-----------------------------------

Lancaster, P a -----------------------------------

New York—Northeastern New Jersey

Philadelphia, Pa.—N. J-----------------------

Pittsburgh, Pa — -------------------------------

Portland, M aine--------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 --------------------

North Central4 -.--------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa --------------------------

Champaign—Urbana, 111---------------------

Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Indiana -

Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.—Ind------------------

Cleveland, Ohio----------------------------------

Dayton, Ohio---------------------------------------

Detroit, Mich--------------------------------------

Green Bay, W is----------------------------------

Indianapolis, Ind--------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.—Kans --------------------

Milwaukee, W is----------------------------------

Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn-------------

St. Louis, Mo.—Ill -----------------------------

Wichita, Kans ------------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------

100. 00

81. 70

18. 30

30. 66

2. 54

2. 45

68

1. 76

13. 10

4. 35

1. 65

68

3. 45

28. 38

1. 26

2. 26

6. 98

63

1. 85

1. 70

3. 13

57

86

77

1. 26

91

1. 33

1. 14

3. 73

United States urban population— Continued

South 4 ------------------------------------------------------

Atlanta, Ga ----------------------------------------

Austin, T e x ----------------------------------------

Baltimore, M d -----------------------------------

Baton Rouge, La --------------------------

Dallas, T e x---------------------- -----------------

Durham, N. C --------------------------------------

Houston, T e x --------------------------------------

Nashville, Tenn----------------------------------

Orlando, Fla---------------------------------------

Washington, D. C.— Md.—V a ---------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 --------------------

W est4 ----------------------------------------------

Bakersfield, Calif ---------------------

Denver, C olo------------------------------

Los Angeles- Long Beach, Calif

San Diego, C alif-------------------------

San Francisco—Oakland, Calif —

Seattle—Everett, W ash---------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------

Honolulu, Hawaii 6 --------------------------

Anchorage, Alaska6 -----------------------

22. 72

1. 64

(5)

1. 59

1. 32

2. 64

1. 17

. 76

1. 34

2. 30

1. 28

8 . 68

17. 75

2. 26

1. 31

5. 20

2. 37

2. 26

1. 99

2. 36

.41

. 08

1 The weight in each urban area is the total population of 4-person, husband-wife families having children

aged 6 through 17 years, 1 full-time earner in the family; i. e. , the family type in the 1960—61 Survey of Consumer

Expenditures most closely approximating the family for which the budget was constructed. For an explanation of

the sample selection, see "Technical Note— the Revised City Sample for the Consumer Price Index, " Monthly Labor

Review, October I960, pp. 1078—1083. (Also issued as BLS Reprint 2352. )

2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by

the Bureau of the Budget.

3 Places having population of 2, 500 to 50, 000.

4 Regions as defined by the Bureau of the Census: Northeast-— Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; North Central— Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South—

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,

N orth C a ro lin a , O klahom a , South C a ro lin a , T e n n e sse e , T e x a s , V irg in ia , and W e st V irg in ia ; and W e st A la sk a ,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming.

5 A population weight for Austin is not shown separately because the sample which represented this type of

city worker family was not statistically significant. Therefore, the weight was imputed to other cities of the same

size (50, 000—250, 000 population) in the South.

6 Honolulu and Anchorage were separate sampling strata in the BLS 1960—61 Consumer Expenditure Survey,

and, therefore, are not included in the total weight for the West. Honolulu's weight is in the United States and

metropolitan area totals; Anchorage's weight is in the United States and nonmetropolitan area totals.

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix C

Technical References

1. Brackett, Jean C. , "Intercity Differences in Family Food Budget C o sts," Monthly Labor

Review, October 1963, pp. 1189—1194.

An analysis of the effects on food budget cost estimates of using for all cities a

single set of weights representing urban U. S. food patterns, or different weights for

each city reflecting the food preferences of the region in which the city is located.

Also presents a discussion of the conceptual implications of varying the weights in a

place-to-place comparison of family living costs.

2. Clorety, Joseph A ., "Consumption Statistics: A Technical Comment," How American

Buying Habits Change, chapter X, 1959, pp. 217—242.

Includes a section on "Standard Budgets as Indicators of Progress" (pp. 232—242).

Also presents in summary form a representative cross-section of budgets compiled in

this country during the 20th century, showing average dollar cost figures for the total

and for the major components of each budget.

3. Lamale, Helen H. , "Changes in Concepts of Income Adequacy Over the Last Century,"

Journal of the American Economic Association, May 1958, pp. 291—299.

An analysis of the relationship over time between actual levels of living in the

United States and the goals or standards of living which have been accepted in different

historical periods and for different purposes; and a discussion of the implications in

this relationship for present-day concepts of income adequacy.

4. _______________________ "Poverty: The Word and the Reality", Monthly Labor Review,

July 1965, pp. 822-827.

Discusses the role of standard budgets in providing an intelligible definition of

poverty, for use in evaluating income adequacy for different family types and in different geographical locations and for estimating the extent of poverty in the United States.

5. _____________________ and Stotz, Margaret S. , "The Interim City Worker's Family Budget,"

Monthly Labor Review, August I960, pp. 785—808.

Estimates of the cost of a "modest but adequate" standard of living for a husband,

wife, and two children (living in rented housing), at autumn 1959 prices, in 20 large

cities and their suburbs (Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland,

Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia,

Pittsburgh, Portland, Oreg. , St. Louis, San Francisco, Scranton, Seattle, and Washington, D. C. ) Includes a detailed list of the goods and services considered necessary

by four-person families to maintain the specified living standard as determined by levels

of living actually achieved in the 1950’s, and describes how this representative list was

developed and priced. (See Reference No. 10 for description of original BLS City

Worker's Family Budget.)

6. Orshansky, Mollie, "Budget for an Elderly Couple: Interim Revision by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics," Social Security Bulletin, December I960, pp. 26—36.

A summary report on "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired Couple". (See

Reference No. 7. ) Includes a discussion of various conceptual problems encountered

in developing normative living costs estimates for a retired couple, and some of the

limitations of this particular budget for the multitude of purposes for which budgets

for older persons and families are needed.

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40

7. Stotz, Margaret S. , "The BLS Interim Budget for a Retired Couple," Monthly Labor

Review, November I960, pp. 1141—1157.

Estimates of the cost of a "modest but adequate" standard of living for a man

age 65 or over and his wife (living in rented housing), at autumn 1959 prices, in

20 large cities and their suburbs (cities are the same as those listed in Reference No. 5).

Includes a detailed list of the goods and services considered necessary for retired

couples to maintain the specified living standard as determined by levels of living

actually achieved in the 1950's; and describes how this representative list was developed and priced. (See Reference No. 11 for description of original Budget for an

Elderly Couple. )

8. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Estimating Equivalent Incomes or

Budget Costs by Family T ype," Monthly Labor Review, November I960, pp. 1197—1200.

Describes a scale for measuring the relative after-tax income required by families

of differing composition to maintain the same level of material well-being, or for

estimating comparable costs of goods and services for families of different age, size,

and type. (Scale values cannot be used to estimate relative costs of components of

family budgets— food, housing, taxes, insurance, etc.)

9# Report of the Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research,

June 1963, 26 pp.

Members of the BLS Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research:

Professor Gwen Bymers, Department of Household Economics and Management,

Cornell University; Ithaca, N. Y.

Dorothy M. Durand, Private consultant on the development and use of standard

budgets; Scarsdale, N. Y.

Gertrude Lotwin, Home Economics Consultant, State of New Jersey Division of

Welfare; Trenton, N. J.

Charles A. Pearce, Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Department

of Labor, State of New York; New York, N. Y.

Lazare Teper, Director, Research Department, International Ladies' Garment

Workers' Union, AFL-CIO; New York, N. Y.

Gertrude S. W eiss, Chairman, Consultant; Washington, D. C.

C. Ashley Wright, Economist, Standard Oil Company (N .J .); New York, N. Y.

Contains recommendations of this committee of experts on the needs for various types

of budgets, general concepts of the standards of living to be described by the budgets,

and technical and other problems associated with estimating and publishing budget costs.

Includes a selected bibliography on the major uses of standard budgets.

10. Workers' Budgets in the United States: City Families and Single

Persons, 1946 and 1947, (BLS Bulletin 927, 1948) 55 pp.

Describes concepts, definitions, and techniques used in developing the original

City Worker's Family Budget for a four-person family, detailed list of goods and

services priced, and 1946—47 cost estimates for 34 cities. Also contains an historical

survey of family budgets, and summary data on State budgets for single women workers.

11. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration,

"A Budget for an Elderly Couple," Social Security Bulletin, February 1948, pp. 4—12.

Contains estimates of the cost of a "modest but adequate" standard of living for

a couple age 65 or older, at March 1946 and June 1947 prices, in eight large cities.

(Concepts and techniques used to compile this budget were the same as those employed

in developing the original BLS City Worker's Budget. See Reference No. 10.)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O - 278-870

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis