retired couple’s budget

FOR A MODERAT E

LIVING STANDARD

Autumn 1 9 6 6 -B u lle tin N o .1570-4

U S. D E P AR T M E NT OF LABOR

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
retired couple’s budget

FOR A MODERAT E

LIVING STANDARD

Autumn 1 9 6 6 - B u I let in No. 1 570-4

U,S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Willard Wirtz, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Ar t hu r M. Ross, C o m m i s s i o n e r

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 35 cents

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

Costs in urban a rea s....................................................................................................................................... 1

Intercity differences....................................................................................................................................... 2

A moderate standard: Present and p a s t .................................................................• • •........................n

Data sources and estimating methods......................*............................................................................... ig

Food . . . ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Shelter c o s t s ............................................................................................................. ig

Transportation................................................................ 19

Medical c a r e ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Other goods and serv ices.............................................................................................................. . . 20

Gifts and contributions................................................................................................................... *. . 20

Tables:

1. Annual costs of the retired couple’ s budget by major components urban United States,

39 metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan areas by regions, autumn 1966................... 3

2. Indexes of comparative living costs based on the retired couple’ s budget,

autumn 1966 ................................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix contents ..................................................................................................................................... 21

iii

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
Introduction

The Retired Couple’ s Budget described in this 

bulletin is a companion to the budget for a younger, 

4-person family published in the City Worker’ s 

Family Budget for a , Moderate Living Standard, 

Autumn 1966, Bulletin No. 1570-1.

All benchmark estimates of living costs are 

based on specific family situations. The cost estimates of the Retired Couple’ s Budget are for an 

urban family of 2 persons—a husband age 65 or 

over and his wife—who are presumed to be selfsupporting and living independently. The budget 

also specifies that both husband and wife are in 

reasonably good health for their age and able to 

take care of themselves, and that each is covered 

by hospital and medical insurance under the 

federal Medicare program. Two^thirds of these 

families are homeowners, living in houses which 

are mortgage-free. The couple has average inventories of clothing, housefurnishings, major durables, and other equipment. Even at a comparable 

standard of living, benchmark cost estimates for 

younger and larger families will be higher, and 

estimates for single persons will be lower, than 

those for the retired couple. In other words, there 

is no single answer to the question, “How much 

does it cost to live?” Family size, age, and type 

have a significant effect on spending patterns, 

manner of living, and family needs.

The other major consideration—in addition to 

family composition—in developing family budgets 

is the living standard for which cost estimates 

are made. “Standards of living” refer to the goals 

we set for ourselves as consumers of goods and 

services and as users of leisure time. The living 

standard represented by the current" Retired 

Couple’ s Budget is described as moderate. It provides for the maintenance of health and social 

well-being, 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.) Examination of the lists provides the clearest insight into what the moderate 

standard comprises.

The content of the new budget for a moderate 

standard is based on the manner of living and 

consumer choices in the decade of the 1960’ s. 

The list of goods and services included was 

derived in several ways. Nutritional and health 

standards, as determined by scientists and technicians, were used for the food-at-home and the 

shelter components. The selection among the 

various kinds of food and housing arrangements 

meeting the standards was based on actual choices 

made by families as revealed by surveys of consumer expenditures. The Medicare program 

shaped part of the standard for medical care. 

Where scientific standards have not been formulated or legislation enacted, analyses of the data 

reported in the Bureau’ s Survey of Consumer 

Expenditures in 1960-61 and related consumption 

studies were used to determine the specific items, 

and the quantities and qualities thereof, to be 

included in the budget. These analytical procedures result in basing some parts of the budget 

upon inferences about 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. The specific decisions that 

were made with respect to each component of the 

new Retired Couple’ s Budget are documented in 

this bulletin.

The moderate living standard does not show how 

an “ average” retired couple actually spends its 

money, nor does it show how a couple should spend 

its money. Individual families may spend more on 

one item and less on others than the amounts indicated in the budget. Furthermore, some 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

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 Retired Couple’ s Budget is the third 

study for this family type which translates a generalized concept of a moderate standard of living 

into a list of commodities and services that can 

be priced. The original Budget for an Elderly 

Couple, developed by the Social Security Administration to parallel the original City Worker’ s 

Family Budget prepared by BLS, was priced in 

13 large cities in 1946, 1947, and 1949. The 

quantities and qualities of goods and services 

included in that budget were based on the manner 

of living and standards prevailing in the early 

1940’ s. The budget was repriced by BLS in 34 

large cities in October 1950, but it was discontinued after that date because it was outmoded.

In 1960, the Bureau issued The Interim Budget 

for a Retired Couple. It was based on a new list 

of goods and services representing “modest-butadequate” living in accordance with standards 

prevailing in the 1950’ s. Because the basic data 

used in the analysis related to the early 1950’ s, 

and because of the limited scope of this revision, 

it was considered “interim,” pending a more 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 the earlier budgets were for a family of 

the same size, age, and type as that in the new 

budget. Similarly, the living standard in all three 

studies provides for the maintenance of health and 

social well-being, and participation in community 

activities. For the most part, the procedures used 

to translate this generalized concept of the living 

standard into a list of goods and services were 

also the same, but the kinds and quantities of items 

comprising the standard differ, because the 

budgets reflect the conditions of living in three 

different decades. Changes in educational levels, 

cultural developments growing out of travel and 

migration, and growth in purchasing power affect

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 media stimulate the 

demand for them. As real incomes rise, certain 

aspects of living, once considered attainable only 

by a few, come within the: reach of many and are 

accepted as part of the American way of life. For 

senior citizens in particular, a rising level of 

social concern for their welfare and the adequacy 

of their income and resources has been an additional factor in changing their own expectations 

and attitudes toward retirement. In a dynamic 

society, therefore, the relative position of a 

moderate living standard on a scale of all living 

standards may remain fixed, but the description 

of what constitutes that standard will be ever 

changing.

The present study differs from the earlier 

budgets in two major respects. These differences 

affect the level of the 1966 costs and comparative 

living cost indexes, particularly in relation to the 

costs and indexes of the 1959 interim budget.

1. For the first time, the budget has been priced 

in a sample of medium-sized and small cities. 

Thus, it is possible to estimate the average 

U.S. urban budget cost and to compare metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area costs. 

(See appendix B.)

2. Costs of maintaining an owned home (mortgage-free) 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 provide, 

for the first time, comparative budget costs 

for renter and owner families and intercity 

indexes of homeowner maintenance costs for 

equivalent housing.

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 1963. The 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.

The following bulletins in the current series 

report results of other phases of the standard 

budget research program:

Bulletin 1570-1 gives the autumn 1966 costs of 

the City Worker’ s Family Budget for a moderate 

standard of living.

Bulletin 1570-2 will describe the Revised Equivalence Scale for estimating budget costs for 

families of different size, age, and type.

Bulletin 1570-3 will report the autumn 1966 

Budget Pricing Procedures, Specifications, and 

Average Prices.

Subsequently, there will be bulletins on the 

spring 1967 costs for the moderate standard, and 

for a lower and a higher standard for the 4-person 

family and for the retired couple. The lower 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 selfrespect 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, while not connoting 

real affluence, will represent a more comfortable 

level and manner of living than the moderate standard, and a concept of economic success to which 

numerous American families aspire. The higher 

standard will be useful in measuring the ability of 

self-supporting families to pay for social and 

health services in unusual circumstances, and in 

general economic analysis.

In the future, estimates of the annual cost of the 

three standard budgets for the 4-person family 

and for the retired couple will be made as of the 

spring of the year and published periodically for 

the same metropolitan areas and regional classes 

of nonmetropolitan areas as those included in the 

present study. The budget quantities and weights 

will remain fixed, however, for longer periods of 

time. While living standards are constantly changing, and over time the accumulated change may be 

dramatic, year-to-year variations are often difficult to identify and the basic data to measure 

such differences as do occur are not available.

This bulletin was prepared by JeanC. Brackett 

under the supervision of Helen H. Lamale, Chief 

of the Division of Living Conditions Studies, and 

the general direction of Arnold E. Chase, A ssistant 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
Retired Couple’s Budget for a Moderate 

Living Standard, Autumn 1966

Costs in Urban Areas

The annual cost of living at a moderate standard 

for a retired couple (husband and wife, age 65 or 

over) averaged $3,869 in autumn of 1966 in urban 

areas of the United States. The cost averaged 

$4,006 in metropolitan areas and $3,460 in smaller 

cities. JL/ These estimates include allowances for 

food, housing, transportation, clothing, personal 

care, medical care, and other items used in family living. The budget also includes an allowance 

for gifts to persons outside the family and contributions to religious, welfare, and other organizations, amounting to 6 percent of the total cost. 

Life insurance is not included, however, on the 

assumption that payments on a basic policy were 

completed before retirement. There is also no 

provision for the payment of income taxes, since 

the cost of the budget is below the level at which 

retired couples are obligated to pay Federal 

income taxes. Distributions of costs, by major 

components of the budget, are shown in the tabulation below.

Total budget costs were $179 higher for renter 

than for homeowner families who were living in

1/ Table 1 shows annual costs of the budget for 

urban United States, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 39 individual metropolitan areas, 

and 4 nonmetropolitan regions. (See p. 3.) Although costs have been rounded to the nearest 

dollar, the estimates are subject to two kinds of 

errors: Errors of judgment in determining the 

kinds, quantities, and qualities of goods and 

services appropriate for a specific living standard 

(a standard budget is not a survey of how families 

at a particular income level actually spend their 

money); and sampling and reporting er rors in the 

calculation of average prices. Since measures of 

the error from these two sources are not available, 

small difference in costs should not be regarded 

as significant.

Distribution of costs by major components, autumn 1966

Total cost of budget___________ Cost of family consumption

Total Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Total Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

Component urban areas areas urban areas areas

Total cost--------------------------------$3, 869 $4, 006 $3, 460 $3,637 $3,766 $3, 252

Percent distribution--------------------------- 100.0 100.0 100. 0

Total family consumption------------- 94.0 94.0 94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Food'-------------------------------- ------- 27.7 27.2 29.7 29.5 28.9 31.5

Housing1---------------------------------- 33.6 34.7 29.0 35.6 37.0 30.9

Transportation------------------ ------- 8.9 8.6 10.0 9.5 9.1 10.6

Clothing and personal care ------ 8.9 8.6 9.9 9.5 9.2 10. 6

Medical care--------------------------- 7.3 7.2 7.9 7.8 7.6 8.4

Other family consumption -------- 7.6 7.7 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.0

Gifts and contributions----------- _____ 6.0 6.0 6.0

1J Weighted average cost for homeowner (65 percent) and renter (35 percent) families.

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
mortgage-free homes. 2/ Costs were highest for 

renter families in metropolitan areas and lowest 

for homeowner families in smaller cities, averaging $4,127 and $3,404 respectively. (See the 

following tabulation.) This difference reflects not 

only the variation in the costs and manner of living

2 / Since the majority of retired couples are 

homeowners, their costs constitute 65percent, and 

costs for renters 35 percent, of the weighted 

average cost of shelter for urban United States 

and each individual area.

associated with renting or owning a mortgage-free 

house 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/

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 s t--------------- $3,869 $4,006 $3,460 $546

Renter fam ilies---------------------------- 3,985 4,127 3,563 564

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

3,806 3,941 3,404 537 •

Cost difference by tenure---- 179 186 159 X£X

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 for individual 

medium-sized metropolitan areas and for broad 

regional groupings of nonmetropolitan areas. The 

average costs for the items which make up the 

budget in each area are shown in table 1. Also, 

for the first time, comparative housing cost data 

for renter and owner families are included 

separately.

The intercity indexes reflect not only the differences among areas in price levels but also 

climatic or regional differences in the quantities 

and types of items required to provide the specified standard of living, and differences in State 

and local taxes. They are comparative living cost 

indexes and not comparative price indexes.

Variations in Total Costs

The total annual cost of the budget in 1966 

ranged from $3,246 in the small Southern cities to 

$4,434 in Honolulu. Indexes of relative costs for 

these areas were 84 and 115 respectively, with the 

U.S. urban average cost equal to 100. Hartford was 

the highest of the mainland cities, having a cost of 

$4,352 and an index rating of 112.

The budget exceeded the U.S. average cost by 

more than 5 percent in 5 of the 8 metropolitan 

areas in the Northeast (Hartford, New YorkNortheastern, N.J., Boston, Buffalo, and Portland, 

Me.), and also in Milwaukee, Seattle, San Fran2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and

Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966

Item

Urban United States Northeast

Total Metropolitan

areas 2

Nonm etropolitan

areas 3

Boston,

M a ss.

Buffalo,

N. Y.

Hartford,

Conn.

Lancaster,

Pa.

New Y o rk -

Northeastern

New Jersey

Philadelphia,

P a .-N . J.

P ittsburgh,

Pa.

Portland,

Maine

Nonmetropolitan

areas 3

F ood----------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 1, 072 $ 1,089 $ 1,023 $ 1, 174 $ 1,1 06 $ 1,202 $ 1, 157 $ 1, 204 $ 1, 144 $ 1 ,1 1 5 $ 1, 129 $ 1,135

Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------------- 964 975 932 1,066 996 1, 067 1, 032 1, 053 1,033 999 1,0 42 1,021

Food away from h o m e--------------------------------- 108 114 91 108 110 135 125 151 111 116 87 1 14

Housing: T o ta l--------------------------------------------------------- 1,295 1,392 1, 004 1,595 1,4 90 1,523 1, 270 1,6 70 1, 396 1,258 1,417 1,212

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 1,411 1,513 1, 107 1,612 1, 531 1,647 1, 358 1, 638 1,421 1, 393 1, 361 1, 366

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 1,232 1, 327 948 1,586 1,468 1,456 1,2 23 1,688 1,3 83 1, 185 1,448 1, 129 Shelter: Total 4 -------------------------------------------- 834 893 656 1, 075 971 1, 019 803 1, 146 908 772 909 860

Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------------- 950 1,014 759 1,092 1,012 1, 143 891 1, 114 933 907 853 1, 014

Homeowner costs 6 --------------------------------- 771 828 600 1,066 949 952 756 1, 164 895 699 940 777

Housefurnishings ------------------------------------------ 170 181 139 176 193 179 172 182 183 172 181 140

Household operations---------------------------------- 291 318 209 344 326 325 295 342 305 314 327 212

Transportation: T o ta l7------------------------------------------ 345 344 346 329 401 403 344 229 297 370 363 355

Automobile ow n ers-------------------------------------------- 561 581 500 654 595 600 506 621 578 541 535 514

Nonowners of autom obiles ------------------------------ 83 105 17 112 n o 108 101 98 n o 113 104 15

Clothing 8--------------------------------------------------------------------- 225 227 216 231 242 236 226 231 223 232 250 225

P erson al care ----------------------------------------------------------- 121 119 128 111 1 17 118 106 122 112 116 109 132

M edical care: T o ta l----------------------------------------------- 284 288 274 281 285 290 277 283 282 276 277 276

O u t-of-pocket M edicare costs 9---------------- 148 150 145 148 148 151 145 152 147 146 149 146

A ll other m edical c a r e -------------------------------- 136 138 129 133 137 139 132 131 135 130 128 130

Other fam ily consum ption------------------------------------- 295 307 261 319 311 319 301 325 311 315 316 268

R eading------------------------------------------------------------ 53 52 57 53 53 53 43 53 53 56 61 59

Rec reation------------------------------------------------------ 111 113 106 115 1 12 121 117 117 n o 117 111 108

T o b a c c o -------------------- ------------------------------------- 71 70 72 74 72 70 68 80 74 68 70 74

Alcoholic beverages ------------------------------------ 46 57 13 61 58 59 58 58 59 59 59 13

M iscellaneous expenses ----------------------------- 14 15 13 16 16 16 15 17 15 15 15 14

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l10---------------- 3, 637 3, 766 3 ,2 52 4, 040 3, 952 4, 091 3, 681 4, 064 3, 765 3, 682 3,861 3, 603

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 3, 753 3, 887 3, 355 4, 057 3, 993 4 ,2 1 5 3, 769 4, 032 3, 790 3,8 17 3, 805 3, 757

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3, 574 3, 701 3, 196 4, 031 3, 930 4, 024 3, 634 4, 082 3, 752 3, 609 3, 892 3, 520

Gifts and contributions------------------------------------------- 232 240 208 258 252 261 235 259 240 235 247 230

Cost of budget: T o ta l10------------------------------------------ 3, 869 4, 006 3, 460 4, 298 4, 204 4, 352 3 ,9 1 6 4, 323 4, 005 3, 917 4, 108 3, 833

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 3, 985 4, 127 3, 563 4, 315 4, 245 4 ,4 7 6 4, 004 4, 291 4, 030 4, 052 4, 052 3, 987

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3, 806 3,941 3 ,4 0 4 4, 289 4, 182 4, 285 3 ,8 6 9 4, 341 3 ,9 92 3 ,8 44 4, 139 3,7 50

See footnotes at end of table.

0)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and

Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued

A

North Central

Item Cedar

Rapids,

Iowa

Cham -

paignU rbana,

111.

Chicago,

111. —

Northwestern

Ind.

Cincinnati,

Ohio—Ky. —

Ind.

C leveland,

Ohio

Dayton,

Ohio

Detroit,

Mich.

Green

Bay,

W is.

Indianapolis ,

Ind.

Kansas

City,

M o .-

Kans.

M ilwaukee,

W is.

Minneapolis—

St. Paul,

Minn.

St. Louis,

M o.-111.

Wichita,

Kans.

Nonm etropolitan

areas 3

F o o d - ________________________________________ ____ $ 1,0 3 3 $ 1,058 $ 1,062 $ 1, 046 $ 1,038 $ 1,0 30 $ 1,072 $995 $ 1,042 $ 1,065 $ 1,036 $ 1,034 $ 1, 101 $ 1,055 $ 1,024

Food at home ----------------------------------------------- 938 958 967 944 928 942 953 914 950 966 915 937 987 970 94!

Food away from h o m e--------------------------------- 95 100 95 102 110 88 119 81 92 99 121 97 114 85 8 3

Housing: T o ta l----------------------------------------------------—— 1, 384 1,453 1,424 1,226 1,428 1, 247 1, 221 1,2 96 1,466 1,242 1,498 1, 39 3 1, 314 1,2 84 1, 101

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 1, 532 1,633 1,637 1, 352 1,699 1,474 1,489 1,2 93 1, 589 1,416 1,561 1,533 1,448 1,429 1,2 32

Homeowner fa m ilie s------------------------------------------ 1, 305 1, 356 1, 309 1, 159 1,282 ], 124 1, 077 1,298 1,4 00 1, 149 1,4 64 1,317 1,242 1,206 1, 0 30

Shelter: Total 4 -------------------------------------------- 865 957 920 738 929 776 710 822 963 733 994 899 815 793 7 3 8

Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------------- 1, 013 1, 137 1, 133 864 1,2 00 1,003 978 819 1, 086 907 1,057 1, 0 39 949 938 869

Homeowner costs 6 --------------------------------- 786 860 805 67 1 783 65 3 566 824 897 640 960 823 743 715 667

H ou sefurn ishin gs---------------- --------— ------ ----- 181 181 177 180 175 177 178 178 185 189 165 167 183 183 14 1

Household operations----------------------------------- 338 315 327 308 324 294 333 296 318 320 339 327 316 308 222

Transportation: T o ta l7----------------------- ------------------ 37 0 355 307 369 384 364 385 367 383 391 374 377 393 366 3 3b

Automobile ow n ers--------------------------------------------- 546 522 605 541 566 535 569 546 568 577 554 5 57 580 542 48b

Nonowners of autom obiles ------------------------------ 104 105 108 112 111 106 109 98 106 111 104 106 111 103 17

Clothing 8--------------------------------------------------------------------- 234 231 236 222 234 232 236 245 236 224 234 236 221 223 2 39

Personal care ----------------------------------------------------------- 121 114 120 101 123 104 119 104 119 125 113 117 114 112 1 3 8

M edical care: T o ta l----------------------------------------------- 280 286 282 269 265 274 278 283 271 285 277 269 277 277 27 0

O u t-of-pocket M edicare costs 9---------------- 146 148 148 147 148 147 148 145 148 147 147 147 148 148 145

A ll other m edical c a r e ------------------------------ 134 138 134 122 1 17 127 130 138 123 138 130 122 129 129 125

Other fam ily consum ption-------------------------------------- 299 285 301 302 298 294 307 294 315 302 306 307 283 299 257

R eading------------------------------------------------------------ 46 37 51 56 56 51 56 50 55 47 55 52 47 47 56

R,ec reation------------------------------------------------------- 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 109 119 115 1 14 111 104 115 106

Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------- 71 67 70 62 62 63 69 71 67 73 72 71 69 70 69

Alcoholic beverages ------------------------------------ 54 53 52 57 52 53 55 50 59 53 50 58 48 53 13

M iscellaneous e x p e n se s ----------------------------- 15 15 15 14 15 14 14 14 15 14 15 15 15 14 13

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l10---------------- 3, 721 3, 782 3, 732 3, 535 3, 770 3, 545 3, 618 3, 584 3, 832 3, 634 3, 838 3, 733 3, 703 3 ,6 16 3, 360

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 3, 869 3, 962 3, 945 3, 661 4, 041 3, 772 3, 886 3,5 81 3, 955 3, 808 3, 901 3, 873 3, 837 3, 761 3,491

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3, 642 3, 685 3, 617 3, 468 3, 624 3, 422 3, 474 3, 586 3, 766 3, 541 3, 804 3, 657 3, 631 3, 538 3, 289

Gifts and contributions------------------------------------------- 237 241 238 225 240 226 231 228 244 232 245 238 236 231 214

Cost of budget: T o ta l10------------------------------------------ 3, 958 4,023 3, 970 3, 760 4, 010 3, 771 3, 849 3, 814 4, 076 3, 866 4, 083 3, 971 3, 939 3, 847 3, 574

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 4, 106 4, 203 4, 183 3, 886 4, 281 3, 998 4, 117 3,8 11 4, 199 4, 040 4, 146 4, 111 4, 073 3, 992 3, 705

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3, 879 3, 926 3,855 3, 693 3, 864 3, 648 3, 705 3, 816 4, 010 3 ,7 73 4, 049 3, 895 3, 867 3, 769 3, 503

See footnotes at end of table,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tabic 1. Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and

Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966— Continued

Item

South

Atlanta,

Ga.

Austin,

Tex.

B altim ore,

Md.

Baton Rouge,

La.

D allas,

T ex.

Durham,

N. C.

Huston,

Tex.

N ashville,

Tenn.

Orlando,

Fla.

Washington,

D. C .- M d ."

Va.

Nonmetropolitan

areas 3

F ood___________________________________________________ $ 1,017 $990 $ 1,0 02 $ 1, 016 $ 1, 008 $978 $ 1,018 $979 $982 $ 1,061 $988

Food at h o m e ----------- ----------------------------------- 913 902 906 916 903 896 908 893 894 965 898

Food away from h o m e--------------------------------- 104 88 96 100 105 82 110 86 88 96 90

Housing: T o ta l------------------------------ ----------------------- 1,046 1,095 1,3 33 968 1, 123 1, 173 1, 092 1,2 27 1, 228 1,423 864

Renter fam ilies ------------------------------------------------- 1,2 60 1,330 1,4 89 1, 132 1,2 76 1,297 1 ,2 24 1,3 56 1,526 1,601 934

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 931 968 1 ,2 5 0 879 1, 041 1, 107 1,021 1, 157 1,068 1,327 826

Shelter: Total 4 -------------------------------------------- 568 633 821 540 665 724 622 750 760 897 530

Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------------- 782 868 977 704 818 848 754 879 1, 058 1, 075 600

Homeowner costs 6 -------------------------------- 453 506 738 451 583 658 551 680 600 801 492

H ou sefurn ishin gs------------------------------------------ 181 168 186 179 169 177 177 176 181 174 136

Household operations---------------------------------- 297 294 326 249 289 272 293 301 287 352 198

Transportation: T o ta l7------------------------------------------ 368 363 382 401 372 359 391 371 368 385 347

Automobile ow n ers-------------------------------------------- 539 539 566 598 551 533 580 549 544 570 503

Nonowners of au to m o b iles------------------------------ 113 99 103 106 104 99 107 105 104 106 16

Clothing 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 212 194 219 203 209 217 200 222 208 223 199

P erson al care ----------------------------------------------------------- 126 105 123 117 116 111 118 111 106 135 120

M edical care: T o ta l----------------------------------------------- 284 284 285 275 290 278 293 280 281 283 273

O u t-of-pocket M edicare costs 9---------------- 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 147 149 149 145

A ll other m edical c a r e -------------------------------- 136 136 137 127 142 130 145 133 132 134 128

Other fam ily consum ption------------------------------------- 313 291 297 297 303 276 299 308 294 291 260

R eading------------------------------------------------------------ 51 44 51 50 46 47 49 48 48 51 55

R ecreation------------------------------------------------------ 106 111 107 109 111 108 107 108 106 114 105

Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------- 73 74 68 72 77 52 78 73 69 61 74

A lcoholic beverages — ------------------------------ 70 49 56 53 55 55 51 65 57 50 14

M iscellaneous e x p e n se s ------ 1--------------------- 13 13 15 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 12

Cost of fam ily cpnsumption: T o ta l10---------------- 3 ,3 66 3, 322 3,6 41 3 ,2 7 7 3,4 21 3, 392 3 ,4 11 3 ,4 9 8 3 ,4 67 3,801 3, 051

Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------- 3 ,5 8 0 3,557 3 ,7 97 3,441 3, 574 3, 516 3, 543 3 ,6 2 7 3 ,7 6 5 3 ,9 7 9 3, 121

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3,251 3, 195 3, 558 3, 188 3, 339 3, 326 3, 340 3 ,4 2 8 3, 307 3 ,7 0 5 3, 013

Gifts and contributions------------------------------------------- 215 212 232 209 218 216 217 223 221 243 195

Cost of budget: T o ta l10- -------------------------------------- 3,581 3,5 34 3 ,8 7 3 3 ,4 8 6 3 ,6 3 9 3 ,6 0 8 3 ,6 2 8 3,721 3 ,6 8 8 4, 044 3, 246

Renter fa m ilie s ----------------------------- ------------------ 3,7 95 3,7 69 4 , 029 3, 650 3 ,7 9 2 3 ,7 3 2 3 ,7 6 0 3 ,8 5 0 3 ,9 8 6 4 ,2 2 2 3, 316

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 3, 466 3,407 3 ,7 9 0 3, 397 3 ,5 5 7 3 ,5 4 2 3, 557 3,6 51 3 ,5 2 8 3 ,9 4 8 3,2 08

See footnotes at end of table.

01

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Annual Costs o f the Retired Couple’s Budget1 by Major Components, Urban United States, 39 Metropolitan Areas, and

Nonmetropolitan Areas by Regions, Autumn 1966-----Continued

0)

W est

Item Bake rsfield,

Calif.

Denver,

Colo.

Honolulu,

Hawaii

Los A n g e le sLong Beach,

Calif.

San Diego,

Calif.

San Francisco—

Oakland,

Calif.

Seattle—

Everett,

Wash.

Nonm etropolitan

areas 3

F ood ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 1,024 $ 1,057 $ 1,286 $ 1,037 $ 1,006 $ 1,086 $ 1, 133 $ 1,0 50

Food at h o m e ------------------------------------------------- 930 953 1, 175 920 888 965 1,008 956

Food away from h o m e--------------------------------- 94 104 111 117 118 121 125 94

Housing: T o ta l__________________________________ — 1,215 1,313 1,502 1,337 1,273 1 ,4 20 1,4 82 1, 137

Renter fa m ilie s -------------------------------------------------- 1, 346 1,406 1,9 93 1,5 82 1,428 1,651 1 ,6 80 1, 255

Homeowner fa m ilie s ------------------------------------------ 1, 144 1,263 1, 238 1,205 1, 190 1, 296 1, 375 1,07 3

Shelter: T o ta l4 --------------------------------------------- 735 809 935 843 795 905 926 767

Rental costs 5 ------------------------------------------- 866 902 1,426 1,088 950 1, 136 1, 124 885

Homeowner costs 6 ----- --------------------------- 664 759 671 711 712 781 819 703

Housefurnishings ------------------------------------------ 198 180 203 194 195 197 188 147

Household operations----------------------------------- 282 324 364 300 283 318 368 223

Transportation: T o ta l7------------------------------------------ 389 374 427 399 387 415 404 356

Automobile ow n ers-------------------------------------------- 577 553 640 596 571 623 601 512

Nonowners of autom obiles ------------------------------ 108 107 107 104 112 102 109 25

Clothing 8--------------------------------------------------------------------- 218 233 214 224 214 233 236 224

P ersonal c a r e ---------------------------------------------------------- 117 122 122 128 117 143 129 144

M edical care: T o ta l----------------------------------------------- 314 284 287 331 320 318 303 286

O u t-of-pocket M edicare costs 9---------------- 149 148 149 152 150 151 149 146

A ll other m edical c a r e -------------------------------- 165 136 138 179 170 167 154 140

Other fam ily consum ption------------------------------------- 282 290 330 296 293 306 318 269

Reading----------------------------------------------------------- 42 45 51 52 53 53 49 65

Recreation------------------------------------------------------ 112 112 123 116 113 120 112 108

Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------- 58 65 76 57 57 61 82 70

Alcoholic beverages ------------------------------------ 56 53 63 56 56 56 59 12

M iscellaneous expenses ----------------------------- 14 15 17 15 .14 16 16 14

Cost of fam ily consumption: T o ta l10---------------- 3, 559 3,6 73 4, 168 3, 752 3, 610 3, 921 4, 005 3,4 66

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 3, 690 3, 766 4 ,6 5 9 3 ,9 9 7 3, 765 4, 152 4, 203 3, 584

Homeowner fa m ilie s------------------------------------------ 3,488 3,6 23 3 ,9 0 4 3, 620 3, 527 3 ,7 97 3, 898 3 ,4 0 2

Gifts and contributions------------------------------------------- 227 234 266 239 230 250 255 221

Cost of budget: T o ta l10------------------------------------------ 3, 786 3, 907 4 ,4 3 4 3,991 3 ,8 4 0 4, 171 4, 260 3, 687

Renter fam ilies -------------------------------------------------- 3, 917 4, 000 4, 925 4, 236 3 ,9 95 4 ,4 0 2 4 ,4 5 8 3, 805

Homeowner fa m ilie s------------------------------------------ 3, 715 3, 857 4, 170 3, 859 3, 757 4, 047 4, 153 3, 623

1 The fam ily consists of a retired husband and wife, age 65 or over.

2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of 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: 35 percent for fam ilies living in rented dwellings, 65 percent for fam ilies living in owned hom es.

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

6 T axes, insurance on house and contents, water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas, electricity, 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: New York, 25 percent for automobile owners, 75 percent for nonw ners; Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago, 40 percent for owners, 60 percent for nonowners; all other metropolitan areas, 60 percent for owners, 40 percent for nonowners; and all

onmetropolitan a reas, 68 percent for ow ners, and 32 percent for nonowners.

8 Includes costs for husband and wife plus allowance for clothing m aterials and services. Total subject to revision. Separate estim ates for husband. and wife will be available at

later date.

9 Annual m edical insurance prem ium plus estimated average cost of deductible and coinsurance features.

10 The total represents the weighted average costs of renter fam ilies (35 percent) and owner fam ilies (65 percent).

N O TE: See appendix A for item s and quantities included in each component, and appendix

may not equal totals.

B for the population weights for each city. Because of rounding, sums of individual item s

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tabic 2. Indexes o f Comparative Living Costs Based on the Retired Couple’s Budget,1 Autumn 1966

(U .S . Urban A verage Cost = 100)

Budget costs

_____________ L Cost of familY consumption

A rea T o ta l2 Renter

fam ilies

Homeowner

fam ilies T o ta l2 Food

Housing (sh elter, housefurnishings,

household operations)

T ran sportation 6

Clothing

and

personal

care

M edical

care

Other

family

consumption

Total

Shelter

Renter and

owner

combined 3

Rental

costs 4

Homeowner

costs 5

Urban United States —------------------------------------ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

M etropolitan areas 7---------------------------- 104 104 104 104 102 107 107 107 107 100 100 101 104

Nonmetropolitan areas 8--------------------- 89 89 89 89 95 78 79 80 78 100 99 96 88

Northeast:

Boston, M a s s --------------------------------------- 111 108 113 111 110 123 129 115 138 95 99 99 108

Buffalo, N. Y ---------------------------------------- 109 107 110 109 103 115 116 107 123 116 104 100 105

H artford, C o n n ----------------- ----------------- 112 112 113 112 112 118 122 120 123 117 102 102 108

L an caster, P a -------------------------------------- 101 100 102 101 108 98 96 94 98 100 96 98 102

New York—Northeastern New

Jersey ------------------------------------------------- 112 108 114 112 112 129 137 117 151 66 102 100 n o

Philadelphia, P a .—N. J ---------------------- 104 101 105 104 107 108 109 98 116 86 97 99 105

Pittsburgh, P a ------------------------------------ 101 102 101 101 104 97 93 95 91 107 101 97 107

Portland, M a in e --------------------------------- 106 102 109 106 105 109 109 90 122 105 104 98 107

Nonmetropolitan areas 8 ------------------- 99 100 99 99 106 94 103 107 101 103 103 97 91

North Central:

Cedar Rapids, Iow a---------------------------- 102 103 102 102 96 107 104 107 102 107 103 99 101

Champaign—Urbana, 111--------------------- 104 105 103 104 99 112 115 120 112 103 100 101 97

Chicago, 111.—Northwestern

Indiana------------------------------------------------- 103 105 101 103 99 110 110 119 104 89 103 99 102

Cincinnati, Ohio—K y .—Ind ---------------- 97 98 97 97 98 95 88 91 87 107 93 95 102

Cleveland, O hio------------------------------------ 104 107 102 104 97 110 111 126 102 111 103 93 101

Dayton, O h io ---------------------------------------- 97 100 96 97 96 96 93 106 85 106 97 96 100

D etroit, M ic h -------------- :------------------------ 99 103 97 99 100 94 85 103 73 112 103 98 104

Green B ay, W i s ----------------------------------- 99 96 100 99 93 100 99 86 107 106 101 100 100

Indianapolis, In d--------------------------------- 105 105 105 105 97 113 115 114 116 111 103 95 107

Kansas City, M o .—K a n s ------------------- 100 101 99 100 99 96 88 95 83 113 101 100 102

M ilwaukee, W i s --------------------------------- 106 104 106 106 97 116 119 111 125 108 100 98 104

M inneapolis—St. P aul, Minn --------- 103 103 102 103 96 108 108 109 107 109 102 95 '104

St. L ou is, M o .—I l l ----------------------------- 102 102 102 102 103 101 98 100 96 114 97 98 96

W ichita, K a n s -------------------------------------- 99 100 99 99 98 99 95 99 93 106 97 98 101

Nonmetropolitan areas 8 ------------------- 92 93 92 92 96 85 88 91 87 97 108 95 87

South:

Atlanta, G a ------------------------------------------- 93 95 91 93 95 81 68 82 59 107 98 100 106

Austin, T e x ------------------------------------------ 91 95 90 91 92 85 76 91 66 105 86 100 99

B altim ore, M d ------------------------------------ 100 101 100 100 93 103 98 103 96 111 99 100 101

Baton Rouge, L a --------------------------------- 90 92 89 90 95 75 65 74 58 116 92 97 101

D allas, T e x ------------------------------------------ 94 95 93 94 94 87 80 86 76 108 94 102 103

Durham , N. C --------------------------------------- 93 94 93 93 91 91 87 89 85 104 95 98 94

Houston, T e x --------------------------------------- 94 94 93 94 95 84 75 79 71 113 92 103 101

N ash ville, T e n n ----------------------------------- 96 97 96 96 91 95 90 93 88 108 96 99 104

Orlando, F l a ---------------------------------------- 95 100 93 95 92 95 91 111 78 107 91 99 100

Washington, D .C .—M d .—V a -------------- 105 106 104 105 99 110 108 113 104 112 103 100 99

Nonmetropolitan areas 8 ------------------ 84 83 84 84 92 67 64 63 64 101 92 96 88

W est:

B akersfield, C a lif------------------------------- 98 98 98 98 96 94 88 91 86 113 97 111 96

D enver, C o lo --------------------------------------- 101 100 101 101 99 101 97 95 98 108 103 100 98

Honolulu, H a w a i i------------------------------ 115 124 110 115 120 116 112 150 87 124 97 101 112

Los Angeles—Long Beach, C alif------ 103 106 101 103 97 103 101 115 92 116 102 117 100

San D iego, C a li f--------------------------------- 99 100 99 99 94 98 95 100 92 112 96 113 99

San Fran cisco—Oakland, C a lif--------- 108 110 106 108 101 110 109 120 101 120 109 112 104

Seattle—E verett, W a s h ---------------------- 110 112 109 110 106 114 111 118 106 117 105 107 108

Nonmetropolitan areas 8 ------------------- 95 95 95 95 98 88 92 93 91 103 106 101 91

1 The fam ily consists of a retired husband and w ife, age 65 and o ver.

The total represents the weighted average costs of renter fam ilies (35 percent) and owner fam ilies (65 percent).

4 The average costs of shelter were weighted by the following proportions: 35 percent for fam ilies living in rented dw ellings, 65 percent for fam ilies living in owned hom es.

5 Average contract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, g a s, electricity, w ater, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents.

^ T axe s, insurance on house and contents, w ater, refuse disposal, heating fuel, g a s, electricity, and specified equipment, home repair and maintenance costs.

The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners w ere weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: New York, 25 percent for automobile ow ners, 75 percent for nonowners;

Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, 40 percent for ow ners, 60 percent for nonowners; all other m etropolitan area s, 60 percent for automobile ow ners, 40 percent for nonowners; and all nonmetropolitan a rea s, 68 percent for ow ners, and 32 percent for nonowners.

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

P laces with population of 2 ,5 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 . ' ‘

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cisco, and Honolulu. Costs below average by more 

than 5 percent were found in 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas in the South, in addition to the smaller 

Southern and North Central cities. In more than 

half (26) of the 43 areas, costs were within approximately $200 (5 percent) of the average. These 

areas included the three Pennsylvania cities 

(Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Lancaster); all of 

the cities in the North Central Region except 

Milwaukee; four of the Southern cities (Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Nashville, and Orlando); 

and Denver, Bakersfield, and Los Angeles in the 

West. Costs in the smaller cities in the Northeast 

and West were also within this range.

Wide variations in the combined costs for food, 

shelter, sand transportation are primarily responsible for the range in costs of the total budget. 

Indexes based on these three components differ 

from total budget cost indexes by 3 index 

points or less in 38 of the 43 areas. In three areas 

in the Northeast, however (Hartford, Boston, and 

the nonmetropolitan areas), indexes based on food, 

shelter, and transportation alone are higher by 

4 or 5 points, compared to indexes based on total 

budget costs. On the other hand, costs of these 

three components understate the relative position 

of Houston and Atlanta, as costs for other components raise their rank by 4 and 6 percentage 

points respectively.

Food 4/

The U.S. urban average annual cost of food for 

the retired couple was $1,072. Total annual food 

costs were highest in the New York area and 

Hartford, Connecticut, where they averaged about 

$1,200. In Durham, North Carolina and Nashville, . 

Tennessee these costs were roughly $980. The 

$220 difference reflects not only variation in 

prices, but also the regional preference patterns, 

used for cities within each region to calculate the 

cost of the nutritional standard for food at home. 

A special analysis of the food budget data will be 

made later, to determine what part of these costs 

differentials was due to price, and what part to 

regional preference patterns.

4 / See p. 17 for a detailed description of 

sources and methods used to derive budget quantities for food.

When the average U.S. cost of food at home 

($964) equaled 100, there was a range of 19 percentage points between Hartford, the highest cost 

area in continental United States, and San Diego, 

the lowest cost area. Budget costs for food at 

home, using nutritionally comparable food plans, 

Were roughly $100 higher, on the average, in cities 

in the Northeast than in the North Central and 

Western regions. Costs in the last two regions 

were about $45 above the Southern costs. Differences in food-at-home costs within each region, 

which reflected price differences only, were nonetheless relatively large. In the Northeast they 

ranged from $996 in Buffalo to $1,067 in Hartford. 

The annual cost of food at home in Washington, 

D.C., where the U.S. preference pattern was used, 

was $965.

In contrast, costs for food away from home had 

a 64-percentage-point range between the New York 

area, with the highest costs, and Green Bay, 

Wisconsin, with the lowest costs. Average costs 

were lowest in the South and North Central regions, 

and highest in the Northeast. Costs for food away 

from home were above the U.S. average cost in 

the majority of both Northeastern and Western 

cities, and below the U.S. figure in the majority 

of North Central and Southern cities.

Housing 5/

Shelter costs for owners (65 percent) and 

renters (35 percent) combined, averaged $834 for 

urban United States, but varied from $1,146 in 

New York to $530 in the smaller cities in the 

South. Compared with the U.S. urban average 

($950) equal to 100, shelter costs for renter 

families were 150 in Honolulu and 63 in the smaller 

Southern cities. The range in homeowner shelter 

costs was slightly wider, from 151 in New York 

to 58 in Baton Rouge.

The U.S. urban average outlay for maintaining 

a 5- or 6-room , mortgage-free owned home 

amounted to $771, or almost 20 percent less than 

the average costs ($950) for a 2 - or 3-room rental 

unit.

5/ For a detailed description, see p. 18.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Shelter costs for homeowner families include 

insurance, taxes, repair and replacement expenses, fuel, and utilities. In metropolitan areas 

in all parts of the country except the Northeast, 

these costs were about 25 percent below rental 

housing costs (including fuel, utilities, and insurance where these are not part of the contract 

rent). In the Northeast, however, owner costs were 

only 4 percent below renter costs, primarily as 

a result of relatively high fuel costs and property 

taxes. Shelter costs were higher for homeowner 

than for renter families in only three areas— 

Green Bay, Wis., the New York area, and Portland, 

Maine. In the smaller cities, owner costs averaged 20 percent below renter costs, with the 

ratio slightly wider in the Northeast and narrower 

in the South.

In addition to shelter, the budget allowance for 

the housing component covers household operation 

costs, and an amount for replacement of housefurnishings, assuming the family had average 

inventories of these items at the beginning of the 

year. Operation costs varied by $170, with Seattle 

on the high and smaller cities in the South on the 

low end of the distribution. The range in housefurnishings costs was only about a third as great, 

with a high of $203 in Honolulu and a low of $136 

in the smaller Southern cities.

Transportation 6/

The pattern of automobile ownership specified 

for the budget reflects the greater availability of 

public transportation in some areas than in others. 

Thus in the New York area, only 25 percent of the 

retired couples were assumed to own automobiles. 

In Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, the comparable proportion was 40 percent; in all other metropolitan areas, 60 percent; and in nonmetropolitan areas, 68 percent. This variation in the weight - 

ing pattern, together with differences in prices, 

affects the intercity differentials for total transportation costs, making New York the lowest and 

Honolulu the highest cost city.

For automobiles owners alone, however, costs 

were about the same in New York and San Francisco and were exceeded only by costs in Boston 

and Honolulu which averaged $654 and $640 respectively. Boston’ s costs were 17 percent and 

Honolulu’ s 14 percent above the U.S. urban average of $561. At the other end of the scale, costs 

in smaller cities in the North Central region were 

13 percent below the U.S. average. In addition to 

price differences, this comparison reflects the 

fact that retired couples in smaller cities drive 

a lower average number of miles than in metropolitan areas.

For families who did not own automobiles, costs 

of public transportation (transit and taxi fares) 

were highest in Atlanta and lowest in Green Bay, 

Wis., among the metropolitan areas, but the range 

in cost amounted to only $15. Costs were substantially lower in the nonmetropolitan areas, however, 

where utilization rates were affected by the lack 

of public transportation.

Medical Care 7/

The medical care budget includes the couple’ s 

out-of-pocket expenses for hospital and medical 

care covered by Medicare, including the premium 

cost for medical insurance. It also includes the 

costs of other medical services and supplies not 

covered by Medicare. Total medical care costs 

were highest in the four California cities, and 

lowest in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Compared 

with the U.S. urban average cost ($284) equal to 

100, costs were 117 in Los Angeles, and averaged 

downward by 24 percentage points to 93 in Cleveland.

Out-of-pocket costs under Medicare comprised 

52 percent of the total medical care component at 

the U.S. urban level. With the U.S. urban average 

cost of $148 for all Medicare expenses equaling 

100, there was a range of only 5 percentage points 

between the highest costs under Medicare in Los 

Angeles, and the lowest costs in small Southern 

cities. The largest part of these costs was the 

same in all cities, and was made up of the $72 

premium for medical insurance, plus an estimated 

average charge of approximately $18 per couple 

for hospital services. Only the costs paid by the

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

9

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
enrollee under the medical insurance program 

varied from city to city, reflecting differences in * 

the costs of physician visits.

Budget costs for medical and dental services not 

covered by Medicare are in sharp contrast to the 

Medicare picture. There was a range of 45 percentage points between the high-and low-cost 

areas—Los Angeles and Cleveland respectively. 

Because the same standards were used in all 

cities, the intercity differences in these costs are 

due solely to price differences.

Clothing and Personal Care 8/

Clothing and personal care costs reflect both 

differentials in prices of commodities and services and variations in the kinds and quantities of 

clothing required by climate.

As might be expected, they were generally 

lowest in the South. However, within the region 

costs differed by 17 percentage points (almost 

$60), with Washington, D.C. the highest and Austin, 

Tex. the lowest cost city. The combined cost of 

clothing and personal care was highest in San 

Francisco, Seattle, and nonmetropolitan areas of 

the North Central and West, where higher prices 

together with larger allowances for personal care 

services in the smaller cities had a greater impact 

on costs than did the influence of climate on clothing quantities. The spread in costs among most 

cities was not great, however, since 33 of the 43 

areas fall within 5 percent of the U.S. average 

cost, and 26 areas within 3 percent of the same 

average.

For other family consumption, the intercity cost 

differentials were wider than in clothing and personal care, but no regional pattern was apparent.

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

Honolulu and New York had the highest costs, and 

the nonmetropolitan areas in the four regions had 

the lowest costs. Of the 43 areas, 29 were within 

5 percent of the U.S. average cost.

Stable Differentials

Comparative cost indexes for 1950, 1959, and 

1966 indicate considerable stability of intercity 

differentials. Among the 18 large cities included 

in all three studies, the city indexes varied by 12 

percentage points in 1950, 23 points in 1959, and 

19 points in 1966. Among all 34 large cities 

covered in 1950, the range was 16 percentage 

points; for the 20 large cities covered in 1959, 23 

points; and for the 39 metropolitan areas and four 

regional groupings of nonmetropolitan areas 

covered in 1966, the range was 31 points. Inclusion 

of smaller areas and homeowner costs in 1966 

contributed to the wider cost variation among 

cities, but not as much as might have been 

expected.

The 18 metropolitan areas covered in both the 

1959 and the 1966 budgets were arrayed by total 

budget costs in 1959. Four of the six areas in the 

upper third of the distribution in 1959 remained 

in that bracket in 1966 (Boston, Seattle, Cleveland, 

and San Francisco). Chicago and Minneapolis fell 

to the middle third in 1966. Among the middle 

third in 1959, three were in the same group in 

1966 (Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis); 

New York and Washington moved into the top third; 

and Detroit dropped to the lowest group. Of the six 

cities ranking lowest in 1959, Philadelphia moved 

into the middle bracket, but the other five (Kansas 

City, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Atlanta and Houston) 

remained in the lower third of the distribution. In 

sum, 12 of the 18 areas remained in the same 

third of the budget cost distribution in 1959 

and 1966.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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. “Levels of living” refer to the 

actual living conditions of families. “Manner of 

living” is the way or style of life (city or country, 

homeowner or renter, etc.)—in other words, how 

goods and services are consumed.

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 expenditure surveys 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 retired couple, 

consisting of a husband and wife, age 65 or over. 

The concept of this standard was described in the 

original budget by the Social Security Administration as follows:

“ [The budget isj intended to include those goods 

and services that are necessary for a healthful, 

self-respecting mode of living that allows normal 

participation in the life of the community in 

accordance with current American standards. 

Social and conventional, as well as physiological, 

needs are taken into account. This level is definitely above the subsistence level in that it provides 

for more than physical needs or what would be 

necessary to carry families through a limited 

period of stringency. On the other hand, it is not

a luxury budget and it does not represent an 

American ‘ideal’ way of living.” 9/

As noted in the Introduction, three kinds of data 

were used to arrive at the component parts of the 

budget: (1) Scientific or technical judgments concerning the requirements for physical health and 

social well-being; (2) provisions of the Medicare 

program; and (3) analytical studies of the data 

reported in the Bureau’ s surveys of consumer 

expenditures, to determine by objective procedures the choices of goods and services made by 

consumers in successive income groups. Since 

budgetary requirements vary with climate and 

other local conditons, the quantities and types of 

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

description of these procedures is included in the 

last section of this bulletin.

The standard for the retired couple is equivalent 

to the standard for the younger, 4-person family 

described in the City Worker’ s Family Budget. 

In defining the modest standard forthat budget, the 

Technical Advisory Committee recognized that 

“ such a budget is not an absolute and unchanging 

thing. The prevailing judgment of the necessary 

will vary with the changing values of the 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.” The same 

observation is relevant to the budget for a retired 

couple. 10/

Comparison with Earlier Budgets

The original budget for an elderly couple, developed by the Social Security Administration, 

was defined as “modest but adequate” in terms of 

standards prevailing in the years immediately

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

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

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.preceding and following World War II. For goods 

and services other than food and shelter, the 

quantities and pricing lists were derived primarily 

from analyses of expenditures studies made in 

1934-36 and 1941. The nutritional standard for 

food was based on the January 1946 low-cost food 

plan developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), but the selection of foods to meet 

these standards was made from the 1935-36 Study 

of Consumer Purchases. 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, which 

was limited to rental housing. There was no provision for automobile ownership. This budget was 

priced in 13 large cities in March 1946, June 1947, 

and March 1949, and in 34 cities in autumn 1950. 

Pricing was discontinued, because the modest 

standard of the 1940*3 was no longer appropriate 

for measuring budget costs in the 1950’ s.

The modest standard of the interim budget for 

food, shelter, and medical care components was 

based on standards and purchasing practices of 

the mid-1950’ s. For other goods and services, 

the budget quantities and pricing lists were derived 

primarily from the Bureau’ s Survey of Consumer 

Expenditures in 1950. Food costs in this budget 

were based on an average of the USDA low- and 

moderate- cost plans to conform to the definition 

of a modest food standard adopted for both the 

original and interim budgets for the younger, 4- 

person family. As a result, however, the interim 

food budget for the retired couple represented a 

relatively higher point on the scale of consumption than did the original budget for this family 

type. Similarly, although the shelter component 

of the interim budget remained limited to rental 

housing, some provision was made for automobile 

ownership. Conceptually, this budget should have 

included the cost of maintaining a mortgage-free 

owned home, since then—as now—about twothirds of retired couples were homeowners, and 

approximately 4 out of 5 of the homes were free 

of mortgage debt. Resources were not available, 

however, to estimate homeownership costs. The 

interim budget was priced only in autumn 1959, 

in 20 large cities.

The current budget is based on the standards 

of the 1960’ s. The nutritional standard for food

was based on the USDA moderate plan alone. The 

shelter standard reflects costs for both renter 

and homeowner families, and the provision for 

automobile ownership is consistent with this 

housing pattern. The pricing date is autumn 1966.

The differences among these three studies in 

the content of the moderate standard resulted from 

modification of the concept and methodological 

problems, as well as from real changes in the 

goals of consumers. Hence a comparison of the 

three budgets provides only a crude approximation 

of change in the living standard over the past two 

decades. The following comparison is limited to 

average costs in the 18 metropolitan areas included in all three studies and to costs for renter 

families only.

Changes in Total Costs

In the 18 cities priced in all three studies, the 

total cost of a moderate standard of living for a 

retired couple living in rental housing averaged 

about $1,790 in 1950. In 1959 the cost of the interim 

budget for the same 18 cities was $3,061, or 71 

percent higher than in 1950. The cost of the current 

moderate standard in the same cities in 1966 

averaged $4,126 for renter families. This level 

was 35 percent higher than in 1959 and 130 percent 

higher than in 1950. Gifts and contributions constituted 3 percent of total budget costs in 1950, 4.5 

percent in 1959, and 6 percent in 1966.

A precise measure of the change attributable to 

revision in the standard or manner of living, as 

distinguished from that caused by increased 

prices, is almost impossible to achieve, because 

many of the commodities and services constituting 

the standard for an earlier period cannot be priced 

in current markets. However, the Consumer Price 

Index can be used to provide a very rough 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

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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. retired couples.

The total increase of 35 percent in budget costs 

for renter families, from 1959 to 1966, can be 

identified as resulting from about a 15 percent 

rise in prices, leaving 20 percent to represent the 

upgrading of the standard. Compared with 1950, 

the new standard reflects a 60-percent rise in 

prices, plus changes in the standard amounting to 

70 percent. Hence, over this 16-year period, the 

rise in the moderate standard (after adjustment 

for price changes) averages about 4.4 percent a 

year.

Over approximately the same period, 1950 to 

1966, the increase in real after-tax income (also 

adjusted for price change) has been estimated at 

about 65 percent for families of the budget type, 

or approximately 4.1 percent a year. Average 

after-tax income for retired couples with head age 

65 years or older, residing in urban areas, was 

$1,814 in 1950, and $3,534 in 1960-61, based on the 

BLS Surveys of Consumer Expenditures for these 

dates. 11/ Current Population Surveys by the 

Bureau of the Census for 1960-61 and 1966 indicate 

an increase of about 14 percent in mean incomes

11/ Median after-tax incomes—which are less 

affected by the extremes—were $1,657 and $2,825 

for 1950 and 1960-61, as reported in the BLS 

surveys. The 1963 Social Security Survey of the 

Aged reported an average before-tax income in 

1962 of $3,563 for retired couples who were 

receiving Social Security benefits, and a median 

income of $2,710. Beneficiary couples who did not 

work in 1962 had a median income of $2,410. See 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, The Aged 

Population of the United States, Research Report 

No. 19, 1967, pp. 238, 289, 291.

of all U.S. families of two persons or more, with 

the head 65 years of age or older. Applying this 

trend to the 1960-61 reported average results in an 

estimated income of $4,046 in 1966 for budget-type 

families. Thus, although the increase in the standard since 1950 has exceeded the improvement in 

real income, the level of the new budget is slightly 

below the current (1966) average money income of 

retired couples.

Upgrading the Food Standard

One of the major sources of upgrading in the 

1966 standard was in the food component. The cost 

of the standard for food at home in the 1966 budget 

reflects a change in the specific Department of 

Agriculture (USD A) food plan selected to meet the 

nutritional standard, as well as changes in food 

preference patterns (variations in the choices of 

foods which provide the nutritional standard) which 

have occurred in the last decade.

The original (1950) budget costs were based on 

the USDA low-cost plan. In 1959 an average of the 

low- and moderate-cost plans was used, while the 

1966 budget utilized only the moderate-cost plan. 

Although families can achieve nutritional adequacy 

from the low-cost food plan, it has been estimated 

that only about a fourth of those who spend amounts 

equivalent to the cost of this plan actually have 

nutritionally adequate diets. 12/ The foods included in this plan deviate considerably from 

family food patterns and require a considerable 

amount of home preparation and skill in cooking. 

Furthermore, the low-cost plan has been used 

widely as a basis for estimating minimum food 

cost requirements for public assistance programs. For these reasons it was decided that the 

moderate-cost plan was more appropriate for use 

in determining the cost of a moderate living 

standard.

Based on 1965 preference patterns and 1966 

prices, the cost of the moderate plan for food at

12/ Based on nonfarm households using foods, 

valued at the cost of the plan, that provided recommended amounts of eight nutrients, as reported 

in the 1955 USDA Household Food Consumption 

Survey.

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
home for the retired couple is about 12 percent 

higher than an average of the low and moderate 

plans, and 26 percent above the low-cost plan 

alone. Since food at home represents 25 percent 

of the total cost of the 1966 budget, the use of the 

moderate plan—instead of an average of the low 

and moderate—accounts for about 3 ofthe2:t-percent increase in the overall standard between 1959 

and 1966. Similarly, use of the moderate- rather 

than the low-cost plan accounts for 6.5 of the 70- 

percent increase in the overall standard since 

1950.

Food-at-home costs in the original budget were 

based on 1935-36 U.S. preference patterns. The 

1959 interim budget standard used 1955 regional 

preferences, and the 1966 budget reflects 1965 

regional patterns. Among the 18 cities common to 

the interim and current budget studies, the change 

in preference patterns over the decade has resulted in relatively lower costs for food at home than 

would have obtained if the 1955 preference patterns 

had been continued in the new budget. However, the 

impact of the change was not the same in all cities. 

In Detroit, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh, for 

example, autumn 1966 moderate-plan food costs 

based on the 1965 preference patterns were 10 to 

11 percent lower than autumn 1966 moderate-plan 

costs of the 1955 preference patterns in these 

cities. In Atlanta and Houston, however, they were 

only 3 and 5 percent lower, respectively.

Between 1955 and 1965, regional differences in 

food patterns lessened, and food buying habits in 

the South moved closer to the patterns in other 

parts of the country. As a result, the range in food 

costs among the 18 cities was reduced from 23 

percentage points in the 1959 study to 16 points in 

the 1966 budget.

The new food standard also reflects an increase 

in the number of meals bought and eaten away from 

home by couples of this type. The 1966 allowance 

for metropolitan areas provides 46 restaurant 

meals, compared with 15 in the 1959 budget. The 

number of meals provided for guests at home (95) 

remained the same as in 1959.

Total food costs comprise 29 percent of the total 

cost of family consumption in the current budget,

while in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures food accounted for only 26 percent of 

comparable consumption expenditures. Generally, 

as income increases, expenditures for food decrease in relation to spending for other living 

expenses. Hence, the lower average ratio for food 

expenditures is evidence that the level of living 

actually achieved by the average retired couple is 

higher than that described by the moderate 

standard budget.

Effect of Changes in Shelter 13/

In the housing component of the new standard, 

rental costs were based on a narrower range of 

dwelling unit quality (i.e., the average of the 

middle third of the distribution of autumn 1966 

contract rents for units that met the budget criteria 

of adequacy) than was used for the 1959 budget, in 

which costs were based on average rents for all 

units meeting the adequacy criteria. As a result of 

this procedural change, in two cities, Kansas City 

and St. Louis, the published costs for rental housing were lower in 1966 than the estimates published 

in 1959, even though fuel and utility costs over this 

period increased for the tenants who pay for them 

separately.

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 do understate somewhat the change 

in rental housing costs in comparison with 1959. 

This has relatively little effect on the overall cost 

level of the new budget, however, since only 35 

percent of the retired couples were assumed to 

live in rental housing. The more significant 

change in the new standard is the previously discussed inclusion of homeowner costs for twothirds of the families.

Increase in Auto Ownership 14/

Accompanying the change in the housing pattern 

is a revision in the proportions of families for

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

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

14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
whom ownership of an automobile is specified. In 

the 1959 budget, New York, Philadelphia, and 

Boston were classified as low (14 percent) ownership cities. In the new budget, auto ownership was 

specified for 25 percent of the families in New 

York and 40 percent of those in the other two 

areas. For other localities in the 1959 budget, 22 

percent of the families were assumed to own cars. 

This was raised in the newbudgetto40 percent of 

the families in Chicago and 60 percent of those in 

other metropolitan areas. Provision for occasional use of public transit systems declined 

sharply, but use of taxicabs increased slightly in 

the new standard, in comparison with the earlier 

one. These revisions were based on average patterns of ownership and use of public transportation by retired couples as reported in the 1960-61 

Survey of Consumer Expenditures.

For the nonmetropolitan areas not previously 

included in the budget, automobile ownership was 

specified for 68 percent of the families. In many 

of the smaller cities public transportation is not 

readily available, and this is reflected in the quantities of transit and taxi rides provided for nonowners of automobiles in these places. Clearly, 

some retired couples must depend on walking, or 

on their auto-owning friends and relatives to 

satisfy some of their transportation needs. It is 

inevitable, however, that “equivalence” in living 

standards is conditioned by genuine differences 

in living patterns and the availability of goods and 

services in particular areas.

Effect of Medicare 15/

The advent of Medicare in 1966—providing federally supported hospital and medical insurance 

for persons 65 years of age and over—considerably changed the budget medical care standard 

from what it was in 1959. The interim budget 

assumed that only 45 percent of retired couples 

were covered by private hospital insurance plans, 

and made no allowance for any other medical 

insurance. For the 1966 budget it was assumed that 

all retired couples were covered by Medicare hospital and medical insurance.

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

For the 18 cities common to the interim and 

current budget studies, the average 1959 cost of 

those medical services which are now under 

Medicare—physician and surgeon fees, hospital 

insurance, and some small miscellaneous 

expenses—was $231. Under Medicare, which has 

more liberal benefits than were provided by the 

1959 private insurance, including posthospital extended care, home health benefits, and other 

services and supplies, the 1966 average budget 

cost in the 18 cities was $149, a drop of 49 percent from the estimated 1966 costs ($290) of the 

1959 insurance—this in spite of rising medical 

prices. In other words, this part of the medical 

standard was upgraded at a substantially lower 

cost to the budget couples.

Other services and supplies in the 1966 medical 

care budget, which were not covered by Medicare, 

reflect further improvement in the medical standard. There were higher allowances in dental care 

for fillings, cleaning, and dentures; and the number 

of prescriptions more than doubled.

Other Changes

For all of the components derived by the quantity- or expenditure-income elasticity technique, 16/ the new budget allowances reflect 

changes in living standards which accompany 

changes in real income. The demand for services 

rose sharply. In personal care, provision for all 

types of beauty shop services for women was 

higher. Simultaneously, the allowances for all 

personal care supplies, except for shampoos used 

at home, increased. Home services were also in 

demand. In the 1959 budget 5 out of 6 families were 

assumed to have home telephone service, which 

was used for local calls only. By 1966, all families 

were allowed home phones, and provision for some 

long-distance calls was added. More household 

help and laundry services were also provided in 

the new budget. The services of a dayworker were

16/ This technique is described on p. 20.

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
allowed at least once every other month, compared 

with less than three times a year in the interim 

budget.

The trend toward informality in manner of 

living, increased use of the automobile, and yearround control of temperatures in homes and public 

buildings, which affected the clothing choices of 

younger families, altered the patterns for older 

men and women as well. For example, quantities 

of topcoats and suits purchased by the retired man 

decreased, while slacks and sports coats increased. Older women also adopted more casual 

attire—more sweaters, jackets and casual shoes; 

fewer suits, lightweight coats, hats and gloves.

Movies attendance declined, and the replacement of radios and television sets leveled off, but 

the allowances for books and magazines increased 

in the new budget. Attendance at theaters, sports, 

and other recreational events also increased. 

Individual preferences play a large part in the way 

families spend their money, however, and the 

allowances provided for these items are not 

suggested as a spending plan for a retired couple.

Data Sources and Estimating Methods

The theoretical basis for the procedures used 

to develop the budget quantities and pricing lists 

for the retired couple is the same as for the budget 

for a younger family. It is summarized in the 

following quotation from the report on the original 

City Worker’ s Family Budget:

“ . . . In the actual experience of families there 

is a scale which ranks various consumption patterns in an ascending order from mere subsistence 

to plentitude in every respect.... This consumption 

scale is established by society. It can be 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.”] ^

In 1963, the Bureau’ s Standard Budget Research 

Advisory Committee, in reviewing the procedures 

used in the original and interim budgets, affirmed

17/ Technical Reference 10, p. 36, in appendix C.

“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 49 percent of the total 

costs of family consumption, allowances were 

based on scientific findings or expert technical 

judgments concerning requirements for physical 

health and social well-being. For transportation 

and supplemental medical care, accounting for 17 

percent of family consumption, the prevailing 

practices of retired couples were used as a guide 

in developing budget allowances. Quantities for the 

remaining third of the consumption total were 

based on analytical studies of the Bureau’ s 1960-61 

Survey of Consumer Expenditures. 19/ These 

studies determined by objective procedures the 

choices of goods and services made by consumers 

in successive income classes.

18/ Technical Reference 9, p. 36, in appendix C.

19/ For a description of this survey, see Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS 

Bulletin 1458, 1966), pp. 54-64.

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The complete list of items and quantities per 

year is shown in appendix A. Pricing procedures 

and specifications for the majority of items in the 

budget are described in the forthcoming Bulletin 

1570-3. A few items, which are purchased 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 medical care 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.

Food

The Food and Nutrition Board of the National 

Research Council has established scientific standards for nutritionally adequate diets for various 

sex-age groups, which the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture used in developing food plans at different cost levels. 20/ The food-at-home component of the budget was based on the * moderatecost* food plan, considered suitable for th average U.S. family. The plan contains 11 food 

categories which group foods according to similarity of nutritive values and uses in meals. The 

suggested quantities furnish the NRC’ s recom ­

mended allowances for nutrients when average 

food selections within each group are used.

Regional consumption patterns for specific 

foods within each food group were obtained from 

the USD A 1965 Household Food Consumption 

Survey. Estimated budget costs reflect the food 

preferences of the income class containing the 

median income ($5,800) of the middle third of the 

USDA income distribution. The pattern for the

20/ Family Food Plans, 1964, CA 62-19, November 1964, Agricultural Research Service, 

United States Department of Agriculture. In this 

revision of the food plans the National Research 

Councils recommended dietary allowances, 1963 

USDA nutritive values, and the USDA’ s most recent 

estimates of food consumption patterns were used.

region in which the city is located was used for 

each city except Washington, D.C. The U.S. pattern 

was used for Washington, since its population 

comes from all parts of the country and cannot 

be considered typically Southern.

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. These 

prices were weighted by factors which took into 

consideration the regional preference patterns for 

individual items within each major food group in 

the USDA plan. Individual city prices for pricing 

groups (groups of related items) were estimated 

from the preference-weighted regional survey 

averages, by applying the spring 1965 city-toregion ratios of prices collected by BLS for the 

same or comparable items. Spring 1965 city prices 

were adjusted to October 1966 by a special calculation of BLS item price changes. The 1966 

city weighted average food group prices were 

applied to the USDA food plan quantities to obtain 

the final budget costs.

BLS prices used for updating the cost of food at 

home to 1966 price levels were those collected 

regularly for the Consumer Price Index from a 

representative sample of chain and independent 

food stores of various types (e.g., groceries and 

meat markets), stores at different levels of annual 

sales volume, and stores in different locations

within a city. Average prices for each food were 

obtained by calculating independent and chain store 

averages separately, and then combining them 

with weights representing the relative volume of 

food sales by all food stores of each type in the 

city.

The USDA food plans provide for 21 meals per 

person per week to be eaten at home, or 2,184 

meals annually for a couple. The budget for metropolitan areas provides 2,138 meals at home and the 

remainder—46 meals—in restaurants. In nonmetropolitan areas these quantities were 2,133 and51 

respectively. In both areas an additional 95 meals 

at home are included for guests. The cost of food 

at home was calculated including an allowance of 

10 percent, recommended by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture to compensate for higher per person

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
food costs for small families. The average costper-guest meal was assumed to be the same as the 

average per-person cost for the couple’ s own 

meals at home. Dinner prices collected for the 

Consumer Price Index were used in calculating 

the cost of restaurant meals.

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 two- or three-room dwelling in 

sound condition and with a complete private bath, 

a fully equipped kitchen, hot and cold running water, 

electricity, central or other installed heating, 

access to public transportation, grocery stores, 

and location in residential neighborhoods free 

from hazards or nuisances.

Rates for dwellings which met this standard 

were obtained from tenants during the regular 

rent surveys for the Consumer 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 , one- or one and one-half bath house that 

met the same dwelling unit and neighborhood 

specifications as described above for rental units. 

The average U.S. urban market value for such

dwellings was $14,480 in 1960-61. The market 

value was determined separately for each metropolitan area (and within areas for the city proper 

and the suburbs) and for each small city. It 

represents the average value in the middle third 

of the distribution of market values for dwellings 

in the BLS 1959-60 Comprehensive Housing Unit 

Survey which met the budget housing standard. The 

current (1966) market value for these homes is 

estimated to be about $15,560, based on change 

since 1960-61, in the Consumer Price Index for 

home purchase.

The house was assumed to be mortgage-free, 

since 85 percent of retired couples live in homes 

on which the mortgage has been paid up, according 

to the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. 

Therefore, homeowner shelter costs exclude 

allowances for mortgage interest and principal 

payments. However, appropriate taxes are included, reflecting varying assessment practices 

and rates in individual cities. The most economical 

comprehensive homeowner* s insurance policy was 

used to provide insurance up to 80 percent of the 

1960-61 market value of the house, in addition to 

some coverage on its content and for injury to 

persons on the property. An allowance for repairs 

and replacement costs was also included, based on 

an analysis of the 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure 

Survey data for retired couples.

Fuel and utilities also are included in shelter 

costs. The housing specifications required central 

heating equipment in cities where the average 

January temperature is 40 degrees or colder, 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 degrees and 61 degrees, respectively. A space heater was included for each of 

the second group of cities except Honolulu.

To adjust for climatic differences, fuel requirements for maintaining an indoor winter temperature of 70 degrees were estimated. The basis for 

these estimates was the amount of fuel used to

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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, for 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 is based on the 

average level of automobile ownership for retired 

couples, as recorded in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. In four of the larger metropolitan areas, where public transportation is 

readily available, the weight for automobile 

ownership was adjusted to reflect the ownership 

patterns in these areas. Thus, ownership was 

specified for 25 percent of budget families in the 

New York area, and 40 percent of the families in 

Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In all other 

metropolitan areas, the comparable weight is 60 

percent. In nonmetropolitan areas, ownership was 

specified for 68 percent of the families. Allowances for occasional use of public transportation 

by automobile owners are higher in the four areas 

having mass transit systems than in other metropolitan areas and smaller cities.

The standard provides for the purchase of a 

used car every 8 years in metropolitan areas and 

every 6 years in nonmetropolitan areas, based on 

the customary purchases of families of the budget 

type. The average age of the car for which 

operating expenses were calculated is 7 years.

Medical Care

The medical allowance includes hospital and 

medical insurance as provided by the Federal 

Medicare program, initiated in July 1966. Under 

the hospital insurance, for each spell of hospitalization there is an initial $40 deductible amount

paid by the enrollee, and the insurance fully covers 

the remaining hospital costs for the first 60 days. 

Hospital insurance also includes 20 posthospital 

days in an extended care facility and 100 posthospital home health visits, at no cost to the 

enrollee. Finally, the hospital coverage includes 

outpatient hospital diagnostic benefits, for which 

the enrollee pays the first $20 and 20 percent of 

the balance of the cost for each diagnostic study.

Under the medical insurance program each 

enrollee pays a monthly premium amounting to 

$3 in 1966-67. In addition, the enrollee pays the 

initial $50 of costs plus 20 percent of all remaining costs for services and supplies (medical and 

surgical services of a physician, diagnostic tests, 

selected medical supplies, and home health 

benefits).

Since the budget is designed for a couple in 

reasonably good health and able to take care of 

themselves, it was assumed that no charges were 

incurred by the couple for the longer term provisions of Medicare. The estimated annual average 

out-of-pocket cost ($148) for all Medicare enrollees was provided for budget use by the Office 

of Research and Statistics of the Social Security 

Administration, based on survey data for the first 

12 months of the program. That portion of the 

estimated cost which covered the nonpremium 

charges under medical insurance ($58) was adjusted by BLS to reflect intercity differences in 

costs, primarily the differences in fees for physician visits—using data from a special BLS 

analysis.

Since Medicare does not cover the cost of 

routine dental care, eye examinations or eyeglasses for refractive error and correction, or 

most out-of-hospital prescription and nonprescription drugs, allowances for these items were 

added. Also added was a checkup visit to a physician for Medicare enrollees not using any Medicare services within 1 calendar year. Dental care 

quantities were derived from 1963-64 utilization 

data in the National Health Survey. Allowances for 

eye care and prescriptions and drugs were developed from the BLS 1960-61 Consumer Expenditure Survey data.

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 medcal care, as specified for the budget, account for 

two-thirds of family consumption. The remaining 

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

meals away from home, alcoholic beverages, and 

tobacco. For these components, budget allowances 

were developed by examining the quantities of, or 

expenditures for, various items purchased at successive income levels by retired couples in the 

Bureau’ s 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 consumer’ s collective judgment as to 

what is adequate and is based on the assumption 

that increasing elasticity indicates increasing 

urgency of demand, and decreasing elasticity 

indicates decreasing urgency. The point of maximum elasticity has been described as the point 

on the income scale where families stop buying 

“ more and more” and start buying either “better 

and better” or something else less essential to 

them. 21/

21/ 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 adopted by the Social 

Security Administration for the original Budget 

for an Elderly Couple (Technical Reference 11).

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. In the clothing, housefurnishings, and personal care components, 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 point, i.e., the point of maximum 

elasticity, for the majority of subgroups of these 

components was in the (after tax) income class 

$3,000-$4,000.

For reading, meals away from home, and 

tobacco, the inflection point occurred most frequently in the next higher class, $4,000-$5,000. 

Quantities of alcoholic beverages were also derived from this income class, although elasticities for this component were ever increasing. 

Elasticities for recreation and household operations reached their maximum in income classes 

$5,000-$6,000, and $6,000-$7,500, respectively. 

To the extent that the inflection points for these 

different categories are spread across the income 

scale, the budget is a composite of average rates 

of spending at different income levels.

Gifts and Contributions

The allowance for this component was based 

on an upward adjustment of the ratio estimate 

used in the interim budget. The adjustment reflected both the change in the level of living and 

the increase in prices between 1959 and 1966.

It was used with some refinements in deriving 

quantities for The BLS Interim Budget for a 

Retired Couple in 1959 (Technical Reference 7). 

A mimeographed report providing a more detailed 

description of its use in the current budget will be 

available at a later date.

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

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

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

the Retired Couple’s Budget, autumn 1966 --------------------

Tables:

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

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

B. Food away from home and guest meals ----------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Wife -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clothing materials and services ----------------------------------

A - 5. Personal c a re ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A - 6. Medical c a r e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

B. Recreation----------------------------------------------------------------------—

C. Tobacco ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Alcoholic beverages---------------------------------------------------------

E. Miscellaneous expenses -------------------------------------------------

A -8 . Gifts and contributions -------------------------------------------------------------

Page

21

22

22

22

23

23

23

24

24

26

26

26

27

27

27

28

30

30

31 

31

31

31

31

31

31

Appendix B. Index of population weights used in the Retired Couple’s Budget ------------------ 33

Appendix C. Technical references --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

NOTE: The tables which follow list, for each component of the Retired Couple’s Budget,

the annual average quantities of items for which autumn 1966 prices were obtained or estimated to determine the annual costs of the budget. The quantities describe a moderate living

standard for a family of two— a retired husband and wife, age 65 or over. The methods and

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

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

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

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

(1) Updating the cost of the item, as reported in the 1960—61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, to 1966 by change in the appropriate subgroup, group, or "all 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 I960—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.).

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 2

Appendix

Table A-l. Food Budget Q uantities

A. Food at home 1

Item

Milk and milk products 5 -------------------------

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

Eggs-----------------------------------------------------------

Dry beans, peas, and nuts----------------------

Grain products 6----------------------------------------

Citrus fruit and tomatoes-------------------------

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

Other vegetables and fruits---------------------

Fats and o i l----------------------------------------------

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

Accessories:

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

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

Soft drinks-------------------------------------------

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

Metropolitan areas 2 Nonmetropolitan areas

Quantity 4

Per week P

-----quart--

— pound —

— dozen —

— pound —

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. 00

8.75

1. 08

. 25

4. 00

4. 50

3. 50

11. 25

1. 12

1. 38

er year Per week Per year

356. 3

445.4

55. 0

12. 7

203. 6

229. 0

178, 2

572. 6

57. 0

70. 2

7. 00

8. 75

1.08

. 25

4. 00

4. 50

3. 50

11. 25

1. 12

1. 38

355. 6

444. 5

54. 9

12. 7

203. 2

228. 6

177. 8

571. 5

56.9

70. 1

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

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

72 ounces —

(7)

(7)

.98

$. 14

(I)

(7)

. 98

$. 14

B. Food away from home and guest meals

Food away from home:

Meal s - ______ _

Pricing code

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Quantity per year

46

8 $10. 49

95

51

8 $5. 45

95

Snacks

Guest mealR prnvided 9

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

footnote 20, p. 17.) The quantities do not include allowances for guest meals. (See footnote 9.)

2 The quantity allowances in metropolitan areas provide 42 meals weekly, and 2,138 meals annually after

adjustment for 46 meals away from home.

3 The quantity allowances in nonmetropolitan areas provide 42 meals weekly, and 2,133 meals annually after

adjustment for 51 meals away from home.

4 In estimating the cost of food at home for 2-person families, 10 percent should be added to the cost since

smaller families generally are unable to buy as economically and have more waste than larger families., (See "Per

Person Food Cost Differential in Large and Small Fam ilies," Family Economics Review. September I960, pp. 3-5. )

5 Includes fluid whole milk arid milk products; quantities are converted to units containing the same calcium

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

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

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

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

region and reflect regional preference patterns:

Quantity per week

(in pounds)

Region Coffee Tea

Northeast--------------------------------- 0.438 0. 044

North Central— ..........-.............. . 522 . 034

South--------------------------------------- .406 . 080

Wqst---------------- -----------------------

U.S. (used for Washington,

. 464 . 030

D. C. ) — -.............. - ................... .458 . 048

8 Estimated cost in 1966 in all cities.

9 The allowance for this item assumes that the average cost per guest meal is the same as the cost per

meal consumed at home by family members.

Explanatory note: The annual allowance for food at home used in the calculation of the Retired Couple's

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

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

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

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

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 3

A. Shelter: R e n t e r families1

Table A-2. Housing Budget Quantities

Item Pricing code Quantity per year,

all cities

Contract rent:

Unfurnished 2 - or 3-room dwelling unit containing

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

Heating fuel:

Most common type heating fuel used in

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

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

Electricity:

Lighting, refrigeration, and electrical

appliances --------------------------------- kilowatt-hour ~

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

Gas :4

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

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

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

Refuse disposal:

Trash and garbage removal —

Equipment:

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

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

Insurance on household contents

21-015X

22-745X

22-505X

22-375X

22-385X

22-390X

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

23-399, 23-399A, 23-399C----

23-975X ---------------------------------

12

(2)

7,280

1,260

(3 )

72

192

120

(5)

. 06

.06 

1.00

B. Shelter: Homeowner families

Shelter (5- or 6-room dwelling):

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

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

Repairs and maintenance:

Repairs contracted out:

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

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

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

Repair materials:

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

Othe r --------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

21-527 ------------------------------------- . 07 . 10

21-437 ------------------------------------- . 04 . 04

(6) (6)

21-181 ------------------------------------- 1.44 .90

(7) n

(2) (2)

22-745X --------------------------------- 7, 280 7,280

22-505X ---------------------------------- 1,260 1, 260

(3) (3)

22-375X ---------------------------------- 72 72

22-385X ---------------------------------- 192 192

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
24

Table A-2. H ousing Budget Quantities— Continued

C. Housefurnishings

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

areas areas

Household textiles:

Bedding:

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

Pillow cases ----------

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

Blankets and quilts -

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

Towels:

Bath------------------------

pair —

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

Window coverings:

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

Draperies---------

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

Floor coverings:

Room-size rug ------------

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

Furniture:

Living room:

Living room suite —

Chair, fully upholsteredTable--------------------------------

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

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

Bedroom:

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

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

Mattress and bedspringDresser and chest---------

Dining room:

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

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

Dining room chairs ------

Dinette set---------------------

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

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

Electrical equipment and appliances:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housewares, tableware, miscellaneous

equipment:

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

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

Dishes, set------------------------------------------

Other serving pieces ------

Light bulbs ----------------------

Lamp--------------------------------

Miscellaneous equipment -

Other:

Lawn m ower--------------------

Tools, paintbrush, etc —

23-001, 23-001A -----------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

23-085, 23-085A-----------------------------

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

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

23-132, 23-133, 23 -1 33 A --------------

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

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

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

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

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

23-204X, 23-204-----------------------------

23-21 OX ------------------------------------------

23-228, 23-228A-----------------------------

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

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

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

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

23-411 ---------------------------------------------

23-423 ---------------------------------------------

23-465 AUX ------------------------------------

23-470X ---------------------------- --------------

23-471 A U X ------------------------------------

23-460X ------------------------------------------

23-440X ------------------------------------------

23-450X ------------------------------------------

23-480X ------------------------------------------

23-591 ---------------------------------------------

23-531, 23-531C, 23-533 --------------

H-954 ----------------------------------------------

23-608 ---------------------------------------------

23 -680X ___________________________

1.45 0. 85

. 38 .40

. 10 . 01

. 20 . 03

. 15 . 07

. 77 . 78

(8) (8)

. 53 . 15

. 32 . 28

(9) (9)

. 07 . 08 (i°) (10)

. 03 . 05

. 09 -

. 02 -

_ . 02

(“ ) (“ )

. 03 . 01

. 02 . 01

. 10 . 08

- . 03

. 01 _

. 01 -

. 01 -

. 01 . 02

.46 . 06

(12) (U )

. 08 . 02

. 04 . 01

. 02 -

. 10 . 04

. 04 . 03

. 03 _

(l3) (13)

. 07 . 05

. 02 . 06

. 01 . 01

. 03 . 04

(14) (14)

11. 00 8. 05

. 13 . 05

(15) (15)

. 07 . 03

$4. 20 16 $ 1. 73

Laundry and cleaning supplies:

Laundry soap:

Soap flakes, chips----------

Detergent powder,

granules ------------------------

Detergent, liquid -----------

Starch, spray -----------------------

Bleach, liquid ----------------------

D. Household Operations

13 ounces — H-802 -------------------------------------------------- 2. 64 2.47

20 ounces- H-804 --------------------------------------------------- 35. 33 36. 29

1 5 ounces — H-807 --------------------------------------------------- 15.76 15. 14

14 ounces — H-952FB ---------------------------------------------- 2.48 2. 27

l/z gallon — H-950FB ---------------------------------------------- 8. 38 7. 88

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A—2. H ousing Budget Q uantities---- C ontinued

D. Household Operations— Continued

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

____ areas

Nonmetropolitan

______areas_______

Laundry and cleaning supplies— Continued

Floor wax ------------------------------ 27 ounces -

Scouring powder------------------ 14 ounces -

Scouring pads----------------------- box of 10 -

Air deodorizer --------------------- 7 ounces .

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

Paper supplies:

Paper napkins---------------------- box of 80 -

Toilet tissu e------------------ 650-sheet roll -

Paper towels, shelf, wax paper, foil, etcServices and miscellaneous supplies:

Launderettes-------------------------------- pound -

Laundry sent out ------------------- 10 pounds -

Household help----------------------------- days -

Miscellaneous supplies----------------------------

Communications:

Residential telephone service:

Basic charge----------------------------------------

Long distance---------------------------------------

Postage------------------------------------------------------

Stationery, greeting cards, e tc --------------

H-951FB .

H-953FB .

H-901 -----

H-906 -—

H-764 .

H-799

34-754 .

23-924 .

23-931 •

22-624 .

I6*j

16 4

3. 50 3. 22

15. 68 14.44

5. 04 4. 63

3. 38 3. 02

(1?) (1?)

11. 03 10. 41

69.46 64.47

(18) O

148.83

19. 64 -

6. 52 4. 09

(19) (19)

12. 00 12. 00

(2°)

$21. 13

(2°)

16 $ 19. 60

$15. 08 16 $ 13. 73

Allowances specified for fuel, utilities, and equipment do not apply when the cost of these items is

included in the monthly rent.

2 Heating fuel requirements vary with the length and severity of the cold season, type of structure, and

type of heating equipment. The variation caused by climate is measured in standard British thermal units (B.t.u. )

(convertible to equivalent quantities of fuel oil, gas, etc.) and the normal number of annual degree days in a

given city, derived from annual data published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. (A degree day is a unit, based upon

temperature difference and time, which measures the difference between the average temperature for the day and

65 F. when the mean temperature is less than 65° F. ; the number of degree days for any one day is equal to

the number of Fahrenheit degrees difference between the average and 65° F. ) The average number of B .t.u .'s

required in a given city may be computed as follows:

2- or 3-room unit— Million of B. t. u. 's = 0. 75 (-302. 817962 + 110. 285800 times the logarithm

of the normal number of annual degree days)

6-room unit— Million of B .t.u . 's — -302. 817962 + 110.285800 times the logarithm

of the normal number of annual degree days.

The quantity of any type of heating fuel used in a given city can be determined by converting the required number

of B .t.u .'s into quantities of the type of fuel used. In the determination of the total amount of fuel required,

both the average B .t.u . content and an assumed efficiency factor must be taken into consideration for each

specified fuel.

3 The kw.-hrs. of electricity required to operate gas or oil heating equipment vary according to the amount

of fuel used. The average required number of kw.-hrs. assumed here is 0.25 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, 1080 kw. -hrs. ; hot water heating, 3480 kw. -hrs. For oil, the annual requirement of hot water heating

is 155 gallons.

5 Cost is included in the rent.

6 In metropolitan areas, cost is 110.3 percent of cost of contracting for itemized repairs; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 100. 1 percent.

7 In metropolitan areas, cost is 111.5 percent of cost of paint and redecorating materials; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 106. 5 percent.

8 In metropolitan areas, cost is 53.2 percent of cost of bath towels; in nonmetropolitan areas, 59.0 percen

9 In metropolitan areas, cost is 35.7 percent of total cost of itemized textiles; in nonmetropolitan areas,

28. 9 percent.

'l0 Cost is 432. 7 percent of cost of room-size rug in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

11 In metropolitan areas, cost is 6. 1 percent of cost of itemized living-room furniture; in nonmetropolitan

areas, 1.7 percent.

12 In metropolitan areas, cost is 18.8 percent of total cost of itemized furniture.

13 An annual allowance of 0. 03 air conditioners is limited to cities with an average July-Aug. temperature

of 8 5° and over, and a relative humidity of at least 85 percent; cities with an average July-Aug. temperature

of 90° or over, regardless of relative humidity; and \Los Angeles, with average July-Aug. temperatures close

to 85° and relative humidity nearly 85 percent, as reported by U.S. Weather Bureau.

14 In metropolitan areas, cost is 113. 8 percent of cost of sets of dishes; in nonmetropolitan areas 33. 0 percent.

15 In metropolitan areas, cost is 10.0 percent of total cost of furniture, equipment and housewares; in non

metropolitan areas, 12.7 percent.

16 Estimated cost for all cities.

17 In metropolitan areas, cost is 26. 8 percent of cost of itemized laundry and cleaning supplies; in nonmetropolitan areas, 26. 5 percent.

18 Cost is 150.0 percent of cost of itemized paper products.

19 In metropolitan areas, cost is 39. 1 percent of total cost of laundry, cleaning, and paper supplies; in

nonmetropolitan areas, 36.8 percent.

20 In metropolitan areas, cost is 14.9 percent of cost of basic telephone service; in nonmetropolitan areas,

14.8 percent.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 6

Tabic A-3. Transportation Budget Q uantities1

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

M etropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

A. Automobile owners

Private transportation:

Replacement of au tom obile-------

Automobile operating expenses:

G asoline---------------------------------

Motor o il--------------------------------

Lubrication----------------------------

A n tifreeze --------- --------------------

Tires, tubeless --------------------

B a ttery ----------------------------------

Repairs and parts:

M otor tuneup---------------------

Front-end alignm ent--------

Brakes re lin e d -----------------

Other rep a irs -------------------

Other operating ex p en ses ----

Insurance:

Public lia b ility -----------------

Com prehensive-----------------

Registration:

State----------------------------------

L o ca l---------------------------------

Inspection------------------------------

Personal property tax ---------

Operator's p erm it-----------------

Tolls, parking, fines, etc — 

Public transportation:

Local:

Transit f a r e s ------------------------

Taxi f a r e s -----------------------------

Out of city------------------------------------

41-030X -

g a llo n - 

quart —

gallon —

41-065 __

41-097 — 

41-355 — 

41-110X - 

41-161 — 

41-226FB

41-483 — 

41-675 — 

41-643FB

41-807 — 

41-81 OX

41-870 — 

41-871FB 

41-880FB

renewal — 41-902

ride - 42-020X

.d o ___ 42-143 ..

0. 122 0. 155

402.89

19.91

2.00

(*) 

.81 

. 33

366.23 

19.35 

1.80

(2) 

.48 

. 33

.75 

. 15 

. 18 Pi

.50 

. 19 

. 12 s;i

1. 00

.50

1. 00

. 50

1. 00 

1. 00

(’ )

( 1 23456 )

1.50

(7 8)

1. 00 

1. 00 

([)

(6) 

1.50

(7)

0

(9 10) 10 $ 4 1 . 00

1. 00 

10 $ 3. 79

B. Nonowners of automobiles

Public transportation: 

Local:

Transit fares —

Taki fa r e s --------

Out of c it y -------------

r i d e - 42-020X — 

.d o 42-143 -—

107

10

10 $65. 26

3

13

10 $6. 07

1 The mode of transportation within cities and m etropolitan areas is related to location, size, and ch aracteristics of the community. The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners were weighted by the following 

proportions of fam ilies: F or 1 city (New York) 25 percent for automobile owners, 75 percent for nonowners; for 

3 cities (Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago) 40 percent for owners and 60 percent for nonowners; for 35 other 

metropolitan areas, 60 percent for automobile owners and 40 percent for nonowners; and in all nonmetropolitan 

areas, 68 percent for automobile owners and 32 percent for nonowners.

2 The annual allowance is 1.25 gallons for all cities with an average minimum tem perature of 32°-15° during 

January. For cities with below 15° January minimum tem peratures, the allowance is 2.00. No anti-freeze is 

provided for mild clim ate cities.

3 In metropolitan areas, cost is 58. 7 percent of item ized repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 50. 2 percent.

4 In metropolitan areas, cost is 4 .4 percent of item ized operating expenses; in nonmetropolitan areas, 

3. 0 percent,

5 The number of inspections required by law in each city.

6 Cost required by law in each city.

7 In metropolitan areas, cost is 5.2 percent of annual allowance for item ized operating expenses; in nonmetropolitan areas, 2. 0 percent.

8 The annual allowance is 34 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 25 in all other cities.

9 The annual allowance is 7 rides in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago; 1 in all other cities.

10 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27

Item

Outerwear:

Topcoats*------------------------------

Jackets, sport coats*----------

Sweaters------------------------------

Raincoats*----------------------------

Suits:

Year-round weight* -------

Tropical weight* ------------

Slacks:

D re ss-------------------------------

Work--------------------------------

Shirts:

Dress —-----------------------------

Work--------------------------------

Sports-------------------------------

Other outerwear* ----------------

Underwear, nightwear:

Undershorts, b riefs------------

Undershirts--------------------------

Other underwear*-------------- -

Pajamas--------------------------------

Bathrobes------------------------------

Hosiery (socks)-------------------------

Footwear:

Shoes:

Street -------------------------------

Work--------------------------------

Loafers----------------------------

Houseslippers-----------------

Rubbers, galoshes, boots*

Hats, gloves, accessories:

Hats:

F elt*--------------------------------

Straw*------------------------------

Gloves:

D ress*------------------------------

Work* ------------------------------ Ties, handkerchiefs------------

Jewelry, watches-----------------

Other accessories* -------------

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Quantities

A. Husband

pair—

------------ do—

------------ do—

------------do—

------------do—

i-t-i-ftt-------------d O --------

.p air—

—do—

Pricing code

31-018 series--------------

31-010X ----------------------

31-154 -------------------------

31-020X ----------------------

31-052, 31-053-----------

31-05OX ----------------------

31-086, 31-087 series

31-171 -------------------------

31-273, 31-273A _____

31-222, 31-222A -------

31-292 -------------------------

31-342FB

31-324

31-376FB -----------

31-37 OX-------------

31-409, 31-409A

33-002, 33-002A

33-046 ----------------

33-010X -------------

33-050X -------------

33-226FB-------—

31-427FB

31-420X -

31-430X -

31 -44 OX -

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

0. 07 0. 16

. 17 . 18

. 16 . 21

.09 . 14

. 28 . 37

. 05 . 03

. 67 . 58

. 78 1. 27

. 87 1. 18

. 34 . 50

.65 1. 24

(l ) -

1. 37 1.83

1. 53 2. 04

(2) (2)

.48 .58

.09 . 07

4. 23 4.21

. 61 .40

. 18 . 18

. 12 .09

. 18 . 10

. 11 . 10

. 19 .36

. 13 . 34

. 15 . 39

. 31 . 14

3 $ 1.66 3 $ 5. 44

3 $3. 08 3 $2. 02

(4) (‘ )

B. Wife

Outerwear:

Coats:

Heavyweight * ------------------------

Lightweight ----------------------------

Carcoats, jackets----------- —•—

Sweaters--------------------------------------

Suits---------------------------------------------

Dresses:

Street----------------------------— -----

House--------------------------------------

Skirts-------------------------------------------

Blouses, shirts--------------------------

Other outerwear*----------------------—

Underwear, nightwear:

Slips, petticoats--------- ----- ---------

Girdles ----------------------------------------

Brassieres----------------------------------

Panties, briefs----------------------------

Nightgowns----------------------------------

Pajamas---------------------------------------

Robes, housecoats ----------------------

Other underwear and nightwear*

Hosiery:

Stockings--------------------------------------

Anklets----------------------------------------

Footwear:

Shoes:

Street --------------------------------------

Casual-------------------------------------

Houseslippers ------------------------

Rubbers, galoshes, boots*--------

-----------5------------------------

32-001, 32-002 series

32-01 OX________________

32-105 ---------------------------

32-118, 32-118A ----------

32-120X ------------------------

32-222, 32-223, 32-226

32-248 ---------------------------

32-144, 32-144A

32-287-----------------

32-378, 32-378B

32-391 --------- -

32-313 ---------------

32-327FB ----------

32-339FB ----------

32-340X -------------

pair

- do32-405, 32-405A

do.

dodo.

do33-271,

33-361 -

33-406 -

33-410X

33-272

0. 13 0. 12

. 11 . 10

.03 . 02

. 24 . 27

. 07 . 08

1. 05 .61

.85 .49

$.49 -

. 17 . 13

(M (l )

.60 .60

.55 .49

.55 . 68

1. 28 1. 06

.43 . 27

. 07 . 13

. 13 . 12

(5) -

6. 31 4.44

‘ $.11 -

.97 .75

. 33 . 32

. 35 .41

,. 14 . 12

Digitized for FRASER 

See footnotes at end of table

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 8

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Q uantities— Continued

B. Wife— Continued

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Hats, gloves, accessories:

Gloves*----------------------------------------------pair —

Purses, handbags -----------------------------------------

Jewelry watches

32-432F B ------------------------------------------

32-443 -----------------------------------------------

32-450X ......................................................

0.59

. 31

. 22

3 $ 1. 53

(*)

0.51

. 24

.23

3 $. 87

Other accessories* _ (1 234 5) ___ __ -

C. Clothing materials and services

Materials:

Wool, wool blends---------------------

Cotton, cotton blends----------------

Rayon, acetate --------------------------

Nylon, orlon, dacron----------------

Other yard goods----------------------

Notions (yarn, pins, etc.)--------

Services:

Cleaning and pressing:

Men's suits---------------------------

Women's dresses-----------------

Shoe repair:

Men's half soles

and heels----------------------------

Women's heels ---------------------

Shoe shines, polish, laces, etc

Other clothing services------------

-yards —

-----do —

---- do —

---- do —

34 -4 2 0 X ---------------------------------

34-438, 34-438A, 34-449AUX

34-469FB--------------------------------

garment—

--------do —

34-708, 34-708A

34-731, 34-731A

number —

-------do—

34-639FB------------

34-662, 34-662A

0.60 0. 18

2.92 2. 14

. 21 .36

. 12

(6) (6) C) (7)

6.41 6. 20

5. 16 7. 07

.51 . 25

2.78 1. 17

(!) (8)

(9) (9)

1 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized outerwear, adjusted for intercity variations due

to climatic differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 2.3; wife, 5.1. In nonmetropolitan

areas the percentage is wife, 5. 9.

2 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear, adjusted for intercity variations due

to climatic differences. The percentages for the husband are 60.1 in metropolitan areas, and 10.6 in nonmetropolitan areas.

3 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

4 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of clothing, adjusted for intercity variations due to climatic

differences. The percentages in metropolitan areas are husband, 1.5 percent; wife, 1.1 percent. In nonmetropolitan areas the percentages are husband, 0.4 percent; wife, 1.7 percent.

5 Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of itemized underwear and nightwear, adjusted for intercity

variations due to climatic differences. In metropolitan areas the percentage is 7.7.

6 In metropolitan areas the cost is 2. 6 percent of itemized yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas, 7. 3 percent.

7 In metropolitan areas the cost is 90. 3 percent of cost of all yard goods; in nonmetropolitan areas,

86. 9 percent.

8 In metropolitan areas the cost is 21. 2 percent of cost of shoe repairs; in nonmetropolitan areas, 9.4 percent.

9 In metropolitan areas the cost is 17. 7 percent of cost of itemized clothing services; in nonmetropolitan areas,

8.4 percent.

* See explanatory note p. 29 •

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 9

Explanatory note: Quantities of starred items vary from city to city. The basic clothing budget is the U.S.

average quantity, both for metropolitan areas and for nonmetropolitan areas. For each city or metropolitan area,

the quantities of clothing articles specified in the following tabulation are adjusted upward or downward in accordance

with local climatic conditions, on the basis of the normal number of annual degree days as published by the U.S.

Weather Bureau. The tabulation shows the quantities of specified items of clothing required in metropolitan areas

when the normal number of annual degree days average 0 and 8,392; and in nonmetropolitan areas when the average

is 489 and 10,864. (For definition of degree days, see footnote 2, table A -2 .) The quantities required for specific cities were determined by straight-line interpolation.

Table A-4. Clothing Budget Q uantities-----Continued

Item

Husband

Topcoats------------------------------

Jackets, sportcoats-------------

Raincoats ------------------------------

Suits:

Year-round weight ——-----

Tropical weight — -----—-

Other outerwear------ j -----------

Other underwear------ ------------

Footwear:

Rubbers, galoshes, boots

Hats:

Felt _____________________

Straw--------------------------------

Gloves:

D re ss--------------------------------

W ork---------------------------------

Other accessories-— ------------

Wife

Coats, heavyweight------------------

Other outerwear------------ -----------

Other underwear and nightwear

Rubbers, galoshes, boots---------

Hats ---------------------------~---------------

G loves------------------ ---------------------

Other accessories---------------------

Normal number annual degree days

Metropolitan areas Nonmetropolitan areas

8,392 0

0 . 12 0

.21 0.11

.16 .01

.29 .26

.03 .08

12. 5 0

244.7 2 39. 1

. 20 0

.24 .13

.06 .21

. 34 0

. 68 0

* 3.4 4 . 8

0. 23 0

1.9 1 lo 1

2. 9 5 6. 3

. 26 0

. 88 . 24

. 57 0

4. 1 2. 0

10,864 489

0. 26 0. 08

. 26 . 12

. 22 . 07

. 37 . 36

. 01 . 04

$9. 62 0

. 24 0

. 50 . 25

. 23 .42

.98 0

. 34 0

0 4.4

. 28 0

0 1.8

. 30 0

. 97 . 16

. 64 0

0 4. 8

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 Estimated cost in 1966.

4 The allowances are stated as percentages of total cost of itemized clothing.

5 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
30

Table A-5. Personal Care

Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

Service s:

Husband:

Haircut--------------------------------- ______________ 52-697 ____________ 13. 50 20. 60

Wife:

Haircut--------------------------------- 52-753 ____________ 1. 60 1. 90

Permanent wave______ ____ 52-825 ____________ 1. 30 2. 50

Shampoo and s e t ____________

Tinting and coloring________

Family: Other_________________

Supplies:

—

52-849 ____________ 7. 50

(M

(1 2)

10. 00

Toilet soap_____________________ medium bar__ 52-001 ____________ 71. 3 58. 6

Toothpaste--------------------------------- ounce. 52-025 ____________ 26.4 23. 6

Shaving cream -------------------------- 52-073 ____________ 23. 6 20. 0

Cleansing tissue __ box 200 double — 52-625 ____________ 14.4 11. 6

Shampoo _______________________

Face powder___________________

52- 193AUX________ 7. 3

3$ 1.45

1. 5

3$ 1. 50

Home permanent k it___________ ____________ refill- 52-529 ____________ . 2 . 6

Other (4) (4)

1 In metropolitan areas the cost is 4. 5 percent of total cost of itemized services for the wife.

2 In metropolitan areas the cost is 0. 2 percent of annual allowance for itemized personal services.

3 Estimated cost in 1966 for all areas.

4 In metropolitan areas the cost is 100. 8 percent of annual allowance for itemized supplies; in nonmetropolitan areas, 107. 5 percent.

Table A-6. Medical Care

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

All cities

Medicare:

Hospital insnranrp Herlnrtihle *$ 17. 72

Medical insurance:

Premium $ 72. 00

Derhirtihle anH roinsnranre 2 $ 58. 43

Medical care not covered by Medicare:

Physician's office visit (check-up)3 ________________ 51-201 ________________________________ . 64

Dental care:

Fillings __________________________________________ 51-465 ________________________________ . 36

Extractions ______________________________________ 51-466 __________ ______________________ . 30

Cleaning and examination_______________________ 51-469FB _____________________________ 1. 00

Denture work, other rlental rare. ........ . _ (4)

Eye care:

F.Yamination for glasses 51-518, 51 — 51Q . 17

Eyeglasses __ .................... . . .............. 51-518, 51-520 . 48

Other (5)

Drugs:

Prescription_____________________________________ 51-061 through 51-181 _______________ 14. 8

Nonprescription:

Vitamins _ __ 100 51-001 1. 6

Other ...... ........... (6)

1 Estimated cost for all areas.

2 Estimated average cost: Differs from city to city.

3 An allowance for those family members not using any Medicare service within 1 calendar year.

4 Cost is 228. 0 percent of total cost of itemized dental procedures.

5 Cost is 111. 1 percent of total cost of eyeglasses and examination.

6 Cost is 269.0 percent of cost of vitamins.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31

Table A-7. O ther Family Consum ption

Item Pricing code

Quantity per year

Metropolitan

areas

Nonmetropolitan

areas

A. Reading materials

Newspapers (subscription)-------------------------------- 53-806 through 53-819------- 1.00 1.81

Books (not school)----------------------------------------------

Magazines ---------------------------------------------------------- —

1 $5. 27

1 $10. 54

1 $1. 50

1 $15. 76

B. Recreation

Radios, television sets, etc:

Radios------------------------------------------------------------- 53-033, 53-033A, 53-034— 0.07 0. 10

Television sets---------------------------------------------- 53-001,53-018------------------- .06 . 10

Repairs, including parts ------------------------------ 1 $22. 15 1 $14. 10

Phonograph records ------------------------------------- 53-177 -------------------------------- . 30 -

Admissions:

53612 - 8. 16

1 $5. 58

1. 53

Other admissions------------------------------------------ 1$1.98

Other recreation:

Participant sports----------------------------------------- (/22 ) —

(2)

Club dues, memberships-------------- -------------- ( )

Hobbi e s ——— —— — ————— — —— — — —— — — (2) (2)

Pets, pet supplies, and other

recreation expenses ---------------------------------- — - — — — — — — 1 $3.03 1 $12.09

C. Tobacco

Cigarettes -----------------------------------------

Cigars ------------------------------------------------

Pipe tobacco --------------------------------------

Pipe and sm oker's supplies -------------

carton 

- each 

ounce

54-002,54-006 -------------- — - 17.9 17.9

54-077 -------------------------------- 97.0 97.0

54-153FB --------------------------- 41. 1 41. 1

(3) (3)

D. A lcoh olic beverages

At home:

Beer and a l e ----------------

Liquors (whiskey, etc. )

W in e-------------------------------

Away from h o m e ----------------

72 ounces — 

Vs gallon — 

7s gallon —

54-309------------

54-384,54-399 

54-429,54-431

16. 1 

4. 1 

7. 6

(4 )

3. 3 

1. 3 

. 6

(4 )

E. M iscellaneous expenses

M iscellaneous expenses:

Lodging away from hom e, bank service charges, legal expenses, other 

expenses that cannot be allocated elsewhere.

0 .4 percent of all other 

costs of fam ily 

consumption.

1 Estimated cost in 1966 for all cities.

2 ' Cost is a specified percentage of total cost of radios, television sets, etc. , and adm issions. The percentages 

in metropolitan areas are as follow s: Participant sports, 36.3; club dues, 14.6; hobbies, 10.0. In nonmetropolitan 

areas, the percentages are participant sports, 9.6; club dues, 24.9; hobbies, 11.0

3 Cost is 1. 1 percent of annual allowance for item ized tobacco products.

4 In m etropolitan areas, cost is 18. 2 percent of total cost of item ized alcoholic beverages; in nonmetropolitan 

areas, 15.0 percent.

Table A—8. Gifts and Contributions

Item Quantity per year, all cities

Gifts and contributions:

Christm as, birthday, and other presents to persons outside the 

immediate fam ily; and contributions to religious, w elfare, 

m edical, educational, and other organizations.

6. 4 percent of total cost

of fam ily consumption, less 

m iscellaneous expenses.

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
A p p e n d ix B

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

Area

United States urban population ------------------

Metropolitan areas 1 2 -----------------------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------------

Northeast4 ---------------------------------------------

Boston, M ass-------------------------------------

Buffalo, N. Y --------------------------------------

Hartford, Conn----------------------------------

Lancaster, P a ----------------------------------

New York—Northeastern New Jersey

Philadelphia, Pa.—N. J-----------------------

Pittsburgh, P a -------------------------------- —

Portland, Maine--------------------------------

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---------------------------------

Indi anap oli s, Ind--------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.—Kans -------------------

Milwaukee, W is---------------------------------

Minneapolis—St. Paul, Minn-------------

St. Louis, Mo.—Ill ----------------------------

Wichita, Kans------------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ------------------

Population

weights Area Population

weights

100.00 United States urban population— Continued

74. 96 South 4 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- 27. 34

25. 04 Atlanta, Ga ------------------------------------------- 2. 03

30 90 Austin, T ex ------------------------------------------- 1.42

2 36 Baltimore, M d-------------------------------------- .98

2. 09 Baton Rouge, La ---------------------------------- . 82

2 51 Dallas, T ex------------------------------------------- 2. 34

1 09 Durham, N. C ---------------------------------------- 1.08

13.93 Houston, T ex ----------------------------------------- .94

2. 86 Nashville, Tenn------------------------------------- 2. 26

1. 70 Orlando, Fla------------------------------------------ 2. 61

1. 47 Washington, D. C.— Md.—V a ------------------ . 87

2. 89 Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ----------------------- 11.99

25. 87

1. 56

1.60

4. 55

. 55 W est4 --------------------------------------------------------- 15. 83

.76 Bakersfield, Calif -------------------------------- . 70

. 76 Denver, Colo----------------------------------------- 1. 35

2. 26 Los Angeles—Long Beach, Calif----------- 4. 95

1. 41 San Diego, Calif------------------------------------ 1. 60

. 53 San Francisco—Oakland, Calif------------- 2. 80

.95 Seattle—Everett, Wash-------------------------- 1. 64

. 78 Nonmetropolitan areas 3 ----------------------- 2.79

1. 29

.97 Honolulu, Hawaii 5 ------------------------------------- .06

. 53

7. 37 Anchorage, Alaska 5---------------------------------- (6)

1 The weight in each urban area is the total population of 2-person, husband-wife families, age 65 or over,

with no full-time earner in the family, as reported in the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures. For an explanation of the sample selection, see "Technical Note: The Revised City Sample for the Consumer Price Index," Monthly

Labor Review, November I960, pp. 1141-1157. (Also issued as BLS Reprint 2354.)

2 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical 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, Nfebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South—

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; and West— Alaska,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming.

5 Honolulu and Anchorage were separate sampling strata in the BLS 1960—61 Consumer Expenditure Survey,

and, therefore, are not included in the total weight for the West. Honolulu’s weight is in the United States and

metropolitan area totals; Anchorage's weight is in the United States and nonmetropolitan area totals.

6 A population weight for Anchorage is not shown separately because the sample which represented this type of

family was not statistically significant. Therefore, the weight was imputed to other nonmetropolitan areas.

3 3

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 Com m ent," 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; arid 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 Margaret S. Stotz , "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.

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 Type,” 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.)

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis