bls_0644_1941pt2.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABORFrances Perkins, Secretary

B U R E A U OF LABO R STATISTICS Isador Lubin, Commissioner

in cooperation w ithW ORKS PROGRESS A D M IN IST R A TIO N

+

F a m i ly In c o m e a n d E x p e n d i t u r e

i n N i n e C i t ie s o f t h e E a s t C e n t r a l

R e g io n , 1 9 3 5 - 3 6

V O L U M E II

Family Expenditure

+

Prepared by A. D. H. KAPLAN

andFAITH M. WILLIAMS

assisted byMARJORIE S. WEBER

B ulletin J^o. 644

UNITED STATES

G O VER N M EN T PRINTING OFFICE

W ASH INGTON : 1941

STUDY OF CONSUMER PURCHASES: URBAN SERIES

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - Price 45 cents

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O RFrances Perkins, Secretary

BU REAU OF LABOR STATISTICSISADOR L u B IN Com m issioner

S i d n e y W . W i l c o x A. F. H i n r i c h sChief Statistician C hief Econom ist

H u g h S. H a n n a C hief, Editorial and Research

STAFF FOR THE STUDY OF CONSUMER PURCHASES: URBAN SERIES

F a i t h M . W i l l i a m s C hieft Cost o f L iving D ivision

A. D . H. K a p l a n Director

B e r n a r d B a r t o n , Associate Director for Tabulation

J. M . H a d l e y , Associate Director, Collection and Field Tabulations

A. C. R o s a n d e r , Statistician,Tabular Analysis

R a c h e l S . G a l l a g

M i l d r e d P a r t e n , Associate Director, Sampling and Income Analysis

M i l d r e d H a r t s o u g h , Analyst, Expenditure Analysis

E r i k a H a r t m a n n W u l f f , Assistant Director for Sampling

if Regional Director

II


C O N T E N T S

PagePreface_______________________________________________________________ vnChapter I. Introduction______________________________________________ 1Chapter II. The family balance sheet________________________________ 14Chapter III. Food___________________________________________________ 23Chapter IV. Home maintenance_____________________________________ 33Chapter V. Clothing and personal care_______________________________ 47Chapter VI. Transportation__________________________________________ 58Chapter VII. Minor categories of expenditure________________________ 69Chapter VIII. Surplus and deficit items______________________________ 81Chapter IX . Summary_______________________________________________ 91Tabular Summary____________________________________________________ 103Appendix A. Sampling procedure in the East Central region__________ 329Appendix B. Schedule form and glossary_____________________________ 343Appendix C. Communities and racial groups surveyed by the Study of

Consumer Purchases__________________________________ 368Appendix D- Analysis of expenditures by families of given type, occupa

tional group, and income: Rank test method and results_________________________________________________ 371

Appendix E. Variability in family expenditures______________________ 378Appendix F Family type composition of occupational groups and occu

pational composition of family type groups_____________ 381

List o f T e x t Tables

Chapter I

Table 1. Distribution of adjusted family income_____________________ 72. Distribution of value of current family living, by major

groups---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93. Distribution of money expenditures for current family living,

by major groups_________________________________________ 12

Chapter I I

T able 4. Average money income and money expenditure for currentfamily living____________________________________________ 15

5. Average net surplus and deficit__________________________ 186. Average net surplus or deficit, by occupational group_____ 207. Average net surplus or deficit, by family type_____________ 22

Chapter I I I

Table 8. Average expenditures for food_____________________________ 239. Average money expenditures for food, by occupational group_ 28

10. Average money expenditures per meal per equivalent adult,by occupational group___________________________________ 29

11. Average money expenditures for food, by family type____ 3012. Average money expenditures per meal per equivalent adult,

by family type__________________________________________ 31in


IV C O N T E N T S

Chapter I VPage

T a b l e 13. Average expenditures for home maintenance_________________ 3414. Percentage of families reporting home ownership__________ 3615. Average money expenditures for household operation_____ 3816. Average expenditures for housing, by occupational group____ 4117. Average expenditures for home maintenance, by occupational

group___________________________________________________________ 4218. Average expenditures for housing, by family type_________ 4419. Average expenditures for home maintenance, by family type. _ 46

Chapter V

T a b l e 20. Average money expenditures for clothing and personal care__ 4921. Average money expenditures for clothing and personal care,

by occupational group________________________________________ 5122. Average annual money expenditures of husbands and wives

for clothing, by occupational group__________________________ 5223. Average money expenditures for clothing and personal care,

by family type_________________________________________________ 5424. Average annual money expenditures of husbands and wives

for clothing, by family type_________________________________ 56

Chapter V I

T a b l e 25. Average money expenditures for transportation, percentage of families reporting automobile operation, and average expenditures for automobile operation per family reporting such expenditure______________________________________________ 59

26. Average money expenditures for transportation, by occupational group____________________________________________________ 64

27. Average money expenditures for automobile operation perfamily reporting such expenditure, by occupational group. _ 65

28. Average money expenditures for transportation, by familytype-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66

29. Average money expenditures for automobile operation perfamily reporting such expenditure, by family type_________ 68

Chapter V I I

T a b l e 30. Average money expenditures for the minor categories________ 7131. Distribution of money expenditures in Columbus for medical

care____________________________________________________________ 7232. Distribution of money expenditures for contributions and

personal taxes_________________________________________________ 78

Chapter V I I I

33. Surplus items: Average change in 1 year, 1935-36_________ 8234. Average insurance premiums paid by Columbus families as a

percentage of money income and of all surplus items_______ 8435. Deficit items: Average change in 1 year, 1935-36__________ 8636. Increases and decreases reported in amounts due on install

ment purchases by Columbus white families________________ 88


C O N T E N T S V

Chapter I XPage

T a b l e 37. Percentage distribution of Columbus families according tothe money value of current family living___________________ 92

38. Average expenditures for food, housing, and clothing, combined, and for automobiles, recreation, and household help, combined______________________________________________________ 94

39. Percentage distribution of adjusted income_________________ 98

List o f Figures

F i g u r e 1. Family types for expenditure study____________________________ 32. Food as a percentage of total money expenditures, at selected

income levels, 1935-36________________________________________ 253. Clothing as a percentage of total money expenditures, at

selected income levels, 1935-36---------------------------------------------- 484. Transportation as a percentage of total money expenditures, at

selected income levels, 1935-36--------------------------------------------- 605. Source and disposition of funds used for family living, in 1

year, at selected income levels, Columbus, 1935-36________ 896. Relative changes in specified categories of expenditure with

changes in income, Columbus, 1935-36______________________ 1007. Relative changes in specified categories of expenditure with

changes in income, Columbus, 1935-36______________________ 101


P R E F A C E

This analysis of fam ily expenditures forms volum e I I of the Study of Consumer Purchases in the E ast Central region. Volum e I deals with the incomes received by families in nine E ast Central cities. I t provides the background for the present section, which is a study of the manner in which the fam ily incomes were spent.

This survey was part of an investigation conducted in 1936 b y the U nited States Bureau of Labor Statistics in 32 cities varying in size, and representing different sections of the country. I t was paralleled by a study of sm all-city, village, and farm families conducted by the Bureau of H om e Econom ics of the United States D epartm ent of Agriculture. B oth surveys, which together constitute the Study of Consumer Purchases, were administered under a grant of funds from the W orks Progress Adm inistration. T he N ational Resources C om m ittee and the Central Statistical Board cooperated in the N ationwide study. T he plans for the project were developed and the administration was coordinated by a technical com m ittee composed of representatives of the following agencies: N ational Resources C om m ittee, Hildegarde Kneeland, chairm an; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Faith M . W illiam s; Bureau of H om e Econom ics, D a y M onroe; W orks Progress Adm inistration, M ilton Forster; and Central Statistical Board, Sam uel J. Dennis.

T he present investigation differs from any previously undertaken in that it represents the first effort to study the incomes and expenditures of all strata of the com m unity simultaneously. Past studies of fam ily consumption have generally been confined to a lim ited income and occupational group, or to a particular locality. Such isolated studies did not throw light on the relative position occupied b y the particular group under investigation in the population as a whole. T hey did not reveal how the consumption pattern of one group in the population differed from that of families in another occupational group or income class.

T he present study of fam ily expenditures will permit comparisons am ong different sections of the country, among communities of varying degrees of urbanization, and between white and Negro families in the same com m unity. I t covers a wide range of fam ily incomes, from those just above the relief level to incomes of more than $7 ,500. I t was planned, moreover, so as to supply a sample that would allow for

vn


V III PR EFACE

comparison among different occupational groups and among families of varying composition.

The analysis of family expenditures in the following pages indicates that differences in income have a predominant influence on family patterns of spending and saving. Despite wide variations in the outlays of individual families, however, the number and age of family members also have an important effect on the amounts spent at given income levels for such categories as food, clothing, education, and transportation other than by automobile, and for contributions and personal taxes. The occupational classification of a family has relatively little bearing on family expenditures other than for housing and household operation. On the other hand, the racial group in which Columbus families belong clearly influences the pattern of family spending and saving. At the lower economic levels, Negro families appear to live more closely within their current incomes than do white families with corresponding incomes, and at the higher levels they accumulate more substantial reserves for the future. For certain groups of goods and services, such as personal care and transportation other than by automobile, however, Negro families spend more than white families, while for food and many of the less important categories the former have substantially smaller expenditures. Expenditures for food, housing, and transportation other than by automobile are all directly related to city size. Hence, although family expenditures for clothing and certain minor categories were lower among white families in Columbus than among those in the smaller communities, in the East Central region, the large-city families generally spend more than others in relation to their incomes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics wishes to acknowledge the assistance received from interested individuals and civic bodies, both within and outside the Government, in addition to the agencies mentioned above. Particular acknowledgment is due to two groups whose collaboration must be recognized as having made these studies possible: the W. P. A. workers who performed the field collection and office tabulation of the data, and the members of the households interviewed, who contributed the time and effort required to answer the detailed questions in the schedules.

In view of the fact that responsibility for certain parts of this survey was shared by persons outside the regular staff of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau takes pleasure in acknowledging the services of Elizabeth Champe and Charles H. Chase, associate regional supervisors in the East Central cities; G. H. Pittinger, who served as check editor, and the following persons who served as supervisors in the various cities: Helen R. Stearns, Columbus; Minnie Landau, Mun- cie; Margaret A. Toepfer, New Castle; LeRoy Clements, Springfield;


PREFACE IX

Louisa K. Fast, Beaver Falls; Maude Butterton, Connellsville; HelenB. Dodani, Logansport; Deryl J. Case, M attoon; Joseph E. Arnston, Peru.

Acknowledgment is also made to Frances W. Valentine and Jesse R. Wood, Jr., who were in charge of computation and tables; Joseph A. Smith in charge of machine tabulation; Dorothy McCamman, who served as chief check editor; Marie Bloch, Ethel Cauman, Lenore A. Epstein, Verna Mae Feuerhelm, and William Loudon, who were in charge of editing and review.

I s a d o r L u b i n ,Commissioner o f Labor Statistics.

M ay 1939.


Bulletin ?s[o. 644 (V61. II) of the

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

Family Expenditure in Nine Cities o f the East Central Region, 1935-36

C h a p te r I

In tro d u c tio n

The analysis of the family income and expenditure data obtained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Study of Consumer Purchases is divided into three parts. The present volume represents the second stage in the analysis of data collected in nine cities in the East Central region. Volume I shows the distribution of families by income class, occupation, family type, nativity, and home tenure. The second and third parts of the analysis both are concerned with data on expenditures for family living. In the present volume, this analysis will be confined mainly to a consideration of the size and relative importance of expenditures for the main categories of current living, among families in these communities, with only incidental reference to the constituent items in these categories. As in volume I, variations associated with income, occupation, and family type are of primary concern. The third part of the analysis involves a study of the detailed items included in each major group, and will take the form of special reports on commodities and services which will appear later as bulletin 648.

The expenditure data presented in this volume are for Columbus, Ohio, three middle-sized cities, treated as a unit, and five small cities, likewise analyzed together.1 Since Negroes constitute a considerable segment of the population in Columbus, Ohio, a separate study of expenditures of white and Negro families was made imthat city.

The survey of family expenditures was intended to show primarily the way in which expenditures vary with income and certain other characteristics of the family. It was, therefore, limited to families

iThe middle-sized cities included in the East Central region are Muncie, Ind.; New Castle, Pa.; and Springfield, 111.; the small cities, Beaver Falls, Pa.; Conneilsville, Pa.; Logansport, Ind.; Mattoon, 111.; and Peru, Ind. See appendix C for a complete list of the communities covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Home Economics.

1


2 F A M IL Y E X P E N D IT U R E I N EA ST C E N T R A L REG IO N

that included a husband and wife, both native born, and that received no relief during the year.2

The samples of families whose expenditures were studied in the East Central region were further restricted by excluding certain income groups, and by limiting the occupational groups represented in the lower and upper portions of the income scale.3

The collection of expenditure schedules for white families was confined to seven family types, eliminating thereby the least frequent types in the community. The types included, which are shown pic- torially in figure 1, may be described in terms of the number and age of members other than husband and wife, as follows:

T y p e

I N o other persons (families of 2).I I 1 child under 16 (families o f 3).

I I I 2 children under 16 (families of 4).IV 1 person 16 or over and 1 or no other person, regardless o f age

(families o f 3 or 4).V 1 child under 16, 1 person 16 or over, and 1 or 2 others, regard

less o f age (fam ilies o f 5 or 6).V I 3 or 4 children under 16 (families o f 5 or 6).

V II 1 child under 16, and 4 or 5 others, regardless o f age (families o f 7 or 8).

These types include 97 percent of the Columbus white families containing husband and wife, both native born. Among Columbus Negroes, the collection of expenditure schedules was confined to the

2 The purpose of these qualifications was to eliminate as far as possible factors of economic stress, broken family ties, and alien customs, which might tend to obscure the relationship of income, occupation, and family type to family expenditure patterns of white and Negro families. The collection of a separate sample of Negro families in Columbus made it possible to analyze separately the influence of special racial characteristics of the Negro group in family expenditures. Since native-born families greatly outnumber all other national groups in the United States, it seemed wise to confine the restricted resources available for the survey to a study of the expenditures of these relatively homogeneous groups.

In Columbus about four-fifths of the families were native-born white, less than one-tenth were foreign-born white and slightly more than one-tenth Negro. In the middle-sized cities, the proportions of native-born white families ranged from less than two-thirds in New Castle to over four-fifths in Springfield; the proportion of Negroes ranged only from 4 to 7 percent. In the small cities, the proportions of native-born white families ranged from two-thirds of the total population in Beaver Falls to 97 percent in Mattoon; Negro families never constituted as much as 4 percent of the total.

s Among white families those in Columbus with incomes under $500 and those in the middle-sized cities with incomes under $250 were excluded. All occupational groups were represented for white families in the income levels between $1,250 and $4,000 in Columbus, and between $1,000 and $2,500 in the middle-sized cities. Between $4,000 and $5,000 in Columbus, only clerical, business, and professional families were included. Above $5,000 in Columbus and $2,500 in the middle-sized cities, only business and professional families were studied. The data for white families in the small cities are presented in comparable income classes for all occupational groups only between $1,000 and $3,000; above $3,000, different income combina- tioDS were made for each occupational group. The lowest income class in each city unit included only wage earners, and the two succeeding classes only wage-earner and clerical families.

Among Negro families in Columbus, wage-earner families were represented only between the $250 and the $1,750 income levels, clerical families between the $750 and $3,000 levels, and business and professional families between the $250 and $3,000 levels.

Families with no gainfully employed members were excluded from the sample of white families in the small cities and of Negro families in Columbus. They were eligible among the whites in Columbus in the income ranges between $500 and $10,000, and in the middle-sized cities between $250 and $4,000, but all expenditure data for this group were analyzed separately.


IN T R O D U C T IO N 3

Fig. 1

FAMILY TYPES FOR EXPENDITURE STUDY

TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III

TYPE VI TYPE VII

^ M E M B E R S REQUIRED FOR TYPE

e

Q M EM BER REQUIRED FOR T Y P E , BUT AGE ALTERNATIVE

A \ / M EM BER OPTIONAL FOR T Y P EA- 11

( AGE ALTERNATIVE

U. S . BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS


4 F A M I L Y E X P E N D IT U R E I N E A ST C E N T R A L R EG IO N

first five family types described above, which cover 85 percent of the Columbus Negro families with a husband and wife.4

When all families in these East Central cities are taken into consideration, it is found that incomes for the year 1985-36 6 averaged highest in Columbus and lowest in the small city unit. Approximately half of the Columbus families had incomes under $1,315 while the incomes of about half the families in the middle-sized cities fell below $1,200 and half in the small cities, below $1,030.6

Over one-third of the Columbus families were found in the income classes under $1,000, almost one-sixth received $2,000 to $3,000, and about one-tenth, $3,000 or more. In the middle-sized cities taken together, about two-fifths had incomes under $1,000, another two- fifths, incomes between $1,000 and $2,000, and about 1 in 7, more than $3,000. While virtually one-half the families in the small cities had incomes under $1,000, more than one-third fell in the classes between $1,000 and $2,000, and less than 1 in 20 received $3,000 or more during the year. These figures on family income refer to all families, irrespective of race, nativity, and family composition, and include those that received relief at some time during the year, as well as those that remained independent of public assistance.

In general, the incomes received by foreign-bom white families averaged substantially below those of white families containing husband and wife, both native bom. In Columbus, for example, half the native white families studied in 1935-36 received incomes below $1,450, while the incomes of about half the foreign-bom families fell below $1,180. Half the Negro families in Columbus, on the other hand, had incomes below $700. Similarly, incomplete families generally received less income than families containing husband and wife. Of the native white families in Columbus, the incomes of half of those that contained husband and wife were below $1,620 while the incomes of half the broken families were lower than $885.

The various limitations that were imposed in the selection of families eligible for the expenditure study, as well as the separation in Columbus of white and Negro families into two samples, resulted in samples each of which showed a very different income distribution from that for the communities as a whole. In Columbus, approximately one-half the white families represented in the part of the Study that deals with consumer expenditures had incomes below $1,815,

4 Certain other minor eligibility requirements were imposed to eliminate families whose living patterns are not adapted to statistical analysis. See appendix A, on sampling, for a complete list of eligibility requirements.

6 The report year covered a 12-month period ending not earlier than December 31,1935, and not later than November 30, 1936. Very few schedules were collected for a year ending later than September 30, 1936, however.

6 Median incomes in the three middle-sized cities varied from $1,069 for New Castle to $1,274 for Spring- field; among the five small cities, they showed a narrower range, from $936 for Mattoon to $1,098 for Beaver Falls.



and about half of the Negro families had incomes under $1,000. Among white families in the middle-sized cities, half were found in income groups below $1,510; among those in the small city unit, half below $1,450.7

The expenditure schedule used in the Study of Consumer Purchases provided for recording information on family expenditures classified under 16 categories, varying in urgency from food and shelter to recreation, gifts, and minor items of a miscellaneous character. The schedule contained information also on such matters as the size and facilities of dwellings occupied, and on the ownership of automobiles and household equipment, including radios, phonographs, mechanical refrigerators, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners. In addition, account was taken of transactions during the report year that increased or decreased the family assets or liabilities.8

Expenditure data covering the year 1935-36 were collected from 6,320 urban families in the East Central region.9 They showed that as family income increases, the amounts spent for each important category of consumption goods and services increases. The relative increase with income in expenditures for the different groups of items is not the same, however.10 On the one hand, while more is spent for food and home maintenance by families with high than with low incomes, these two important categories declined in relative impor-

* Since the eligibility requirements operated to eliminate families that in general occupied a less favorable economic position than did nonrelief native-born complete families, and since in Columbus, separate samples were taken to represent white and Negro familes, it follows that the expenditure data cannot be taken to represent an average family in the cities studied. Instead, the purpose of the Study is to show how the families selected for study apportion their expenditures at different income levels, and how such apportionment is influenced by occupational classification and family size and age composition.

8 See glossary, appendix B, for definitions of the various categories of expenditure and the items included under each.

Expenditure schedules were collected from 2,329 white families in Columbus (including 70 with no gainfully employed members), from 248 Negro families in Columbus, from 2,173 white families in 3 middle- sized cities (including 78 with no gainfully employed members), and from 1,570 white families in the 5 small cities.

Each of these four groups of families constituted a sample composed as nearly as possible of the same number in each income class, within each family type and occupational group. Since the method of collection, by design, failed to preserve the proportions Of the several groups that were found in the population of families eligible to furnish expenditure schedules, it was necessary to use the proportions obtained in the eligible sample as weights for all averages that represented combinations of occupational groups, of family types, or of income classes. See appendix A for a description of the method of sampling.

io While the present study represents an investigation of differences in expenditure patterns of families at different income levels, it provides inferential though not direct evidence on how any given group of families would alter the apportionment of their spending if their incomes were raised or lowered. Thus, it is convenient to express differences in expenditures among families at different economic levels as relative changes with income. The relative increase over the income range in the outlay for a given category provides an indication of the elasticity of expenditures for that category. Elasticity may be measured in terms of the percentage increase over a given income range in average outlay for the category (as in ch. IX), or it may be indicated by a comparison of the increase in average expenditures for the category in question with the increase in income or in total expenditures. Since the expenditure base has generally been used in the distribution of family expenditures, it has been convenient throughout the greater part of the report to speak of expenditures for specific groups of items as being relatively elastic or inelastic, according to whether amounts spent constituted an increasing or decreasing proportion of total expenditures. It will be apparent from tables 1, 2, and 3 that the elasticity of any category is much lower when computed in relation to income rather than to expenditures, because of the influence of deficits at the lower economic levels, and of savings in the upper portion of the income scale.


6 F A M I L Y E X P E N D IT U R E I N E A ST C E N T R A L R E G IO N

tance over the income range. Outlays for contributions and personal taxes, on the other hand, received a steadily increasing share of income. All the other major consumption categories except medical care increased in relative importance over a large portion of the income scale, but after a certain level was reached, received a declining share of income.

The demand for food and home maintenance is so urgent that Columbus white families with incomes of $500 to $750 spent all but 10 percent of their current incomes for these items alone, and the white families in the smaller communities that received incomes of $250 to $500 spent at least 12 percent more than their incomes in this manner. (See table 1.) The total expenditures of Columbus white families in the lowest income class studied exceeded their incomes by 21 percent; those of white families with incomes of $250 to $500 in the smaller communities, by more than 40 percent; those of Columbus Negro families at the same income level, by only 15 percent.11 Average net deficits declined rapidly at succeeding income levels until aggregate surpluses approximately balanced aggregate deficits at the $1,250 to $1,500 level for white families in Columbus and the middle- sized cities, and at the $750 to $1,000 level for Columbus Negro families. The $1,250 level marked the turning point from net deficits to net surpluses for the small-city families studied. At succeeding income levels, average net surpluses rose rapidly in relation to income. In general, average net deficits were smaller and surpluses larger, at given income levels, among Negro than among white families.

The relatively moderate expenditures by Columbus white families in the two highest income groups are reflected in remarkably large surpluses. The total expenditures of Columbus families at the income level $7,500 to $10,000 averaged but $5,800, while Chicago families with similar incomes spent about $7,000 and New York families about $8,000. A t the highest income level, Columbus families spent for consumer goods and services over $2,100 less than Chicago families although their incomes averaged approximately the same. They spent almost $7,500 less than the New York families studied at that level, while they received incomes only $2,200 lower. At given income levels throughout the income range, families living in New York spent more than families in Chicago, and similarly, the latter spent more than families in Columbus. Hence, while aggregate incomes exceeded aggregate expenditures for current living only when family income reached $2,250 in New York and $1,750 in Chicago, this was the case among Columbus families with incomes of $1,500 or more. The cost of living, at least for moderate income families, is lower in

While the term expenditure is used, it must be recognized that part of this deficit was met by withdrawals from past savings, and part of it accrued in the form of unpaid bills and other obligations.



Columbus than in the two metropolitan communities studied.12 Moreover, it appears that opportunities for spending are more limited for families with a given income in Columbus than in Chicago or New York, and the higher the income, the more effective are such limitations on spending in the smaller city.

T a b l e 1 . Distribution of adjusted fam ily income 1 COLUMBUS: W HITE FAMILIES

Income classTotal

adjusted income

Percentage of total adjusted income a

Value of current family living3

Net sur

plus 4Total FoodHomemain

tenance

Clothing and personal care

Transportation

Medical

care

Contributions

andpersonal

taxes

Other

$500-$749________________ $652 121.3 43.7 46.0 9.3 4.8 7.8 0.8 8.9 *19.0$750-$999________________ 888 105.9 39.7 41.8 8.8 4.6 4.2. 1.1 5.7 *4.3$1,000-$1,249_____________ 1,138 103.0 37.6 36.8 9.6 7.6 3.6 1.9 5.9 *2.3$1,250-$1,499.____________ 1,374 100.9 34.1 34.6 10.0 8.5 4.5 2.0 7.2 * .l$1,500-$1,749_____________ 1, 620 97.3 30.7 33.8 11.0 8.3 4.3 2.3 6.9 2.8$1,750-SI,999.....................- 1,865 95.2 29. 4 32.0 10.7 10.3 3.7 2.2 6.9 5.1$2,000-$2,249.................... - 2,127 94.7 28.4 30.8 10.9 10.8 4.3 3.2 6.3 5.4$2,250-$2,499....... ..............- 2, 383 93. 2 26.6 30.1 11.2 11. 2 4.2 2.9 7.0 7.2$2,500-12,999.............. - 2, 743 88.0 24.4 28.3 10.7 10.1 4.5 3.2 6.8 12.1$3,000-$3,499..... .......... ... 3, 225 85. 8 23.8 27.5 11.4 10.0 3.8 2.5 6.8 14.0$3,500-$3,999.............. ........ 3, 764 85.1 21.0 26.2 11.2 9.9 3.0 4.6 6.2 17.5$4,000-$4,999.------ ------------ 4,404 79.4 19.3 25.7 10.6 10.1 3.3 3.9 6.5 19.9$5,000-$7,499_____________ 5,939 79.6 17.0 26.8 11.2 9.5 3.0 5.3 6.8 20.2$7,500-$9,999____________ 8,493 68.3 17.7 21.3 9.0 7.6 2.5 4.8 5.4 33.0$10,000 and over_________ 16, 242 51.8 7.9 18.0 6.4 5.1 1.1 7.0 6.3 50.2

MIDDLE-SIZED CITIES: W HITE FAMILIES

$250-$499________________ $435 147.6 55.4 58.2 14.5 2.3 8.3 3.2 5.7 *46.9$500-$749________________ 669 115.9 48.8 43.9 9.0 3.6 3.3 1.5 5.8 *14.9$750-$999...... ................... . 895 106.8 41.3 39. 2 10.3 4.8 3.5 1.9 5.8 *6.9$1,000-$1,249_____________ 1,134 102.3 35.6 38.0 10.2 6.3 3.7 2.1 6.4 *2.3$1,250-$1,499_____________ 1, 364 100.2 33.7 35.6 10.8 6.1 4.5 2.9 6.6 .3$1,500-$1,749_.............. - 1,608 96.3 30.1 33.9 10.8 8.2 4.1 2.9 6. 3 3.7$1,750-$1,999........- ........ - 1,870 93. 5 28.7 32.0 10.3 8.4 4.3 3.3 6.5 6.3$2,000-12,249_____________ 2,120 92.9 26. 2 31.8 11.3 10.1 3.7 3.0 6.8 7.1$2,250-$2,499_____________ 2. 372 88.9 24.3 29.6 11.4 10. 4 3.4 3.3 6. 5 10.9$2,500-$2,999_____________ 2, 739 88.9 21.9 30.1 11.1 10.7 3.4 4.7 7.0 11.2$3,000-$3,499____________ 3, 218 85.9 20.4 29.6 11.3 9.3 4.0 3.7 7.6 13.7$3,500-$3,999_____________ 3, 701 83.0 18.2 29.0 10.3 11.6 3.3 4.8 5.8 17.1$4,000-14,999_____________ 4, 414 76.9 16.2 26.0 11.4 10.0 3.0 4.2 6.1 22.3$5,000 and over__________ 6, 732 64.3 12.2 21.8 9.0 8.4 2.0 5.7 5.2 34.9

SMALL CITIES: W HITE FAMILIES

$250-$499________________ $448 143.2 54.8 57.2 11.4 4.9 6.9 2.2 5.8 *41.1$500-$749________________ 680 111.2 45.2 41.6 10.7 2.6 3.0 2.4 5.7 *9.7$750-$999_ - - ____ ________ 886 103.3 40.7 34. 5 10.4 4.6 4.3 2.2 6.6 *2.7$1,000-$1,249_____________ 1,134 103.9 36.6 35.8 11.3 6.8 4.1 2.6 6.7 *2.5$1,250-$!,499..----- ------------ 1, 391 98.8 32.8 31.4 10.7 7.5 5.3 4.2 6.9 1.9$1,500-$1,749_____________ 1,633 96.9 30.5 31.9 11.4 8.2 4.8 3.4 6.7 3.4$1,750-$1,999_____________ 1,882 94.3 28.6 30.1 11.8 9.4 4.4 3.5 6.5 6.6$2,000-$2,249_____________ 2,128 94. 2 27.8 29. 5 12.3 9.8 4.4 4.0 6.4 6.1$2,250-$2,499_____________ 2, 384 90.9 27. 3 26. 6 12.3 8.8 4.9 4.7 6.3 9.0$2,500-$2,999_____________ 2, 732 90.7 23. 5 27.9 11.6 10.4 5.3 4.3 7.7 9.2$3,000 and over__________ 3,829 78.2 18.0 23.1 9.8 11. 2 3.9 5.3 6.9 21.4

See footnotes at end of table.

12 According to the Works Progress Administration study of the annual cost of a maintenance standard of living for four-person families of manual workers in 1935, it appears that the total cost of living is 14 percent higher in Chicago than in Columbus and 1.5 percent higher in New York than in Chicago. See Works Progress Administration, Research Monograph XII, Intercity Differences in Costs of Living in March 1935, 59 cities, Washington, 1937, appendix B, table 3.

113088 II -------2


8 F A M IL Y E X P E N D IT U R E I N E A ST C E N T R A L R EG IO N

T a b l e 1 . Distribution of adjusted fam ily income Continued COLUMBUS: NEGRO FAMILIES

Percentage of total adjusted income

Total adjusted income

Value of current family living

Income class

Total FoodHomemain

tenance


Transportation

Medical

care

Contributions

andpersonal

taxes

Other

Netsurplus

$250-$499____ ___________ $474647

115.0 52.3 49.0 7.8 1.3 1.9 0.2 2.5 s 14.1$500-$749____ ___________ 106.9 39.8 44.2 7.4 4.8 5.0 1.2 4.5 65.9$750-$999______ _______ 899 100.1 37.6 37.0 9.8 6.3 4.2 1.8 4.4 5.7$1,000-$1,249 ............. . 1.137 94.6 30.0 34.0 10.3 8.3 4.6 3.0 4.4 5.6$1,250-$1,499 _________ 1, 343

1,63586. 5 28.9 29.7 10.7 4.8 3.6 2.4 6.4 12.0

$1,500-$1,749 ____________ 87.8 27.4 28.3 9.4 10.7 4.7 3.1 4.2 11.9$1,750-$1,999 _________ 1,884

2,0902,4062,738

97. 6 26.8 37.0 12.6 7.6 4.5 3.8 5. 3 3.1$2,000-$2,249 _________ 85.7 22.5 31.0 11.6 5.8 3.5 2.6 8. 7 13. 6$2,250-$2,499 _ _________ 88. 2 21.9 32.5 5.6 13.2 3.2 6.2 5.6 12.6$2,500-$2,999 _________ 72.4 16.9 26.6 10.7 8.8 1.5 3.8 4.1 24.9

The adjusted family income figures used in this table represent total family income as used in the income classification (money income plus imputed income from owned home and rent received as gift or pay), and in addition the value of goods and fuel obtained without money expense;

a The value of current family living plus surplus (or minus deficit) does not equal exactly 100 percent of adjusted family income because of the net balancing difference; see glossary, appendix B, and Tabular Summary, table 1.

a See table 2, footnotes 1 through 5, for definitions of the categories included in the value of current family living.

* Net surplus represents the excess of average money income over average current money expenditures; see ch. II.

6 Deficit.

The level at which a family lives in any given year depends not only upon its current income, its past savings, and its credit standing, but also upon goods and services received without money expense. The most important of these nonmoney items for most families is the unpaid services of the housewife, but it is so difficult to secure an adequate evaluation of these services that this contribution to family income was omitted from this survey. It was possible, however, to secure data on the value of housing received by home owners without money expense in the year of the survey, of housing received as gift or pay, and of food and fuel received without money expense. The data given in table 1 include all these nonmoney items in the figure given for total income, and in the appropriate categories under the heading money value of current family living 13 as a percentage of total income. It is of considerable interest, however, to follow average consumption patterns at successive income levels without regard to the source of the funds used, and without regard to savings. The distribution given in table 2 shows expenditures for the major categories as a percentage of total expenditures for current family living, and throws into high relief the changes in emphasis which follow changes in income status.

13 Throughout the bulletin the term expenditures is used to include both money expenditures and the estimated money value of certain items obtained without money outlay during the year. The terms total expenditures for current family living and money value of current family living are thus synonymous and will be used interchangeably. Since nonmoney items of consumption have been recorded only for housing, fuel, and food, money expenditures for all other categories represent the only measure of family spending for those categories.


I N T R O D U C T I O N 9

T able 2. Distribution o f value of current fa m ily living , by m ajor groups COLUMBUS: W HITE FAMILIES

Income classValue of family living 1

Food 2Home

maintenance 3

Clothing and personal

care

Transportation 4

Medicalcare

Contributions

andpersonal taxes *

Other items 6

$500-$749_______ ___________________ $791 36.0 37.9 7.7 3.9 6.5 0.6 7.4$750-$999................. ....................... ......... 941 37.4 39.5 8.3 4.4 3.9 1.1 5.4$1,000$1,249________________________ 1,173 36.6 35.8 9.3 7.3 3.4 1.9 5.7$1,250-$1,499_______ ____ ___________ 1,386 33.8 34.3 9.8 8.5 4.5 2.0 7.1$1,500-$1,749________________________ 1, 578 31.6 34.8 11.3 8.5 4.4 2.4 7.0$1,750-$1,999_________ ____ _________ 1, 776 31.0 33.6 11.2 10.8 3.9 2.3 7.2$2,000-$2,249________ ______ ________ 2,015 30.0 32.6 11.4 11.4 4.6 3.4 6.6$2,250-$2,499________________________ 2,223 28.5 32.3 12.0 12.1 4.4 3.1 7 . 6$2,500-$2,999________________________ 2,413 27.8 32.2 12.2 11.4 5.1 3.6 7.7$3,000-$3,499________________________ 2, 765 27.8 32.0 13.2 11.7 4.5 2.9 7.9$3,500-$3,999________________________ 3, 092 25.6 31.9 13.6 12.0 3.7 5.7 7.5$4,000-$4,999________________________ 3, 499 24.3 32.4 13.4 12.7 4.2 4.9 8.1$5,000-$7,499________________________ 4, 726 21.4 33.6 14.1 11.9 3.8 6.7 8.5$7,500-$9,999________________________ 5, 801 25.9 31.1 13.1 11.2 3.7 7.0 8.0$10,000 and over____ _______________ 8,406 15.3 34.7 12.4 9.8 2.2 13.5 12.1


$250-$499.......... .................... ............. . $642 37.5 39.4 9.8 1.6 5.6 2. 2 3. 9$500-$749______ ____ ______ ________ 775 42.1 37.9 7.8 3.1 2.8 1. 3 5.0$750-$999___________________________ 956 38.7 36.7 9.6 4. 5 3. 3 1. 8 5. 4$1,000-$1,249_______ ______ _________ 1,160 34.8 37.2 10.0 6.1 3.6 2.1 6. 2$1,250-$1,499__............. ........... ............. 1,367

1, 54833.6 35.5 10. 8 6.1 4. 5 2. 9 6.6

$1,500-SI,749__________ __________ ___ 31.3 35.2 11. 2 8.4 4. 3 3. 0 6. 6$1,750-$1,999............................ .............. 1, 748

1, 967 2,109 2,4362, 7673, 070

30.7 34.3 11.0 9.0 4. 6 3. 5 6. 9$2,000-$2,249_____________ ___________ 28.2 34.2 12.2 10.9 4. 0 3. 2 7. 3$2,250-$2,499__________ _____________ 27.3 33.3 12.9 11. 7 3.8 3. 7 7. 3$2,500-$2,999_____________ _______ 24.8 33.8 12. 5 12.1 3. 8 5. 3 7. 9$3,000-$3,499. _____ ___ _____ ________ 23.7 34.5 13. 2 10.8 4. 6 4. 3 8. 9$3,500-$3,999............. ................. ............ 22.0 35.0 12.4 14.0 3.9 5. 7 7. 0$4,000-$4,999___ ______ _____ _______ 3, 392

4, 33121.1 33.9 14.8 13.0 3.8 5. 5 7.9

$5,000 and over........ .............................. 19.0 33.9 14.1 13.1 3.0 8.9 8.0


$250-$499................................................. $641 38.3 40.0 7.9 3.4 4.8 1. 6 4. 0$500-$749__________ ________________ 756 40.6 37.4 9. 7 2.4 2. 6 2.1 5. 2$750-$999___________________________ 916 39. 4 33. 4 10.1 4. 5 4. 2 2.1 6. 3$1,000-$1,249________________________ 1,178 35. 2 34. 4 10. 9 6. 5 4. 0 2. 5 6. 5$1,250-$1,499__________ _____ _______ 1, 374

1, 5811, 7732, 005

33. 2 31. 7 10. 9 7. 6 5. 4 4. 2 7. 0$1,500-$1,749____ _____ ______ ______ 31. 5 32.9 11. 8 8. 5 4.9 3. 5 6. 9$1,750-$1,999______ _________________ 30. 3 31.9 12. 5 10.0 4. 6 3. 7 7. 0$2,000-$2,249_____ ____ _____________ 29. 5 31. 4 13.0 10. 4 4. 7 4. 2 6. 8$2,250-$2,499____ ___________________ 2,168

2, 477 2, 996

30.0 29. 3 13. 6 9.6 5. 4 5. 2 6.9$2,500-$2,999________________________ 25.9 30.8 12.8 11. 5 5. 8 4. 7 8. 5$3,000 and over_____ ________ ______ 23.0 29.6 12. 5 14.4 4.9 6.7 8.9

COLUMBUS: NEGRO FAMILIES

$250-$499________________ ________ __ $545 45.5 42.5 6.8 1.1 1.7 0. 2 2.2$500-$749___________________________ 691 37.2 41.3 7.0 4.5 4. 6 1. 2 4. 2$750-$999................................................ 900 37.6 36.9 9.8 5. 3 4.2 1.8 4.4$1,000-$1,249_____ ______ ___________ 1, 076

1,16131.7 36.0 11.0 8. 7 4.8 3. 2 4.6

$1,250-$1,499........................ ................. 33.4 34.3 12.4 5.5 4.2 2.8 7.4$1,500-$1,749________________________ 1, 436 31.2 32.3 10.7 12. 2 5.4 3.5 4.7$1,750-$1,999................................. .......... 1,838

1, 792 2,122

27.4 38.0 12.9 7.8 4.6 3.9 5.4$2,000-$2,249______ _________________ 26. 2 36.2 13. 5 6. 7 4.1 3.1 10.2$2,250-$2,499______ ____ ____________ 24.8 36.8 6.4 14.9 3.7 7.0 6.4$2,500-$2,999................................. .......... 1, 982 23.3 36.7 14.8 12.2 2.1 5.2 5.7

1 See glossary, appendix B, for definition of family living.2 Includes expenditures for food and the value of food obtained without money expense.3 Includes expenditures for housing, household operation, and furnishings and equipment, and the value

of housing and fuel obtained without money expense.4 Includes expenditures for automobile purchase and operation, and other transportation.* Excludes sales taxes, which were included in the expense for the items to which they applied; automo

bile taxes, which were included in automobile operation expense; taxes on owned homes, included in housing expense; and taxes on other real estate, which were deducted from the gross income from such property.

e Includes expenditures for recreation, reading, education, tobacco, and miscellaneous items.


10 F A M I L Y E X P E N D I T U R E I N E A S T C E N T R A L R E G IO N

Food and home maintenance together absorbed more than 70 percent of the total expenditures of the white and Negro families with incomes below $1,000 studied in the East Central region. Only among Columbus white families with incomes of $10,000 and more did these two important categories account for less than one-half of the total money value of current family living. Average expenditures for food were of about the same magnitude as those for home maintenance, at the lower income levels. Both declined relatively as income rose, food much more rapidly than home maintenance, however. Hence, the differences between the two categories in amounts spent grew progressively larger, until, among Columbus white families with incomes of $10,000 and more, home maintenance expenditures were over twice as large as food expenditures.

Clothing and personal care, commonly included among the essentials of living, generally took the third largest share of expenditures for current family living. They accounted for more than one-tenth of total expenditures among Columbus white families with incomes of $1,500 or more and among small-city families with incomes of $750 or over. Unlike expenditures for food and home maintenance, those for clothing increased in relative importance as income rose, somewhat more rapidly among Negro than among white families.

Expenditures for transportation occupied a relatively large place in family spending for all except the lowest income groups. Automobile expenditures were substantial and increased rapidly at successive income levels. More than one-half the white families with incomes of $1,250 and more owned automobiles in the year of the survey. The rapid spread within a generation in automobile ownership probably represents a more striking change in family living habits than has ever before occurred in an equal period of time.

Medical care expenditures constituted, on the average, from 3 to 5 percent of the money value of current family living, among white and Negro families in the East Central region. The variations concealed in the average expenditures for medical care at any given income level, however, tended to be greater than those found in expenditures for most other categories, with a few families at almost every income level reporting no expenditure and some reporting very high expenses.

The category designated contributions and personal taxes in the present study differs in character somewhat from the other groups of expenditure items. Insofar as gifts made to persons outside the economic family are balanced by gifts received, such expenditures


I N T R O D U C T IO N 11

constitute a part of family consumption. Sums spent for items such as money contributions toward the support of individuals or institutions, and personal taxes (income, poll, and personal property), represent aspects of family spending that are less directly converted to goods and services consumed than are expenditures for the other categories. Nevertheless, for taxes and contributions to religious organizations, at least, the families making such expenditures receive returns in a variety of forms that constitute important elements in their pattern of living. Outlays of this type were the most elastic among the categories of expenditure. The increase was very gradual, however, over the major portion of the income range.

Expenditures for recreation, tobacco, reading, education, and miscellaneous items, which have been grouped in the accompanying tables under the heading other items, accounted in combination for a slowly rising share of total expenditures for current family living. This reflected mainly the increasing relative importance of outlays for amusement and recreational equipment. Expenditures for education were generally very small and showed only a slight tendency to take a larger share of expenditures at the upper than the lower income levels. Tobacco and reading each maintained about the same relationship to the total throughout the income range.

In present-day urban communities, the pattern of consumption may be measured fairly accurately in terms of money expenditures for current family living. Hence the distribution of money expenditures, as shown in table 3, is similar to the distribution of money value of living, presented in table 2. Since the value of housing obtained without money expense was at most income levels the only significant nonmoney item reported, home maintenance was the only category that represented in general a larger proportion of the money value of current family living than of money expenditures. The differences were great enough, however, to produce a different relationship between food and home maintenance when money expenditures only are compared. Money expenditures for food were clearly larger than money expenditures for home maintenance, at least to the $2,000 level, among white families studied in the East Central region. The total money value of family living was generally about 5 or 6 percent greater than money expenditures among all families studied in the East Central region, although the percentages ranged from less than 3 among Columbus white families with incomes of $500 to $750 to over 17 among Columbus Negro families with incomes of $250 to $500.



T able 3. Distribution o f m oney expenditures fo r current fa m ily living, by majorgroups

COLUMBUS: W HITE FAMILIES

Income class

Average

total money

expenditure i

Percentage of total money expenditure

FoodHome

maintenance 2


Transportation 3

Medicalcare

Contributions and per

sonal taxes 4

Other items 6

$500 $749___________________________ $769 35.9 37.3 7.9 4.1 6.6 0.7 7.5$750-$999___________________________ 900 38.0 37.9 8.7 4.5 4.1 1.1 5.7$1,000-$l, 249_______________________ 1,121 37.4 33.6 9.8 7.6 3.6 2.0 6.0$1,250-$l, 499_______________________ 1,323 34.8 31.8 10.3 8.9 4.7 2.0 7.5$1,500-$1, 749_______________________ 1,504 32.8 31.8 11.8 9.0 4.7 2.5 7.4$1, 750-$l, 999_______________________ 1,685 32.4 30.3 11.8 11.4 4.1 2.4 7.6$2,000-$2,249_______________________ 1,903 31.2 29.2 12.2 12.0 4.8 3.6 7.0$2,250-$2,499_______________________ 2,113 29.7 29.2 12.6 12.7 4.7 3.2 7.9$2, 500-$2,999_______________________ 2, 260 28.9 28.4 13.0 12.3 5.4 3.8 8.2$3,000-$3,499_______________________ 2,600 29.1 28.1 14.0 12.5 4.8 3.1 8.4$3,500-$3,999_______________________ 2,831 27.2 26.4 14.9 13.1 4.0 6.2 8.2$4,000-$4,999_______________________ 3, 238 25.9 27.4 14.5 13.7 4.5 5.3 8.7$5,000-$7,499_______________________ 4, 330 22.9 28.0 15.3 13.0 4.2 7.3 9.3$7,500-$9,999_______________________ 5,560 27.0 28.2 13.7 11.6 3.8 7.3 8.4$10,000 and over____________ _______ 7,573 16.6 27.8 13.8 10.9 2.4 15.0 13.5

M IDDLE-SIZED CITIES: W H ITE FAMILIES

$250-$499___________________________ $601 38.1 37.3 10.5 1.6 6.0 2.3 4.2$500-$749___________________________ 714 42.7 35.3 8.4 3.4 3.1 1.5 5.6$750-$999___________________________ 906 40.0 34.1 10.1 4.8 3.4 1.9 5.7$1,000-$1, 249____ ____ ________ ____ 1,093 36.1 34.3 10.6 6.5 3.8 2.2 6.5$1,250-$l, 499____ _____ ____________ 1,297 34.9 32.5 11.4 6.3 4.8 3.1 7.0$1,500-$l, 749.......................................... 1,446 33.1 30.9 12.0 9.1 4.6 3.2 7.1$1,750-$l, 999____ ____ _____________ 1, 652 32.2 30.8 11.6 9.5 4.8 3.8 7.3$2,000-$2,249___ ___________________ 1,855 29.7 30.5 12.9 11.5 4.1 3.4 7.9$2,250-$2,499_______________________ 1,968 29.1 28.8 13.8 12.5 4.1 4.0 7.7$2,500-$2,999____________ ______ 2,266 26.2 29.2 13.4 13.0 4.1 5.7 8.4$3,000-$3,499_______________________ 2,596 24.8 30.7 14.1 11.5 4.9 4.6 9.4$3, 500-$3,999_______________________ 2,860 23.4 30.3 13.3 15.1 4.2 6.2 7.5$4,000-$4,999_______________________ 3,089 23.0 27.5 16.3 14.3 4.2 6.0 8.7$5,000 and over____ _______ ________ 4,089 19.9 30.2 15.0 13.8 3.2 9.4 8.5


$250-$499_________________ _____ $586 39.8 36.7 8.4 3.7 5.3 1.7 4.4$500-$749___________________________ 670 41.0 34.4 10.9 2.6 3.0 2.4 5.7$750-$999___________________________ 880 40.1 31.8 10.5 4.6 4.3 2.2 6.5$1,000-$l, 249_______________________ 1,100 36.6 30.9 11.6 7.0 4.3 2.6 7.0$1,250-$l, 499_______________________ 1, 334 33.6 30.5 11.1 7.9 5.5 4.3 7.1$1,500-$l, 749_______________________ 1,504 32.5 30.1 12.3 9 0 5.2 3.7 7.2$1,750-$l, 999_______________________ 1,672 31.6 28.3 13.3 10.6 4.9 3.9 7.4$2,000-$2, 249_______________________ 1,882 30.8 27.6 13.8 11.0 5.0 4.5 7.3$2,250-$2,499_______________ _____ 2,046 31.1 25.7 14.3 10.2 5.8 5.6 7.3$2, 500-$2,999_______________________ 2,340 27.2 27.1 13.5 12.2 6.2 5.0 8.8$3,000 and over_____________________ 2,814 24.3 25.1 13.3 15.4 5.3 7.2 9.4


$250-$499.......... ............ ....................... . $464 43.1 42.9 8.0 1.3 1.9 0.2 2.6$500-$749___________________________ 650 37.4 39. 7 7.4 4.8 4.9 1.2 4. 6$750-$999............... ................................. 861 37.3 36.1 10.2 5.6 4.4 1.8 4. 6$1,000-$1,249_______________________ 1,042

1,09032.4 34.2 11.3 9.0 5.0 3.3 4.8

$1, 250-$l, 499_______________________ 35.4 30. 2 13.2 5.9 4. 5 2.9 7.9$1, 500-$l, 749_______________________ 1, 365

1,692 1,720

31.0 30. 7 11.3 12.8 5.6 3. 7 4.9$1,750-$1,999____ ______ ___________ 29.8 32.6 14.0 8.5 5.0 4. 2 5.9$2,000-$2, 249_______________________ 27.4 33. 5 14.1 7.1 4.2 3.2 10. 5$2,250-$2,499_______________________ 1,956 26.7 31.7 6.9 16.2 4.0 7.6 6.9$2,500-$2,999_______________________ 1, 814 25.6 30.9 16.1 13.3 2.3 5.7 6.1

1 See glossary, appendix B, for the definition of expenditures used in this study.2 Includes expenditures for housing, household operation, and furnishings and equipment.3 Includes expenditures for automobile purchase and operation, and other transportation.4 Excludes sales taxes, which were included in the expense for the items to which they applied; automobile

taxes, which were inciuded in automobile operation expense; taxes on owned homes, included in housing expense; and taxes on other real property, which were deducted from the gross income from such property,

6 Includes expenditures for recreation, tobacco, reading, education, and other items.


I N T R O D U C T IO N 13

The ensuing report will attempt to indicate in more detail the answers to questions toward which the investigation was directed. For example: As we move up the income scale, which categories of expenditures rise with greatest regularity? Which are most irregular? How do these changes in expenditures vary as between smaller and larger, or younger and older families or, let us say, between the wage-earner and professional groups? At what income level do families definitely enter the market, or withdraw from the market, for particular kinds of goods and services? Which are relatively urgent items in the family budget; which assume the behavior of luxuries? Are there differences in expenditures which are associated with size of city, or with racial group?

It is hoped that consideration given to questions like these may have a bearing on such problems as the establishment of wage scales; the development of family budgets; estimates of national consumption; the relative taxability of successive income strata in the community; the feasibility of current marketing programs and in the large the problem of keeping production in balance with consumption.


C h a p te r I I

T h e F a m ily B alance S heet

The family balance sheet may be presented by comparing current money income with money expenditures for current living. Such a balance sheet, calculated for groups at successive economic levels, measures the changing relationship between income and consumption. It reflects the prevalence of spending financed through deficit, among the low income groups, and of mounting surpluses among the higher income families.

A m ong all the groups of urban families in the E ast Central region which supplied data on expenditures, average annual m oney expenditures exceeded average current m oney incomes at the lowest income levels. Am ong the white families in Colum bus and the middle-sized cities, this was true at all income levels up to $1 ,500 , am ong white families in the small cities, to the $1,250 level, and among the C olum bus Negro families, to the $1,000 income level. (See table 4 ). Am ong the white families, particularly, the discrepancy between current m oney income and m oney obligations incurred during the year was substantial at the lowest income levels. T o m ake up this difference the families drew on savings, contracted loans, or bought on credit.

A t higher income levels, the excess of average m oney income over average m oney expense was increasingly large. A m ong Colum bus white families with incomes of $10,000 and over (average m oney income, $15 ,409), it amounted to almost $8,000.

Current incom e and fa m ily resources. While over an extended period of time, families are limited by income in the level of living which they maintain, this does not mean that in any given year a family must match expenditures for current living with current income. Factors preventing such a balance for a particular year may be peculiar to the individual family or the result of the general business situation. Some older families will be living on the capital as well as the income of past accumulations. A young head of family, particularly in the business and professional groups, may anticipate future increases in income for the purchase of furniture, an automobile, or some other relatively durable consumption good. The family of a business executive or professional man may maintain about the same level of expenditures, regardless of variations from

14


T H E F A M I L Y B A L A N C E S H E E T 15

T a b l e 4 . Average m oney incom e and m oney expenditure for current fa m ily liv in g 1 COLUMBUS: W HITE FAMILIES

Income class M oneyincome

M oney expenditures for current

family living

Income class Moneyincome

Money expenditures for current

family living

$500-$749............. .................$750-$999__________________$1,000-$1,249_______________$1,250-$1,499_______________$1,500-$1,749_______________$1,750-$1,999_______________$2,000-$2,249_______________$2,250-$2,499____ __________

$630 847

1,086 1,311 1,546 1,774 2,015 2,273

$769 900

1,121 1,323 1,504 1,685 1,903 2,113

$2,500-$2,999_______________$3,000-$3,499_______________$3,500-$3,999_______________$4,000-$4,999_______________$5,000-$7,499_______________$7,500-$9,999_______________$10,000 and over__________

$2,590 3,059 3,503 4,143 5,543 8,252

15,409

$2,260 2,600 2,831 3,238 4, 330 5,560 7,573


$250-$499____ ______$500-$749___________$750-$999__________ -$1,000-$1,249____$1,250-$1,499______$1,500-$1,749________$1,750-$1,999________

$394 $601 $2,000-$2,249_______________ $2,008 $1,855608 714 $2,250-$2,499_______________ 2,231 1,968845 906 $2,500-$2,999_______________ 2,569 2,266

1,067 1,093 $3,000-$3,499_______________ 3,047 2, 5961,294 1, 297 $3,500-$3,999_______________ 3,491 2,8601, 506 1,446 $4,000-$4,999_______________ 4, 111 3,0891,774 1,652 $5,000 and over____ _______ 6,490 4,089


$250-$499___$500-$749___$750-$999-----$1,000-$1,249.$1,250-$1,499.$1,500-$1,749.

$394 $586 $1,750-$1,999_______________ $1,781594 670 $2,000-$2,249_______________ 2,005850 880 $2,250-$2,499______ ____ ____ 2,262

1,056 1,100 $2,500-$2,999_______________ 2,5951,351 1, 556

1,334 1, 504

$3,000 and over...... ................ 3,647

$1, 672 1,882 2,046 2,340 2,814

COLUMBUS: NEGBO FAMILIES

$250-$499___$500-$749___$750 $999.$1,000-$1,249.$1,250-$1,499-

$393 $464 $l,500-$l,749-_____ ________606 650 $1,750-$1,999_______________860 861 $2,000-$2,249_______________

1,103 1,042 $2,250-$2,499_______________1,272 1,090 $2,500-$2,999_____ _________

$1, 564 $1,3651,738 1,6922,018 1,7202,240 1,9562, 570 1,814

i The difference between average money income and average money expenditures equals the average net surplus or deficit, shown in table 5, except for the balancing difference (never as much as 5.5 percent of total receipts or disbursements, whichever was larger, for any scheduled family); the het balancing difference is given in the Tabular Summary, table 1.

year to year in annual income, so that some years it shows a surplus balance and in other years incurs a deficit. A family may meet an emergency that causes its liabilities incurred during a given year to outrun by substantial sums its current income. Ordinarily a family in the lower half of the income scale will not be able to make a cash purchase of a durable good such as a new stove or a suite of furniture out of current income. Hence, in any given year, it is to be expected that a fraction of the families will increase their liabilities for the purpose of improving their level of living while others keep well within their incomes and perhaps pay off previously incurred obligations.

The particular year covered by the Study of Consumer Purchases, 1935-36, was one in which many families had not yet recovered from reductions resulting from the depression, although, on the other



hand, business conditions were improving, and wage rates, as well as employment, were on the increase. It is understandable that after restricted buying for a number of years many families began to incur obligations beyond current incomes, predicated upon the hope of steady employment and future increases in income. Thus, a net deficit for a family or a group of families recorded in the period of the survey may not reflect a chronic tendency to live beyond income, but rather an optimistic outlook in 1935-36 regarding future income. This impression is confirmed by the data on net installment obligations, which show that the installment commitments carried over at the end of the schedule year were in general substantially greater, both in number of families and in average amounts, than the commitments with which the year began.1

Had the Study of Consumer Purchases been conducted at another stage in the business cycle, the surplus and deficit picture would perhaps have been different in some important respects. At some later date family balance sheets may be studied for a number of successive years to determine the regularity with which families balance net increases in assets against net increases in liabilities. Meanwhile, an examination of the surpluses and deficits of families for the year 1935-36 shows, in the East Central as in the other regions studied, occasional families with strikingly unbalanced budgets for the year. These cases are apt to distort the averages for the group. Such instances of random fluctuation in the sample do not, however, obscure the dominant patterns shown by the data.

Surplus and deficit among fam ilies at different income levels.2 Although average money expenditures exceeded average money incomes among a substantial proportion of the families studied in the East Central region, there were some families at every income level that showed a net surplus for the year. On the other hand, there were some in every income group except the highest studied for Columbus white families that ended the year with a deficit. Finally,

1 See details of surplus and deficit items, ch. VIII.2 The average surpluses and deficits shown in table 5 are compiled from detailed reports of changes in assets

and changes in liabilities. These detailed reports were treated as part of the record of money outlays and money receipts to determine whether the total reported money disbursements balanced with the total reported money receipts. As used in the present study, the term disbursements includes money expenditures for current living and amounts spent to increase assets or decrease liabilities, while the term receipts includes money income and funds used for family living which were obtained through decreasing assets or increasing liabilities. A schedule was accepted if money receipts and money disbursements agreed within5.5 percent. It follows from this method that the difference between average money income and average current expenditures shown in table 4 will not agree precisely with the average surplus or deficit for all families shown in the last column of table 5. (See discussion of balancing differences in glossary.)

Among white families, except in the upper portion of the income scale, the net balancing differences were negative, by amounts that seldom exceeded $15. Among Negro families, they were as often positive as negative, and generally small in amount. No attempt was made to force a balance. It would have been impossible to account for minor discrepancies on individual schedules without unduly prolonging the field interviews. They may have resulted from errors in estimating income, expenditures, savings, or deficits. In any event, the average differences were too small to be significant.


T H E F A M IL Y B A L A N C E S H E E T 17

there were a few families at almost every income level which broke even for the year for which they furnished the account, and reported neither a surplus nor a deficit.

Among the Columbus white families, less than half of those with incomes under $1,000 accumulated any surplus for the year, while at least 90 percent of those with incomes of $3,000 and over kept expenditures below income. Furthermore, the average amount of surplus, for those families reporting surpluses, was less than $60 at the income levels below $1,000, but increased steadily at successive levels, amounting to $500 or more per family among those with incomes of $3,000 and over. The average amount of deficit per family reporting deficits showed only a slight relationship to income, however, amounting to over $200 among families at the lowest income level, and reaching a maximum of $591 among families with incomes between $3,000 and $3,500. It is to be expected that the amount of surplus which a family is able to acquire during a given year should be directly related to the amount of family income, whereas a deficit may result from an accident or emergency so that its size has little to do with the amount of family income during the year.

As would be expected, the more substantial and more numerous deficits at the lower income levels outweighed the surpluses, with the result that there was an average net deficit among all Columbus white families with incomes below $1,500. (See table 5.) At higher income levels there was an average net surplus, amounting to over 10 percent of money income above the $2,500 income level and to nearly 20 percent at the $3,500 to $4,000 level. All families with incomes above $7,500, reported a surplus for the year of the survey, and the average net surpluses, as noted in chapter I, were very high, both in absolute amounts and in relation to income.

In the middle-sized and small cities, substantially the same pattern of surplus and deficit appeared. The level at which half or more of the families reported surpluses for the year was the same in the middle-sized cities as in Columbus ($1,000 to $1,250), while in the small cities this occurred at the $750 level. In each of these units, average surpluses for the families which reported them amounted to less than $100 among families with incomes under $1,000, but increased rather rapidly with income. Deficits, when averaged for the families which incurred them, were more substantial than the surpluses of the other families, up to the $2,000 income level in the middle- sized cities, and the $1,750 level in the small cities. The net result was a rather substantial net deficit among families with incomes under $750 in both urban units, followed by an approximate balance between receipts and disbursements up to the $2,250 income level, and then by increasingly large average net surpluses.



T able 5. Average net surplus and deficit COLUMBUS: W HITE FAMILIES

Families having surplus 1

Families having deficit1

Average net surplus or deficit ()

Income classPercent

ageAverageamount

Percentage

Averageamount Amount2

Percentage of money

income

$500-$749........... ....................................... . 25 $35 60 $220160

-$124-3 8

20$750-$999____________________ _______ 49 57 41 4$1,000-$1,249_ _________ ____ _______ 53 96 41 189 -2 6 2$1,250-$1,499__ ___________ ____ _____ 62 134 36 239 - 2 (*)

3$1,500-$1,749._ __________ ________ 65 182 28 264 45$1,750-$1,999__ ______________________ 74 220 25 272 95 5$2,000-$2,249_ ______________________ 70 295 28 339 114 6$2,250-$2,499 ______ ____________ 75 316 24 266 171 g$2,500-$2,999. ______________________ 81 450 18 185 332 13$3,000-$3,499_ ______________________ 91 553 9 591 452 15$3,500-$3,999_ _______________________ 93 727 7 279 659 19$4,000-$4,999. ______________________ 90 999 8 318 874 21$5,000-$7,499. ______________________ 95 1, 285

2,802 8,155

5 479 1,201 2,802 8,155

22$7,500-$9,999_________________________ 100 34$10,000 and over ___ ____________ 100 53

M IDDLE-SIZED CITIES: W HITE FAMILIES

$250-$499________________ ____ ____ 29 $35 70 $304 -$204 -5 2$500-$749____________________ _______ 23 35 68 158 -100 -1 6$750-$999_______________ ____________ 42 57 47 184 -6 2 - 7$1,000-$1,249__________________ ______ 55 90 40 186 -2 6 - 2$1,250-$1,499______________ ____ _____ 64 115 33 212 4 (*)$1,500-$1,749_________________________ 70 166 28 207 60 4$1,750-$1,999_________________________ 77 234 22 287 117 7$2,000-$2,249_________________________ 73 300 25 276 153 8$2,250-$2,499_________________________ 82 368 17 265 258 12$2,500-$2,999_________________________ 85 428 15 351 309 12$3,000-$3,499_________ _________ _____ 86 551 10 353 441 14$3,500-$3,999__________________ _____ _ 89 736 11 220 632 18$4,000-$4,999_________________________ 95 1,071 5 848 983 24$5,000 and over. ___________________ 94 2,537 5 569 2,347 36


$250-$499....... ........................................... 12 $32 82 $228 -$184-6 6

47$500-$749............................................... 45 46 46 189 11$750-$999________________ ___________ 52 68 38 156 24 3$1,000-$1,249.......... .................................. 57 100 37 229 -2 8 3$1,250-$1,499_ ______________________ 74 122 25 253 26 2$1,500-$1,749_ ______________________ 71 165 28 218 56 4$1,750-$1,999_ ___ ____ _____________ 74 248 24 244 125 7$2,000-$2,249_ _______________ _____ _ 78 228 22 215 130 6$2,250-$2,499_ ______ ________ ______ 82 317 18 261 216 10$2,500-$2,999_. ___ ________ _________ 79 410 20 363 251 10$3,000 and over. ______ _________ 94 895 6 312 818 22


$250-$499.................................................... 19 $16 61 $116 $67 -1 7$50(>-$749.................. .................................. 36 33 46 108 -3 8 - 6$750-$999...................................... ............. 56 66 41 105 - 6 - 1$1,000-$1,249____________ ______ _____ 81 108 19 129 64 6$1,250-$1,499........................ .................... 95 173 4 67 161 13$1,500-$1,749................... ... .............. ......... 94 221 6 206 194 12$1,750-$1,999.............................................. 70 262 30 409 59 3$2,000-$2,249.............................................. 89 322 11 9 285 14$2,250-$2,499............................................ 88 351 12 24 304 14$2,500-$2,999...........................................- 78 891 22 50 682 26

1 Excludes families whose schedules showed an exact balance for the year.2 For a reconciliation of the average net surplus or deficit with the difference between average income and expenditure, as shown in table 4 above, see Tabular Summary, table 1.

Less than 1 percent.


T H E T A M IL Y B A L A N C E S H E E T 19

Columbus Negro families consistently spent less for consumption goods and services in relation to their incomes than the white families studied in the East Central region. At the $500 to $750 income level, for example, Columbus white families reported a net deficit that averaged 20 percent of money income, while Negro families had a deficit amounting to only 6 percent of money income. Similarly, at the highest comparable income level ($2,500 to $3,000), Negro families had an average surplus about twice as great as that of white families.

More than one-half the Negro families at every income level beginning at $750 reported surpluses for the year. Their surpluses averaged $100 or more at all income levels above $1,000. Average deficits were in most cases small, even among the families which incurred them; at only two income levels did they amount to more than $130. As a result the average net deficit, even at the $250 to $500 level, was less than $70, and there was an average net surplus for all Negro families with incomes of $1,000 and over, amounting to more than 10 percent of money income for those at all but one income level above $1,250.

When the different city units are compared as to average net surplus or deficit, it is apparent that, at each comparable income level up to $3,000, Columbus white families had the largest deficits or the smallest surpluses. Between the middle-sized and small cities there were no consistent differences. Columbus Negro families with but one exception ranked highest that is, had the smallest deficits or the largest surpluses. In fact, the Columbus Negro families with incomes of $500 to $1,250 achieved an approximate balance between money income and money expenditures as did white families in that city with incomes between $750 and $2,000. Negro families with incomes between $1,250 and $1,500 accumulated an average net surplus that amounted to 13 percent of their money income, as did white families whose incomes fell between $2,500 and $3,000.

Surplus and deficit am ong occupational grou p s.3 In general, among white families, those in the wage-earner group tended to show average net surpluses at lower income levels than other occupational groups. (See table 6.) Their surpluses also tended to be larger than those accumulated by other families, at the income levels up to $2,000. At higher incomes, however, particularly in Columbus and the small cities, they ranked below most other occupational

3 The occupational classifications presented are not equally detailed in all city units. Data for wage earner and clerical families are shown separately for all groups studied in the East Central region. Among white families in Columbus, business and professional families are classified into three groups, salaried professional, salaried business, and independent business and professional; in the middle-sized cities, into two groups, salaried business and professional and independent business and professional; in the small cities, all business and professional families are presented in combination. Among Negro families in Columbus, business and professional families are likewise combined. However, since data for these Negro families can be compared for the three occupational groups studied at only three income levels, they are not included in the discussion or text tables by occupational group in this or the following chapters, but are presented for reference only in the Tabular Summary.


20 F A M I L Y E X P E N D I T U R E I N E A S T C E N T R A L R E G I O N

groups. This suggests that wage-earner families tend to strike a balance between income and expenditures at relatively low income levels, while at higher incomes, in part because of the greater frequency of multiple earners, which means more adults to be supported by the family income, it is difficult for them to pile up large surpluses.4 Differences among the other occupational groups in the balance-sheet record for the year were negligible except in Columbus, where salaried business families generally had smaller surpluses and larger deficits than other families.5

T a b l e 6. Average net surplus or deficit ( ) , by occupational group [White families]COLUMBUS

Income class Wageearner ClericalIndependent business and professional

Salaried

Business Professional

$750-$999_______________________________ $39 $30 (9 (9 0)$1,000-$1,249____________________________ -2 0 -45 (9 * (9 (9$1,250-$1,499____________________________ 9 -3 8 $3 $119 -$100$1,500-$1,749____________________________ 75 52 -5 8 -85 28$1,750-$1,999____________________________ 141 77 -1 6 65 38$2,000-$2,249____________________________ 168 156 25 -238 215$2,250-$2,499____________________________ 172 183 154 112 226$2,500-$2,999____________________________ 292 361 395 288 341$3,000-$3,499_______ ____ _______________ 490 423 548 276 568$3,500-$3,999____________________________ 755 466 677 758 707$4,000-$4,999____________________________ (9 726 795 868 1,064$5,000-$7,499____________________________ (9 (9 1,327 938 1,455

MIDDLE-SIZED CITIES

$500-$749____________________ __________ $95 -$142 (9 (9$750-$999_______________________________ -6 2 -6 4 (9 (9$1,000-$1,249____________________________ - 1 -108 $29 $87$1,250-$1,499____________________________ 27 -3 6 -81 17$1,500-$1,749____________________________ 108 -2 2 -4 0 55$1,750-$1,999_____ ____ _________________ 151 70 165 43$2,000-^2,249____________________________ 212 174 80 19$2,250-$2,499____________________________ 280 232 309 227$2,500-$2,999____________________________ 0) (9 285 323$3,000-$3,499____________________________ 0) 0) 457 435$3,500-$3,999____________________________ 0) (0 547 674$4,000-$4,999____________________________ (9 (9 887 1,043

SMALL CITIES 3

$500-$749_______________________________ $55 -$142 (9$750-$999_______________________________ -2 6 -1 6 (9$1,000-$1,249____________________________ -2 7 10 $75$1,250-$1,499____________________________ 48 13 -47$1,500-$1,749____________________________ 61 54 45$1,750-$1,999____________________________ 128 124 120$2,00Q-$2,249____________________________ 88 184 182$2,250-$2,499____________________________ 178 240 269$2,500-$2,999____________________________ 238 290 251

1 Expenditure schedules not taken for families at this income level.2 In the small cities all business and professional families were classified together.

4 The data on income, presented in vol. I of this bulletin, clearly showed that most of the wage-earner families in the upper income brackets had two or more earners.

8 When occupational groups at given income levels in each family type are compared, no significant differences are found, although in both Columbus and the middle-sized cities, wage earners rank high. When averages are computed for each occupational group, giving the constituent family types an equal weight, the differences are more clearly marked. In the case of the small cities, however, no occupational differences are found when the influence of family size variations is eliminated. See supplement to Tabular Summary, table A, and appendix D.


T H E F A M I L Y B A L A N C E S H E E T 21

Surplus and deficit am ong fa m ily -typ e groups.6 The larger the number of members in a family to be supported by a given income, the more difficult it is, obviously, to keep obligations incurred within the limits of that income. The contrast in the balance-sheet record for the year was most marked between two-person families, at one extreme, and families containing seven or eight members (type V II), at the other. (See table 7.) In general, the former had the smallest deficits and the largest surpluses, at given income levels, while the reverse was true of the latter. Differences among families ranging in size from three to six members were by no means clearly defined, although there was a tendency in Columbus and the small cities for families containing five or six members, at least three of them 16 or over (type V), to rank low.7

It is interesting to note that family type for family type, Negro families had smaller deficits and larger surpluses than white families with corresponding incomes.8 It is evident, therefore, that the larger surpluses accumulated by all families in the Negro group at a given income level did not reflect merely the exclusion from the Negro sample of the large families represented among the whites. Perhaps, due to their greater instability of employment when they are receiving wages or salaries, they feel more urgently the need for saving than do white families, and find it less easy to secure credit.

In connection with any discussion of family expenditures in relation to income, two questions naturally arise. In the case of families whose expenditures exceeded their current income, it may be asked what form the deficits took. Were they met by drawing on cash-on- hand, savings accounts, or insurance equities; or do they represent credit in the form of charge accounts, installment obligations, other unpaid bills, or borrowed funds? In the case of families which showed surpluses for the year, to what extent did these surpluses consist of insurance as compared with savings accounts, purchases of property, or investments in securities? This analysis of family surplus and deficit may take its place in the detailed consideration of family disbursements. It will be presented in chapter VIII, following the discussion of disbursements made for family consumption, designated in this study as expenditures.

In view of the fact that data for Columbus Negro families can be compared for the three-family type groups studied (type I, types II and III combined, and types IV and V combined) at only five income levels, and of the relatively small number of cases as a basis for the averages, they are generally not included in the discussion or text tables by family type in this and the following chapters. The available figures are to be found in the Tabular Summary.

7 When occupational group and income are held constant and families of the first six types compared, the differences in the balance-sheet record are not striking. See supplement to Tabular Summary, table A, and appendix D.

s For family type data on Negro families in Columbus, see Tabular Summary, table 1.


22 F A M I L Y E X P E N D I T U R E I N E A S T C E N T R A L R E G I O N

T a b le 7 . Average net surplus or deficit ( ) , by fa m ily type

[White families]

COLUMBUS

Family type 1Income class

I II III IV V VI VII

$750-$999 __________________ $64 $15 $38 $24 -$108 $17 $7$1,000-$1,249 _____________ -51 -1 2 8 21 -168 - 7 -1 4$1,250-Sl,499 . ______________ 76 -47 20 -112 -1 0 5 19$1,500-$1,749 __________________ 110 64 63 -33 42 -30 -9 5$1,750-$1,999 ____________ 112 40 103 131 116 18 58$2,000-$2,249 ______________ 126 79 113 153 46 163 4$2,250-$2,499 ______________ 199 178 189 136 181 200 112$2,500-$2,999___________________ 457 257 301 289 353 235 152$3,000-$3,499 ______________ 542 562 284 501 139 537 297$3,500-$3,999___________________ 835 557 557 711 580 416 105$4,000-$4,999 _______________ 974 981 1, 008 931 405 587 818$5,000-$7,499__ _______________ 1, 537 1,380 1, 970 933 725 (t) 1,248

MIDDLE-SIZED CITIES

$500-$749______________________ $56 $74 -$128 -$158 $78 -$147 -$111$750-$999_____________________

bls_0644_1941pt2.pdf

Documents

Transcript of bls_0644_1941pt2.pdf