SOME RELATIONSHIPS OF SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
TO FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURES j
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

By
Thomas Neil Moss

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics
Year

Approved

1952

ProQuest Number: 10008392

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

uest,
ProQuest 10008392
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

r
SOME RELATIONSHIPS OF SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
TO FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURES,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950
by
Thomas Neil Moss

AN ABSTRACT
The purpose of this thesis was to analyze certain food consumption and
expenditure data in order to determine whether or not differences in dis­
posable family income, size of family, age or education of housewife, and
occupation of head of household were related to significant variations in
per capita consumption of and expenditures for specific foods and expenditures
i

for all foods*
considered.

Variations relative to size of the overall food bill were also

Data were taken from 1,885 questionnaires used in a personal in­

terview survey among a selected sample of the Lansing, Michigan population*
This survey, conducted during the Spring of 1950 under direction of the
Agricultural Economics Department of Michigan State College, collected con­
sumption and expenditure data for a one week period.
The problem was delineated by means of the posed hypothesis* that in a
high income, essentially full employment, peacetime, urban economy, such as
that found in Lansing, Michigan during late May and early June 1950, signifi­
cant variations will be found in per capita expenditures for all foods and
in per capita consumption of and expenditures for food in certain specific
categories including meats, dairy products, fats, oils, fish and seafood,

329091

fruit jilice, poultry and eggs, and that these variations are related to family
differences in : 1.
Age of housewife,

Size of income, 2.

Number of persons in household,

3#

1±. Education of housewife, and 5* Occupation of the head

of the household#
The primary method used was tabular analysis#

Simple tables were pre­

pared showing consumption of and expenditures for seventeen selected food
categories in differing factor groupings.

A series of much more important

multi-way tables was then devised for each food used#

By this means differ­

ences in consumption and expenditures were related to variation of a single
factor while others were held within constant limits.

By controlling the in­

fluence of some of the factors the impact of others could be more accurately
observed#

Conclusions could then be drawn as to which factors were related

to significant per capita consumption and expenditure variations for the
different foods#
minant.

Analysis of variance tests were the final check and deter­

These made it possible to tell which factors were related to statis­

tically significant per capita variations in key situations.
The hypothesis was in some instances substantiated and in others refuted.
Size of family was most, and occupation least, often found related to signi­
ficant per capita consumption and expenditure variations.

Size of family and

income were the only factors found significant relative to an all foods compo­
site#

Each-selected socio-economic factor was found related to significant

variations relative to some foodsj and consumption of or expenditures for each
food dealt with was found influenced by variations in some of the factors#
No factor, however, Was found related to significant consumption or expenditure
variations for every food, and utilization of no food was found to be influenced
by all of the factors#

Different relationship patterns were usually found to

exist between even similar fo&ds and the selected socio-economic factors#

SOME RELATIONSHIPS OF -SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
TO FOOD CONSUMPTION AMD EXPENDITURES,
LANSING, SPRING, 1?50

by
THOMAS NEIL MOSS

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies ,of
Michigan State College of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics

1952

ACKNGWLED GMENTS
The author wishes to express his thanks and appreciation to the many
people who have been of assistance to him in making possible the prepara­
tion of this manuscript*
Among those deserving special mention is Professor G. G. Quackeribush, who
originally suggested doing the thesis in this particular field, made available
both the essential data and research funds supervised by him from Research and
Marketing Act appropriations, generally guided the project, and who read and
*
edited the manuscript, making many valuable suggestions and contributions
which helped in finalization of the copy*
Other members of the Agricultural Economics Department staff selected
for special mention are Drs. T. K. Cowden, Department Head, and L. W. Witt,
Committee Chairman, who over a long period gave or made available to the
writer continued assistance, guidance and understanding*

It is also desired

that particular mention be made of the unselfish aid rendered by Mr* James D*
Shaffer, whose familiarity and earlier work with the data greatly shortened
the time required for the analysis performed*
Appreciation is also expressed to Mrs. Mary Hudson' for her painstaking
calculating machine operations in performing the analysis of variance tests 5
to Professor W. D. Baten, Experiment Station Statistician, for his assistance
in setting up the statistical tests and in checking the findingsj and to the
many others who in various ways assisted or encouraged the author during his
years at the Michigan State College*
Final responsibility for any errors or omissions is, of course, assumed
by the author*

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I*

Page
INTRODUCTION.....................................

1

Source and Limitations of D a t a .................
Methods of Procedure............. . ...........

3
$

II.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION..............................

11

III.

M E A T S ...........................................

23

B e e f ............
Pork
...................................
Lamb and Mutton . ,................
Beef Steak versus Ground Beef
..........
Beef Steak.................... . . . . . . t
Ground Beef
...........
All M ea t s .............

21*
31
36
i*Q
1*Q
1*6
$3

DAIRY PRODUCTS...................................

6l

Bottled Milk
...............................
Cheese
....................................
All Dairy P r o d u c t s ....................

6l
69
76

F A T S .........................................

81

Butter.......................................
Margarine
...........
All F a t s .............

81
88
9k

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS..............................

103

Oils
......................
Fruit Juice . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . .
P o u l t r y ............
E g g s .......................................
Fish and Seafood............................

103
109
116
123
129

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

ALL FOODS

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

136

ii

Chapter
VIII.
IX.

Page
EXTENT OFUSAGE AND EXPENDITURES...................... 11*6
StMMAEX.........................................

11*9

APPENDIX........................................... 155
QUESTIONNAIRE...................................... 366

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1.

2*

3.

i|"

3.

Page
Disposable Family Income:
Lansing, Spring, 1930

Distribution of Families

11

Size of Household: Distribution of Families,
Lansing, Spring, 1930

12

Age of Housewife: Distribution of Families,
Lansing, Spring, 1930

13

School Years Completed by Housewife:
of Families, Lansing, Spring, 1930

13

Occupation of Heads of Households:
Families, Lansing, Spring, 1930

Distribution

Distribution of

6. Family Income Class as Related To Selected Factors,
Lansing, Spring, 1930
?♦

Number in Household as Related to Selected Factors,
Lansing, Spring, 1930

Hi
16

17

8. Age of Housewife as Related to Selected Factors,
Lansing, Spring, 1930

18

9, Education of Housewife as Related to Selected Factors,
Lansing,Spring, 1930

19

10.

11.

12.

13.

Occupation of Head of Household as Related to Selected
Factors, Lansing, Spring, 1930

21

Beef: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested

30

Pork: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested

33

Lamb and Mutton: Analysis of Variance Findings
Summarized for Five Tables Tested

39

111.. Beef Steak: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

U3

iv

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
15.

Page
Ground Beef: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

16. All Meats: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
For Five Tables Tested
17.

52

61

Bottled Milk: Analysis of Variance Findings
Summarized for Five Tables Tested

68

18. Cheese: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

75

19.

All Dairy Products: Analysis of Variance Findings
Summarized for Five Tables Tested

80

20. Butter: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

87

21. Margarine: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

93

22.

23.

2k*

25.

All Fats: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

101

Oils: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested

108

Fruit Juice: Analysis of Variance Findings
Summarized for Five Tables Tested

115

Poultry: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Five Tables Tested

122

26. Eggs: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested
27.

28.

128

Fish and Seafood: Analysis of Variance Findings
Summarized for Five Tables Tested

135

All Foods: Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized
for Four Tables Tested

lh3

V

IIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
29.

Page
Existence of Significant Variations in Per Capita
Consumption of and Expenditures for Various Foods
Summarized

151

30. Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

155

31.

32.

33.

3H.

35*

36.

37.

38.

39.

1*0,

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

156

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

15?

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

158

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Occupationof Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

159

Beef; Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

160

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

161

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

162

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

163

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Size ofWeek's Food Billwithin Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

161*

Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
16$

vi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Page

ill. Beef: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, ByAge of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income and by Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring,
1950
k2.

k3.

uu.

1*5.

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

167

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

168

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

169

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

170

1*6 . Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

1*7.

iiB.
1*9.

50.

51.

52.

166

171

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

172

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, BySize of Family within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring,
1950

173

Pork: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, ByAge of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

17U

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

175

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, BySize of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

176

Pork: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, By
Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

177

vii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Lamb
for,

178

51u

Lamb
for,

s
179

55.

Lamb
for,

5

53.

56.

57.

Lamb
for,
Lamb
for,
1950

.
CO
■LTV

Lamb
for,

59.

Lamb
for,
Spring, 1950

180
181
3

182

I8I4.

60.

Lamband Muttons
Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Age of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 19$0
185

61.

Lamb and Mutton: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Education of Housewife within Size of Family,
within Size ofIncome,Lansing, Spring, 1950
186

62.

Lamband Muttons
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Size of Week's Food M i l within Size of Family
within Size ofIncome, Lansing, Spring, 1950
187

63.

Lamband Muttons
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size ofIncome,Lansing, Spring, 1950
188

6k,

Beef Steaks Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By FamilyIncome Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

189

viii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

7i+.

75.

Page
Beef Steak; Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

190

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

191

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

192

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Occupation of Head Of House, Lansing, Spring 1950

193

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Keek's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

19k

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

195

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Ineome, Lansing, Spring, 1950

196

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

197

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Size of Keek's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

198

Beef Steak: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
By Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

199

Ground Beef: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

200

76.

GroundBeef:
Keek’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
201
By Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

77.

Ground Beef: Keek's Consumption of and Expenditures for
By Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

202

ix

U S T OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
78.

Page
Ground Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950
203

79. Ground Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for
by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 19$0

20U

80. Ground Beef: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
20$
by Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950
81. Ground Beef: Week's Core umption of and Expenditures for
by Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

206

82. Ground Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

207

83* Ground Beef: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
208
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
81*. Ground Beef:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

209

85. Ground Beef:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
210
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
86. All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

211

87. All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

212

88. All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

213

89. All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

21b

90. All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

215

X

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
91.

92.

93.

9k»

Page
All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

216

All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

217

All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

218

All Megbs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

219

95*

All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
220

96.

All Meats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2&L

97.

Bottled
Milk:Week'sConsumptionof
andExpendituresfor,
by Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950
222

98.

Bottled
Milk:Week'sConsumptionof
by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

andExpendituresfor,
223

99. Bottled Milk: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950
100.

Bottled
Milk:Week'sCo i b umption of and Expenditures
for, by Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

221*

225

101, Bottled Milk: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, By Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring

1950.

226

xi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Page

102. Bottled Milk:
103.

leek's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week’s Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

227

Bottled Milk: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family Within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring,
1950

228

10U. Bottled Milk:

Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
229

105. Bottled Milk: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife within Size of Family, within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

230

106. Eottled Milk:

Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

107.

231

Bottled Milk: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
232

106. Cheese: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
109.

110.

Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

233

Cheese: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

23k

Cheese: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

235

111. Cheese:

Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

236

112. Cheese:

113.

Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

237

Cheese: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

238

xii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Page

llli.. Cheese: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

239

115>. Cheese:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
Of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2I4G

lie. Cheese:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
2I4I
117* Cheese:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Sizeof Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
2l;2
118.

Cheese: Week's Consumpiton of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

119. All Dairy Products:
Week’s Expenditures for, by
Family Income Class, Lansing* Spring, 1950
120.

All Dairy Producats: Week's Expenditures for, by
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

121. All Dairy Products:
Week's Expenditures
of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2^3

2l4i

21*5

for, by Age
214.6

122. All Dairy Products:
Week's Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2Li7

123. All Dairy Products:
Week's Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2i;8

121*. All Dairy Products: Week‘s Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

21*9

125. All Dairy Products:
Week's Expenditures for, by
Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

250

xiii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

Table

126. All Dairy Products:

Week’s Expenditures for, by Age of
of Housewife to .thin Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

127.

.

128

129.

130.

131.

251

All Dairy Products: Week’s Expenditures for, by Education
of Housewife within Size of IknLly within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

252

All Dairy Products: Week’s Expenditures for, by Size of
Week’s Food Bill within Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

253

All Dairy Products: Week's Expenditures for, by Occupation
of Head of House within Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

25U

Butter: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

255

Butter: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by Size
of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

256

. Butter:

132

133.

13U.

135.

.

136

137.

Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by Age
of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

257

Butter: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

258

Butter: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

259

Butter: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by Size
of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950
•
Butter: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by Size
of Family within the Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
Butter: fJeek's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by Age
of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950*

260

261

262

xiv

LIST OP TABLES (Continued)

Page
Butter: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 195©

263

139*

Butter: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of IncOrae, Lansing, Spring, 1950
261*

111©.

Butter: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
26$

lip.* Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950
Ht2.

266

Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 195©

267

lil3* Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 195©

268

lilt* Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife, Lana, ng, Spring, 1950

269

lil5* Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 195©

27©

ll*6. Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

271

IliT* Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size cf Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

272

1U8.

Margarine: Week's Consumption of and ^Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

273

XV

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Page

11*9. Margarine: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Education of Housewife within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 19!?0
150.

151.

152.
153.

151*.

155.
156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

271*

Margarine: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

275

Margarine: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

276

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

277

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

278

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

279

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Ecuation of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

280

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

281

All Fats: Week's Consumption Of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

282

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

283

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

281*

All Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

285

xvi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
' l6l^

Page
M l Fats::. Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
b^ Si£e 6b 'Week' s Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

286

162. M l Fats: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures fori
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

287

163. Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring^ 1950

288

l6U.

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

289

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

290

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

291

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

292

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

293

Oils! Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring
• 1950

29U

165.
166.
167*
168.

169.

170/

171*

172,

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife, within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

295

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

296

Oils: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Weeks Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

297

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
If'3*

171*175.
176.

Page
Oils: Weekls Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation ©f Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
Fruit Juice;: Week1s Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

178.

179.

180.

.

181

299

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

300

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

301

I.

177.

298

'

<

. \ '

,

r

;

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

302

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

303

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

301;

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring
1950

305

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

306

182. Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,

183.

*.

181

by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

307

Fruit Juice:. Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

308

Fruit Juice: Week's Consumption of and. Expenditures, for,
by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
309

xviii

LEST OF TABLES (Continued)

Tafeti

Page
v

181*

Feultryi 'Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
by Family In© me Glass, Lansing, Spring, 1950

310

186. Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for,
187.

by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

311

Poultry:' Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

312

188; Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

313

Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, bf
Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

31k

Pbultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

315

Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring
195.0

316

Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

317

Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

318

19k.

Poultry:, Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
319

195.

Poultry: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

320

196. Eggs: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Family Income Class, Lansing, Spring, 1950

321

xix

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table

Page

197* Eggs:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

322

19§• Eggs:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

323

199.

Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

321*

200. Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House, :Lansing, Spring, 1950

32$

201. Eggs:
Week's Consumption ofandnExpenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

326

202. Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring,
1950

327

203. Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Age of Housewife within Size of Family within Size of
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

328

201** Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Education of Housewife within Size of Family within Size
of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

329

205. Eggs:
Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Size of Week's Food Bill within Size of Family within Size
of Ineome, Lansing, Spring, 1950
330
206. Eggs: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures for, by
Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family within
Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

2©8,

331

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Family Income Class, Lansing,Spring, 1950

332

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring, 1950

333

3QC

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
209.

.

210

.

211

.

212

213.

Page
Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for> by Age of H6usewifea Lansingj Spring, 1930

33k

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, byEdndation ef:>HdbB;ewife, Lansing, Spring, 1930

333

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Occupation of Head of House, Lansing, Springy 1930 33$
Fish and Seafood: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Size of Week’s Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1930

337

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Size of Family within Size of Ineome, Lansing,
338

21lu

213.

Fish and Seafood: Week’s Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Age of Housewife, within Size of Family within
Size ©f Income, Lansing, Spring, 1930

339

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Education of Housewife within Size of Family within
Size of Ineome, Lansing, Spring, 1930
3i*0

216. Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures

217.

for, by Size of Week'sFood Bill within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing,Spring, 1930

31*1

Fish and Seafood: Week's Consumption of and Expenditures
for, by Occupation of Head of House within Size of Family
within Size of Income, Lansing,Spring, 1930

3U2

218. All Foods:
219.

.

220

Week's Expendituresfor, by FamilyIncome
Class, Lansing, Spring, 1930

3U3

All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Size of Family
Lansing, Spring, 1930

3hk

All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Age of Housewife
Lansing, Spring, 1930

3b$

xxi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
221.

222.

All Foods s ’Week1s Expenditures for, by Education of
Housewife, Lansing, Spring, 1950

3I4.6

All Foods* ;Week's Expenditures for, by Occupation of
Head of House, Lansing, Spring,195©

3U7

223. All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Size of Week's
Food Bill,: Lansing,; Spring, 195>0

3U8

22i*. All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Size of Family
■within Size of Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

3U9

225. All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Age of Housewife
within Size of Family within Size of Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

350

226. All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Education of
Housewife within Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansingj Springj 1950

35l

* 227. All Foods: Week's Expenditures for, by Occupation of
Head of House within Size of Family within Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950
352
228. Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by Size of Family, Lansing, Spring,
1950

353

229. Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by Size of Income, Lansing, Spring,
1950

35U

230. Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by Age of Housewife, Lansing, Spring,
1950

355

231. Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by Education of Housewife, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

356

xxii

LEST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table

Page

232. Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by occupation of Head of House,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

357

233* Food Categories: Number and percent of all Families
using some of each, by Size of Week's Food Bill,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

358

23iw Sizeof Week's Family Food Bill as Related to Selected
Averages, Lansing, Spring, 1950

359

235.

236.

237.

Food Categories: Average Family Expenditures ‘and
percentage of Week's Food Bill for, by Size of Family,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

360

Food Categories: Average Family Expenditures and
percentage of Week's Food Bill for, by Size of Income,
Lansing, Spring, 1950

361

Food Categories:
Average Family Expenditures and
percentage of Week's Food Bill For, by Age of Housewife,
362
Lansing, Spring, 1950

238. Food Categories: Average Family Expenditures and
percentage of Week's Food Bill for, by Education of
Housewife, Lansing, Spring,. 1950
239.

2l|0,

363

Food Categories:
Average Family Expenditures and
ercentage of Week's Food Bill for, by Occupation of
ead of House, Lansing, Spring, 1950

P

361*

Food Categories: Average Family Expenditures and
percentage of Week's Food Bill for, by Size of Week's
Food Bill, Lansing, Spring, 1950

365

xxiii

LIST OF FIGURES
page
Figure I

Figure II

Pork, Beef and All Meats: Week's Average per
capita Expenditures for, by Size of Family and
Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950
Margarine, Butter and All Fats: Week's Average
per capita Expenditures for, by Size of Family
and Income, Lansing, Spring, 1950

Figure III All Food: Week's Average per capita Expenditures
for, by Size of Family and Income, Lansing,
Spring, 1950

60

102

lbh

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not differences
in size of family income, the number of persons in household, age of
housewives, education of housewives, and occupation of head of house are
related to significant variations in the per capita consumption of, and
expenditures for, specific- foods and expenditures for all foods*

This

analysis is limited geographically to one medium sized urban center,
Lansing, Michigan.

It is further limited to conditions of peace, essen­

tially full employment, and non-existence of complicating government ration­
ing or controls, the conditions which existed during the period when the
basic data were gathered.

While such limitations are great they are neces­

sitated by the need to keep the study within a manageable size while doing
a rather extensive analysis.

It would seem logical to assume, however,

that findings to be presented herein would be indicative of what might be
expected in many other areas under such conditions.
In the attempted solutions of the problems of this thesis, therefore,
work has proceeded on the basis of the following basic hypothesis; that
in a high income, essentially full employment, peacetime, urban economy,
such as that found in Lansing, Michigan during late May and early June,
1950, significant variations will, be found in per capita expenditures for
all food and for per capita consumption of, and expenditures for, food in
certain specific categories including meats, dairy products, fats, oils,

2

fish; and seafood, fruit juice, poultry, and eggs, and that these variations
are related to family differences ins
persons in household,
and

1. size of income,

3* age of housewife,

U.

2. number of

education of housewife,

5* occupation of head of household.
With regard to the above hypothesis the assumption is made that, due

to war influenced redistribution of income, overall national policy, and
to the new, higher overall economic plane existing after World War II,
older accepted beliefs or hypotheses in respect to differences in food con­
sumption and expenditure habits may no longer be valid and that new evidence
is desirable to fit a new situation.

Most older related studies were not

only of a considerably smaller scope, but were made in an abnormal situa­
tion such as during a war or a depression.
While no attempt at solving additional problems is contemplated here­
in, it is thought that the data and findings which are presented in this
study might be of use to others in the solution of their problems.

Some

of the uses or types of persons to which the information presented might
be of value are briefly listed:
1. As useful data for sales promotion work or in the determination
of market potentials for foods.

For the man in such a position

who will segmentise and study his market, both the conclusions and
the tables of data presented should prove to be most useful aids.
2.

As a source of information of use in nutritional studies.

The

dietician or the home economist might well find the information
with regard to consumption and expenditure habits as broken down
by income, education, and other factors to be of use in their
fields*

3

3*

As a data source -which could be useful in application to ration­
ing or price control.

Certain of the information to be presented,

such as the apparent decline in per capita purchases for many
items as size of family increases, might be of value,

Ihat is

purchased by the various groups under freedom of choice might
more nearly be copied under rationing procedures,
U*

As an indicator of possible trends which might be expected in food
consumption and spending as incomes, education, etc., change over
the years and as a basic data source with reference to a peacetime
full employment situation.

Such data might be expected to be of

use to Agricultural Economists and others in attempting to work
out future crop needs and goals.

Producers, processors, handlers,

and distributors of foods are interested in consumer buying and
consumption habits as they are related to ability to pay and the
various other socio-economic factors,
i

5»

As a comparison with findings of other studies which have been
made in the past or may be done in the future.

Also, the metho­

dology may offer some ideas as to procedures which might be uti­
lized in such work.

The results of the study, in addition, may

indicate the direction and amount of change in food consumption
or expenditure habits to be expected under similarly controlled
conditions in later projects.

Source and Limitations of Data
The data which were analyzed were taken from the schedules used in
1,885 personal interviews conducted under the auspices of the Agricultural

u
Economics Department, of Michigan State College during late May and early
June, 1950•

These data were obtained primarily from housewives and are

relative to foods used in the various households.

A sample copy of the

questionnaire-may be found in the Appendix, pages. 366 to 177 • This
interviewing was done as a preliminary part of a long time, continuing
project by the Agricultural Economics Department.

The project is fin­

anced by funds of the Research and Marketing Act of I9I4.6 and state off­
set monies.

The purpose of the long time study is indicated by its

title, "Determination of Changes in Demand and Consumption Patterns for
Food Products."

It is to be based on a continuing, record keeping, con­

sumer panel of about 300 families.

These families will have been selected

from the 1,883 which are dealt with in this thesis.

It is expected that

the work done herein will prove to be a useful point of reference as the
long time project continues.
There are several limitations in the data, but there are also some
good points.

Chief among the limitations is the fact that there is infor­

mation on each family for one week only.
would have been preferred.

Information for a longer period

Another possible limitation is the fact that

the families reported for the week ending on the day of the interview, thus
every family did not report for precisely the same seven-day period.

A

further limitation is the fact that data were not secured on all individual
food items nor all socio-economic factors.

This is not, however, thought

to be of undue importance as it is believed that data were secured for a
sufficiently large number of foods,

Also the factors that were selected

5

were probably the most important among those influencing food consumption
and expenditures.

Lack of data relative to the small amount of food eaten

out such as at restaurants might be considered a limitation also.
Among the better things with regard to the source of data is the size
of the sample.

It is relatively large.

less than 1,88£ families.

Most such studies deal with much

This number is sufficiently large to permit an

unusual number of cross tabulations and sub-sorts while still maintaining
sub-samples of adequate size to be of value.

An additional favorable item

of importance is the fact that the sample of families probably is closely
representative of the whole population, that is, of the Lansing, Michigan
population.

The sample was originally designed to be representative on

a systematic random basis by Messrs. G.G. Quackenbush and J. D. Shaffer
of the Agricultural Economics Department of Michigan State College.

Addi­

tional detailed description in regard to the methodology and techniques
used in sampling and gathering the data, as well as of the sample itself,
may be found in the thesis by Mr. Shaffer dealing with methodology in
setting up a consumer panel.

Methods of Procedure
Ihen the writer started working on this project the questionnaires
had been edited and coded and the data had been punched on IBM cards.
However, it was necessary to consolidate the information on other sets of
IBM cards for the particular types of analyses that were used in this
thesis.

Four sets of l,88j? IBM cards each were required.

Methods were

designed to derive basic information needed from these card sets by means
of sorting, sub-sorting, tabulating, etc., on IBM equipment at the Michigan

6

State College installation.

This IBM work alone - consolidating data on

the card sets plus the actual use of these cards - took approximately 700
hours.

Additional refining and testing of the data on Friden Calculators

took approximately 1,150 added hours.
As a means of analyzing the data, the primary method used was that
of tabular analysis.

A standard set of twelve tables was devised for use

in analyzing and presenting, in a uniform way for each of the foods dealt
with, the relationship between each of the socio-economic factors and food
consumption and expenditures.

Also included are breakdowns based on total

size of the week*s food bill so that the findings could be looked at from
the viewpoint of the relation of expenditures for each food group to total
food expenditures.

Of the twelve basic tables the first six are relatively

simple showing average consumption and expenditures with respect to only
one factor.

These six tables for each of the foods dealt with show aver­

age consumption and expenditures per family and per person, respectively
bys family income class, size of family, age of housewife, education of
housewife, occupation of head of house, and by size of week1s food bill.
Class breakdowns in these and the succeeding tables were made on the basis
of judgment and the need for maintaining reasonably large sub-samples.
Comparatively little additional is done with the first six tables other
than presenting them.

This is true partially because the tables are fair­

ly clear in themselves, but principally because the need for doing so is
largely negated by the analysis of later tables in the set.

7

Tables seven through eleven of the standard sets are the heart of
the analysis.

These tables are an attempt to determine the effects of

one of the variable socio-economic factors while holding other of the var­
iable factors relatively constant.

This procedure was made possible by

the large sample and was done by means of cross tabulation.

This was de­

sirable because of the great difficulty which would be involved in attempt­
ing to evaluate the effect of one of the factors, such as size of family,
by a one-way breakdown if effects of the other factors were not at least
partially controlled.

Of these standard tables, the seventh is a two-way

presentation of ccnsumption and expenditure data by size of family and size
of income.

The apparent relation of consumption and expenditures to either

of these factors, with the other held constant may be observed.
through eleventh in the standard sets are three-way tables.

The eighth

Each is broken

down by size of family and by income, factors originally thought to pro­
bably be of greatest importance, and by some other third factor.
third factors in the order found are:

These

age of housewife, education of

housewife; size of week’s food bill, and occupation of head of the house.
In each of these cases any two of the factors may be held relatively constant
while the apparent effects, if any, of the third may be read*
In order to ascertain if the variations found in the tables for con­
sumption and expenditures were really significant, they were tested statis­
tically.

The method used was that of analysis of variance.

This was sug­

gested oy the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station statistician, Pro­
fessor Y«r. D. Baten, upon inspection of the data.
performed.

About l80 such tests were

By this means it was possible to definitely determine whether

8

the variations which were found were so small as to possibly have been due
to chance; or were large enough to be considered statistically significant.
One was also able by this means to differentiate between those variations
which were signigicant and those which were highly significant.

A possible

weakness of the statistical testing which should be mentioned, however, is
that the method used gives equal weight to each of the sub-sample figures.
This is the equivalent of saying that each is of the same size or that
each is sufficiently large to be taken as being of equal worth with each
of the others.

In fact, of course, each is not of equal size.

Also in

every case in the three-way tables, Bach is not of sufficient size to be
of truly undoubted equal value.

To the extent that this is true and the

results are affected thereby, there is an admitted weakness in the method.
This method does, however, serve to take out the influence of certain sub­
samples which in relation to others are overly large and would have tended,
if weighted, to have distorted the results striven for.

Because of these

facts a very few of the statistical results do not appear to harmonize with
the conclusions which might be drawn from a study of the weighted averages
in the ''Complete range" or "all" columns of the tables.

In any detailed

examination and comparison of the tables with the analysis of variance
findings, therefore, it should be kept in mind that the actual sub-sample
figures and not the weighted averages were the ones used in the statisti­
cal analysis.
A somewhat different technique in performing the analysis of variance
tests, involving getting the sums of squares of the average per capita
consumption and expenditure for each family in each sub-sample, rather than

9

using sums of squares obtained from the composite sub-samples, would have
been preferred by Professor Baten.

The time and expense necessary for use

of this longer method, however, would have been prohibitive*

The techni­

que used was suggested by Professor Baten as a satisfactory alternative.
As a check, several duplicating tests of the data were performed in the
more lengthy manner.

In each case the findings were the same as those

found by the shorter method used throughout.
The twelfth table prepared to complete the standard set was a four­
way breakdown of the data with age of housewife, size of family, size of
income, and education of housewife all included.

By means of this table

it was hoped that variations in consumption and expenditures in relation
to changes in one of the factors with the other three held constant could
be seen.

This could be done, however, only to a very limited extent be­

cause of the fact that in such an extended breakdown some of the sub-samples
became very small or non-existent.

Although some portions of these tables,

which were originally prepared for each of the food categories covered,
were probably of worth, they were not considered reliable on an overall bas­
is due to this smallness of cell size.

The four-way tables for that reason

have not been incorporated into the final draft of the thesis with one
exception.

This exception, which is presented relative to the first food

item dealt with, is primarily to illustrate what was attempted and what
might have been done with a larger sample.

Analysis of variance tests

were not performed for this table because of the instability resulting
from the mentioned smallness of many sub-samples.

10

In observing these tables it may be noted that, in most instances,
the total number of cases dealt with is less than 1,885, or the total
number of families in the sample.

The explanation for this is that the

"don't know" or "no answer" categories relative to each of the factors in
the cross tabulations have been omitted.

This was done in order that the

tables might not be so unwieldy as they would have been had the numerous
additional rows, columns, and cells necessary to accommodate these categor­
ies been incorporate into them.

This was made possible and also desirable

by the relatively small number of such cases.

In practically all instances

the cells which might have been devoted to these categories in the various
tables would have been so small as to be of little value.
The standard sets or tables described above, along with the analysis
of variance tests, are the principal tools used in solution of the problem
and in the attempted substantiation of refutation of the posed hypothesis.
In addition, a few other tables are presented; some in particular illustrate
the relation of expenditures fbr all foods to the various socio-economic
factors.

The standard approach described is used in connection with seven­

teen major or minor food groups or items.

The results with regard to

each are presented beginning immediately after the next chapter, which
briefly describes the Lansing sample relative to the selected socio-econ­
omic factors.

CHAPTER II
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
In order that the reader might be able to evaluate the findings of
the study better, a brief description of the Lansing sample is provided.
This description shows the distribution of families in relation to, and the
interrelationships between, the basic factors which are dealt with through­
out the paper.
With regard to disposable family income, the distribution of the
1,885 sample families was as shown in Table I.
TABLE I.

DISPOSABLE FAMILY INCOME: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Income Class
($ yearly)

Number of
Families

Under 1,000

86

U.56

1,000 - 1,999

1U3

7.59

2,000 - 2,1*99

130

6.90

2,500 - 2,999

8.22

3,000 - 3,1+99

155
281+

15.07

3*500 - 3,999

207

10.98

l+,000 - h,k99

169

8.97

M o o - U,999

137

7.27

5,000 - 6,999

287

15.23

7,000 - 9,999

62

3.29

10,000 and over

1+0

2.12

185

9.81

1,885

100.00

Unknown

Percent of
Families

12

As to the number of persons in each of the 1,885 households, -which
had an average size of 3*28 and together were made up of 6,168 people,
the distribution was as is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD:

Number of
Persons

DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES,
SPRING, 1950

Number of
Families

LANSING,

Percent of
Families

1

Ui5

7.69

2

555

29.10*

3

U69

2U.88

h

3k9

18.51

5

196

10.ko

6

102

5.)4l

7

UO

2.12

8

17

.90

9

5

.27

7

.37

1,885

100.00

10 or more

The age distribution of the housewives for the sample is to be found
in Table 3.

13

TABLE 3.

AGE OF HOUSEWIFE: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES,
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

Years

Number of
Families

Percent of
Families

226

11.99

26 - 25

1+68

21+.82

36 -1+5

1+1+5

23*61

1+6 - 55

31+9

18.51

56 - 65

235

12.1+7

66 and over

11+9

7.90

13

.69

1,885

100.00

25 and under

J

Unknown

Information as to education of the housewives, another of the basic
socio-economic factors dealt with, is presented in Table i+.

TABLE 1+.

SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY HOUSEWIFE: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Years

Number of
Families

Percent of
Families

0 - 7

123

6.53

8

295

15.65

9-11

i+10

21.75

698

37.03

13 - 15

225

11.91+

16 or more

105

5.57

12

Unknown

29
1,885

1.51+

100.00

Hi

The various occupations performed by the heads of the sample house­
holds were classified and categorized, by Messrs. Shaffer and Quackenbush
as nearly as possible in accordance with the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles» prepared by the Division of Occupational analysis, United States
Employment Service, U.S. Department of Labor.

The sample occurrence of

these occupations so arranged is indicated in Table 5*
TABLE 5 .

OCCUPATION OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS* DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Occupation

Number of
Families

Percent of
Families

Professional

212

11.25

Managerial & official

265

11*.06

Clerical & kindred

161

8.5U

Sales & kindred

113

5.99

Service

98

5.20

Skilled

261*

ll*.01

Semi-skilled

1*1*2

23.1*5

Unskilled

51

2.71

Unemployed

50

2.65

113

5.99

Unclassified

97

5.15

Unknown

19

Retired

1,885

1.01
100.00

15

These different factors also are jshown as they were found in re­
lation to one another.

This is done in a series of tables, each of

which uses those sample families for a base about which information is
known in regard to one of the basic factors.

Since information is not

available with regard to each family for each factor, the sample groups
will not always total 1,885.

Those tables whose basic factor does total

1,885, however, will show the best determinable average for all the fac­
tors listed and the total number of families about which such data is
known, as well as the relationships between factors.
The first of these tables, Table 6, is based upon income class.

It

is interesting to note that as family income rises there is a tendency
for the number of persons in the household to rise also.

With respect

to age of housewife, the oldest average ages were found in the low income
groups.

The youngest were found in the middle income groups and the aver­

age ages in the highest income brackets fell in between.

As might have

been expected, the average education of the sample housewives generally
followed an upward trend as the income classes became higher.

These facts

may be observed upon inspection of the table.
The second of the basic factor relationship tables is built around
the number of persons in the households.

This is one of the items about

which data is available for each of the 1,885 families in the sample.

As

may be seen in Table 7> the average age of the housewives was the great­
est in the small families, least in the medium sized families, and in
between in the largest farm*lies.

Education of the housewives was highest

16

TABLE 6.

FAMILT INCOME CLASS AS RELATED TO SELECTED FACTORS,
LANSING, SPRING, 1990

Income Class
($ yearly)

Families

Average
Number
in
!
Household

86

±-78

1,000 - 1,999

11+3

2.$7

2,000 - 2,1+99

130

3.00

2,$00 - 2,999

1$$

3.20

3,000 - 3,1+99

281+

3.39

3,900 - 3,999

207

3.72

l+,000 - t+,1+99

169

3.91

l+,900 - i+,999

137

3.63

$,000 - 6,999

287

3.96

7,000 - 9,999

62

1+.10

10,000 and over

1+0

1+.10

Under 1,000

fl

Complete range

1700

3.31+

Average
Age of
Housewife
(yrs.)

Average
Education of
Housewife
(yrs.)

Average
Income
($ yrly.

63.73
(86)
90.80
(11+2)
l a . 71
(129)

8.6$
(83)
9.67
(11+0)
10. $3
(129)

$26
(8$)
1,1+99
(iia )
2,182
(127)

1+0.92
(193)
38.91
(283)
38.22
(207

11.02
(191)
10.73
(280)
11.02
(207)

2,823
(199)

38.86
(169 (
37.80
(137)
la.oo
(289)

11.97
(169)
11.79
(137)
11.97
(281+)

1+2.63
(62)
1+1+.96
(39)
1+2.00
(1692)

11.73
(62)
12.1+0
(l+o)
10.97
(1682)

3,126
(282)
3 ,6 31
(206)
1+,132
(168)
l+,692
(131+)
9,923
(279)
8,018
(99)
12,013
(l+o)
3,798
(1661+)

All families who reported income also reported size of family*

2

Based on information to nearest one hundred dollars*
Total number whose income class was known.

( Figures in parentheses indicate the number of families who re­
ported both income and the factor under consideration)*

17

TABLE 7.

NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD AS RELATED TO SELECTED FACTORS,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Number
in
Household

Families

1

145

2

555

3

469

4

349

5

196

6

102

7

40

8

17

9

5

10 and over

Average
Age of
Housewife
(yrs.)

7

Complete range 1,885

)
)
)
) 69
)
)
)
)

Average
Education of
Housewife
(yrs.)

Average
Income ^
[f yrly.)

58.8
(143)
56.6
(547)
39.5
(468)

10.1
(137)
10.7
(545)
11,1
(464)

1,598
(U3)
3,448
(475)
3,905
(423)

37.0
(348)
37.0
(195)
37.3
(102)

11.3
(347)
11.5
(192)
11.3
(102)

4,146
(315)
4,347
(184)
4,076
(89)

38.7
(40)
38.1
(17)
45.6
(5)
47.1
(7)
42.74
(1872)

)
)
)
)39.9
)(69)
)
)
)

9.6
(40)
10.2
(17)
8.2
(5)
9.4
(7)

)
)
)
) 9.6
)(69)
)
)
)

10.94
(1856)

4,169
(59)

)

)

)

3,947
(17) )4,775
9,260 J (67)
(5) )
7,317
(6) )

)

3,757
(1666)

Based on information to nearest one-hundred dollars.
(Figures in parenthesis indicate the number of families who re­
ported both number in household and the factor under considera­
tion) •

in the middle sized families although not a great deal of variation was
shown.

Average income seemed to show an upward trend as size of house­

hold increased.

18

The terms family and household are used here and throughout the
thesis more or less interchangeably*

Size with reference to both terms

refers to the number of persons eating their meals regularly with the
housewife of the unit in question regardless of relationship*
Based on a breakdown by age, the sample housewives were distributed
as shown in Table 8. With some variation, size of family, education

TABLE 8.

AGE OF HOUSEWIFE AS RELATED TO SELECTED FACTORS,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Families

Average
Number
in
!
Household

25 and under

226

3.U*

11.79
(225)

3,311
(211*)

26 - 35

1*68

3.95

12.09
(U67)

1*,035
(10*0)

36-1*5

1*1*5

3.81*

11.31*
(1*38)

I*,392
(391)

1*6-55

31*9

2.96

10.17
(31*1*)

3,872
(305)

56 - 65

235

2.1*3

9.1*1
(230)

3,029
(188)

66 and over

11*9

1.93

8*96
(11*0)

1,825
(118)

I872a

3.29

10.91*
(181*1*)

3,721*
(1656)

Age of
Housewife

Complete range

Average
Education of
Housewife
(yrs.)

Average
Income
($ yrly.)

^ All families who reported age of housewife also reported size of
family*
2

a

Based on information to nearest one-hundred dollars*
Total number where age of housewife was known*

( Figures in parentheses indicate the number of families who re­
ported both age of housewife and the factor under consideration.,1

19

and income all generally decreased as age increased.

A slight decline

for all three was also noted at the more youthful end of the classification*
In relation to education of housewife, the various factors were as
indicated in Table 9*

TABLE 9.

From this it appears that slightly larger families

EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE AS RELATED TO SELECTED FACTORS,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Families

Average
Number
in
Household

Average
Age of
Housewife
(yrs.)

0-7

123

3.00

55.69
(121)

2,785
(105)

8

295

3.11*

52.02
(293)

3,122
(263)

9 - U

1*10

3.29

U3.3U
(1*10)

3,591
(367)

12

698

3.1*5

37.56
(691*1

3,995
(630)

13 - 15

225

3.18

38.55
(223)

I*,21*8
(197)

16 and over

105

3.31

38.67
(103)

1*,828
( 88)

l856a

3.29

1*2.52
(181*1*)

3,768
(1650)

School Years
(Housewife)

Complete range

Average
Income 2
($ yrly.)

A H families who reported education of housewife also reported
size of family.
Based on information to nearest one-hundred dollars.
a

Total number where education of housewife was known.

( Figures in parentheses indicate the number of families who reported
both education of housewife and the factor under consideration.)

20

were found in the middle educational brackets, that the older housewives
were much more in predominance in the lower educational brackets, and that
average income increased as education of the housewives increased*
The final table of this series, Table 10, shows how the various
factors previously dealt with were found in relation to the occupational
classification of the heads of the households concerned*

Based on such

a breakdown households having the largest average number of persons were
found in the skilled and semi-skilled classifications*

Those of the

smallest average size were found in the retired, unemployed, or unclassi­
fied categories*

As could be expected the oldest average age of house­

wife was found in the retired group.
classification.

The youngest was found in the skilled

The housewives in the homes of professional men were of

the highest average education.

Those of the lowest average education were

found in homes where the head of the house was in either an unskilled
occupation or one not divulged.

Those households headed by persons in a

managerial or official position appear to have had the highest average
income with the lowest average income in the retired and unclassified
categories*

Qreater detail may be found in the table*

From these proceeding tables a fairly good acquaintance with the
character of the sample in respect to the different variables dealt with
may be obtained.

One of the most striking characteristics is that the

several variables appear to change not together or in any set pattern,
but in different amounts and in different directions*

From the basic

relationship tables it would seem to be clear that the actual effects of
one of the factors would be difficult to judge without considering the

21

TABLE 10.

OCCUPATION 0? HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AS RELATED TO SELECTED FACTORS,
LANSIRQ, SPRING, 1950

Occupation

Families

Average
Average
Age of
Number
in
2. Housewife
Household
(yrs.)

Average
Education of
Housewife
(yrs.)

Avera ge
Income
;
($ yrly.)

Professional

212

3.ia

1+0.19
(212)

12.90
(211)

l+,680
(181+)

Managerial and
official

265

3.55

1+1*55
(261;)

11.76
(263)

l+,985
(217)

Clerical and
kindred

161

2.71

1+1.25
(160)

11.55
(160)

3,1+1+5
(11+8)

Sales and kin­
dred

113

3*11+

Service

98

3*39

Skilled

261+

3.69

Semi-skilled

1+1+2

3.62

Unskilled

51

3*1+7

Unemployed

50

2.38

113

2.27

Unclassified

97

2.12

Unknown

19

3.U7

1,885

3.28

38.85
(111)
1+0.19
(97)
39.03
(263)
39.39
(1+1+1)
1+3.60
(50)
56.22
(50)
66.78
(110)
51.11+
(95)
1+5.95
(19)
1+2.71+
(1872)

11.88
(112)
10.82
(96)
10.79
(261)
10.21
(1+39)
8.70
(1+8)
10.25
(1+8)
9.11+
(109)
10.28
(92)
7.90
(17)
10.91+
(1856)

3,865
(103)
3,287
(92)
l+,285
(21+7)
3,61+0
(1+09)
2,970
(1+1+)
1,921+
(t+1)
1,868
(93)
1,771
(76)
3,383
(12)
3,757
(1666)

Retired

Complete Range

2

All families "who reported occupation of head of house also reported
size of family.
Based on information to nearest one-hundred dollars.
(Figures in parentheses indicate the number of families who reported
both income and the factor under consideration.)

22

others.

It would appear that in considering any possible effects based

upon a size of income breakdown, for example, that the effects of the
differing average family sizes existing in these varying groups should
also be considered.

The importance of this fact was taken into consider­

ation in devising the previously discussed basic tables used in the analy­
sis.

While one-way breakdowns are presented for the varying food cate­

gories, for example;,

such as by income, the previously mentioned two,

three, and four-way tables were devised to screen out, so far as possible,
the effects of all but one of the basic factors at a time.

Significance

tests as described were then used, where practical, on the multi-way
tables to see which, if any, of the socio-economic factors would reveal
a significant variation in per capita consumption of or expenditure for
the food item concerned.

This procedure, which becomes evident in the

chapters dealing with individual food categories, was the means evolved
to analyze the data as described and also as a basis for arriving at the
conclusions drawn.

CHAPTER III

MEATS
Meats make up one of the principal food groups to he dealt within
this study.

By almost any measure they are one of the most important.

They were responsible for a larger portion of the week’s food bill, 23.0
percent, than any other major or minor food category.

They were used

during the week reported on by 96.5 percent of the sample families.

Only

three of the food categories studied, all dairy products* all fats, and
all milk, were reported used by a larger proportion of the sample.
In analyzing the consumption of and expenditures for meats in re­
lation to the socio-economic factors being dealt with, however, it was
thought that differences with respect to various kinds or cuts of meat
might well exist.

Separate similar studies were made, therefore, for

beef, pork, lamb and mutton, beef steak, and for ground beef as well as
for all meats combined.

The findings of the analyses for these various

categories, vhich will be presented in order below, did in fact prove to
differ substantially.

This would appear to justify their having been

treated separately and to demonstrate the inaccuracy which might have been
involved in treating meat as one more or less homogeneous item.
The findings for the several meat categories studied in relation to
the selected socio-economic factors follow.

Beef

Beef proved to be the most popular of the meats with 88

the families having used some during the week reported on.

percent of

Average con­

sumption was 3«90 pounds per family and 1.19 pounds per person.
expenditures were $2.50 per family or 76 cents per person.

Average

Expenditures

for beef made up about 12.7 percent of the week’s food bill or over half
of the total for all meats.
The twelve standard tables dealing with beef, Tables 30 through JfL,
are to be found in the appendix on pages 155 through 166.

Earliest ex­

amination was made of the first six of these, the one-way tables.

From

these it appeared that there was a trend toward higher per capita consumption
of and expenditures for beef as income increased.

There also seemed to be

a definite decline in per capita consumption and expenditures as size of family
grew larger.

Classification by age of housewife appeared to show a less de­

finite trend but with highest consumption and expenditures seeming to be in
the U6 through 65 age group.

Grouping by education of housewife also showed

no important trend but that which existed was generally upward for both consump­
tion and expenditures as education increased.

Less variation was found in Table

3U by occupational breakdown than might have been expected.

The highest group

in both consumption and expenditures, however, was the managerial and official
with the respective per capita figures having been 1.33 pounds and 88 cents.
The unskilled worker group at the lower limit consumer 1.05 pounds per capita
with corresponding expenditures of 63 cents.

'While a very noticeable

rise in per capita beef consumption and expenditures appeared

as

25

size of week’s food bill was increased from lowest to medium size, a
slight decline appeared to be present for each as food bill size increas­
ed further.
The multi-way tables for beef, 36 through Ul, in which one or more
of the factors was held constant in relation to others, as tested by
analysis of variance, substantiated generally what appeared to be true in
the one-way tables.
Size of family was found to be highly significant with respect to
both per capita consumption and expenditures in each of the five tables
tested.

In each case with income only or with income and either age,

education, size of week’s food bill or occupation held constant, the one
to two size of family group was found both to consume and to spend signi­
ficantly more per capita for beef than did the three to four size of family
group which, in turn, both consumed and spent significantly more per
capita than did the five or more size of family group.

Average consump­

tion per capita in the one to two size of family group was 1.50 pounds
for the week.

In the three to four size group it was 1.25 pounds and in

the five cr more group it was *95 pounds.

Average per capita expendi­

tures by these same three groups ran from 99 cents in the smallest family
size to 81 cents in the medium and to 58 cents in the largest family
grouping.

Findings of this clarity would have seemed significant even

without the statistical testing.
spection of Tables 36 through U0.

They seem even more conclusive upon in­
Here it can be observed how the size

of family effect constantly stands out in each cross tabulation, be it by
size of family and income alone or with income and any of the other factors
controlled*

Income also was found to be a factor of importance when related to
beef consumption and expenditures.

It was found to be significant with

respect to beef consumption in three of the five tables tested and hi^ily
significant in the other two.

When size of family only or size of family

along with age or size of week’s food bill were held relatively constant,
income was found to be a significant factor.

In each of these three

cases, the two higher income groups of from 3,000 to U,h99 dollars and of
U ,500 dollars or more were both found to spend significantly more per
capita for beef than did the lowest or below 3,000 dollar income group.
The difference in consumption between the two higher income groups was
not found great enough to be significant.

Income was found highly signi­

ficant as related to beef consumption in the two cases where size of family
along with the education or occupation factors were controlled.

When

size of family and education were held constant the two higher income
groups again were found to consume significantly more than the lowest.
"When occupation in addition to size of family was controlled, the highest
income group consumed significantly more than the two lower groups.
With regard to expenditures for beef, income was found to be hi^ily
significant when size of family plus education, food bill, or occupation
were controlled.

In the two former cases the higher income groups each

spent significantly more than the lowest, and in the latter case the
highest group spent significantly more than the medium and the medium
significantly more than the lowest.

Income was found to be significant

when size of family only was controlled with the highest income group
spending significantly more than the lower income groups.

Differences

in per capita beef expenditures by income were not, however, found large
enough in the sample as a whole to be significant in the table where age
as well as size of family effects were removed.

With regard to income it

27

is interesting to note in the tables that effect upon per capita beef con­
sumption and expenditures seems to be less among the larger families, older
housewife groups, and in the less educated categories.

For the overall

sample the average per capita beef consumption for the three income groups
of below 3*000, 3*000 - U*U99* or U,^00 dollars and over, was from low to
high income, l.OU* 1*22, and 1.27 pounds.

Average expenditures for the

same three groups were 6U cents, 78 cents, and 8U cents.
Size of week*s food bill, with size of family and income controlled,
was found to be highly significant with respect to both consumption of
and expenditures for beef.

The two higher size of week*s food bill group­

ings, sixteen through twenty-one dollars or more, were both found to con­
sume and to spend significantly more per capita than did the smaller size
of food bill group,

^here was, however, no significant difference found

between the two higher groups for either consumption or expenditures.
Neither age nor education of the housewife or occupation of the head
of the household groupings, with size of family and income held relatively
constant, were found in the sample to be factors of significance.

TShile

it is true that variations are to be seen in the tables for these factors,
the differences did not on the whole prove to be statistically signifi­
cant.

From the tables alone, however, slightly higher per capita beef

consumption and expenditures would seem to have been found among the more
highly educated, the middle aged or older, and among the professional
and managerial and official groups.
Table ijl, the four-way table for beef, is presented for inspection
with the others as previously discussed, however, it is unfortunately of
only limited value and difficult to draw valid conclusions from because

28

the smallness of some of the sub-samples in so fine a grouping of fami­
lies.

It does, nevertheless,, serve to illustrate what might be done with

a larger sample*

Inspection of this table, found on Page 166 in the

appendix, did not appear to negate or appreciably modify any of the pre­
viously; drawn conclusions.
It is recognized in presenting the results of the analysis for beef,
as forthe other food categories, that additional uncontrolled and untested
factors, such as price relationships, could have had an influence upon the
findings.

It is also felt that additional crass tabulation, such as could

have been more satisfactorily made with a larger sample, would have been of
value.

It is, also realized that findings for the sample as a whole did not

always correspond to what they may have been for certain subsections of the
sample; which would seem to emphasize the importance of a large and repre­
sentative sample in such a study.

With these things indicated, what has

the analysis as performed enabled one to say with regard to beef in support
or in refutation of the original hypotheses?
It has been established that there are significant variations in
both per capita consumption of and expenditures for beef.

It has also been

seen that these variations are related to at least some of the socio-econ­
omic factors listed in the hypothesis.

With regard to both consumption

and expenditures, significant variation was found in relation to size of
family, and to size of week’s food bill.

This was also true for size of

income, though with one exception which somewhat weakened the findings
in the case of expenditures.

Statistically significant variations in

per capita consumption of or expenditures for beef were not

29

found, however, in relation to either age of housewife, education of
housewife, or occupation of the head of the house*

On the basis of the

findings of the analysis, therefore, it can be said that the hypothesis
was in part supported and in part refuted*

Some but not all of the socio­

economic factors studied were found to have been associated with signi­
ficant per capita variation in the consumption of and expenditures for
beef*
A brief summary of the analysis of variance findings for Tables 36
through !U0 is to be found in Table 11 on Page 30.

This is thought to

be both more informative and considerably more decisive than is inspec­
tion of the basic data tables alone*

30

TABLE 11.

BEEF:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR FIVE
TABIES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption
Income* 13, l2>Ii

Per Capita Expenditures
Table

36

Income* I3 » I2j Ii
Size of Family** S ^ S g * ^

Size of Family** S-j^Sg^^
Table 37
Income*

l y

Income

1^1^

Size of Family** S^Sg>S^

Size of Family** S^>Sg>S^

Age

Age
Table 38

Income** I3, Ig^Ii
Size of Family** S^Sg^S^

Income** I^, 12 ^ 1

Education

Education

Size of Family** S-j^S^^

Table 39
Income* I^, Ig^I-^

Income**

Size of Family** S^S^S-j

Size of Family** S-pSg^S^

Food Bill** F3, F ^ F ^

Food Bill** F3, F ^ F ^

l y

Ig^I-^

Table I4.O
Income** I^I^, I2

Income** I ^ I g ^ i

Size of Family**

Size of Family** S-^Sj,^^

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
*
= significantat5> percent level (significant)
■***
= significantat
1 percent level (highly significant)
> a significantly greater than (at either 5> or 1 percent level)
®1>
^3 a Sizeoffamily breakdown, small to large as intabletested
II* I2* ^3 s Sizeofincome breakdown, small to large as in table tested
Fi, F2, F3 m Size of week's food bill breakdown, small to large as in table
tested

31

Pork
Pork proved to be a close second in popularity among the meats.

A

total of 1,605 or 85.2 percent of the sample families indicated they had
used some during the week reported on.

It accounted, however, for a con­

siderably smaller portion of the week’s food bill than did beef.

On the

average 7*5 percent of the week’s food bill was for pork versus 12.7 per­
cent for beef.

Also a somewhat smaller amount of pork was used.

The aver­

age figure reported far the week having been 2.60 pounds per family or
•79 pounds per person.

Average reported week’s expenditures far pork were

$1.1*7 per family or 1*5 cents per person.
The standard tables used in the analysis for pork were Tables 1*2 through
52.

These are to be found on Pagesl67 through 177 in the appendix.

Ex­

amination of these tables was made and, as for beef, analysis of variance,
tests were performed for the two and three-way tables.

The findings of

this analysis proved in some respects to be interestingly different than
for beef but to be similar in others.
Studfer of the first six or one-way classification tables for pork
appeared to indicate few striking trends in per capita consumption or ex­
penditures.

Classification by income groups appeared to show little.

Classification by size of family, however, did reveal a noticeable down­
ward trend in both per capita consumption and expenditures as size of
family grew larger.

A grouping of the households by age of the housewife

appeared to indicate a somewhat higher usage and cost in the oldest or
66 and over age bracket than for the other groups.

The education of house-

32

■wife categories appeared to £iow a somewhat lower per capita usage and ex­
penditures for pork as education became greater.

This was especially true

in the highest or sixteen or more years of school group.

A fairly large,

though far from spectacular, amount of variation was found among the
different occupational groups.

The highest groups were the service and

semi-skilled, each with an average per capita expenditure of U9 cents while
the lowest group was the unemployed, with an average expenditures' of 27
cents for pork during the week.

The two highest groups had an average con­

sumption of .87 pounds, and the lowest of .51 pounds per person.

Size of

week*s food bill differences also appeared to lead to relatively little
change in pork consumption and expenditures.

Those families with medium

sized food bills did appear, however, to be slightly higher in both con­
sumption and expenditures for pork than did either the lowest or the
highest food bill groups*
It was hoped that the multi-way classifications together with the
statistical tests would produce results of a somewhat more definite na­
ture.

They did.

Appreciation of this may be had by reference to Table

U8 on Page 173 in the appendix.

This two-way table brings out very clearly

the large decrease in per capita consumption and expenditure for pork
found associated with increase in size of family.

It also illustrates

what is apparently an almost complete lack of influence on the part of
family income upon pork consumption and expenditures*
Size of family, as for beef, was found to be a most important factor
in relation to per capita pork usage.

In fact, it was found statistically

to be a highly significant factor in four of the five tables tested and

to be significant in the fifth.

In general the picture was repeated in

each table tested with the smaller size of family groups using signifi­
cantly more per capita than the larger groups.

With regard to per capita

expenditures for pork, the picture was similar but even more emphatic.
In this case size of family was found to be a highly significant factor
in all five of the tables tested*

In the overall sample it was found that

average pork consumption per person was .98 pounds, in the one to two
size of family group, .8U pounds in the three to four group and .67 pounds
in the five or more group.

Per capita expenditure for pork in these groups

in the same order, was 57 cents, h8 cents, and 36 cents for the week report
ed on.
The size of family income factor proved to be very interesting because
of what appeared to be its almost complete lack of significance.
in sharp contrast to the findings for beef.

This was

In none of the tables tested

either for consumption or for expenditure was size of income found to
be significant.

This was true when size of family alone or size of family

plus any one of the other socio-economic factors were held constant.
While it is true that in certain subsections of some of the tables per
capita consumption or expenditures for pork would seem to be larger in
the lowest, the highest, or perhaps most often in the middle income groups,
these differences for the sample as a Whole were in no case found large
enough to be statistically significant.

Average pork consumption in

the below 3,000 dollar income class was on the average found to be .82
pounds.

In the 3,000 to U,U99 dollar income group it was found to be .81

pounds.

In the U,500 or higher income group it was found to be .79 pounds.

Corresponding figures for per capita expenditures in the same order were

3U

found to be

h.6 cents,

is indeed striking.

cents, and U6 cents.

This degree of uniformity

It would appear to lead one to the conclusion that,

other things being equal, little change in pork usage should be expected
as income fluctuates.

Income elasticity for pork would appear to have

been almost zero*
As was the case for beef, neither age nor education of the housewife
was found to exert a significant influence upon either per capita con­
sumption or expenditures for pork*

In the tables tested, with both size

of family and income controlled, the younger and the more highly educated
groups appeared to have a somewhat lesser liking for pork than the older
and the less highly educated groups.

These differences, however, were

not found sufficiently large to be statistically significant*
The findings with respect to size of week’s food bill, as for income,
were in sharp contrast to the findings in the case of beef.

Size of

week's food bill groupings, with income and size of family controlled,
were not found to vary significantly in either per capita consumption or
expenditures for pork*

There was apparently little or no tendency among

those families spending more for food to purchase more pork than did the
families with smaller overall food Mils*
Occupation was, however, found to be a significant factor with income
and size of family controlled*
expenditures.

This was true both for consumption and for

Occupation group two, the skilled, semi-skilled, and un­

skilled worker group was found both to consume significantly more pork
and to spend significantly more per capita for it than did either of the

35

other two groups*

This may have been associated with the fact that most

of the persons performing physical labor would have been placed in this
significantly higher category*

It is interesting to note that the find­

ings for pork in this case again differed from those for beef where occu­
pation was not found to be of significance*
What, then, in summary, can be said with regard to the findings of
the analysis for pork in substantiation or in refutation of the basic
hypothesis?

It has been found that there were significant variations in

both consumption and expenditures for pork*

It has also been see that

these variations are significant in relation to two of the studied socio­
economic factors, to size of family differences in particular and also to
occupational differences*

The posed hypothesis must stand refuted, how­

ever, in so far as the other factors tested, income, age of housewife,
education of housewife, and size of week's food bill, are concerned*

As

was the case for beef then, but with interesting variations, the basic
hypothesis stands in part substantiated and in part refuted*
A summary of the findings of the analysis of variance tests perform­
ed is presented in Table 12*

TABLE 12*

PORK:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMRIZED FOR FIVE
TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures

Table U8
Income
Size of Family^^S-^Sg^S^

Income
Size of Family**
Table h9
Income
Size of FamilyJHtS^jS^S^

Income
Size of FsmilyiHfrS^S^SKS^

Age

Age
Table 50

Income
Size of Family^fcS^SgjS^

Income
Size of Family-^S-^S^rS^

Education

Education
Table 51

Income
Size of Family* S >S , S

Income
Size of Family^-S^S^,S ^

Food Bill

Food Bill
Table 52

Income
Size of Family**S > S > S
1 2
3
Occupation* 6^0^, 0^

Income
Size of Family**S > S > S
1 2
3
Occupation*

Explanation of Symbols:
* - significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** * significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> s significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
a Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
01,02,0^ - Occupation of Head of House breakdown, order as in tabic tested

36

Lamb and Mutton
The third kind of meat for which the analysis was performed is lamb
and mutton.

The results of the method and effcart were poorer in this in­

stance than for any other food item included in the stixly.
any conclusive findings were uncovered.
fairly obvious.

Very few if

The reason for this is, however,

In the entire sample of 1,885 families, only 78 or U«1

percent were found to have used any lamb or mutton during the week.

The

data on consumption and expenditures would appear to indicate that this
number of using families was too few to permit gpod analysis.

As may be

seen in the tables, consistent trends in the figures are generally ab­
sent and much irregularity without apparent pattern is to be seen,

^his

is believed to be due to the fact that the families who reported using
lamb or mutton became scattered in the various classifications and, since
they were few in number erratic figures resulted.

Maay scattered sub­

samples had no users or so few as to lead to extremely small average
figures.

In the sample as a whole expenditures for lamb and mutton aver­

aged only 6 cents per family or .018 cents per person.

Consumption figures

were found to be .10 pounds per family and .030 pounds per person.

Only

185.6 pounds of lamb and mutton costing $120.83 were reported used during
the week by the entire sample.

It is thought that a much larger sample

would be needed to perform a really satisfactory analysis in such a case.
It is believed that this would be generally concurred in upon inspection
of the tables for lamb and mutton, 53 through 63, found in the appendix
on pages 178 through 188 •

37

The six one-way tables are difficult to evaluate because of the small
and erratic figures.

Per capita consumption and expenditures

for lamb

and mutton do appear to have been somewhat greater, however, in smaller
families and in the younger age of housewife groups*

No other apparent

trends were distinguished.
The multi-way tables did not bring clearly significant differences
to light for lamb and mutton as they did for beef and for pork.

It is

possible that the socio-economic factors studied actually had little or
no bearing upon per capita consumption and expenditures for lamb and
mutton.

This is not stated as a definite conclusion, however, because of

the few users in the sample as previously discussed.

It is thought pro­

bable that with a much larger Sample, the effects of the socio-economic
factors, if any, would have been more discernable.
Inspection of the multiple tables did appear, however, to indicate
something of a trend with respect to size of family.

Table 59, for ex­

ample, shows that with income controlled, the one-to-two size of family
group on the average consumed .066 pounds and spent U*U cents per person.
Corresponding figures were .020 pounds and 1.5 cents in the three-to-four
family size group.
1 cent.

In the five or more group, they were .015 pounds and

Ihen the tables were tested statistically, the differences by

family size were found to be large enough to be significant in only one
case, however.

"When both income and occupation were controlled, the one-

to-two size family group was found to consume significantly more of and
to spend significantly more for lamb and mutton on a per capita basis than

did the.other two groups.

These differences with regard to family size

were not, however, found large enough to he significant in the other four
tables tested.
None of the other factors analyzed, family income, age of housewife,
education of housewife, occupation of head of house, or size of week’s
food bill, were found to lead to statistically significant differences in
the two or three-way tables.

As indicated above, however, uhe dearth of

actual users found in the sample clouds the findings and prohibits definitely
concluding that none of these factors were significantly related to per
capita consumption or expenditure differences*
Very little further probably needs to be said in summary of the find­
ings.

The sample was not thought to be adequate to permit sound results

to be had from the analysis.

Based upon what could be determined, however,

the hypothesis was refuted for lamb and mutton in the case of each factor
with the partial exception of size of family.
Perhaps one of the most valuable results of including this food item
in the analysis has been to indicate the much greater difficulty encounter­
ed in study of such infrequently used foods.
relative to any possible future analysis.

This should be kept in mind

It is fortunate that this trouble

was not encountered to an appreciable extent in the analysis relative to
any of the other foods included in this study.
The findings of the analysis of variance tests performed are again
summarized in Table 13.

39

TABLE 13.

LAMB AND MUTTON: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED
FOR FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 59
Income
Size of Family

Income
Size of Family
Table 60

Income
Size of Family
Age

Income
Size of Family
Age
Table 61
Income
Size of Family
Education

Income
Size of Family
Education
Table 62

Income
Size of Family
Food Bill

Income
Size of Family
Food Bill
Table 63

Income
Size of Family* S^Sg , S^
Occupation

Income
Size of Family** S^7Sg, S^
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* - significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** = significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> s significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
S^> Sg,
- Size of family breakdown, small to large as table
tested

ko

Beef Steak Vs. Ground Beef
As has been mentioned, it was suspected that the relationships be­
tween the various socio-economic factors and separate cuts or portions of
the same meat might vary in a way similar to that between different meats
such as beef and pork.

In order to determine if this were true, two differ­

ent beef items were included in the overall meats analysis.

These items,

beef steak and ground beef, were selected on the basis of wide usage and
the belief that they would be as likely as any to show differing relation­
ships without bringing extraneous forces into play.

The analyses for

both follow.

Beef Steak
It was found that 144*3 percent of the families interviewed had used
some beef steak during the preceeding week.
ber who had used beef of any type.

This was about half the num­

Average family expenditures for beef

steak were about 6? cents or approximately 3*4 percent of the week’s food
bill.

On a per capita basis the average expenditure for the week was 20

cents.

The data indicated average consumption to have been .83 pounds

per family and .25 pounds per person.
The tables used in the analysis, 64 through 74, pages 189 through
199 , indicated some very definite trends in beef steak consumption and ex­
penditures.

The first six of these, the one-way group of tables, appeared

to show a clear upward trend in per capita consumption and expenditures
with higher income and also with higher education.

They appeared to show

Ul

a clear downward trend as size of family became larger and considerable
variation between the occupational groups*

They also seemed to indicate

substantially higher per capita usage and expenditures in the middle size
of week's food bill groups than in either the lower or higher classifica­
tions.

Little, however, appeared to show up in the age groupings except

that the 66 and over age group appeared to be somewhat lower than the
others in both consumption and expenditures*
The beef steak analysis was found to b e a good substantiating example
of why it was felt necessary to devise the multi-way tables, and to use
a testing method, rather than to rely upon the simpler tables alone.
Further analysis beyond the one-way tables actually substantiated only
about half of what had appeared from them to be fairly obvious.

The more

complex classifications and the additional analysis supported the con­
clusions mentioned in the last paragraph with regard to income, size of
family, and age. Thesefindinpwith respect to education, occupation,
and size of week's food bill, however, either did not support or they
seriously modified what, from the one-way tables, however, had previously
seemed to be fact.
The situation with respect to education serves well to illustrate
what was encountered and why the more complicated tabulations were neces­
sary.

The one-way table by education of the housewife, Table 6?, appeared

to indicate a fairly clear overall trend toward greater per capita consump­
tion of and expenditures for beef steak as education of the housewife be­

h2

came higher*

Table 72, however, in which size of family and income effects

were controlled, demonstrated that this was generally true only in the high­
est income group*

Further, the analysis of variance test findings on

beef steak consumption and expenditures were with income and size of fam­
ily effects removed that education was not a significant factor relative
to the overall sample of the population.

This would seem to illustrate

the ease with which improper, incomplete, or incorrect conclusions might
be drawn in such a case were only the one-way tables available*
The final results of the overall
analysis for beef steak in relation
i
to the selected socio-economic factors were of a quite definite nature.
The findings in briefest form were that size of family and income were
the significant factors studied insofar as beef steak consumption and ex­
penditures were concerned*
The multi-way tables in conjunction with the analysis of variance
tests indicated in each of the five tables tested that the variations by
size of family were highly significant.

This was true on a per capita

basis for both consumption and expenditures.

In each of the tables the

one-to-two size of family was found both to consume and to spend signi­
ficantly more- per person for beef steak than did the three-to-four size
group, which, in turn, was significantly higher in both than the five or
more size of family group.

On the average the smallest size group consumed

•37 pounds per person, the medium size group .26 pounds, and the largest
of five or more size group consumed .18 pounds.

Average week's expendi­

tures for the groups were respectively 30 cents, 21 certs, and U* cents
per capita*

Income was found to be either significant or highly significant in
each of the five tables tested for both consumption and expenditures.

The

significant trend, as would be expected, was toward greater per capita
consumption and expenditures in the higher income groups.

The below 3,000

dollar income group consumed an average .20 pounds and had expenditures
of 16 cents per capita.

The corresponding figures for the 3,000 to U»U99

dollar group were .25 pounds and 20 cents.

For the U,500 dollar or more

group the figures were .29 pounds and 2k cents.

The trend was not always

so definite in.each sub-grouping of every table but was on the whole genera
quite consistent.
The beef steak findings with regard to size of family and income were
in close agreement with the previously presented findings for all beef.
This was also true for age, education, and occupational groupings none of
which were found to be statistically significant for either beef steak or
all beef.

Inspection of the multi-way beef steak tables naturally showed

some difference for these factors even though they were not found large
enough to be called significant.

There seemed, for example, to be an

upward trend in beef steak usage with age in the middle income groups
though not for the sample as a whole*

The highest educational bracket also

appeared usually to be somewhat more partial to steak than did the others*
Also the skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled group appeared to be some­
what lighter users of beef steak than did the other two large occupational
groups, though not significantly so.

hh

In spite of general agreement to this point, there was one factor
analyzed which led to results differing widely from the all beef findings*
That factor was size of week's food bill.

In the case of all beef it

had been found to be highly significant with the two higher size of week's
food bill groups consuming and spending significantly more than did the
lowest*

^hen related to beef steak, however, the differences by such

groupings did not prove to be statistically significant*

Inspection of

Table 73, in fact, indicated a higher weighted average per capita con­
sumption and expenditure in the lowest size of week's food bill group.
This could be seen upon closer appraisal to be die to the heavy weighting
in that group of the one-to-two size of family group with its larger per
capita expenditures.

On a cell by cell inspection, the trend appeared to

be usually upward with size of food bill but, as the test findings showed,
not consistently or greatly so.
A final summary of the findings of the analysis for beef steak, sub­
ject, of course to its previously acknowledged weaknesses, may be very
briefly stated.

Size of family and size of family income were in every

applicable grouping found to be significantly related to per capita beef
steak consumption and expenditures.

There was found to be definite evidence

of heavier per capita usage and expenditure for beef steak in smaller and
in higher income families.

Groupings by age of housewife, education of

housewife, size of week's food bill, or by occupation of the head of the
household, with size of family and income effects regulated, however, were
not found to lead to statistically significant per capita differences in
either consumption or expenditures.

b$

Table llj., a tabular summation of the analysis of variance findings,
may be seen as follows*

TABLE 1U*

BEEF STEAK:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 70

Income* 1^,

Income* 1^*1^

Size of Family** S^SgWS^

Size of Family** S ^ S ^ S
Table 71

Income** I3, I ^ i
Size of Family** S-j^SgwS^

Income** 13^! 2^11
Size of Family** S-fS^S^

Age

Age
Table 72

Income** I ^ I ^ I ^

Income* l y 1^1^,

Size of Family** S^jrS^S^

Size of Family** S^>Sg>S^

Education

Education
Table 73

Income* l y

Income* l y

Size of Family** S^S^S.*
Food Bill
x * *

Size of Family** S-^S^S*
Food Bill
x 6 i
Table 7U

Income* I^wl^

Income*

13*1^

Size of Family* 8^82763

Si$e of Family** S-j>Sg>S3

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* = Significant at $ percent level ( significant)
** r Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
^ — Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
Si, S2, S3 s size of family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
*1, 12, I3 as Size of income breakdown, small to large as in table tested

U6

Ground Beef
Ground beef was found to have been eaten during the week reported
on in nearly 63 percent of the sample households*

This was a considerably

larger percentage than had reported using beef steak during the same week*
Average consumption at .35 pounds per capita, or 1.16 pounds per family,
was also higher than beef steak.

Interestingly, however, expenditures for

the two items were found to be almost identical, averaging about 20 cents
per person for each.

As a part of the week*s family food bill, ground

beef expenditures amounted to 3*3 percent as compared to 3«U percent for
beef steak.
The tables showing the data used in the ground beef analysis are 75
through 85 starting on page 200 . Scrutiny of the one-way tables seemed
to indicate

among other things, that the medium or 3>000 to U,500 dollar

income groups, were the heaviest users of ground beef.

The size of family

classification seemed to show little except for somewhat lower figures in
the seven, eight, and nine size of family groups.

The average figures

by age of housewife were lower for the 56 or older groups than for the others.
Figures by education of the housewife appeared to be fairly constant except
in the two extremes where they fell off rather abruptly.

Both the lowest,

or 0-7 years of school group, and the highest, or 16 or more years of school
group appeared to be appreciably lower in per capita ground beef usage and
expenditures than did the in-between groups.

This is perhaps compensated

for in part by the fact that the lowest group has already been seen to be
higher in pork usage, and the highest educational group to be relatively
header users of beef steak in the same type tables.

There appeared, in

U7

the one-way table, to be some variation among the occupational groups.
The retired and unknown groups stood out as being considerably below any
of the others in both consumption and expenditures.

The size of week*s

food bill classification figures seemed to indicate, for both cost and
usage, a mild upward trend relative to ground beef as size of food bill
increased.

This was true after a somewhat sharper rise in the very lowest

classifications and with a slight drop in the highest class.
The overall analysis as continued in the multi-way tables for ground
beef consumption and expenditures, in relation to the socio-economic fac­
tors being considered, produced findings of considerable interest.

This

was especially true because of the fact that they differed in many respects
from those for beef steak, and also from those for all beef.

The previously

held supposition that this might be true was found to be correct.
Differences in consumption by size of family groupings had been found
to be highly significant in each of the tables tested both for all beef
and for beef steak.

In the case of ground beef, on the other hand, size

of family differences were not found to lead to significant differences
in per capita consumption in any of the multi-way tables tested.

Ground

beef was one of the very few of the food items covered by the study for which
this was true.

Size of family was, however, found to be significant in

two of the ground beef tables in regard to per capita expenditures.

This

was true in Table 8U, with income and food bill controlled, where the
smallest or one-to-two size of family group was found to spend signifi­
cantly per capita more than the largest or five or more group.

It was

also true in Table 85, with income and occupational groupings included,

1*8

where the middle, or three-to-four size group, was found to spend signi­
ficantly more per capita than the largest.

As may be seen in the tables,

the middle size family group appeared generally to have used and spent
slightly more for ground beef than did the others.

This group had an

average per capita consumption of .38 pounds and expenditures of 21 cents.
Corresponding figures for the one-to-two-size of family group were .31*
pounds and 19 cents.

For the largest or five or more group, they were

.35 pounds and 19 cents.

Clearly, however, the differences were not great

by size of family classes.
Size of income had been found to be a consistently significant factor
with regard to both consumption and expenditures for all beef and for
beef steak.

This was not quite the situation in the case of ground beef •

Income was found to be significant in relation to consumption when size
of family alone or size of family and age were controlled.

"When size of

family and occupation were controlled income was found to be highly signi­
ficant.

In the two cases where size of family and education, or size of

family and size of week's food bill were regulated, however, the differences
by income groupings when tested were not found large enough not to have
possibly been due to chance at the $ percent level, and so were not con­
sidered significant.

With regard to expenditures, income differences were

found to be significant when size of family only was controlled.

It was

found to be highly significant when occupational groupings were also in­
cluded.

When age, education, or food bill were controlled along with

family size, however, the expenditure variations by income grouping

k9

were not found to be significant.

In every table where significant

differences were found, the middle or 3,000 through U,U99 dollar group was
found to spend significantly more than either the higher income group, the
lower income group, or both.

Inspection of the tables will substantiate

that, this would likely be the case.

The average expenditure figures for

the three groups were 18 cents for the below 3,000 dollar group, 22 cents
for the middle income group, and 20 cents for the U,5Q0 dollar or more
group.

The overall average per capita consumption figures for the same

three groups were .32 pounds, #39 pounds and »3h pounds.
Another of the socio-economic factors for which the results of
the analysis were different in the case of ground beef than for all beef
or beef steak was age of the housewife.

It was found to significant for

ground beef but not for the other two• The middle, or 36 through 55 age
group was found to have reported significantly larger per capita consump­
tion and expenditure figures than the older or 56 and over age group.

In­

spection of Table 82 bears this out in the case of 8 of the 9 comparable
cells, and in the three weighted averages by size of family and by income
for both consumption and expenditures.

The average per person usage and

expenditure figures far the 35 or younger group were »3k pounds and 19
cents.

For the middle group ther were .1*0 pounds and 23 cents, while for

the oldest or 56 and over group they were significantly smaller or .2?
pounds and 15 cents.
With regard to education the findings for ground beef were in agree­
ment with those for all beef and also for beef steak.

Education with size

of family and income controlled was found not be significant.

Average per

capita consumption and expenditure figures for the three educational groups,
as may be seen in Table 8^ were in fact found to be of almost identical
size.

50

Size of week’s family food bill, with income and family size con­
trolled, was found to be a significant factor in relation to both consump­
tion and expenditures for ground beef.

These findings were somewhat in

between those for all beef where food bill was not found to be significant
and those for beefsteak where this factor was found to be highly signifi­
cant.

With respect to ground beef it was found that the highest size of

week’s food bill group, 21 dollars and over, consumed significantly more
of, and spent significantly more for it per capita than did either of the
two lower size of food bill groups.

This condition in Table 8U appeared

to be somewhat less pronounced in the highest income group ihan in either
the medium or lowest groups.
The process of occupational grouping would seem to have been of
value.

It may be recalled that it was only when occupation was regulated,

as well as size of family, that income effects were found to be highly signi­
ficant*

In the same table, Table 85, occupational groups when tested

were found to be highly significant with regard to per capita ground beef
consumption and significant when related to expenditures.

The clerical,

sales, etc., group was found to be significantly lower than the other
two groups with respect to both.

Average consumption for this group was

found to be .32 pounds as compared to .36 and .38 pounds for the other
two large occupational groups.

Average individual expenditures for this

lowest group were 18 cents while for the other two groups they were found
to be 20 and 21 cents.

These significant results for ground beef in re­

lation to occupation were found to be much different than for all beef or
for beef steak.

Variations in consumption and expenditures between the

occupational groups had not been found to be sufficiently large to be
classified as being significant for either of them.

51

The ground beef analysis, in conjunction with those for beef and
beef steak, would seem to have rather clearly demonstrated that the
same socio-economic factors do not necessarily affect consumption and
expenditures in the same way for different cuts or portions of one kind
of meat.
The findings for ground beef were, in summary, that significant per
capita consumption and expenditure differences were found in relation to
age of housewife, size of week’s food bill, and occupation of the head
of the house.

Differences by family income groups also appear to have

been large enough to be significant, though not consistently so, for both
consumption and expenditures.

Size of family differences in relation to

ground beef, unlike most of the food items tested,were not found to lead
to significant variation in per capita consumption.

This factor did, how­

ever, show up rather weekly in two of the five tables tested with regard
to expenditures.

More extended analysis would be desirable in the writer’s

opinion, however, before definitely concluding that a significant rela­
tionship existed relative to size of family.

Education in the overall

sample was not found to be a significant factor.

Once again the basic

hypothesis appears to have been in part substantiated and in part refuted*
The analysis of variance findings are summarized in Table 15 for each
of the factors, as found in the tables tested.

52

TABLE 15.

GROUND BEEF: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Expenditures

Per Capita Consumption
Table 81
Income*

Income* Ig>I^

13

Size of Family

Size of Family
Table 82

Income*

Inccme

Size of Family
Age* ^ a3

Size of Family
Age* A ^ A ^
Table 83
Income
Size of Family
Education

Income
Size of family
Education
Table 8U
Income
Size of Family
Food Bill*

Income
Size of Faaily*
Food Bill* F^t F^, Fg

Fg
Table 85

Income** L^I-^, 1^

Income** L>>I^, 1^

Size of Family
Occupation** Oj., 03^3

Size of Family
Occupation 0^, 0 ^ 3

Explanation of Symbols:
* a Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** * Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> “ Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
®1* S2* ®3* Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table tested*
^1«

*3 = Size of Income breakdown, small to large as in table
tested
Al* A2* a3 = Age of Housewife breakdown, younger to older as in table
tested
F^, F2, F3 s Size of Week's Food Bill breakdown, small to large as in
table tested
Oi, Og, 03- Occupation of Head of House breakdown, order as in table
tested

53

All Meats
An analysis similar to those for the individual meat categories
was performed for all meats as a composite.

This composite includes,

in addition to beef, park, and lamb and muttonj veal, rabbit, salami,
cold cuts, and other miscellaneous meats.

Poultry, along with fish and

seafood, are not included, but are treated separately in another part
of the study.
Average meat expenditures for the sample daring the week reported
on were$li»52 per family or $1.37 per parson.
figures were 7.U9 and 2.28 pounds.

Comparable consumption

Meat of some kind was reported to

have been used during the week ty 1,819 of the 1,889 sample families#
The tables used in the analysis and showing the data for all meats
are numbered 86 through 96 • These are to be found on pages 211 through
221 in the appendix.
The six one-way tables indicated several probable trends or relation­
ships.

Meat consumption and expenditures appeared to be somewhat higher

in the middle and high income groups-than in the lower ones.

Classifica­

tion by size of family brought to light a definite downward trend in per
capita usage and expenditure as size of faaily grew larger.

Age of house­

wife groupings indicate that the k6 through 55 group ranked highest in
both consumption and expenditures.

The younger groups ranked the lowest

while the older groups fell between the other two in both per capita
consumption and expenditures.

There appeared to be no

trend in relation

to education of housewife as per capita meat consumption and expenditures

5U

were similar in most of the groups* The only noticeable differences were
somewhat smaller average consumption and eqpenditure figures in the very
highest educational group*

Differences by occupation were not so large

as might have been expected*

The managerial and official group ranked

highest with an average consumption of 2*hi* pounds per person.
per capita expenditures for this group were $1*52.

Average

The unclassified

group had the lowest average figures at 2.00 pounds and $1.17 per person.
The other occupational groups ranged in between*

Size of week's food bill

groupings showed a sharp jumpin both consumption and expenditures from
the five dollar and under group to the six to ten dollar group followed
by relative stability.
The multi-way tables for meats and the attendant testing thereof,
generally confirmed the indications of the one-way classification tables.
Size of family was found to be highly signific ant in each of five tables
tested for both consumption and expenditures.

In each case, the smallest

or one-to-two size of family group was found to be significantly higher
in both than was the three-to-four size of family group, which, in turn,
was in each case significantly higher than the largest or five or more size
of family group. This factor, size of family, stood out in importance when
related to all meats.

Inspection of the tables will confirm this fact.

Table 92, for example, with income held constant illustrates a consistent
downward trend in each income group as size of family becomes greater.
It may be recalled that the findings for the two most important meats,
beef and pork, also indicated that highly significant variations in per
capita consumption and expenditures were similarly related to size of
family*

55

The findings for all meats in relation to the income factor were not
so definite as for size of family.

It may be remembered that income appear­

ed to be of little importance with respect to pork, but to be generally
significant when related to beef consumption and expenditures*

With re­

spect to all meats, income was found to lead to sigiificantly large per
capita variations in some of the tables tested, but not in all of them.
With either occupation or education in addition to size of family con­
trolled, income was found to be highly significant in relation to con­
sumption with the two higher income groups consuming significantly more
per capita than the lower, below 3,000 dollar group.

With size of family

and age controlled, income was found to be significant in regard to meat
consumption with the highest income group using significantly more than
the lowest.

When size of family only or size of family and week’s food

bill were controlled, however, income effects upon consumption were not
found to be significant.

When related to per capita expenditures for

meat, income was found to be a significant factor only in the two cases
where age or education were regulated in addition to size of family.
Throughout the tables the two higher income groups generally were higher
in both consumption and expenditures for meat than was the lowest.

In

only about half these cases, however, were the differences as tested large
enough not to have been possibly due to chance.
Age was found to have a significant effect upon consumption but not
upon expenditures with size of family and income controlled.

The 36 through

55 age of housewife group was found to consume significantly more meat per
capita than did either the younger or older groups.
pork alone, age had not proved to be significant.
found significant for ground beef.

For either beef or
It had, however, been

S6

Educational groupings, with size of family and income controlled, were
not found to [Lead to significantly large variation in either per capita con­
sumption of or expenditures for meat*

This had also been found to be true

for each of the individual meat items tested*
Size of week*s food bill, with income and family size controlled, was
found to be a significant factor when related either to consumption or to
expenditures.

The largest, or 21 dollars and over size of week's food

bill group, was found to be significantly higher in per capita consumption
of and expenditures for the meat composite than was the smallest or 1$
dollar and under group*

Size of food bill had been previously found to be

highly significant for beef but not at all significant for pork*
Occupation was not found to be a significant factor, as related to
consumption of and expenditures for all meats combined*

This was in agree­

ment with the previous findings for all beef and for beef steak but was
contrary to what had been found true for pork and for ground beef*
The findings for all meat, in conjunction with those for the other meat
items analyzed, indicate that changes in the studied socio-economic factors
lead, in some instances, to different results in per capita consumption of
and expenditures for individual meats than for all meat*

The relationship

that exists for one meat item apparently need not exist for others or for
all meats combined and vice versa*

This has been illustrated by the fact

that of all the socio-economic factors being studied, only one, education,
was found to lead to exactly the same results in relation to each of the
meat items.

Education was not found to be significant for any meat item

in any of the tables tested*

57

The findings for the all meat composite m^y be summarized as follows•
Size of family was found to be highly significant in relation to both
per capita consumption and expenditures.

Size of week1s food bill was

also found to be significant for both consumption and expenditures.
was found to be significantly related to consumption only.

Age

Income group­

ings did not, by statistical test, lead to consistently significant re­
sults*

But the factor is thought, none the less, to be of significance

in relation to both usage and expenditures.

Educational and occupational

factor groupings were not found to be of significance.

With respect to

the basic hypothesis, it would seem to have been substantiated in that
significant per capita variations were found to exist for both consumption
and expenditures in relation to size of family and food bill, for consump­
tion only in relation to age of housewife, and probably for both in the
case of family income.

The findings for all meat led to refutation of the

hypothesis with respect to education and occupation, however, as no signi­
ficant variations were found related to them.
A summary of the analysis of variance findings for all meats is to
be found in Table 16.
In addition, a graphic presentation has been prepared which shows
the findings relative to per capita expenditures for the two most im­
portant meats, beef and pork, as well as for the all meats composite.

This

is done with regard to size of family and income only, the two seemingly
most important factors.

The graph, Figure I, is of a three dimensional

type with the vertical distance measuring the per capita expenditures.
The expenditures at the three income or family size levels may be observed
with the other factor held constant.

From this graph one is able to ob­

serve not only the relative differences in expenditures for the three

58

TABLE 16.

ALL MEATS:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Expenditures

Per Capita Consumption
Table 92

Income
Si^e of Family** S ^ S ^ S j

Income
Size of Family*-* S ^ S g S ^
Table 93
Income* I^I^
Size of Family** S^SgSfS^

Income* I^I-^, Ig
Size of Family** SppSg^S^

Age* Ag^Ap A^

Age
Table 9k

Income** Ig, I^I-^

Income** Ig, 1^1^

Size of Family** S^Sg^S^

Size of Family**Sjp»S^S^

Education

Education
Table 95

Income
Size of Family** S^Sg^S^
Food Bill* Fj>F1

Income
Size of Fand.ly**S^>Sg>S^
Food Bill* F-^F^
Table 96

Income** I3, Ig>Ii
Size of Family** Sj>Sg^S^

Income
Size of Famly**S-j>Sg-^S^

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* s Significant at $ percent level (significant)
** = Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
^ - Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
Si, S2, S3 * Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
*1* ^2* ^3 s Size of Income breakdown, small to large as in table tested
^1* ^2* ^3 =
°f Housewife breakdown, younger to older as in table
tested
^1* ^2* ^3 s Size of Week's Food Bill breakdown, small to large table
tested

5:
9

items at given income and family size points, but also to note the
different applicable expenditure patterns relative to the two factors.
Figure I, which illustrates data taken from Tables 36, 1+8, and 92,
follows on page 60.

FIGURE

I.

PORK,

EXPENDITURES

BEEF AND A L L

F OR ,

ALL

B EE F

P ORK

BY

SIZE

M E A T S = WEEK'S

OF F A M I LY

AND

AVERAGE

ME A T S

PER

CAPITA

I N C O M E , L AN S I NG , S P R I N G , 1950.

CHAPTER IV

DAIRY PRODUCTS
Dairy products constitute the second major category, of foods, for
which the analysis was performed.

This included products such as bottled

and canned milk, dried milk, cream, cheese, and ice cream.

It does not,

however, include butter, which is included in the f ats group.

In this

study separate,, analyses were made for two individual dairy, items, bottled
milk and cheese, and for all dairy products combined.
Dairy products as a group were found second in importance only..to.
meats as a part of the week's food bill.

It would appear from an analysis

of the reports that about 17*3 percent of the food budget was devoted to
these products.

A larger proportion of the sample families, 98.7 percent,

reported having used some dairy products during the week reported on than
any other food group.

Even with this large usage, however, the findings

of the analysis performed did not appear to be so conclusive with regard
to these products as for some of the meats.

The findings for the most

important of the dairy products, bottled milk, will be presented first,
then for cheese, and finally for all dairy products combined.

Bottled Milk
For the purposes of this study bottled milk includes what the term
would imply to most people, such as regular pasteurized, homogenized,
homogenized Vitamin D, Jersey or Guernsey milk and also buttermilk, skim
milk,' arid chbcolate milk.

It does not include evaporated, condensed,

"fehnedf, dhffeti or powdered milk or cream.

62

Bottled milk, hereafter referred to as milk, was reported used
during the week by 97.7 percent of families questioned.

Average con­

sumption for the 7-day period was found to be 23.07 pints per family
or 7.01 pints per person.
was for milk.

About 10.7 percent of the week’s food bill

Average milk expenditures per family were $2.10.

Per

individual they were 64 eents•
The data for milk are presented in Tables 97 through 107 beginning
on page 222 in the appendix.

Perusal of the six one-way tables indicated

the probable existence of several rather mild trends but none which seemed
to be spectacular.

As family income class increased there appeared to be

only a slight upward trend in milk consumption and expenditure.

With regard

to the size of family elassification a somewhat more noticeable situation
was observed.

Per capita consumption and expenditure rose as family size

increased from one through four.

As size of family became progressively

greater than four, however, per capita consumption and expenditure declined
steadily though by rather small amounts.

A quite steady decline in con-

sumption and expenditure, again by small amounts, was also seen as age of
housewife increased.

The oldest group consumed one pint less per person

for the week than did the youngest.

The average per capita expenditure

for milk was 65 cents in the youngest group as compared with 54 cents in
the oldest.

A fairly mild upward trend also appeared to exist as educa­

tion of housewife was increased.

Differences by occupational groups were

found generally to be of a rather mild nature.

The professional group

ranked highest in both consumption and expenditures with per capita
figures of 7.50 pints and 67 cents.

The group, of unknown occupation

was the lowest in milk consumption with 6.05 pints and was tied for low

63

with the unskilled, labor group in milk expenditure at 55 cents per
person*

Classification by size of week*s food bill indicated a rather

sharp increase from the lowest or five dollars and under group to the
next highest or six to ten dollar group*

Beyond that point the upward

trend continued for both consumption and expenditures but at a much less
rapid rate*

Milk consumption per capita in the smallest size food bill

category was only 3*35 pints, but in the next to similest was 5*89
pints*

In the highest of the eight size of food bill groups, as may

be seen in Table 102, it was 7*52 pints*
Findings for milk resulting from the analysis of variance tests
and inspeotion of the multi-way tables were not of quite so definite
a nature as for eertaim of the meats*

Some things were, however, found

to be significant*
Size of family effects, while appearing rather obviously to exist
upon inspection of the tables, did not prove consistently large enough
in the various cross tabulations to be statistically significant in all
of the tables*

Throughout the series it appeared that the three to

four size of family group was usually higher in consumption of and
expenditure for milk on a per capita basis than were either the larger
or smaller size of family groups*

This could logically be due, among

other things, to the expectation that in many cases the third and fourth
member of families of this size would be relatively young children*

In

Table 103 with income controlled, size of family was found not to be
significant in relation to consumption*

With respect to expenditure,

on the other hand, the three to four size of family group was f ound to
spend significantly more per capita for milk than did either the one to

64

tiro or the five or more size groups*

In the tahle in -which age as well

as ineome effects are screened out, variations by size of family group
were not found to be significant for either consumption or expenditures*
Inspection of the table revealed that in such a

ease the usual pattern

of larger per capita consumption and expenditure for the middle site
of family group tended to break down somewhat, expeeially in the older
age and lower income brackets.

Table 105 in which education and income

effects were controlled showed size of family again to be a significant
factor*

This was true for both consuption and expenditures*

The three-

to-four size group was found to consume significantly more milk per
capita than did the other two groups*

This same group1s expenditures

were found to be si gnifieantly larger per capita than were those of the
smallest or one-t©-two size of family group*
When variations by size of family were studied with size of week's
food bill and income class controlled, they were found to be more pro­
nounced than in the other tables*

They were found to be highly signi­

ficant for both consumptioruand expenditures*

A somewhat different

pattern was also observed, in that in the highest size of week*s food
bill category the smallest family size group rather than the medium
came to be highest in per capita milk consumption and expenditures •

By

this classification arrangement the smallest and medium sized family
grdups were both found to be significantly higher than the five or more
size group in consumption and expenditures*
Size of family, when occupation as well as income was controlled,
was found to be a significant factor with regard to consumption but
not with regard to expenditures*

Again on a per capita basis the middle

or three-to-four size of family group was found to be significantly
higher in

milk used than the other two.

65

Average consumption figures as a whole were about 6*54 pints in
the one-to-two group, 7*47 pints in the three-to-four size of family
group, and 6.80 pints per capita in the five or more group.

Average

expenditures per person were 60 cents in the smallest family size group,

68 cents in the medium size group, and 62 cents in the largest.
Family income was not found to be of great importance as a factor
influencing milk consumption or expenditures.

In none of the five

tables tested were the variations in expenditures for milk by income
groupings found to be statistically significant.

In only one of the

tables, that in which occupation and size of family were controlled,
was it found to be significant with respect to consumption.

In that

instance the middle or 3,000 to 4,499 dollar income group was found
to spend significantly more than the lowest or below 3,000 dollar
group.

The middle income group in each of the tables appeared to

consume and spend slightly more per person for milk than did either
the lower or higher groups, though significantly so in only the one
case.

On the whole the lowest ineome group had an average per capita

consumption of 6.57 pints costing 60 cents.
ineome group were 7.30 pints and

The figures for the middle

66 cents. For the highest or over

4,500 dollar income group the average figures were 7.05 pints and 65 cents.
Age groupings were found to lead to significant per capita differ­
ences in consumption and to highly significant differences in expendi­
tures for milk when size of family and income were controlled.

The

oldest or 56 and over age of housewife group was found to both consume
and spend significantly less per capita for milk than did either of
the two younger age classifications.

This would seem to be a logical

66

situation in that probably fewer babies or younger children would have
been found in households where the housewife is 56 or more years of age*
Average per capita consumption was found to be 7*36 pints for the 35 and
under age group, 7*03 pints for the 36 through 55 age group and 6*09
pints for the 56 and over group*

Expenditures in the same order for the

three groups were 67 cents, 65 cents, and 54 cents per person.
Education was found to be a statistically significant factor in
relation to milk consumption when income and size of family were held
constant*

This was not true in the case of expenditures even though in­

spection of the table indicates that complementary increases did occur
though to a somewhat lesser degree.

The most highly educated, thirteen

or more years, housewife class was found to consume on the average 7*63
pints per capita.

The consumption of this group was found to be signi­

ficantly greater than for the least educated or less than high school
group for which the average consumption was 6*53 pints.

The middle or

high schoool graduate group had an average consumption of 7*40 pints and
was not found to differ significantly from either of the other two*
The size of week*s food bill factor groupings, with income and family
size regulated, were found to differ significantly with respect to
both consumption and expenditures for milk*

The highest or twenty-

one dollar and over week!s food bill group was found to consume more
per capita than the lowest or fifteen dollar and under group.

The

average amounts used per capita by these two groups were respectively
7*47 and 6.46 pints.

When related to expenditures, the highest size

67

of week's food bill group was found to spend significantly more per person
for milk than either of the two lower groups*

Average per capita expenditure

figures, from high to low food bill group, were 68 cents, 63 cents, and 60
cents•
The occupational groupings led to no findings which were determined to
be significant*

Only a relatively small amount of variation was found be­

tween the three larg occupational groupings when income and family size
effects were obviated*

As may be seen in Table 107, the professional,

managerial and official group led in both consumption and expenditures*
The amount of this lead, however, was relatively small*
In summary, the findings would appear to support the hypothesis in
that there are significant differences in per capita consumption of and
expenditures for milk; also in that these differences were found to be
significantly related to age of housewife and to sige of week's food bill*
The findings also support the hypothesis, with regard to consumption, for
differences in education of the housewife, but refute it for this factor
with reference to expenditures.

The hypothesis was refuted, however, for

both consumption and expenditures by occupational breakdown, relative to
which no significant differences were found*

Income would also appear not

to have been a significant factor with respect to per capita expenditures
and of only little if any significance with regard to consumption*

Some

additional analysis, however, would be desirable prior to complete acceptance
of this point*

Although the findings for the size of family factor were not

100 percent conclusive, the evidence would seem to be heavily in support of
the hypothesis that significant per capita variations are related to family
size for both consumption and expenditures*
The summation of the analysis of variance findings for milk is given in
Table 17*

68

TABLE 17.

Bottled Milk:

Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 103
Income
Size of Family* S 2>S]_,S3

Income
Size of Family
Table 10k

Income
Size of Family
Age** A],A2>A3

Ineome
Size of Family
Age* A^,A2>A3
Table

10fj>
Income
Size of Family* So^Sn
Education

Income
Size of Family* S 2tS]_,S3
Education* E3>E^
Table 106

Income
Size of Family** Si,S2>S 3
Food Bill** F^>F^,F2

Income
Size of Family** Si,S2»S3
Food Bill* Z ? ® !
Table 107
Income* I2>I]_
Size of Family* S2>S^, S3
Occupation

Income
Size of Family
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* * Significant at $ percent level (significant)

sl*
Il»
A]_,
El*
Ep

**
>
s2> S3
l2> I3
A2, A3
E 2, E3
F2, F3

= Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
= Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
= size of family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
= Size of income breakdown, small to large as in table tested
= Age of housewife breakdown, younger to older as in table tested
= Education of housewife breakdown, low t© high as in table tested
s Size of week’s food bill breakdown, small to large as in table tested

69

Cheese
'Hie findings of the analysis for cheese turned out to be of a
more definite mture than for milk.
to W

Cheese was also found, of course,

a® item Of considerably less relative importance in the diet.

Baring the week for which information was gathered, 1,558 or 82,6
perc'ent of the families reported having used some cheese.

Average

week*Si cost of the' item to the sample families was 5U cents.

This

amounted* tof &.8 percent of the average week’s food bill as compared
t©:. 10* 7 pendent for milk.
were found to be 16 cents.

Average cheese expenditures per person
Consumption for the week averaged l.Ul

pounds* per family or *k3 pounds per person.
The data for cheese consumption and expenditures are found in
Tables* 108; through 118 starting on page 233 • Examination of the six
one-way tables led to several preliminary conclusions. Income
groupings appeared not to show a great deal of variation in per
capita consumption or expenditures.

A size of family breakdown,

however, indicated a downward per capita trend in both as size of
family increased.

The average per capita expenditure, for example,

dropped from 2,7 cents in the single person households to 11 cents
in those households with seven or more persons,

A slight upward

trend with increases in average age of housewife seemed to exist.
There also seemed rather clearly to be greater per capita consumption
and expenditures in the higher educational groups.

The range in

per capita consumption was from .33 pounds in the zero to seven
years of school group to .53 pounds in the thirteen to fifteen years

70

group.

Though differences were found by occupational groupings,

they were in general not great.

The unemployed gropp, interestingly,

reported the highest average per capita cheese consumption and ex­
penditure figures.

Cheese proved to be one of the few items for

which a one-way size of week's food bill classification indicated
that as size of week's

food bill became greater, per capita con­

sumption and expenditures became less.

This trend was not great as

to amount but appeared to be consistent*

The lowest or five dollar

and under food bill group averaged. 51 pounds of cheese consumed and
19 cents spent per person.

The highest or thirty-six dollar and over

food bill group, however, consumed on the average only

.36 pounds

with an expenditure of 12+ cents.
The two and three-way tables, in conjunction with the analysis
of variance tests, led to findings generally, but not completely,
consistent with what might have been assumed from inspection of the
simpler tables.
expenditure

These findings also indicated that consumption and

differences in relation to the socio-economic factors

were not in all cases the same as for milk, the other dairy product
tested.

Size of family, as with so many foods, stood out in importance

as a factor influencing consumption and expenditures.

It was found

to be highly significant in each of the five tables tested regardless
of what other factors were held constant.

This was true in the cagg

of both per capita consumption of and per capita expenditures for
cheese.

In each of the cases, the smallest or one to two size of

family group was found to use and spend significantly more per person
than the medium size of family group which, in turn, was found to use

*71

and spend significantly more than the largest or five and over size of
family group.

Average overall per capita consumption figures for the

three size of family groups, from small to large, were .60, .1+3, and
.35 pounds.

Average per capita expenditures for the corresponding

groups were 23, 17, and 13 cents.
Income groupings were not found generally to lead to significantly
large differences in per capita consumption or expenditures for cheese.
In orQy one table, that in which size of family and food bill were
held constant, was income found to be significant with respect to
consumption.

Only in the two-way table where size of family alone

was controlled did income groups lead to significantly different per
capita expenditures for cheese.

The three large overall income groups

showed only a mild upward trend in consumption and expenditures as
income increased.

As may be seen in Table lili, the average per capita

figures for the below 3,000 dollar group were .1)1 pounds and 15 cents.
For the 3,000 to U,il99 group they were .1)3 pounds and 17 cents.

For

the highest, or U,500 dollar and over group, the corresponding figures
were .1)5 pounds and 17 cents.
Significant variations, in either per capita consumption or
expenditures for cheese, were not found by age groupings when income
and family size were held constant.

The findings were different for

cheese in this respect than they had been for bottled milk.

Although

the younger age group appeared from the data to be somewhat below the
other two in both consumption and expenditures, these differences
when tested were not found large enough to be statistically significant.

72

Education was found to be a factor of significance when related
to either cheese consumption or expenditures.

The most highly educated

.housewife group, thirteen or more years, was found to be significantly
higher than the two lower educational classifications in both con­
sumption and expenditures.

This group was found to have an average

per capita consumption of .51+ pounds with average expenditures having
been 21 cents.

The two lower educational groups, twelve and zero

through eleven years, were not significantly different from each other
though significantly below the highest group.

The per capita figures

for the two. lower groups were, respectively, .1*2 pounds and
and

.39 pounds and

16 cents,

1$ cents.

Size of week’s food bill had been found to be significant when
related to milk for both consumption and expenditures.

With regard

to cheese, however, the per capita variations found were significant
only when related to consumption.

The largest or twenty-one dollar

and over size of week’s food bill group was found to consume signifi­
cantly more cheese per capita then did either of the two smaller food
bill groups.

This was one of the few peculiar cases where the analysis

of variance findings appeared to be out of line with the weighted
average figures, and also with the one-way breakdown indications.

The

seeming discrepancy, in relation to the analysis of variance findings,
on the part of the weighted averages and the one-way breakdown, is
explained by the fact that so few relatively high per capita cheese­
consuming small families were found in the highest food bill group.
Relatively many more of these small families were found in the

73

two lower food bill categories which raised the average weighted
consumption figures for them.

The analysis of variance findings,

determined as previously outlined, are accepted as the superior measure.
Occupation in relation to cheese, as for bottled milk, was not
found to lead to significant differences between the three large
occupational groups in either per capita consumption or expenditures.
The findings of the analysis for cheese, in summary, were as
follows:

Sige of family was found to be highly significant with per

capita consumption and expenditure figures decreasing as family size
increased.
effect.

Educational groupings were also found to have a significant

The most highly educated housewife group was found to have

significantly higher consumption and expenditure figures than the
two lower categories.

The largest size of week's food bill group

was found to consume significantly more per capita than did the others.
Food bill size was not, however, found to lead to statistically
different expenditures for cheese.

Income was not found to lead to

differences of sufficient size to be called significant in four of
the five tables tested for either consumption or expenditures.

In

one table, the lowest income group was found to consume significantly
less than the medium income group, and in another to have significantly
smaller expenditures than either of the two higher groups.

Neither

age nor occupational differences were found to lead to significantly
large valuation in per capita cheese consumption or expenditures.
These findings for cheese were found to differ from those for
the other dairy product analyzed, milk, in several respects.

Perhaps

the most noticeable of. these differences was with regard to age of the
housewife.

This factor, though not of significance in relation to cheese

had shown up very strongly with respect to per capita milk expenditure
and us&g&.

The one socio-economic factor tested which, when related to

these two food items, led to essentially identical Conclusions in each
dks*e was" occupation.

This was not found to be of significance for either

Other findings for milk and cheese may be compared in the respective
analyses.
The'analysis of variance findings for cheese are summarized in
Table 18.

75

TABLE 18•

Cheese:

Analysis of Variance Findings Summarized for
Five Tables Tested

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 111:
Income* I2*l3>ll
Size of Family** S ^ S 2tS^

Income
Size of Family** S p ^ ^ - j
Table 115

Income
Size of Family**
Age

Income
Size of Fami]y**Sij»S2>S3
Age
Table 116

Income
Size of Family** Sij^2^3
Education* E3>E2,E^

Income
Size of Family** Sl>S2>>S3
Education* Ejj^jE^
Table 117

Income
Size of Family** S]_i>S2^ 3
Food Bill

Income* 12^1
Size of Family** S]_j»S2?s3
Food Bill* F ^ F 2,Fi
Table 118
Income
Size of Family** Si?S2? S3
Occupation

Income
Size of Family** S^^S2,^S3
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* a Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** * Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
? - Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
sl> s2* s3
s Size of family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
3-1* ^2» ^3
= Size of income breakdown, small to large as in table tested
El> E2, E3
s Education of housewife breakdown, low to high as in table tested
Elj F2, F3
- siae of week's food bill breakdown, small to large as in table
tested

76

All Dairy Products
This category includes, in addition to bottled milk and cheese,
those items listed at the beginning of the chapter such as condensed
milk and ice cream.

Because of the difficulty involved in combining

such items into a meaningful consumption measurement, findings relative
to expenditures only are presented.

As has been mentioned, dairy

products had the widest acceptance of all the food groups studied.
They were reported used by 1,862 or 98.7 percent of the 1,885 sample
families.

Average expenditures for dairy products were $3.U0 per

family or $1.03 per person.

The tables presenting the data for the

all dairy products composite are numbered 119 through 129 and begin
on page 2kh in the appendix.
The findings for this composite were not exactly like those for
either of the two dairy products, previously discussed.

The one-way

classification tables indicated slightly higher dairy product expendi­
tures in the middle and upper income groups than in the lower ones.
A clearer trend downward in the per capita expenditure figures appeared
to exist as the size of family categories became larger.

But, by

age of housewife groupings there appeared to be very little variation.
"When the families were grouped by education of housewife, on the other
hand, an upward trend was to be seen in expenditures as education in­
creased.

The very highest group, however, was somewhat lower than the

second most highly educated one.

The unskilled and occupation unknown

groups ranked lowest in the finer occupational breakdown.

Of these

twelve groups, oddly, the unemployed ranked highest in expenditures for
all dairy products.

This would seem to indicate that dairy products

were highly favored by th>6se who might be trying, to stretch their food ooilor.
Groupings by size of week’s food bill indicated a sharp rise from•the lowest
group to the next highest, followed by relative stability for expenditures
as size of food bill increased.

The most noticeable rise was from 67 cents

per capita spent by the five dollar and under foodbill group to $1.05 spent
per person in the six to ten dollar group.
The multiple classification tables, as tested, led to several conclu­
sions.

Size of family, it may be recalled, was found to be highly signifi­

cant with respect to cheese but of more doubtful importance in relation
to bottled milk.

'With respect to the all dairy products composite, size

of family was found to be significant or highly significant in each of tne
five tables tested relative to per capita expenditures.

By and large, the

;one to two and the three to four size of family groups were found to be
higher in per capita expenditures for dairy products than was the largest
or five or more size of family group.

In Table 125, where income is re­

gulated, the per capita figures for these three size of family groups,
from small to large, were $1.15, $1.07, ana 93 cents.

The largest, five or

more, size of family group was apparently somewhat below the other two or
a per capita basis.
While variations by size of income appeared ratherdefinitely to exist,
it was not clearly determined that they were large enough to be of signifi­
cance.

Such variations were found to be significant only in the two esses

where food bill and age in addition to family size were controlled.
tables it may be seen that the middle or

3,000

to

In the

hfh99 dollar income

group usually ranks well above the lowest income group and to a con­
siderably lesser extent above the highest in per capita expenditures.

78

Age of the housewife had been found to be a highly significant factor
in relation to milk expenditures.

With regard to cheese, on the other hand,

it was found to be a factor of little or no apparent influence.

In relation

to the all dairy product amalgamation of food items, the age factor was
found not be to be statistically significant when related to per capita
expenditures.

Average per capita figures for the three groups, 35 and under,

36 through 55, and 56 and over were respectively $1.01, $1.07, and $1.03.
Education also proved not to be statistically significant in relation
to expenditures for the all dairy product classification.

Some variation

was to be noted, however, in the averages of the data for the three groups.
The average per capita expenditures as found in Table 127, from low to high­
er educational classification, were 91 cents, $1.05, and $1.19.
Size of week's family food bill, with income and family size controlled,
was found to be highly significant in relation to per capita expenditures.
This was not too surprising in that size of food bill had previously been
found to be significant for both bottled milk and cheese in relation to
consumption, and highly significant for bottled milk in relation to expendi­
tures.

The highest size of food bill group, twenty-one dollars and over, was

found to be significantly higher than the two lower groups in expenditures
for the all dairy products composite.
vary much in size.

The average figures, however, did not

The highest size of food bill group, twenty-one dollars

and over, was found to spend an average of $1.06 per person for all dairy
products as compared to 99 cents in the middle or sixteen through twenty
dollar group and $1.05 in the lowest or fifteen dollar and under group.
Occupation, as for bottled milk and cheese, was not found to be a significant
factor in relation to per capita expenditures for all dairy products with
size of family and income controlled.

The professional, managerial, awd

79
official group reported the highest average figure and the skilled, semi­
skilled, and unskilled the lowest.

These differences were not, however,

large enough to be statistically significant.
In summation, the findings for all dairy products combined were not
so conclusive for all of the factors in relation to the hypothesis as might
have been desired.

This was true with respect to income which was found to be

of significance in only two of the five tables.

Findings for size of family,

however, were of a more definite nature having been found to be consistently
significant in relation to per capita expenditures.

Age was not found to be

significant in relation to per capita expenditures with income and family size
controlled.

This was also true relative to the educational factor,

Food

bill size, however, was found to be highly significant relative to the dairy
products aggregate.

Occupation, as for both cheese and bottled milk, was not

found to be a factor of significance.
The basic hypothesis, then, would seem to have been substantiated for
this food group in that significant variations did occur between family
groups in per capita expenditures. It was also supported in that these
variations were found to have been related to size of family, size of food
bill, and possibly income.

The hypothesis was refuted in regard to occupation,

age, and also for education when related to per capita expenditures.

As for

meats, it may be noted that the results of the analysis for this composite
differ from those for some of the individual foods making it up.

This again

illustrates that while significant differences appear to exist in per capita
consumption of and expenditures for most foods, these variation cannot be
arbitrarily assumed to be of similar intensity, in the same direction, or
necessarily in relation to the same factors even for foods of a like nature.
The analysis of variance findings for all dairy products are summarized
in Table 19.

80

TABLE 19.

ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS s ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED
FOR FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 125
Income
Size of Family* Sx»S3
Table 126
Income* l2>ll
Size of Family** S]_^S2>S3
Age
Table 127
Income
Size of Family* Sj^S3
Education
Table 128
Income* I2jI3j.I1
Size of Family** $1^ 2^83
Food Bill** F3>1F1jF2
Table 129
Income
Size of Family* Si~S3
Occupation
*

Explanation
* =
** =
> ~
Si»S2jS3 s
^1»^2»^3 =
Fl»F2,F3 s

of Symbols:
Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
size of family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
Size of income breakdown, small to large as in table tested
size of week's food bill breakdown, small to large as in table tested

CHAPTER V

FATS
The third of the food groups to be treated in the study is the fats
group*

This classification includes butter, margarine, lard, and the

various vegetable shortenings*
oils.

It does not, however, include the cooking

These are found in the oils group discussed later in the study.
Fats of some kind -mere found to have been used by 97*5 percent of

the sample families.

Only two categories, all dairy products, and milk,

were reported used by a higher number of families during the week.

Fats

were found, on the average, to have cost each family about 92 cents, or
I4..7 percent of the week's family food bill.
The analysis was performed for two of the fats separately, butter
and margarine, and for all fats combined.

The findings which follow for

these foods proved to be not only quite definite, but also of a highly
interesting nature.
Butter
The most important of all the fats and the first one to be analyzed
was butter.

This item was reported used by l,lUiO or 76.U percent of the

sample families. .Average overall consumption for the week was .93 pounds
per family or .28 pounds per person.

Average butter expenditures were

61 cents per family or 19 cents per person.

This amounted to 3.1 percent

of the week’s food bill or nearly two-thirds of the 4.7 percent ox the
food bill spent for all fats combined.

Tables 130 through I4O used in tne

analysis for butter, and showing the data relating to it, are to be found
on pages 255 through 265 in the appendix.

82

Examination of the six single factor classification tables for batter
indicated several probable conditions.

The size of family income groupings

appeared to indicate relatively higher per capita usage and expenditures
in the upper income groups.

The lower income groups, between one and four

thousand dollars, all appeared to be about on a par at somewhat lower
levels.

Oddly, however, the lowest income group, below 1,000 dollars,

reported higher per capita butter usage and expenditures than any except
the very highest or 10,000 dollar and over group.

This fact was partially

explained by the small average size of families in this lowest income group.
The one-way breakdown, by size of family, Table 131, indicated a very
clear and definite downward trend in per capita usage of and expenditures
for butter as size of family increased.

Average consumption and expendi­

ture figures in the single person households were .1*8 pounds and 33 cents.
In the largest families with seven or more persons, on the other hand,
the corresponding average per capita figures were only .17 pounds and
12 cents.
trend.

Classification by age of housewife also appeared to show a

As age of housewife became greater, per capita consumption and

expenditure for butter also became greater.

Groupings by education of

the housewife led to little in the way of a trend, each of the groups
having been on nearly the same level.

"What little evidence of a trend

was to be seen seemed to indicate a decline in butter usage and expendi­
tures as education increased.

Occupational groupings also appeared to

lead to little or no variation.

The service group, however, ranked lowest

in butter usage and expenditures while the unemployed, surprisingly, ranked

83

highest.

A classification t»y size of week's food bill alone also did not

show a great deal of variation*

The medium low food bill groups appeared,

on a per capita basis, however, to rank slightly above either the very
lowest group or the higher groups in butter consumption and expenditures*
The more conclusive portion of the analysis, the multi-way tables
and the analysis of variance tests, led to very definite findings*

Highly

significant variations in per capita butter consumption and expenditures
were found in relation to size of family*

'This factor was found to be

highly significant in each of the five tables tested regardless of which
other factor or factors were held constant.

The one-to-two size of family

group with per capita consumption of *39 pounds and expenditures of 26
cents was found to be significantly higher for both than either of the
two larger size of family groups.

The three-to-four size of family group

in turn was found in about half the instances to be significantly above
the largest or five or more size of family group averages in both consump­
tion and expenditures.

That extremely noticeable per capita variations

do exist by size of family groups may be seen upon inspection of Table
136,or any of the other multi-way tables for butter.
Income also was found to be a factor of significance in relation
to per capita butter consumption and expenditures.

It was found to be

significant or highly significant in each of the tables tested in re­
lation to both.

As might have been expected, the highest income group,

U,5>00 dollars or more, was found to rank first in both usage and expendi­
tures for butter*

This group was in each case found to be significantly

8U

higher than the lowest or the middle income groups.
capita trend was downward as income decreased.

The overall per

The differences were less,

however, and not always significant between the two lower groups, below
3,000 and 3,000 to htb-99 dollars, than between these two groups and the
highest or 14,500 dollar and over group*
Age of housewife groupings, with size of family and income controlled,
were found to lead to significant differences in both per capita butter
usage and expenditures.

The oldest or $6 and over group was found to be

significantly higher in both than the youngest or 35 and under age of
housewife group.

Average figures for the 56 and over group were *3U

pounds and 23 cents while for the 35 and under group they were .22 pounds
and 15 cents.

The average per capita figures for the middle or 36 through

55 age group were .30 pounds and 20 cents.

The figures for this group were

not found to vary significantly from either the younger or the older
groups*
Education of the housewife, with size of family and income effects
removed, was not found to lead to variations of sufficient size to be
statistically significant for either per capita consumption or expendi­
tures.

Each of the three large educational groups reported, as may be

seen in Table 138, exactly the same average per capita expenditure figure
for butter, 18 cents*

Average per capita consumption of butter for each

of the three groups was also almost identical for the week.
pounds for two of the groups and .28 pounds for the third.

It was .27
Apparently

education alone did not lead to either higher or lower butter usage as
many people might have been inclined to expect*

35>

Groupings by size of the week's family food bill indicated that
significantly higher average per capita butter usage and expenditures
took place in the largest size of food bill group.

This is another one

of the few cases -inhere the weighted average figures in the table do not
agree with the analysis of variances findings.

Again this is due to the

distribution of families in which, relatively many more high butter con­
suming small families are found in the lower food bill groups.

With size

of family and income effects removed, however, the highest food bill group,
twenty-one dollars and over, was found by analysis of variance to be signi­
ficantly higher than the two lower ones in both per capita consumption and
expenditures.
Occupation was not found to be a factor of significance in relation
to either per capita consumption of, or expenditures for butter.

As may

be seen upon inspection of Table ll|0, the professional, managerial, and
official group was found to be slightly higher in butter usage and ex­
penditures than the other two groups.

The differences were so slight,

however, as to not be statistically significant.
The findings of the analysis for butter in relation to the basic
hypothesis may be rather easily summarized because of their quite definite
nature.

The hypothesis was supported for butter in that significant var­

iations izi per capita consumption and expenditures were found to exist.
Further, these were found to be related to several of the basic factors
tested for: size of family, family income, age of housewife, and size of
week's family food bill.

The hypothesis was in part refuted, however, in

that significantly large variations in either per capita consumption or
expenditures were not found to exist in relation to education of the
housewife or occupation of the head of the household.

86

Of all the factors tested, size of family appeared to be of the
greatest influence.

Variations in consumpti cn and expenditures as related

to this factor were so large as to be highly significant statistically
in each table tested.

The facts uncovered were, briefly, that signifi­

cantly higher per capita usage of, and expenditures for butter were
found in smaller families, in higher income families, in families re­
porting a relatively higher week's food bill, and among older age of
housewife families, in each case with two of the other factors con­
trolled.

The more detailed findings of the analysis of variance tests

performed are found summarized in Table 20 on page 87*

87

TABLE 20. BUTTER: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR FIVE
TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 136

Income*

Income*

Size of Family#*

Size of Family** S^Sg^S^
Table 137

Income* 1^, Xj^l
Size of Family**

Income* I^, Ig^I]_

Age*

Age*

Size of Family** S^Sg,S^

Ax

A^rA^

Table 138
Income** 1 ^ 1 g, 1-^

Income**

Ig

Size of Family#* SjT’S^T'Sj

Size of Family#* S ^ S ^ S ^

Education

Education
Table 139

Income*

Income* I^?Iq_

I^>I^

Size of Family**

Size of Family** S^-7 Sg,S3

S^

Food Bill*

Food Bill* J ^ F p Fg

Fg

Table U+0
Income**I^ 1^, Ig

Income** I^v-I-^, Ig

Size of Family** S^SgT'S^

Size of Family**

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* s Significant at $ percent level (significant)
** = Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
? - Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
S^,Sg, Sj® Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table tested
Ifjlgj^ * Size of Income breakdown, small to large as in table tested
A^,Ag,A3 b Age of Housewife breakdown, younger to older as in table
tested
F1>F2,F3 • Size of Week1s Food Bill breakdown, small to large as in
table tested

88

Margarine
The second individual fat item for which the analysis was performed
is margarine*

This product is of course widely known as a substitute

for and as a competitor of butter.

In view of this fact, and of the

many controversial statements made from time to time by proponents of the
two products, the findings of the analysis for margarine were derived and
compared with those for butter with anticipation.
Margarine was found to have been used by 7U3 or 3 9 percent of the
sample families*

This was only slightly more than half the number of

families who had reported using butter.

The average family expenditure

for margarine in the overall sample was l£ cents or .8 percent of the
week’s food bill*

It may be recalled that butter was reported to have

accounted for a much larger part, 3*1 percent, of the food bill.

Average

week's consumption of margarine was found to be .£l pounds per family or
•16 pounds per person.

This was a substantially smaller average usage than

was reported for butter*
Inspection of the tables showing the data for margarine, lUl through
151 on pages 266 through 276 in the appendix, indicated several different
relationships between margarine and the factors studied than had been
found for butter.
finite trends.

The six one-way tables appeared to indicate few de­

The classification by family income groups, however,

brought to light a clear downward trend in per capita consumption and usage
of margarine as family income became larger.

Average per capita consump­

tion ranged from .2? pounds in the lowest income group, under 1,000 dollars,
to only .02 pounds in the highest or 10,000 dollar and over group.

It was

89

noted, however, that the downward trend appeared to be less pronounced in
the income groups between 2,OCX) and $,000 dollars than in either the
lower or higher portions of the range*

These findings may be observed in

Table li+1 on page 266 * The one-way table by size of family appeared to
show no trend with respect to per capita consumption of or expenditures
for margarine.

The single family group was highest for both but there were

no other differences noted.

The age of housewife groupings, however, seemed

to indicate an upward trend in both usage and expenditures as the age of
housewife became greater*

The oldest group, 66 and over, reported sub­

stantially higher average figures than any of the others.

Groupings by

education of the housewife led to no definite pattern for either consump­
tion or expenditures*

Some differences were noted, however, between the

occupational classifications.

The managerial and official group ranked

lowest with an average per capita consumption of *11 pounds and an average
expenditure of 3 cents per person.

The unemployed group rated the highest

for both usage and expenditures, the average per capita figures having
been .21+ pounds and 7 cents.

Size of week's food bill classifications

showed relatively mild variations in the average figures.

A downward

trend, however, appeared to be present in both per capita usage and ex­
penditures as week's food bills grew larger.
The multi-way tables, with one or more factors held constant, in
conjunction with the analysis of variance tests led to conclusive though
unusual results.

Size of family was not found to be a statistically signi­

ficant factor in any of the five tables tested when related to either
consumption or expenditures.

This finding for margarine is greatly different

90

than that for butter for which the size of family had been found to be
highly significant.

Margarine also differed frcm most other foods in this

reppect as size of family was found to have a significant bearing on usage
of and expenditures for nearly all the foods studied.

That size of family

actually did have relatively little bearing upon margarine usage and ex­
penditures may be seen in the multi-way tables*

In Table lk7 with only

income held constant, for example, it may be seen that the average consump­
tion and expenditure figures were very similiar for each of the three large
size of family groups*

The one-to-two size of family reported an average

per capita consumption of .17 pounds, the figure for the three-to-four size
group was .15 pounds, and for the five or more group it was .16 pounds*
Average per capita expenditure figures for the same three groups were also
almost identical at ft, U, and U cents respectively.
When related to income, variations in per capita margarine consumption
were so large as to be highly significant in each of the five multi-way
tables tested.

Variations in per capita expenditures for margarine were

also present when related to income, and were found significant or highly
significant in four of the five tables tested. With regard to both con­
sumption and expenditures, the higher averag&per capita figures were found
in the lower income groups*

It may be recalled that for butter the income

factor was also found to be significant

but in just the opposite way*

For butter the larger usage and cost figures were in the higher income
groups*

The significant differences for the two products were found to

run in just the opposite direction with, as may have been anticipated,

91

the margarine tending to be used more in the lower income family groups
and the butter in the higher income groups.
The age of housewife groupings, with size of family and income con­
trolled, were not found to lead to variations in either per capita con­
sumption or expenditures of a sufficiently large size to be statistically
significant*

The oldest age of housewife group appeared from the tables,

however, to use more than the younger groups even if not significantly
so.

Margarine differed in relation to the age factor from butter for

which it had been found to be a factor of significance.
Differences in education of the housewife had not been found to lead
to significant variations in per capita consumption of or expenditures
for butter.

This was also true in the case of margarine.

The data for

margarine indicated slightly higher consumption and expenditures per
person in the below high school group than in the others when income and
family size were regulated.

The differences

did not appear to be large,

however, and when tested were not of sufficient size to be statistically
significant.
Food bill size was found to lead to significant variations in per
capita consumption of margarine as it had for butter.

The variations,

as in relation to income, however, were in opposite directions for the
two products.

In the case of margarine the lowest week’s food bill group

was found to use significantly more than the two hi^ier ones.

In relation

to butter, the highest group had been found to use significantly more
than the other two.

With regard to per capita expenditures for margarine,

92

relatively less variation could be seen in the tables than for consumption.
The analysis of variance tests found these existing variations not to be
significantly large in the expenditures section of the table.

Margarine

again differed from butter in this respect.
Differences in per capita consumption and expenditures between the
three large occupational groups were not found to be of significance for
margarine when income and family size effects were removed.
also been found true for butter.

This had

The actual figures indicated that the

managerial, professional, and official group was somewhat below the other
two in margarine usage, however, while it had appeared to be somewhat
higher in relation to butter.

The differences again, however, were not

sufficiently large to be found significant.
The findings for margarine in relation to the hypothesis may be
briefly summarized.

Income appeared to be the all important factor being

related to significant variations in both per capita consumption and ex­
penditures.

The only other factor found to be of significance, size of

week's food bill, was significant for consumption only and is by its
nature closely related to income.

The hypothesis was refuted by the analysis

for each of the other factors, size of family, age of housewife, education
of housewife, and occupation of the head of the household.

None of these

were found to be significantly related to per capita variations in either
consumption of, or expenditures for margarine.
The findings of the analysis of variance tests are summarized in
Table 21 on the following page*

93

TABLE 21.

MARGARINE:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures

Table lU?
Incomew* I^I^-I^

Income** I >1 >1.
1 2
3
Size of Family

Size of Family
Table 11*8
Income** I^Ig, I^

Income

Size of Family
Age

Size oi' Family
Age
Table lltf

Income** 1-^, I^I^

Income** I-^Ig^l^

Size of Family
Education

Size of Family
Education
Table 150

Income** I-^Ig^I^

Income* I^>I^

Size of Family
Food Bill* F-j>Fg> F^

Size of Family
Food Bill
Table 1$1

Income** 1^, I^>I^

Income* 1^, I^I^

Size of Family
Occupation

Size of Family
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* s Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** * Significant at 1 percent level (Highly significant)
> » Significantly greater than (at either $ or 1 percent level)
1^, I21 I3 s Size of Income breakdown, small to large as in table
tested
Fl* F2* F3 “ Size of Week’s Food Bill breakdown, small to large as
in table tested

9h

All Fats
An analysis was also performed for an all fats composite.

This in­

cluded butter and margarine, previously discussed, and in addition lard
and the various vegetable shortenings.

A very large proportion of the

sample families, 97*5 percent, reported using some fat product during the
week studied.

Average family expenditure for fats was 92 cents or U.7

percent of the week1s food bill.

Per capita expenditures averaged 28 cents.

Average fat consumption was 2.09 pounds per family or .6U pounds per person.
The data relating fat consumption and expenditures to the basic
factors5 size of family, family income, age of housewife, education of
housewife, occupation of the head of the household, and to size of week’s
family food bill, are to be found in Tables l£2 through 162 beginning on
page 277*
Examination of these tables indicated that the findings for all fats
were more like those for butter than for margarine, which would have been
expected due to butter's higher usage and cost, but not in all respects
like either of them.
amined first.

The six one-way tables, l£2 through l£7, were ex­

From these it appeared that there was little trend in ex­

penditure for fats in relation to income, but that a mild downward trend
in consumption was present as income grew larger.

A more definite down­

ward trend could be seen in both per capita consumption and expenditures
as size of family became larger.

Expenditures, in fact, were twice as

large in the single person households, 1+2 cents, as in the seven persons

95
arid bV§r- hc3!Tisiehblds- -^lere they averaged only 21 cents.

A one-way ciassi-

/

fSMtioiif'by1

o t housewife also uncovered a clear trend.

Per capita

cabsili^ttoh and ie^eMiture was seen to become steadily larger as the
age of housewife became greater.

Expenditures per person for fats were

hhff again as large in the oldest, 6^ and over, age of housewife group as
in the youngest or 25 and under group.

Educational groupings also indi­

cated a trend, although of a milder nature.

It appeared that as education

of the housewife became greater per capita consumption of and expenditures
for fats became smaller.

Occupational groups did not appear in general

to vary a great deal in fats usage or expenditure.

The highest figures

were for the unemployed group with an average per capita fat consumption
of .79 pounds and expenditures of 33 cents.

The sales and kindred group

ranked lowest in average consumption at .$9 pounds while the lowest in
average expenditures were the service and the unskilled groups, each
averaging 25 cents per person.

Size of week*s family food bill groupings

did not appear to lead to substantial variation in either consumption of
or expenditures for fats.

The very lowest food bill group, five dollars

and under, did, however, report considerably lower average per capita
figures for both than did the others.
The multi-way tables, in conjunction with the analysis of variance
tests, substantiated in general what had been concluded from previous in­
spection of the one-way tables.

Size of family was found to be a highly

significant factor in relation to both per capita consumption and expendi­
tures in each of the five tables tested.

This was the same as had been

determined to be the case in relation to butter and quite the opposite

96

bindings formar garine.

The smallest, one-to-two size of family

•gtfoup was sighificahtly higher in per capita consumption and expenditures
than the* tbree-to-four size group which in turn was nearly always signi­
ficantly higher than the five or more size group.

As size of family

grew larger per capita consumption of and expenditures for fats grew
smaller*

Table 1^8 shows, for example, that the one-to-two size of family

average consumption and expenditure figures were *76 pounds and 36 cents
per person.

Corresponding figures for the three-to-four size of family

group were *6i* pounds and 28 cents*

For the five or more size group they

were •£6 pounds and 23 cents* Again a definite and significant pattern
of variations was seen to exist in relation to size of family as had been
the case for so many other foods*
Income groupings were not found to lead to significantly large vari­
ations in per capita consumption of fits*

It maybe recalled that the

higher income families were found to consume significantly more butter
and the lower income groupings significantly more margarine.

The two

appear to have cancelled out each others effect leaving total per capita
fat consumption very much alike in each of the three larger income group­
ings.

Income was, however, found to be a factor of importance in re­

lation to per capita expenditures for fats.

In four of the five tables

tested the highest income group was found to spend significantly more
for fats than: did the lowest, and in two of the tables the middle income
group was found to spend significantly more than the lowest*

These re­

sults would appear to reflect the use of more expensive fat items by the
higher income groups, such as butter rather than margarine, since the
amounts consumed have been seen not to vary significantly by income

97

classes*

The one table in which income was not found to be significant

was that in which food bill as well as family size was held relatively
constant.

Food bill size is thought to be closely related to income and

since this factor was found significant, it is felt that the significance
of income in relation to expenditure is not open to serious doubt because
of its not being found significant in the one table out of the five.
Education of housewife was found to be highly significant in relation
to consumption and significant in relation to per capita expenditures with
size of family and income held constant.

The lowest educational group

was found, in relation to both consumption and expenditures, to be signi­
ficantly above the two higher ones.

It is interesting to recall that

education was not found to be a significant factor for either butter or
margarine when considered alone.

This would seem to indicate either more

dual usage of these two products or relatively heavier usage of lard and/
or other fats by the less highly educated wives within their income and
family size brackets.

Average per capita usage and expenditure figures

for the lowest or less than high school educational group were .71 pounds
and 29 cents.

For the high school group they were .60 pounds and 2? cents

while for the more than high school group they were very similar or •59
pounds and 26 cents*
Size of week's family food bill was found to be significant in re­
lation to both consumption and expenditures.

This had also been the case

for butter while for margarine it had been found significant only in
relation to consunption.

The highest size of food bill group, with income

and family size controlled, was found to use and spend significantly more

98

per capita for fats than did the two lower food bill groups.

This, it

may be recalled, had also been the situation relative to butter, while
in relation to margarine the lowest food bill group had used significantly
more per person than did the other two.

This again illustrates how in­

dividual items going into a composite such as all fats may differ markedly
from both the composite and other ingredients in relation to the effects
of the factors concerned.

The actual overall average figures in the three

large food bill groups for fats indicated a rather mild downward trend in
per capita fat usage and expenditures as size of food bill increased.

This

was probably due to the higher proportion of large families in the higher
food bill classifications.

The analysis of the variance test, based on

the individual cells, however, found the differences of sufficient size
to be of significance in the opposite direction as indicated above.
Age of housewife had been found to be significant in relation to
consumption of and expenditures for butter.
found significant for margarine.

This factor had not been

For the all fats composite, however, age

of housewife was found to he highly significant.

The older age groups

rated above the younger in both usage and expenditures.

With regard to

consumption, the oldest or 56 years and over group, and the 36 through 55
group were both found to use significantly more fats per person than did
the youngest or 35 and under group.

In regard to expenditures, with income

and family size controlled, the oldest age of housewife group was found
to be significantly above the middle group which in turn was significantly
higher than the youngest group.
in Table 159*

Figures for the three groups may be seen

The oldest or 56 and over age group consumed an average of

•77 pounds and spent an average of 35 cents per person.

The youngest or

99
35 and under group reported substantially smaller average figures of .57
pounds and 2k cents per person.
The three large occupational groups were not found to be signifi­
cantly different from each other in either per capita consumption of or
expeniitures for fats when income and family size were held relatively
constant.
margarine.

The findings in this case were the same as for both butter and
Average per capita fat consumption for the three groups varied

by only a few hundredths of a pound.

Average expenditures for fats were

found to be exactly the same in each of the groups - 28 cents per person.
lhat in summary may be said of the findings of the analysis for
fats?

Definite variations were found in both per capita consumption of

and expenditures for the fat composite*

These variations were found in

some instances to differ in size, in direction, or in both from what had
been the case for certain of the individual items making up the composite
when related to the basic factors listed in the hypothesis.

Variations

of sufficient size to be statistically significant in per capita consump­
tion of and expenditures for fats were found related to size of family,
age of housewife, education of housewife, and to size of week's family
food bill.

In addition, per capita expenditure

variations by size of

income were found to be significant in four of the five tables tested.
Significantly large variations were not, however, found present in re­
lation to occupation for either usage or expenditure with income and
family size controlled.

The basic hypothesis, then, was found to be

substantiated for fats in relation to each of the factors tested except
occupation, and with the partial exception of income*

100

A summary of the analysis of variance findings for the all fats
composite is presented in Table 22 on page 101#
A three dimensional, presentation, Figure II, was also prepared
showing per capita expenditures for butter, margarine, and all fats re­
lative to the size of family and income factors*

This figure will serve

to illustrate some of the more important mentioned differences in expendi­
ture patterns for these foods.

Figure II, which is to be found on page

102, illustrates data which were taken from Table 136, 1U7, and 158*

*

101

TABLE 22.

ALL FATSs

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures

Table 158
Income
Size of Family## S ^ S ^ S ^

Income# 1^, I2^X3
Size of Family## S^ySgw^
Table 159

Income
Size of Family##

Income* I3* Igyl^
Size of Family#*S^S2* S^

Age# A^ * Arj,A-^

Age## Aj^A^A-^
Table 160

Income

Income# I3^1^

Size of Family## S ^ S ^ S ^

Size of Family#* S ^ S ^ S ^

Education## e i >e 2* ®3

Education* E^^F^* E3
Table 161
Income
Size of Family## S ^ S 2>S3

Income
Size of Family## 82^82^83
Food Bill# F^jF}* Fg

Food Bill# f3>F25 F^l
Table 162

Income
Size of Family## S-. 8^83
Occupation

Income# 3g>I 3
Size of Family## S3^S2^ 3
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* = Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
## s Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> = Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
= Size of Family breakdown* small to large as in table tested
*1,*2,3'3 * Size of Income breakdown* small to large as in table tested
AijAgjA^ s Age of Housewife breakdown* younger to older as in table
tested
s Education of Housewife breakdown, low to high as in table
tested
*1>f 2jf3 s Size of Week’s Food Bill breakdown, small to large as in
table tested

PER C A P I T A
EXPENDITURES

>.40

40

.30

.30

20

.2 0

4,5 00
OR MORE

5 OR MORE

3,000- 4,4 99

BELOW

MARGARI NE

FIGURE H .
CAPITA
SPRING,

MARGARINE,

EXPENDITURES
1950.

3,000

ALL FATS

BUTTER

BUTTER
FOR,

AND

A L L FATS ‘

BY S I Z E OF F A M I L Y

WEEK' S
AND

AVERAGE PER

INCOME,

LANSING,

CHAPTER V I

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS

In addition to the meats, dairy products, and fats food groups,
five other individual categories were analyzed separately.
oils, fruit juices, poultry, eggs, and fish and seafood.

These were
The findings

for the first of these individual food items, oils are presented herewith
to he followed by those for the other products in the order named.

Oils

Oils were found to have been used by a relatively large number of the
sample families during the reporting week.

In all, 1,377 or 73.1 percent

of the families indicated that oils in some form were used.

The oils

classification included cooking oils, mayonnaise, and various other
salad dressings.

As might have been expected, relatively small average

amounts were consumed.

The figures reported averaged .31 pints per family

or .16 pints per person.

Average expenditures reported for oils were 17

cents per family and 3 cents per person.

This expenditure accounted for

only nine-tenths of one percent of the week’s family food bill.

Because

of this fact there is perhaps some doubt as to whether or not oils were
of sufficient importance to be included In the study.

In most otner

writings or statistics encountered oils were grouped with fats into a
a fats and oils category.

If nothing else, the findings of this analysis

indicate that, at least insofar as being influenced in consumption or
expenditures by the factors being tested fats and oils really have little

in common.

It may be recalled that for fats, size of family, a~e, educa­

tion, food bill, and income were all found to be of significance to some
degree*

As will be brought out in the discussion of the tables and

statistical tests, however, groupings by none of these factors appeared
to lead consistently to significant variations in either per capita con­
sumption of or expenditures for oils*
The data for oils are to be found in Tables 163 through 173 beginning
on page 288 • The figures are not large in any of them due to the small
amount of oils used*

In the first one-way table which grouped the families

by income, it was found that variations were not great except that the
very lowest, below 1,000 dollars, income group was considerably under the
others in both per capita consumption and expenditures*

Average figures

by size of family were of a similar nature with, if anything, even less
variation being found.

The one-way breakdown by age also appeared to

show very little variation with regard to per capita expenditures.

With

respect to consumption, however, the older age of housewife groups appeareo
to use somewhat less per capita than did the younger groups*

Per capita

consumption and expenditure variations by education of the housewife
groupings were exceptionally slight.

Average consumption figures varied

by no more than *02 pints and expenditures by not over one cent and that
much in only one instance*
variation in most instances.

Occupational groupings also led to little
The skilled group, however, was first in

consumption and expenditures by a fairly large margin.

The unemployed

group was lowest in both average consumption and expenditures at *11
pints and 3 cents.

The skilled group figures were .21 pints and 6 cent*.

A. greater amount of variation was seen in tne one-way table by size of
week's food till*

A quite noticeable jump toward higher consumption and

expenditures was seen as size of week's food bill increased from the low­
est to the next highest grouping*

Thereafter, however, the picture was

one of relative stability.
The multi-way tables and analysis of variance tests did not seam to
support the few trends which had appeared to be present in relation to
some of the factors in the one-way tables.

Size of family was the only

factor found significant by analysis of variance in any of the tables
tested.

And, size of family was found to be of significance in only two

tables with respect to expenditures with regard to none relative to con­
sumption.

The figures presented no very consistent pattern.

Generally

consumption and expenditures per person averaged slightly higher in the
smaller family size groups with one or more of the other factors regu­
lated.

In the lowest of the three large income groups, below 3>000 dollar,

however, consumption and expenditures appeared in many of the classifi­
cations to be the least in the smallest or one-to-two size of family group
It was in the two tables where age or education of the housewife in addi­
tion to income were controlled that size of family was found to be re­
lated to significantly large variations in per capita expenditures*

In

the table where age was included the smallest or one-to-two size of lamily
group was found to spend significantly more than the largest, five or more
size of family group.

In the case where education was included along ?dv,

income, both the one-to-two and the three-to-four groups were found to
spend significantly more per person for oils than did the five or more
group.

Though the figures in relation to income groups did not present a
very consistent pattern, they did average out to be very much alike.
Average consumption was .lU pints for the below 3,000 dollar group, .15
pints for the

3,000 - U,U99 dollar group, and 17 pints for the U,30Q

dollar or more income group.

Average per capita expenditures for the

three groups were 3, 5 and 6 cents respectively.

In none of the tables

tested were the variations by income of sufficient size to be found sta­
tistically significant.
Age of housewife groupings also led to figures of a somewhat similar
nature.

The averages for the three age groups were almost identical in

size for expenditures.

Per capita consumption figures indicated a slight

trend toward less consumption of oils by persons in the oldest age of
housewife group.

The overall variations, however, were not large.

Age

was not found to be a significant factor by the analysis of variance tests
with income and family size controlled.
Educational groupings with the influence of income and family size
removed were also not found to lead to statistically significant variatior•
in either per capita consumption of, or expenditures for, oils.

The aver­

age expenditures were 3 cents for both the high school and less than
high school groups, while for the more than high school group the aver­
age was 6 cents.

Average consumption was nearly identical for each <jt

the groups at .13 pints in the two lower educational groups and .16 pints
in the highest.

No significance was found by the analysis of variance

tests of the three-way table in relation to education.

The situation was much the same in relation to size o.' u s K h
bill.

Each of the three large-size of food bill groups averaged the some

in per capitaexpenditures for oils, 3 cents,

Consumption was only slight u

higher in thelargest of the size of food bill groups.

All three groups

were essentially alike with .lU, *13, and .17 pints per capita being c;-r—
sumed respectively during the week reported on.

As would be expected t h e

analysis of variance tests did not find these differences to be of signi­
ficance between size of food bill groups when income and family size v . " . \
held constant.
Occupational groupings were found to lead to no significant variable-,
in per capita consumption or expenditures with income and family size
controlled.

Again average expenditures were alike at 3 cents in e a c h o f

the three large occupational groups.

Per capita consumption also varied

but little with the professional, managerial, and official grouping
been found to use slightly less than the others.
In summary very little needs to be said.

It appeared that none oi

the factors seriously affected oils consumption or expenditures.

Onl> size,

of family was found to be significant and that in just two instances, v o t ; .
respect to expenditures.

Slightly less per capita was used in the larger’

families, but the amount was usually insignificantly different t h a n nr,
the smaller ones with only the two exceptions.

In brief, both experdi+ur.-. :

and consumption were very small and the factors examined appeared aSvU-*l;v
not to influence them.
The lack of significant results from the analysis of variance te«t?
may be seen in Table 23 on page 108.

TABLE 23.

OILS:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUfciaARIZEL FOR FIVE
TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures

Table 169
Income
Size of Family

Income
Size of Family
Table 1?Q

Income
Size of Family
Age

Income
Size of Family*
Age
Table 171
Income
Size of Family*S-^,S ^S^
Education

Income
Size of Family
Education
Table 172
Income
Size of Family
Food Bill

Income
Size of Family
Food Bill
Table 173

Income
Size of Family
Occupation

Income
Size of Family
Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:

* se Significant at 5 percent level
^ * Significantly greater than
Sf, S2, Sj * Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table
tested

iu9

Fruit Juice
Of the 1,885 sample families, 1,221 or 6U.6 percent indicated that
they had used some fruit juice during the week reported on.

The average

of all the 1,885 families for vrhich data were available consumed 2.10
pints of this item costing U5 cents during the week.

On a per capita

basis, the average consumption was *6U pints and the average expendi­
ture lU cents.
bill.

This cost was equal to 2.3 percent of the week's food

It should be stated, however, that the expenditure figures are

perhaps slightly better than the consumption figures.

This results

from the fact that in converting the various quantities or fluid ounces
of fruit juices reported consumed to pints, the relatively small amounts
of frozen or concentrated juices were converted at the same rate as the
ordinary juice.

It is not thought, however, that the overall picture

has been appreciably distorted by so doing.
The basic tables dealing with fruit juices, 1?U through 18U, are
to be found in the appendix, pages 299 through 309 • Examination of the
first six of these, the one-way tables, indicated several conditions.
From them it seemed that per capita consumption and expenditures with re­
gard to income, while generally highest in the higher income groups,
showed no clear trend.

A very definite downward trend appeared in both,

however, as size of family grew larger.

The older age groups, but not the

oldest, seemed to use and spend more for fruit juice than did the others.
A definite upward trend in usage and total cost per person was evident
as education of the housewife became greater.

A large amount of variation

110

appeared to exist between different occupations.

An average expenditure

range from 7 cents per person in the unskilled classification to 18 cents
in the professional group was noted.

A size of week's food bill classi­

fication, on the other hand, seemed to indicate no clear trend whatever.
More conclusive findings were had when the various factors were
examined and tested as found in the multi-way tables, 180 through 18U,
Analysis of variance tests were used as always to test the significance
of the different factors with one or more of the others held constant.
Size of family appeared once more to be the most significant factor.

It was found to be highly significant in four of the five tables with
respect to consumption and was found significant in the fifth.

It proved

to be highly significant in each of the five tables tested with regard
to expenditures.

In Table 180, where it was found to be significant with

income held constant, the smallest or one-to-two size of family group
used and spent significantly more per person for fruit juices than either
the three-to-four or the five or more size of family groups.

This effect

appeared in Table 180 to be greatest in the lower income group as it did
also in some of the other tables.

When both age and income effects were

removed, as in Table 181, size of family was found to be highly signifi­
cant with the smallest size of family group again both using and spending
significantly more for fruit juice than either of the larger family groups.
Size of family was also found to be a highly significant factor when either
education, size of week's food bill, or occupation was held relatively
constant in addition to income.

In each of these three cases, the one-to-

two size of family group was found to both use and spend significantly
more per person for fruit juice than the three-to-four size of family

ill

group which in turn reported significantly greater consumption and ex­
penditures than the still larger, five or more, size of family group.
In the overall picture, the one-to-two size of family group consumed on
the average about .83 pints per person during the week while the mean
expenditure was about 18 cents.

The figures for the three-to-four size

of family were respectively .66 pints and 1U cents, while in the five
or larger size of family group, consumption was .5U pints and expendi­
tures were 11 cents.

More detailed figures may be seen in the tables.

Income was not found to be a significant factor in the tables
tested with regard to consumption of fruit juices.

It was, however,

found to be of significance in two cases with regard to expenditures.
Ihen size of family effects only were removed in Table 180, the highest
income group of U,500 dollars or more was found to spend significantly
more for fruit juice than did either of the two lower income groups.
When in Table 181; occupational as well as size of family effects were
removed, the highest income group was found to spend significantly more
than the lowest or below 3,000 dollar income group.

Income was not found

to be a statistically significant factor with regard to expenditures,
however, when either age, education, or size of food bill effects in
addition to size of family were eliminated.

On the average, the highest

income group spent about 16 cents per person for fruit juice during the
week and the two lower groups about 13 cents per person.

112

Age of housewife in the overall sample was not found to be a signi­
ficant factor when tested with size of income and size of family held
constant*

Though the figures do appear to show some increase in both

consumption and expenditures as age increased, the differences were not
found large enough to be statistically significant*
Grouping by education of the housewife, with size of family and in­
come controlled, was found to lead to significant
both consumption and expenditures.

findings. This wastruefor

In each case, the figure for the most

highly educated or more than high school group was found to be signifi­
cantly greater than for either the high school or less than high school
groups.

The average per capita consumption figure for the most highly

educated group was. 81 pints.
pints respectively.

For the two lower groups it was .62 and .60

Average expenditures for fruit juices from high to

low educational grouping were in the same pattern at 18, 13 and 13 cents
per person*
Size of the week's food bill was found not to be of significance in
regard to fruit juice consumption with family size and income controlled*
It was found, however, that the highest food bill group did spend signi­
ficantly more per capita for this item than did the lowest.

This was

true by analysis of variance even though the overall average figures,
which do not take out size of family or income effects, would not so in­
dicate because of the many higher per capita consuming small families in
the lowest size of food bill group*
Occupational groups with the same two factors, size of family and
income, controlled were also not found to be significantly different with
respect to consumption.

Occupation, as had food bill, however, showed

113

up in regard to expenditures.

The professional, managerial, and official

group was found to have spent significantly more per capita for fruit
juice than did the skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled group.

The week's

average fruit juice expenditure in the former group was 16 centsper per­
son versus 12 cents in the latter.
Though it is thought that the most important tangible factors in­
fluencing consumption and expenditures are those with which we have dealt*
it is recognized in presenting the findings of the analysis for fruit
juice, as for the other food items, that other uncontrolled and untested
factors could have had some influence upon the findings.

It is further

recognized that additional sorts such as could be made with a larger
sample would have been of value.

It is also known from the tables that

finding for certain sub-sections of the sample might have been somewhat
different than for the sample as a whole.

With these things in mind for

possible tempering of the conclusions, what has the analysis as performed
enabled, one to say with regard to fruit juice in support or in refutation
of the original hypothesis?
In summary, it has been established that there aresignificant vari­
ations in both consumption of and expenditures for fruit juice.

It has

also been seen that these variations are related to at least some of the
socio-economic factors listed in the hypothesis.

With regard to con­

sumption, significant per capita variation was found in relation to size
of family and education but not in relation to income, age, size of week's
food bill or occupation.

Significant variation in relation to each of

the factors, with the exception of age and partial exception of income,
however, was found relative to expenditures.

On the basis of the findings

IX U

of the analysis, therefore, it can be said that the hypothesis was in
part supported and in part refuted, with some but not all of the socio­
economic factors studied being associated with significant variation in
the per capita consumption of and/or expenditures for fruit juice*
A summary of the analysis of variance findings for the fruit juice
tables, 180 through 181*, is found in Table 21* on page 115*

115

TABLE 21*. FRUIT JUICEs

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED
FOR FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 180

Income
Size of Family*

Income* I ^ I ^ , I2
Size of Fandly**S3V,S2yS3
Table 181

Income
Size of Family** S]_>S2> S3

Income
Size of FamilyiBf-S^S2,S^

Age

Age
Table 182

Income
Size of Family** S^SgJ^S^

Income
Size of Family**Sj7 £ ^ S ^

Education* E^^E^, Eg

Education* E ^ E ^ , Eg
Table I83

Income
Size of Family** sf ?S2>S3

Income
Size of Family** S ^ S ^ S ^

Food Bill

Food Bill* ^ >FX
Table 18U

Income
Size of Family** S^SJ^S^

Income* Ij^I^
Size of Family**

Occupation

Occupation* 0j>02

Explanation of Symbolss
* s Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** a Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> a Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level)
s Size of Family breakdown, small to large, as in table tested
- Size of Income breakdown, small to large, as in table tested
Ei ,E2,E3 s Education of Housewife breakdown, low to high, as in table
tested
F1,F2,F3 s Size of Week's Food Bill breakdown, small to large, as
in table tested
®1,^2,^3 s Occupation of Head of House breakdown, order as in table
tested

Poultry
The third of the miscellaneous food categories analyzed is poultry*
This classification includes items such as chicken of all types, turkey,
duck, goose, and guinea*

Purchases at all stages of preparation for use

were also lumped together, whether alive, dressed, drawn, boned, canned,
frozen or in some other state*

Average prices and pounds, therefore,

are not comparable to data referring to any one kind or type of poultry.
A comparatively small number of the sample families, I4.8I or 25*5
percent, reported using poultry of some type.

The average indicated

consumption for the week was .9? pounds per family, the equivalent of
.30 pounds per person.

Average expenditures were respectively 51 and

16 cents on a family and per capita basis.

This expenditure amounted

to about 2.6 percent of the average week's family food bill.
Examination of the tables used in the analysis for poultry, 185
through 195 on pages 310 through320 , brought to light some rather erratic
figures showing few consistent trends.

This erratic condition may have

been due to the fact that only a comparatively small segment of the popu­
lation reported using any poultry.

Such a situation is one in which some

undue clustering of using, or of non-using families in the finer classi­
fications! groups could have easily taken place*
The one-way tables indicated that there were few definite trends
in poultry consumption or expenditures when related to the five basic
factors or to size of week's food bill.

In relation to family income

there appeared to be no visible trend at all.
however, a trend did appear.

By size of family,

Although the single member households were

118

low in both consumption and expenditures, an overall downward trend in
per capita usage and cost was evident as family size grew larger.
ations did appear with respect to age of housewife groupings.

Vari­

The U6

through £5 age group reported somewhat higher figures* .1*2 pounds and 22
cents per person, than either the younger or older groups.

A one-way

grouping by education of housewife led to no clear-cut trend.

Generally,

however, somewhat less poultry per capita appeared to be used as education
of the housewife increased.

Variations by occupation of the head of the

house were for the most part rather small.

The two extremes were the

managerial and official group which reported .36 pounds and 19 cents per
person, and the unemployed group with average per capita consumption of
.23 pounds and an average per capita expenditures of 12 cents.

The size

of week's food bill groupings also showed little in the way of a trend.
The lowest size of food bill group, $ dollars ana under, however, was
appreciably below all of the others in both consumption and expenditures.
The multi-way tables and analysis of variance tests led to findings
in line with what had seemed to be true in the one-way tables.

Size of

family was found to be the only factor related to significant variation
in per capita consumption of and expenditures for poultry.

Although this

factor did not lead to significantly large variations in consumption when
income alone was held constant, it did prove to be significant relative
to consumption in the three cases when age, size of food bill or occupa­
tion were controlled in addition to income, and highly significant when
income and education were controlled.

With respect to per capita ex­

penditures for poultry, size of family was significant in three and

11?

highly significant in the other two of the five tables tested.

The tables

in -which the variations were found, to be highly significant were the two
which regulated income with occupation, and income with education.

The

situation in each of these cases was one in which the smallest size of
family group, one-to-two, was found to consume and spend significantly
more per person than did the largest five or more, size group.

The middle

or three-to-four size of family group was found, in most instances, some­
where between and not to vary to a significant degree from either of the
other two size groups.

Average per capita consumption figures for the

one-to-two, three-to-four, and five or more size of family groups re­
spectively were *3?, «31> and .20 pounds.

Corresponding expenditure figures

for the same groups were 20, 17, and 10 cents.

Average cost would appear

to have been about 50 cents perpound.
Income was not found by the analysis of variance tests to be related
to significantly large variation in poultry usage or expenditures in any
of the tables tested.

Inspection of the data in the tables, which as

previously mentioned were erratic, generally tended to bear out these find­
ings.

This was especially true of the overall average figures.

The below

3,000 dollar group reported average per capita consumption and expenditure
figures of .30 pounds and 15 cents.

The 3,000 through h»h99 dollar group

reported averages .27 pounds andlU cents.
reported ,30 pounds and 16 cents.

The

)u,500 dollar and over group

These average figures were obviously

very much alike.
Age of housewife, with income and family size controlled, was not
found to be a factor of significance when related to either per capita

poultry consumption or expenditures.

This was true even though the

middle or 36 through 55age group figures appeared for the most part to
be appreciably above those for either the younger or older groups.
Education of the housewife, with income and family size held constant,
was likewise not found to be significant.

The least educated or less

than high school' group reported average consumption and expenditure
figures which were consistently slightly above those for the more highly
educated groups.

These differences were not of sufficiently large size,

however, to be statistically significant.

Average reported figures for

the less than high school group were *31 pounds and 16 cents.
school group reported .27 pounds and lij. cents.

The high

Average consumption and

expenditure figures for the more than high school group were .26 pounds
and 15 cents.
Variations in per capita poultry consumption and expenditures toy
size of weekfs food bill, with income and family size effects removed,
were also too small to be significant.

Average figures were much alike

for each of the three large family food bill groupsj 15 dollars or less,
16 through 20 dollars and 21 dollars or over.

Reported figures for the

three groups in order, as may be seen in Table 19U, were .30 pounds and
15 cents, • 31 pounds and 16 cents, and .27 pounds and lU cents.
The occupational factor was also found not to oe related to signi­
ficantly large variations in per capita consumption or expenditures with
income and size of family regulated.

The figures for each of the three

large occupational groups were much alike and all were near the overall

sample averages.

The clerical, sales a m kindred, service, unemployed,

and retired group ranked very slightly below the other two, however,
in both consumption and expenditures.
In summary it may be said that the basic hypothesis was supported
only in that significantly large variations in both per capita consump­
tion of and expenditures for poultry were found in the samplej and that
these were found to be related to size of family.

The hypothesis was

refuted, however, in that neither age nor education of the housewife,
occupation of head of the house, or size of family income was found to
be related to significant per capita variations in either consumption
or expenditures.

This was also true in that significantly large varia­

tionswere not found with respect to size of week's family food bill
groupings.
A summary of the analysis of variance findings for poultry follows
in Table 25*

TABLE 25.

POULTRY:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditures

Table 191
Income
Size of Family*S-j>S-j

Income
Size of Family
Table 192
Income
Size of Family* Sq7S^
Age

Income
Size of Family*
Age
Table 193

Income
Size of Family** S ^ S 2>S^

Income
Size of Family** ^2/ ^ 2 s 1 5

Education

Education
Table 19U

Income
Size of Family*

Income
Size of Family*

Food Bill

Food Bill

S-.T’S,

Table 195
Income
Size of Family* S ^ S ^

Income
Size of Family** S-pS**

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:
* z Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** a Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> z Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level;
§1* Sg, So z Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in ta> le
tested

Eggs
Eggs made up the fourth of the five individual food items which
were analyzed in addition to those within the three broad classes*
found that eggs were consumed in a very large number of
holds over the period studied*

the

It wa.‘

sample house­

Of the questioned families, 1,796 or over

95 percent indicated that some eggs had been consumed during the week.
Average consumption was found to have been 2*35 pounds per family or «?2
pounds per person*

Corresponding week’s expenditures were 72 cents per

family equaling 22 cents per person*

This expenditure amounted to 3*7

percent of the week’s family food bill, a somewhat larger portion than
had gone for the parent food item —

poultry*

As with most of the foods

used by a very large part of the sample, the findings of the analysis
for eggs were of a relatively definite and conclusive nature.
for eggs may be seen in the tables used.

These are 196

The data

through 206

found in the appendix on pages 321 through 3?1»
Inspection of the six one-way tables led to the discovery of a
number of apparent trends in connection with the several basic factors*
In table 196 a rather mild but definite downward trend in both consump­
tion of and expenditures for eggs was noted as the income classifications
became higher*

The one-way classification by size of family led to a

noticeable decrease in per capita usage and expenditures as family size
became larger*

The figures ran from .8I4 pounds and 2? cents in the sing.lt

person households down to an average of *61 pounds and 18 cents in the
seven or larger size of family groups*

There also appeared to be difTe:-

ences in relation to age of the housewife*

Per capita egg consumption

and expenditures were noticeably greater in those households where the
housewife was over U5 years of age*

Something of a trend also appearec

to exist by educational differences o£ the housewife.

With some -variation,

there was less per capita consumption of and expenditure for eggs in the
higher than in the lower educational groups*

The lowest group in both,

however, was the high school education group near the center of the
classification*

The tabular breakdown by twelve occupational groups led

to the conclusion that there was relatively little difference between
most of these groups with respect to eggs.

One group, the retired, how­

ever, was noticeably above most of the others in both per capita usage of
and expenditures for this item.

Although variations appeared in egg cox,-

sumption and expenditures by a size of week’s food bill classification,
there did not seem to be any clear-cut trend.
The multi-way tables relative to eggs, 202-through 206, are found
on pages .327 through 331 •

The more

conclusive analysis based upon

these tables and the analysis of variance tests led to findings similar
to those indicated in the simpler tables*
a factor of importance*

Size of family stood out as

This factor was found to be related to highly

significant variations in egg consumption regardless of which of the
five combinations of factors were controlled in the different tables*
Size of family was also found to be related to significant or highly
significant variations in expenditures in four of the five tables testea.
The consistent pattern in these tables was for the smallest size of
family group, one-or two persons, to be higher than the middle size
group, three or four persons, which in turn was usually higher than the

the largest family size, five or more persons, in both per capita con­
sumption of and expenditures for eggs*

'The average figures, wrdch tenu

to illustrate these findings, from small to large size of family group
were *85, *73, and *66 pounds of eggs consumed per person and expend!tur
of 27, 22, and 20 cents*

The findings for the income factor were somewhat less positive
than were those for size of family* In only two

of the five tables,

those with size of family alone andwith size of

family plus age

was income found to be significant*

control

This factor was found in these two-

tables to be related to significant variations in both consumption and
expenditures*

In the three tables where education, occupation or food

bill size were controlled in addition to size of family, however, income
was not significantly related to either.
not make this appear to be too surprising*

Examination to' Ihe cables did
There was some reversal of

trends in various parts of the different tables and, more important, the
overall trend itself was not especially large*

The per capita consump­

tion and expenditure averages as seen in Table 202 werej for the toj-ov*
3,000 dollar group, .78 pounds and 21*. cents, for the 3,000 to U,500 doll
group, *72 pounds and 22 cents, and for the U,500 dollar or more

income

group, .67 pounds and 21 cents*
Age of housewife was found to be highly significant in relation to
egg consumption when size of family and income effects were controlled.
Per capita expenditures for eggs also were found to vary in relation w
age, but not to a statistically significant degree*

The older age of

housewife groups were found to be the heavier egg consumers*

The

ai»*

over ana the 35 through 55 age groups were found to use signiiicantly
more eggs per capita than did the youngest or 35 and under age group.
Average consumption figures for the same three groups from old to young
were .8ii, *73, and .68 pounds per person.
Education of the housewife groupings, with family size and iarc.at
regulated, were found to lead to highly significant variations in both
per capita consumption and expenditures.

In both cases, strangely, the

less than high school and also the more than high school groups were
found to be significantly higher on a per capita basis than the high
school education of housewife group.

"Why those families in the midale

education group should have used significantly less eggs than groups
with either more or less education is not known.

The average consumption

and expenditure figures, which support the analysis of variance findings,
however, weres for the less than high school group .77 pounds ana 23 cent
per person, for the high school group .66 pounds and 20 cents, and for
the more than high school group .?U pounds and 23 cents.
Size of week’s family food bill, with income and family size con­
trolled, was found to be significant in relation to per capita expendi­
tures but not in relation to consumption.

The highest or 21 dollar

and over food bill group was found to spend significantly more per capita
for eggs than did either of the two smaller size of food bill groups.
This was true in spite of the fact that the overall average figures in
the table did not appear to so indicate.

This situation existed be­

cause of the relatively great number of large families, with lower per
capita expenditures weighing the overall average down, in the high ivvo
bill group.

Occupational differences were not found to oe related to signi­
ficantly large variations in either consumption of or expenditures for
eggs.

The professional, managerial, and official group, however, was

found in the tabLes to have slightly higher average per capita figures
in both than did the two other large groupings*
It is possible that some persons may be interested in the data for
eggs in terms of dozens, as it was originally obtained rather than in
terms of pounds as presented.

It is therefore noted, on the basis of

the original conversion, that the data may be reconverted into dozens
at the rate of one dozen eggs equaling 1.375 pounds or twenty-two ounces.
In consolidation of the findings of the analysis for eggs it appears
that once again the basic hypothesis was in part substantiated and in
part refuted.

Significant variations were found in both per capita con­

sumption of and expenditure for eggs, but not in relation to all of the
factors.

Relative to consumption, with one or more other factors held

constant, significant or highly significant variations were found in re­
lation to size of family, age, and education.

Relative to per capita

expenditures they were found in relation to size of family, education, a-,d
size of family food bill.

In addition income was found to be of signifi­

cance in two of five cases tested for both consumption and expenditures.
Income was not finally considered to be a factor of significance, however,,
because of the lack of significant relationships found in the tests whet*
three other combinations of factors were held constant.
The findings of the analysis of variance tests performed relative 'd
eggs and the factors studied are found summarized in Table 26.

TABLE 26.

EGGS:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FINDINGS SUtaARIZED FOR
FIVE TABLESTE3TED

Per Capita Expenditures

Per Capita Consumption
Table 202

Income**

Income* I-^I^

Size of Family** S ^

Size of Family** S-^S^S-j,
Table 203

Income* I ^ I g
Size of Family**- Sj S,*

Income* I ^ I 2J I3
Size of Family

Age** A^,

Age
Table 201*

Income
Size of Family-**

Income
Size of Family** S^SgjSq,

Education** E^, E^TEg

Education** E^, E ^ E ^
Table 205

Income
Size of
o: Family**

Income
Size of Family** Sjj? S ^S*

Food Bill

Food Bill* F3t F1> F £
Table 206

Income
Size of Family** S^rSg, S^

Income
Size of Family** S ^ s

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols:

* s Significant at 5 percent level (signir?icant)
** r Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant/
Significantly greater than (at either 5 or 1 percent level}
S'l* Sg, S^ s size of Family breakdown, small to large as in tablete- Ip

a Size of Income breakdown, small to large as in table t ^

A p Ag, A^ s Age of Housewife breakdown, younger to older as ii.
table tested
E3 * Education of Housewife breakdown, low to high as in tab',
tested
^l* ^2*
* S iz e °f Week's Food Bill breakdown, small to largs t to.
table tested

Fish and Seafood
The final specific classification includes fresh and salt water fish,
and the non-fish seafoods such as oysters, clams, shrimp, and lobster*

Such

food items were reported used by 768 of the families during the week for whi
they reported*

This was equal to U0.7 percent of the entire sample.

Aver ag

per capita consumption and expenditures in the sample were .17 pounds and 9
cents.

On a family basis the average figures were .55 pounds and 30 cents.

This expenditure

was equal to 1.5 percent of the week's food bill.

The findings of the analysis for fish and seafood were not of a spec­
tacular nature.

None of the factors were found to be definitely influential

and only one appeared to have any possible bearing upon the amount of this
type food used or purchased.

The data relating to the category are in ‘
fable

207 through 217 found on pages 332 through 3).2*
The six one-way tables indicated that the data were of such a nature
that, while there was a good deal of variation between categories, few
trends were to be seen.

No trend could be observed in the table showing

consumption and expenditures by size of income,

k breakdown by size of

family indicated somewhat lower per capita figures in the seven or larger
size of family composite and also in single person households.

The one­

way table by age of the housewife indicated little or no trend in expendi­
tures, but a slightly higher level of consumption in the middle and old­
er age groups than in the younger.

Education of the housewife cate­

gories were all at rather similiar per capita consumption and expenditure
levels except for one.

This 'was the 16 school years and over group which

seemed to be on a substantially higher plane in these respects than did
any of the others*

By occupational groupings, the sales and kindred

families were found to be the highest in per capita consumption at .21
pounds and were tied for highest per capita expenditures with the un­
employed at 12 cents.

The only group to vary markedly from the others

was the group with occupation unknown which reported the very low per
capita figures of .05 pounds and 3 cents.

The value of the figures in

this group is subject to question, however, because of the small number
of families in the unknown categories in which only three reported use
of fish or seafood*

Classification by size of the week's family food

bill showed relatively little variation in average reported figures
except that the lowest or five dollars and under food bill group was
appreciably below the others in both usage and expenditure*
The two and three-way tables a m

the analysis of variance tests led

to similar findings in that few marked trends appeared.

In fact, only

one of the factors, size of family, showed up appreciably in the tables
or was found significant in any of the tests.

lith regard to consump­

tion, size of family was found to be related to significantly large per
capita variations when income alone was controlled or when income plus
education or occupation were controlled.

then income and age of house­

wife or size of food bill were controlled, however, these variations
did not turn out to be statistically significant.

In relation to per

capita expenditures, size of family was found to be significant in each
table except the one in which income and food bill were controlled.

In this and other similar cases which have been found throughout
the study, where a factor is sometimes significant and sometimes not, iv
is almost impossible to say whether it should be so considered*

At first

glance it would seem that if the controlling of an additional factor or
factors causes the first to lose its significance, that it was not really
significant*

This perhaps is the case and if a factor is not significant

in all tables it is not significant in fact.

let peculiar circumstances

or data could conceivably effect one or two tables as exceptions*

Also

it is possible that the real significance of a factor is hidden and
is not permitted to show up in some of the tables because of failure to
control some other factor not in the given table.

In such cases as these

then, it would probably be impossible to state categorically that the
given factor was significant unless every conceivable other factor or
influence was controlled*

And, that,of course, is impossible except in

a study involving a sample many times as large as this as well as techni­
ques probably as yet undeveloped*

In the majority of these cases it is

felt, however, that the analysis and tests as performed were at least
a very good indication of the existing situation and, fortunately, most
of the findings after all were not of this contradictory nature*
The size of family tables indicated that on the
two size

average theone-to-

of family group consumed .23 pounds of fish and seafood and hae

expenditures of 12 cents*

The figures for the three-to-four size group

were .18 pounds and 10 cents*

In the five or larger family size group

the per capita figures were .lit pounds and 8 cents. This would seem
indicate

to

a fairly clear downward trend in per capita consumption ana ex-

penciltures as family size increases*

These trends appear to be fairly

consistent in all of the tables, except in one or two instances where
the sub-samples were unfortunately small, even though not always large
enough to be statistically significant.
Income size was in none of the tables found to be related to signi­
ficant per capita variations in either consumption or expenditures.
age figures by income groups were of a similar size.

Aver­

In the three grou^t.

of below 3,000, 3*000 through i4.,U99, and U*500 dollars or over the average
consumption figures were respectively .19, .17, and .16 pounds.

Average

per capita expenditure figures were even closer together having bee® 9,
10, and 10 cents.

This general pattern was usual in all of the tables*

Age of housewife, with influence of family size and income control to-;
was not found to be significant in relation to either consumption or e x ­
penditures.

The middle or 36 through 55 age group was found, quite con­

sistently, to be slightly higher than the other groups in respect to data.
Average figures for this group were .19 pounds and 11 cents.

Average

per capita figures were next highest for the oldest or 56 and over group
at .17 pounds and 9 cents.

The 35 and under group reported average con­

sumption and expenditure figures of .lit pounds and 8 cents.

The differ1

as tested were not, however, sufficiently large to be statistically
ficant*
Education was also found not to be a factor of significance relative
to either per capita consumption or expenditures*

The differences as

tested by analysis of variance with income and size of family control! ec
were not found large enough to be of statistical importance.

The avt

figures for each of the three large,educational groups were so similar
as to appear bo strongly support these findings.

The per- capita con­

sumption and expenditures reported for fish and seafood were: for m e
less.than high school group, .16 pounds and 9 cents, for the nigh
school group, .18 pounds and 10 cents, and for the more than high school
group, .18 pounds and 11 cents*
Size of the week’s family food bill was not found to be related
to significantly large usage or expenditure variations wnen family toz e
and income effects were controlled.
found in the overall average figures.

Only slight variations were to be
The lowest week’s food Dill group,

15 dollars and under, with an average of .19 pounds and 10 cents, was
slightly higher than the others.

The 16 through 20 dollars and ohe. 21

dollar and over groups reported per capita figures, respectively, of
.16 pounds and 9 cents, a m of .17 pounds and 9 cents.
As nas been previously mentioned, differences by occupational
grouping, with the two other factors controlled also were not of sta­
tistical significance.

The average figures for the three overall groups

were, in fact, almost identical having been .18, .17, and .16 pounas
consumed and 10, 9 and 10 cents spent per capita for fish and seaiWd*
The findings for fish and seafood may be summarized by saying i u a t
the hypothesis was not completely supported in relation to them lor an;*
of the basic factors tested,

significantly large variations in ooth

per capita consumption and expenditures were found in several instance?
to be related to size of family,

hinee this condition was not fourc eu

exist in each of the tables tested, now ever, it c annot oe del inirely

stated that this factor was found related to significant per capita
variations in either without additional study®

ho evidence of signi­

ficantly large variations existing in relation to any of the other
basic factors was found*
A table summarizing the analysis of variance finding, Table 27,
follows.

TABLE 2?*

FISH AND SEAFOOD; ANALYSIS OF VAHIAMCE Fii'fLIbbS SUmMItl hili
FOR FIVE TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Consumption

Per Capita Expenditure*.
Table 213

Income
Size of Family#

Income
Size of Family# S-j>S^, STable 2lU
Income
Size of P'amily# S-^>S^
Age

Income
Size of Family
Age
Table 215
Income
Size of Family#

Income
Size of Family#

» S^

S.

Education

Education
Table 216
Income
Size of Family
Food B i H

Income
Size of Family
Food Bill
Table 21?

Income
Size of Family#

Income
Size of FamilyfrfrS.j^Sg, S.

Occupation

Occupation

Explanation of Symbols t
* s Significant at 5 percent level (significant)
** s Significant at 1 percent level (highly significant)
> « Significantly greater than ( at either 5 or 1 percent level;
^1*
S3 = Size of Family breakdown, small to large as in table
tested

CHAPTER V I I

ALL FOODS
In addition to the analyses for the seventeen food classifications
already presented, a somewhat similar one has been performed for an all
foods category.

This category is in a sense a composite of the other

seventeen, plus all other food items purchased by the sample families.
It is based upon the week’s food bill figures obtained in response to
question lie on page four of the questionnaire which read: “About how
much was your food bill last week, including milk?”

The analysis con­

sequently , could be performed relative to expenditures only.

The consump­

tion portion of the analysis could not be carried out as usual since
adequate data relative to the amounts of all foods consumed was not ob­
tained*

This fact relieved the author of the probable necessity of

attempting what would have beai a difficult job of questionable value,
the computing of some sort of a composite consumption unit including pint--,
pounds, dozens, and probably other measures for different food items.
Lack of consumption data was not thought too serious, however, since i i
was known from experience with the individual food items that the ex­
penditure and consumption patterns generally are of a similar nature.

Intheanalyse3 for all foods, a series of tables similar to tnose
used in the individual food category analys s was utilized.

These tabled,

differ, however, in that the average consumption portion of the taoie ■.&
eliminated*

The six' one-way tables also differ in that some addition;*.>

information is presented*

The average yearly family income is shown, a*

nearly as known data will permit, for all of toe many classifies!! o>;
presented in each of these six tables.

The amount spent for food for

the week reported on was multiplied by 52, to approximate a year’s food
expenditures, and this sum was divided by the average income figures to
determine the percentage of income spent for food in each grouping*
These percentages are shown in the six tables*
It was found that 1,86?, ninety-nine percent, of the sample fami lie
had reported some expenditure for food during the week*

The average ex­

penditure per week for all foods, based upon data for 1,762 families for
which size of week's food bill was obtained, was $19*61 per family or
$5*98 per person*

This expenditure put on a 52-week basis amounted to

27*lU percent of the average yearly family income.
The tables presenting the all foods data are 218 through 227 fauna
on pages 3h3 through 352 in the appendix*
The first six of these, the one-way tables, indicated the existence
of some trends in expenditures for food relative to the various socio­
economic factors.

As income became larger, a general upward trend in

per capita expenditures was

noted*

As would have been expected from

Engel's law, however, the percentage of the total family income spent
for food declined as income became greater.

It was interesting to note

that the lowest income group, under 1,000 dollars and averaging 526
dollars, reported higher than average per capita food expenailures and
also appeared to have spent more for food than current income*

Relative

to size of family, the trend appeared to be similar to others found for

many of the individual food items studied*

A definite downward trend

in per capita food expenditures seemed evident sis

x

oi. XctmxXy

At the same time an expected increase in percentage of total income
for food appeared as

family size

served in Table 219*The age of

grew larger*

These findings msy

beob­

housewife classifications, however, die.

not lead to any marked trend in either per capita food expenditure or
percent of income spent for food*

One-wqy groupings of the families by

education of the housewife also seemed not to show any appreciable differ
ences in expenditures for food on a per capita basis.

The more highly

educated groups, however, had considerably higher average income and
therefore a noticeably smaller percentage of their incomes were spent,
for food*

This situation may be observed in Table 221*

The twelve

occupational groups varied somewhat, but not markedly, in per capita
food expenditures.

The highest group, strangely, was the unemployed,

while the lowest was the unskilled.

The managerial and official group

with the highest average income spent the lowest percentage of it for
food, 22*67 percent.

The unemployed group led the others in that t h e y

spent the highest proportion of their income, U6.95 percent,, i u r f000•
The one-way classification by size of week's food bill was found to
follow in order from

low to high

in both average expenditures per

and in percentage of

family income used for food purchases.

The multi-way tables for the ail foods category are similar to cat
expenditures sections of the tables in tne previous series of analysis.
The three-way table including size of week's food bill, however, is
omitted because of the fact that the size of week's food bill figures

capita

are the ones being studied.

This would tend to destroy the logic behind

such a table and its companion statistical test since the only possible
way the food bill factor could show up in such an arrangement would be
as highly significant.

The analysis of variance tests were used in con­

junction with this series of tables in the same manner as previously.
In the two-way table, T^ble 22U, showing the amount spent for food
by size of family and size of income, two rather clear trends are apparei
It can be seen that per capita expenditures became smaller as size of
family became larger, not only in the overall picture, but also at each
income level.

It can also be seen that there was a consistent trend in

each of the size of family groups toward higher per capita expenditures
as size of income became larger.

These trends which seemed evident from

inspection were borne out by the analysis of variance test performed ir<
relation to this table.

Size of family was found to be related to higher-

significant per capita expenditure .variations*
related to significant variations.

And, income was found

The average expenditure figures,

which may be observed in the table, relative to these two factors, werfas follows: for the one-to-two, three-to-four, and five or more size of
family groups respectively, $7*U2, $5*95, and $1**9U per person; while
for the three income groups, below 3,QQQ dollars, 3,00^ through hsk99 cio i
and U,500 dollars or more, the average expenditure figures-in the same
order were $5*53, $5*81, and $6.81 per capita.

These figures woulo mak«

it seem clear, even without the statistical tests, that significant trend/-.toward higher per capita food expenditures exist as size of income oecom■
larger and also as size of family becomes smaller.

These findings for the two-way table were also borne out in the
various three-way tables, by the analysis of variance tests as well as
by the appearance of the figures.

Size of family was found to be re­

lated to highly significant variations in per capita food expenditures
in every case.

This was true when income plus either age of the house­

wife, education of the housewife, or occupation of the head of the house­
hold were controlled.

In each instance, the smallest size of family was

found to spend significantly more per person than the middle size group
which in turn was found to spend significantly more than the largest size
group.

Similarly, income was found to be either a significant or highx;

significant factor when size of family plus any of the three other factors
were controlled*

The pattern in each case was for the higher income fami­

lies to spend significantly more per person than the lowest for fooc.
Average per capita expenditures, with income and family size con­
trolled, were not found to vary significantly by age of housewife grouoings.

This was

spection of the

true as determined by the analysis of

variance teat,

in*

table indicated, however, that the expenditure figures

were generally somewhat, even though not significantly, less in the young­
est or 35 and under age of housewife group than in the two older classi­
fications.
$5*55.

The

average per capita expenditure figure

for this group was

Overall

averages for the 36 through 55 and 56

and over age group?

were respectively $6.12 and $6.lU per person.

Grouping of the data by education of the housewife, and at the same
time controlling size of family and income, indicated that significant!;,
large variations in per capita expenditure for the all fooas composite'

did not exist in relation to this factor.
out by the analysis of variance test.

Such a conelusion was borne

The overall average expenditure

figures were, for the less than high school group, $5*90; for the high
school group, $5«75j and for the more than high school group, $6.05 per
person.
The three large overall occupational groups were also not found to
vary significantly from each other in average per capita food expenditures
when effects of income and family size were controlled.

The professional,

managerial, and official group, with the average expenditure of $6.0U
per capita, was found to have spent slightly though not significantly
more than the other two groups which averaged $5*78 and $5.96 per person.
The findings for the all foods composite may be rather easily summar­
ized.

It was found that size of family and income were the only two of

the basic socio-economic factors studied which were related to signifi­
cantly large variations in per capita expenditures.

These two signifi­

cant factors were found in every instance to be either significant or
highly significant regardless of which of the other factors were con­
trolled.

This was highly gratifying as it would seon to support the logic

of having previously selected these two as the key factors to be control.;.**
while testing each of the others as a third factor for significance*

This

was the pattern followed throughout and would appear, on the basis ox axx
findings, to have been a good selection.

The three other basic factors,

age and education of the housewife and occupation of the head of tne hous*-hold, were not found to be related to significantly large variations in
per capita expenditures for the all foods composite.

These findings would seem once again to point up the fact that. w h x - A
all of the basic factors are significantly related to usage or purcnase*
of at least one of the food items, none of them are so related to all of
the individual items; and that because one factor is or is not so related
to all foods combined, does not necessarily mean that the same relation­
ship must apply to other individual categories.

In other words, the re­

lationships between the basic factors and the all foods composite do not,
as has been seen, necessarily carry back to each of the individual items
and, of course, vice versa.
The results of the analysis of variance tests relating to the all
foods composite are summarized in Table 28 on page 1U3*
The expenditure figures and trends were also charted rel^t” re to
the two factors, size of family and income, found to be 01 significance.
These data, as found in Table 22bf are shown in Figure III, a three di­
mensional presentation.

TABLE 28.

ALL FOODS:

ANALYSIS Of VARIANCE FINDINGS SUMMARIZED FOR
FOUR TABLES TESTED

Per Capita Expenditures
Table 22U
Income* 1^ ,
Size of Family**
Table 225
Income* Ij^I^
Size of Family#* S^Sg>S^
Age
Table 226
Income** Iy

I^>I^

Size of Family** S^
Education
Table 22?
Income*# I^>I^>I^
Size of Family** S^> S >
Occupation
Explanation of Symbols:
*
**
—

s Significant at 5 percent level
(significant)
s Significant at 1 percent level
(highly significant)
>s
Significantly greater than (at
either 5 or 1 percent
level)
S^, S„, S s Size of Family breakdown, small to large, as in Wole
tested
^1>
^3 s Size of Income breakdown, small to large, as in table
tested

PER C A P I T A
EXPENDITURES

5 OR
MORE

4, 5 0 0
OR MORE

/\/\

3-4

3 0 0 0 - 4,499

-2

AV E R A G E

SI ZE OF FAMI LY

PER

CAPITA

EXPENDITURES

3, 000

CHARTED ( $ )

3,000

FAMILY
DOLLAR
3,000-4,499

$ 5 . 67

$ 7. 7 2

$ 8.45

BELOW

1- 2

S OR

BELOW

I N C O ME
4 , 5 0 0 OR MORE

3 - 4

5.3 3

5. 9 3

6.39

MORE

4.44

4.8 7

5 . 22

1 DATA

FIGURE

ARE

H I.

BY S I Z E .

OF

TAKEN

ALL

FROM

TABLE 2 2 4 ,

FOODS’

FAMILY

AND

PAGE 349.

WEEK'S AVERAGE
INCOME,

P ER

LANSING,

CAPITA
SPRING,

EXPENDITURES
1950

FOR,

CHAPTER V I I I

EXTENT OF USAGE AND EXPENDITURES
In addition to the various series of tables previously discussed,
some others were prepared*

These are tables which are probably not

absolutely essential to the study*

Nevertheless, it is felt that they

do present information of a highly relevant nature and of a type which
may be desired by the reader*
ed in the appendix*

For that reason they have also been ineiua

Some of the data contained in them have already been

mentioned elsewhere in connection with the individual food categories*
These data are consolidated, however, for easy comparison together with
additional data*

There are thirteen such tables, all of the one-way type

with no cross tabulation or statistical testing.

Discussion of these

tables for the mentioned reasons will be very limited.
The first six of the tables, 228 through 233, show the percentage
of families which used some of each of the various food categories duri g
the reporting week.

This is shown in total, and by the classification

breakdowns used throughout, relative to each of the socio-economic £actor
dealt with in the study*

It is therefore possible to compare to-

in usage, if any, for the different food items relative to
groupings.

factor

Upon examination it may be seen in Table 228, cor example,

that as size of family grew larger the percentage of families using some
of almost every one of the foods became greater*
of income, varying trends may be observed.

In Table 229, by sizs

As income increases, ifta

lor some foods show no appreciable oil'1'erenees in percentage vx -a;;ixUf.using them*

relative to other foods, such as butter or beef steak, the

percentage oi families using may be seen to have increased with *;icome,
while opposite or otherwise varying trends may also be observed relative
to still other foods.

The remaining four tables of the six of this type

consolidate similar data with regard to the number and percentage of
families having used the various foods by age and by education of tne
housewife,by occupation of the head ox the house, and by size of tne wee
food bill.

The findings relative to the number and percentage oi famiii

who used some of each food were discussed in the sections dealing with
the individual items.

For that reason no more than passing reference u.

these tables is made at this point.
A seventh table discussed in this chapter, Table 23h, presents aa

relative to size of week's food bill.

This table relates size of rood

bill to certain of the basic factors in a matter similar to tnat fenthese factors themselves in Tables6 through 10, in Chapter Two*

Avera

size of family, age of housewife and other data as found for each -iz>
of food bill group may be seen.

Food bill as s. percentage of famixy in ­

come, as already discussed in the All Foods Chapter, is also included
in the table.

As would be expected average size of family was i'ouna to

be larger as size of food bill increased.

A trend toward higher incume

and of percentage of income spent for food was observed as size of i». d
bill increased.

An upward trend in education of the housewife as ;ooo

bill increased was also observed except in the very niguest tooa oj.
category.

Age of housewife was generally highest in trie lower.*

food bill categories.

I::*.

Six tables were also prepared which consolidate data, relative to
percentage of week's l'ood bill spent, for each of trie various foocs.

t

percentages are related in one-way tables to tne basic factors ana tot
various classifications thereof.

To derive the percentage figures, tne

average food bill was treated as one-hundred percent of the week’s food
expenditure in each of these classifications.

'The average expenditure

for each of the individual food categories was then figured as a percentage of the average total family food bill.

The various food items

dealt with together accounted for fifty-six percent of the ’ot- . The
remaining forty-four percent of the food expenditures is accounted ior
in this series of tables under the heading "Other Fooas’
i

The findings

presented in these tables have already been mentioned in the chapters
relative to the individual food categories.

For that reason only very

brief mention of the trends as found will be made.

Additional detail,

if desired, may be had by inspection of the tables themselves*
Table 235, by size of family, indicates few really marked trends *

Many differences of a lesser degree, however, may oe observed.

As Sizc-

of family increases the percentage of the food bill spent for milk, for
example, becomes greater.

This is also true with regard to eg^s. or.

the other hand, small families appear to spend a higher percentage of
their food dollars for butter than do larger ones.

There are also varia­

tions to be seen in Table 236 by size of family income.
of these is perhaps relative to margarine.

Toe most marked

The percentage 01 foco bili

spent for this item declined sharply as size of income increased.

With regard to age of housewife, Table 237, one percentage of ioua
bill spent increased for lamb and mutton and fats, for example, as age
increased.

A counter trend appears to have occurred with respect to oils

Table 238, by education of the housewife, shows that as education incre>s
so did the percent of the food bill spent for beef steak and fruit juice.
Other trends also appear though few are of a sharply increasing or de­
creasing nature.

A similar table, number 239, was prepared relative to

occupation of the heed of the house.

The percentage of family fooa bill

spent for the various food items may be seen there for each of the occupa
tions listed.

The final table of this series, Table 2U0, shows the same

type of information relative to size of week*s food bill.

Trends were

in evidence for several of the foods listed indicating that as size of
food bill became greater, the percentage spent for them became smaller.
This group of foods included all meats, all fats, and all dairy products*
A noticeable trend in the opposite direction was in evidence relative
to the “Other Foods" category.

This would indicate that as the food

bill became larger, an increasing proportion of it was spent for the
foods other than those listed or dealt with individually herein*
The reader should perhaps be reminded that the tables discussed
in this chapter are one-way tables, with none of the other basic factors
controlled.

The indicated trends found therein, therefore, should be

treated as just that, and not as being on a par with the previously dis­
cussed findings resulting from use of the multi-way tables ana the statis
tical tests relative thereto.

CHAPTER IX
/

SUMMARY
The hypothesis of this study was that significant variations would
be found in per capita expenditures for all food, and in per capita con­
sumption of and expenditures for certain specific food categories in­
cluding meats, dairy products, fats, oils, fish and seafood, fruit juice,
poultry and eggs.

The hypothesis further indicated that these variations

would be found related to differences in size of family, income, age of
housewife, education of housewife, and occupation of the head of the
household, and size of the week’s family food bill,
A series of tables was devised relative to all food and to each of
seventeen specific food items.
cross tabulation type.

Some of these tables were of a simple

The more important of them, however, were of a

two or three-way type presenting data resulting from various cross tabu­
lations in which certain of the basic socio-economic factors were held
constant.

In these latter tables, variation in per capita consumption and

expenditures could be observed relative to changes in one factor while
others were controlled,

whether or not these variations were of suffi­

cient size to be considered significant was in part determined by ob­
servation and judgment.

The more final and conclusive determinant in

each case, however, was a statistical test using analysis of variance.

150

The findings of the various analysis of variance tests for each of
the food categories, relative to all of the listed socio-economic factors*
are found summarized in Table 29 on page l$la. This table shows which
factors were controlled and which were then found related to signifi­
cant variations in per capita consumption of and expenditures for each
food or food group.

The test findings are indicated by "yes" if found

significant and by "no" if not.

In all* the findings are summarized

for sixteen food items or groups relative to consumption and for eighteen,
including an all foods composite, relative to expenditures.

There are

consistently fourteen test situations for each food, where tested, with
regard to both consumption and expenditures, except for all foods for
which there are only thirteen with regard to expenditures*
The tabular summary of the analysis showed size of family to be the
basic factor most often found related to significant variations in per
capita consumption of the various foods.

This factor, along with income,

was tested in five situations relative to usage of each food with various
other factors controlled.

Size of family was found related to signifcant

variations in per capita consumption in all five tests relative to beef,
pork, beef steak, all meats, cheese, butter, all fats, fruit juice, and
eggs or nine items*

This factor was also found to be related in four of

the five tests relative to poultry and in three out of five relative to
bottled milk and to fish and seafood*

Size of family was considered pro­

bably significant relative to these three food categories.

Size of family

was not^ however, found related to significant variations in per capita
consumption in any of the five tests with regard to ground beef, margarine
or oils*

15'1

Family income was found related to significant per capita consump­
tion variations in all five test situations relative to beef, beef steak,
butter, and margarine.

It was considered, therefore, that income was a

significant factor affecting consumption of these items.

It was also

thought that this factor probably affected consumption of the ground beef
and all meat categories because of significantly large variations having
been found in three of the five tests for each.

Income was found not to

be significantly related to per capita consumption of pork, lamb or mutton,
all fats, oils, fruit juice, poultry or fish and seafood in any of the five
tests relative to each.
Analysis of variance tests with respect to the other factors, it
may be recalled, were performed only once relative to each food.
was with the size of family and income factors controlled.

That

The first of

these factors, age of the housewife, was found related to significant
variations in the consumption of six of the food classifications.

These

were ground beef, all meats, bottled milk, butter, all fats, and eggs.
Education of the housewife, with family size and income controlled,
was found significant relative to per capita variation in the consump­
tion of five foods, bottled milk, cheese, all fats, fruit juice, and
eggs*
Occupation of the head of the house was found to be the least im­
portant factor and was related to significant variations in the per
capita consumption of only two foods, pork and ground beef.

151*
TABLE 2
9. EXISTENCE OF SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN PER CAPITA

Sij^iFicairfc

OF ANDEXPENDITURES FORVARIOUS FOODS SIMARIZED

SIZE OF FAKEIE

II,C0“
Income and Size
of Week's Food
Bill

Size of
Family

ConsumpBeef
Pork
Lam
band
button
Beef Steak
GroundBeef
All Meats
BottledMilk
Cheese
All Dairy
Products
Butter
fiargarine
All Fats
Oils
Fruit Juice
Poultry
to
FishandSea­
food
All Food
Total YiiS
Total KO

CCNS: .

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Me
les
Ho
Yes

Mo
Yes
No
Yes

No
Yes
No
Yes

W
O
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
YesYes
Yes

No
Yes

Yes
Mo.
Yes
Ho
Yes
Ho
Yes
Yes
10
6

Hi

k

Yes
Yes
Yes

10

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
NoYes
Yes
Yes
No
-

ns
•tior.
Yes
No

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
140
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Size of Family and !Size
Age of Housewife

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
15

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

lyand Ed. Housewife

Size of Family and
Occupation of Head

Size of Family and
Size of Keek's Food

wcpenditures
Yes
No

Consump- Expendi-

Consump­
tion

No

No
-

No

No

Yee

Ro
11

Yes
No

Yes

No

No
-

No
NoYes
Yes

No
Yes
?
11

Yes
Ho

9

Yes
No
No
No
Yes
6
10

Yes
No

Expendi­
tures
Yes
Ho

0fHousewife
*
Size of F.unily
and Income

Education of Housewife Occupation of Head Size of Week's
of House
Food Bill
Size of Family
Size of Family
Size of Family
and Income
and Income
and Income

Consump- Expend!-

Consump- Expendition
tures
No
No
Ho
No

No

No

Consump- Expend!tion
tures
No
Yes

Consume;-Expend
iturea

Yes

Yes
No

Yes
No
No
Yes

No
Yes
No
No

No
Yes
No
No

No
No
Yes
Yes

No
No
Yes
No

No
No
Ko.
No

No
No
No
No

No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No

No
No
Yes

No
Yes

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
5
12

Yes
No

Yes
Ko
So
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
t,
Hi

Yes
Yos

No
Yes
No
No
Ko
Yes

No

Yes
Yes

Yes

No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
Ko

Yes
Yes

Ho
Yes
No
Yes
No
No

No
r'O

No
Yes

No
No
No
No

No
"
2
lit

No
No

No
”
8
8

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Ho
“

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
"
5
ll

Yea
No
Yes
Nc
No
No
Yes
No
“
6
10

No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Ho
Yes
No
5
li

u
1h

3
15

9

152

Size of week’s food bill* in the same test situations, was found related
to significant variation in the per capita consumption of beef, ground beef,
all meats, bottled milk, cheese, butter, margarine, and all fats*
Table 29 may also be read in a horizontal direction, and for each food
those instances, in which significant variations were found may easily be
seen.

Table 29, in addition, shows the test findings relative to per capita

expenditures.

It may be seen that only the two factors used in all the

multi-way tables, size of family and income, were found related to signi­
ficant variation in per capita expenditures for the all foods composite.
Findings for the individual foods were, in general, similar to those for
consumption.

Details relative to expenditures for the individual food items

may be found in the tables or in the respective chapters.
The method of analysis which was used appears to have been sound*
Two examples where the value of three-way cross tabulation is illustrated
were beef steak and fruit juice*

In the one-way tables a clear trend was

evident toward higher consumption as education increased.

This, alone,

would have seemed to indicate that the educational factor was of distinct
influence.

The more thorough analysis, however, showed that when the

influence of higher income, previously shown to have been associated
with higher education, was removed that the variations in beef steak
consumption relative to educational differences were insignificant.

Con­

versely the apparent significance of education relative to fruit juice
consumption was substantiated whereas income was demonstrated to be of

153

little importance.

It should be recognized, however, that use of the

three-way classification tables is probably not the ultimate answer when
there are so. many variables to be considered.

Also to the limited extent

that methods' of analysis were being compared, there is a weakness in that
tests of significance were not run on the one-way tables.

This was

partially because of the time element, but primarily because of greater
interest in getting other results.

It would perhaps be desirable that

this be done in some future study.
The method used was one whichrather clearly may be successfully
carried out only with a comparatively large sample.

It is recommended

that in any similar future use of it, a sample of at least comparable
size be obtained.

Further, an even larger sample would be desirable so

that additional factors might be regulated by use of four or more way
tables.

This would seem to be worthy of consideration in later work.

There are a few additional areas which are suggested for further
investigation.

One of these would be with respect to foods not included,

such as various fruits and vegetables.
vestigation intos

It would also include further in­

lhat food items not covered in the study caused the

"Other Foods’* category, discussed in Chapter VIII to absorb an increasing
portion of the family food bill as it grew larger.

Also more detailed in­

formation, such as will become available in the long time project, should
probably be studied carefully with respect to the size of family factor.
This should be studied if for no other reason than that it appeared to
be so important in leading to lower per capita consumption and expenditures
for so many foods, as well as to a larger portion of the family income
being spent for food, as family size became larger.

In conclusion it should perhaps be repeated that although the find­
ings of this study are believed to be sound, they may not necessarily
apply to other than the one selected time and place.

Also, while seemingly

the more important factors were selected, so long as any of the myriad
of items having a possible influence are left unchecked or uncontrolled,
as some were and probably must always be, none of the findings or con­
clusions arrived at can be considered infallible*

APPENDIX

1A
vO

XA
VC
•

CA
vC
•

OA
A:•

03 ’3
M
f j ft.

CO

vO
vO

u

rH

rH

r~ ON
•
H

1A
O
•
CM

ON
_ct
•
CM

O
O

o•

vO
O
•

CM

o•

rH

rH

rH

CO
r—

CM
A»
CM

o

xn
•
CM

•

cO

XA
CO
•

on
oo
•

ON
•
CM

Ov
ON
•
CM

o•

CO
H
.

A)
04
•

CO
CM
•

o

rH

rH

rH

CM
»
<n

CO
CM
•
CA

O

rH

cn
O
•
CO

<n
CM
•
CA

On

rH

O
cO
CM

<n

on

o

a-

co

co

co

r-

vO
Ov
•
CM

XA
vO

o
on

XA

on

on

•
CM

VO
CM
•

CM
on
«

On

Ov

on
•

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

H

rH

rH

co
XA
•
_=f

CM
XA
•

rH

O
XA
•

CM

vO
CO

On
On

-= f
A-

CM
XA
•
on

on
vO

vO
vO

ooo

A•

•

•

•

•

!>»
H

m

TO

*p u
CD

>

o•

•

o

on

on

•

.

VO

fin

—

, s
(0 £3
■S o
rH CO
£-i
£3 03
O Ph
■H
+> U
S ' CD
Ph

a

•

-

•

«

3
03

£3
O >»
O H
0) R
bO

TO

<d fn
> CD
<4 (X,

•

rH

•

A•

-Ct

•
XA

-c*

«
cn

o
1—i

-V
cn

•

Q)
tsi
•rH
CO H
0) 3
bO TO
cd pL.

U

03 <hH
> o
<4

<H
O

CO
a •

rH

on
•
0A

•

CA

•

on

VO

XA
•
cn

o
rH

-c t

•
_3

CM
vO

On
cn

•

(0
03

•

o

s
P5 Co
( ii

XA
CO

O
-= t
H

_=}•
CM

rH

in
—

11

-=}
O
CM

rH

rH

o

CO
CM

•
cn

cd

QO
vO
vO

•»

rH

TABLE

CO
CO y- N
cd
i—i rH
O
£4
cd
a> 03

a
o
y
o'
-30=

M

Q
O
O

*>
rH
CD

-a
a

On
ON
ON
•»

rH

On
On

aO

•»

CM

1 1
o
o 8
o•t o*
rH

CM

On
On
On

•v
CM

1

o
o

XA

«v

CM

Ov
On

ON
ON
ON

On

03
ON

-= f

Ov

Ov
ON
J -

0A

on

_=r

•%
-cd-

•V
vO

1

I

i

1

1

1

o
o

o
o
o*>

o
o

O

o
o

•»

O
O

o«*
on

ON

On
**

XA
•v
0A

o

XA
•»

On
On

o
o•*

XA

ON
On
«v
Ov

o

A-

<D

bO
£3

>
O

cd

c:
«

-P

03
03

rH

0
0

0

£4

«*

0

rH

Q<
B
0

O

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

FOR, BY FAMILY INCOME CLASS

pH
vO
.

30.

BEEF: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

C
O
CO
CO {-4
0) 03
h CL.
2
-P fH
•H <13
TS O-i
n
a)

156

VQ

H

Os

Os
Os

•

XA
co

•

XA
r-

•

XA

SO•

co
ox

Os

UN
«

Os

sO

-3
3•

°
■
la
«

OX
OS

CN

XA

0-

CONSUMPTION OF AM) EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

co
XA

t*Os
•

rH

CO

3

3

XA
•
CM

rH
O
•

ox

co
CM

Os
H

rH

pH

•

•

c»
<M
•
OX

rH
XA
•

CO
CM
•

ox

ox

XA
O•

Os

O-

O
CO

rH

sO

rH

•
OX

OX

Os
so

•

•

Os
XA

•

SO

CM

rH

SO
rs
ox
3
•
rH

sO
Cs

•
CM

XA
CO

•
OX

3
0-

XA

3

XA

•

CM
•

O

CO
•
XA

Os
XA

co
3

O

»

OX
•

XA

XA

XA

•

o
o

rH

O

Os
.

OX

<30

C—
ox

BEEF: lEEK'S

CO

CM

XA

OX

SO

os

CO

*
o

rH

Os
CM

•

OX

TABLE 31.

so

Q.

3
rH

00
Q
OX "O

XA

3

3^
OX

ox

Os

rH

CO

Os

S

OrH

XA

CO
OX

co•*
rH

<D
W)
S3
oJ
U
<D
-P
a)

53
<D <0
43 (0
g 3
s a

rH
CM

OX

XA

s£)

CO

Os

&
O
o

to mentioned

Os
•

Total number where information with regard

rH

variables was available

ox

157

m* ra
a)
O fL,
J
j©
U
+3

BEEF: lEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

' —' Cj

O
A-

OO

r—

Ov
co

OO

vO

ov

VO
a-

-aot
*

o
o

in
vO
«

3.

cn
cn

H
in
.

Ov

g 0*
(3

It
0
W)
)ft,
-

03

& &
> PL,
<Q

O
O•
CM

CM

•
cn

CM

CM

cm

«
<u

H

•s

rH

•H

6
,o
H

O
*0

v -* Pi
0)
Pi PL,

O
•H Pi
-P 0)
QiCL,

O

OO

•

•
rH

o

H

o

cn
CM

H
cn
•
rH

•
rH

CO

O
•
rH

OV

rH
•
rH

ra
Is
03
03
rH

rcdO
•H

U
cd
l>
tJ
_= t
rH
•

VO
CM
•

cn

cn

-Pt

pj

a

~
•

ON
rH
•
p tf

in

CO

cn

•
CM

rH
•

o

CM
OV
.

cn

CD
Pi

o

$
C!
n
o
•p

u
U)
u
cn
H
•
cn

_=t
Ov
•
<n

vO
CO
.
cn

AOn
.
CM

O
•
CM

-=t

CM
Ov
•
rH

O
cn
.
cn

•H
£
pi

o
•H
-P

cd

O
•H

CM

TABLE 32.

cm
cm

0
tH «H
O -H
0

§

00 0)
«*} Pi
O
M

Pi
0
U
G
pl
Tt
a
cd
m
CM

Q
vo
P j

vO
cn
-= t

H
cn

in

cm
cm

H

cd
in

h

CO

cm

0
bjQ
(>

LA

(A

vO
CM

vO

<n

in
in

in
vO

vO

vO
in

-=t

o

$

0
fe

$
P0
i
<
&

Pi
cd

U
<0
•p
<u
H
§*
1
o

•d
■P
O
cd

TABLE 33.

BEEF lEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

158

W fa

_rt
p“

o
p-

vO
P-

£

-= t
CM

O
CM

CM

'•

•

CM

CM

CM

vO
in
*•

'•

’•

CM

co

cn
co

vO
P-

vO
P~

CM

CM

'•

'*

VO

rH

in
•
CM

•
Q>

H

■8
l>
cd

01

§
01
&

S
o

# &
QjId.
01
g
o
a)
bd
cd

£d
>

co

P~1—1
'•
rH'

rH
rH
’•
rH

rH
CM
•
rH

xO
rH
1•
rH

CM
cn
•
rH

CM
CM
•
H

Ox
•
rH

&
01
<D
rH
.O
cd

1
-= t

Ox

in
•

-=S
•

cn

cn

Ox
Ox

rH

■•

O
'•

cn

-rt

Ox

rH
"•

Ox

O•

CM

Ox

•

cn

§
0

•rH

1
e
o
p

u
cd

CsO

<0

CD

u

CO rH

01
SO

cd fa

CM

o
m

-=r
H
PX

o
cn

in
-=t

OO

_rt
cn

o
cn

cn

cn

cn

cn

<n

ffl<H
4 °

5
t
El
O
£
a
o

O
•
O
23

CO
CD
•H
rH
•rH
gj
Cu
fir

o

CM

rH

cn
CO
CM

Ov
Ox
cn

vO
oO

vo

rH

CM
CM

rH
O
rH

SH

o>
0

H CD

a <h
rH <1>

O (0
2
=*
xi o
OM
CO ^

p-

I
O

I
Ox

CO

8)
s
CD

iH
OO

cd

CM

H

cn
pH

1
VO
rH

P

0)

rH

£

o
o

•H
0)
U
(D
XI
*
H
Q)
&

cd

P

O
£-<
cd

159

co

H

CO
co

H

M0
C—
•
CM

ON
rH
•
CN

_d
On
•
rH

-d
CM

CO
CO

o
CM

H
p—

Hi

CO

CN

O
o-

CN

f—

vO

ON

vO
r—

rH
CO

o
C"-

CM
vO
•CM

t>—
CN
•
CM

o
p—

cvi

CO

On
rH
•
CM

-d
CO
•
1—1

XA
CO
•
rH

P~-d
•
rH

CN
-d
•
CM

XA
CM

On

XA
rH

CN

XA
O

o
CN

CM

XA
rH

3

3•
CN

On
CO
•
CM

3•

CM

CM
On
•
CN

O
On
•
CN

rH
•d
•
CM

E—
CM
•
CM

O
rH
•
CM

_d
-d
•
CN

On
CM
•
CN

On

co

VO
ON

CO

cd
co
rN

vO

&

Pl,

&

•H

.

o

XA
•
CM

03

s
a
0

O

Cn

•H
•p

S'
1
«
O

o

®
tsfl
cd
h

•
-d

CM
O
•
CN

rH
On
•.
CN

ON
vO
•
CN

0O

•
_G

CM
•
_d

CM
rH
«
-d

-d
vO

O
-d
•
CN

-d
XA
•
CN

CN
P•
CM

-d
iH
•
CN

OO
CN
•
ON

CM
CN•
CN

-d
vO
•
CN

CO
-*
•
CN

O
CM

On
XA
CM

CO
XA

ON
O

XA
ON

OO

iH

•
CN

<4

rH

T0J)
u
IcS
•H
M

G

o

•H

rH <D

cd

o
o

© -H

Cd Sj

o'd

•H
rH

O

cd

©
o

03

©

rH

cd

CO

ON

-d

O

XA

_d

o

rH

xJ

tJ

-P

Or
C
O*

XA
CM

&
co

xJ
0)
rH
rH

3
CO

r-l
rH
•H
CO

I

a)

co

xJ

a>

rH
rH

dCO
£
d>

xod
o
rH

CD

•H

x)
0)
Vi
•H

CD

G

rr>

OO

-P
CD

«

<H
•H
0}
CO

cd
rH

O
to

variables was available

&
Hi

•

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

TABLE 3U.

BEEF: WEEK«S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BT OCCUPATION OF HEAD

OF HOUSE

a
o
m
fa

cd

TABLE 35*

BEEF* TOM'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF TOEK'S FOOD B ILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

160

O

On

On

ON

P*
•

CO
in
•

CM
CM

iH

CM

p-

-r f

VO
i n•

O
•
rH

p-

•
cn

c
n
p-

3•
m

cn

co

On

OO

P•
cn

nO

P-

j-

cn
•

in

-O

CM

0)

I—I

X>

co

H

•H

8

/--4
•

tt)

01 a
X> o

to
Sh
CD
« P-.
o
•H Sh
-P CD
| 0-i

as

H

-3

V©
•

in
iH

•

rH

On

rH
•

rH

-=r
CM
•

rH

rH

CM
•

rH

vo
rH

rH

rH

rH

P•

•

o

rH
•

rH

rH

•8
•H
Sh

a
o H

T(S
D

o

CtJ

CD

H

£

CO

9 w
to |X4

co

On

CM
•

OS
03

•

U Pi
P CD
> Hi

in
CM
•
CM

cn
o
•
cn

<n
o
•

H
Os

•

-c t

Os

-= t
•
in

CO

o

•

vO

vO
P-

•

vO
OS

•
cn

vO

c

o
•H

Pi

CD

a
o

+3
*4
CD

o
•
rH

VO

On
•
H

in
in
•
CM

vO
CM

•
cn

vO

o

♦
-r t

Os
vO

«
-ct

CM
CM

•
US

cn
cn
*
cn

CM
vO

•
in

*4
X!
-p
t
Pi

O

•H
-P

cm

U
O

CO
a)

°'A

in

vO

:§ §

cn
H
CM

O
-= f

<n
<n
-d -

cn

On
p-

H

oo
P-

in
vo

•d
•H

a)

3

tQV
P4 .
CD H
CD H

-H
PQ

U

£
£
Q)
W)

O
EOdr-s

CD

p-

U

CD

1
Vci
as
in

CD

>

o
rH

in
r-1

O
CM

"LA
CM
1

I

i

H
CM

vo
CM

rH
cn

1

i

1

vO

rH
rH

VO
i—1

O
cn

in
cn

o

*s

CO

vo

cn

J3
ctf

is
0)

•P
CD

H
ao
o

CD

Xi

H
(0
•P
o

H
<0

30'«

;udfF :

V*Fl.L’S Ci)iahd 1 !
,j■!

P hah ya PcI'IDIfifi:..,..; !;'K, i

Pith - f FAivilLY hTTHTN SIZE OF IMCOj#;,

LAXFJhfh XPad 'iC, leA)

Average Expend!tures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:

Average Consmnpticn (lbs.) 1/vith Family Dollar Incomes of;

.below 3,000
.deloff 3>000 3>000 - J4,li.9S? l|>500
more Complete ranee
For
Per
Per"
Per
"Fir
Per:'
Per
Per
Fer
Fau.iiy Person Family
Pee son
Family Person
FamilyPersonFamily Person
Per ~

2.0?
(273)

1.26

3.12
(3-tij.)

1.01

3. Ill
(177)

1.02

h.)8
(329)

1.27

.21

3.62
(11.ill)

.99

2.25: 1 .0!
1.A00 )

h.32
(o90)

1.22

!i«73
( mi)

3•!9
(136)

1«70

9.77
(2!6)

1.38

9.81
(132)

.96

h.69
(313)

1.2?

O •-$
7"
a7

3,000 Per
Per
Family Person

14,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

2.1,3
(138)

1.99
(273)

.79

2.08
(177)

1.07

(506)
hid)
(7hl)

2.15
(xch)

.61*

2.82
(329)

•0d

5.53
(339)

2.78
(63)

M

3.39
(lidi)

.99

8 *5f
(l66d)

1.76
(500)

•6!

2. ?[|.
(650)

.76

e-ntheses indicate number of families from which known data ran

Complete range
For
Per
Family Person

1.23

1.79
(586)

•91

2.76
(7I4I)

3.67
(132)

.62

3.39
(33.9)

3.09
(518)

.8!

2.56
(1668

C'< f\

3. lh

(21+8)

162

^E 37.

BEEF : WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

LANSING, SPRING, 195*0

Age of
Housewife

Size of
Family

35 and

1-2

under
3- h
or more
All

36 - 5$

1-2
3- h
or more
All

56 and
over

1-2
3 - h
or more
All

Complete
Range

1 -2
3 -h
or more
All

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Below 3*000 3,000 •- 5,1*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

With Family Dollar Incomes of:
1,500 (Dr more Complet© range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

2.2|*
CUx)
3.22
(89)
3.39
(eli)
2.99
05U)

1.22

1.81
3.67
Ot0)
1.10
It.79
(85)
5.37
.95
(55)
1.25
U.72
(180)

2.70
(132)
3.96
(361)
U.83
(156)
3.91
(61*9)

2.61
(76)
3.99
(50)
5.39
(32)
3.61
(158)

1.56

3.61)
(71*)
lt.89
(11*1)
6.13
(72)
1*.83
(287)

1.86

3.1!)
(227)
lt.85
(313)
6.11
(169)
1*.60
(709)

2.77
(22)
lt.01
(21)
5.90
(5)
3.6U
(1*8)

1.39

3.51
(136)
lt.78
(21*7)
5.81
(132)
It.71
(515)

1.77

.93
.59
.88

1.19
.93
1.19

1.11
1.71)
(15U)
3.0U
.96
(21*)
1.07
7.17
(6)
2.09
1.07
(181))
2.06
(271)
3.1)3
(163)
It.79.
(62)
2.85
(1)96)

1.26
1.01
.82
1.0U

2.32
(51)
3.9lt
(187)
1*.88
(77)
3.91
(315)
3.18
(77)
5.15
(122)
6.1)5
(65)
U.90
(26lt)
3.9lt
(U8)
3.85
(20)
7.00
(2)
lt.00
(70)

1.17
1.15
.86
l.Ol*
1*66
1.18
1.12
1.37
2.01
1.20
1.27
1.66

1.62
3.U)
(176)
lt.38 1.27
(329)
5.62
.99
(Utlt)
1.22
lt.32
(61)9)

1.10
1.02
1.31

1.15
.82
l.ll

1.38
.98
1.27

1.39
1.15
.85
1.07
1.70
1.1*1
l.Ol*
1.31

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 ■- It,1*99 It,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
1.1(2
(1*1)
2.03
(89)
1.97
(21*)
1.86
(15U)
1.63
(76)
2.U9
(50)
3.15
(32)
2.21
(158)

.78
.59
.35
.55
.98
.75
.51*
.73

1.36
2.31
(221))
3.60
1.10
(65)
6.65
.99
(13)
1.2t*
2.78
(302)

1.07
(151*)
1.90
(21*)
1).1*3
(6)
1.29
(188)

•68

1.50
2.72
(533)
1.26
It.31
(739)
.95
5.5)4.
(338)
it.00
1.19
(1660)

1.28
(271)
2.15
(163)
2.82
(62)
1.76
(896)

.78

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.60
•66
•66

•6U
.1*8
•6U

2.50
(1*0)
3.21*
(85)
3.1*3
(55)
3.13
(180)

1.25

2.12
1.11
(77)
3.21
.93
(122)
•66
3.80
(65)
3.01*
.85
(261*)

2.50
(7U)
3.18
(U*l)
3.86
(72)
3.18
(287)

1,28

2.61
(1*8)
3.51
(20)
1*.30
(2)
2.91
(70)

2.12
(22)
2.61
(21)
3.71
(5)
2.50
(1*8)

1.06

1.53
(51)
2.1*9
(187)
3.01
(77)
2.1*6
(315)

.77
.72
.53
.66

1.33
1.10
.78
1.21

2.08
1.07
(176)
.82
2.82
(329)
3.39
.59
(11*1*)
.78
2.75
(61*9)

.95
.61
.83

.91
.61*
.85

.75
.52
.78

2.10) 1.23
(136)
.91
3.15
(21*7)
.62
3.67
(132)
•81*
3.10
(515)

1.79
(132)
2.55
(361)
3.00
(156)
2.50
(6lt9)

.92
.71*
.53
.68

2.08
(277)
3.08
(313)
3.70
(169)
2.91
(709)

1.12

1.50
(221*)
2.62
(65)
U.lit
(13)
1.86
(302)

.88

1.79
(583)
2.78
(739)
3.39
(338)
2.56
(1660)

.89
.63
.83

.80
.62
.83
.99
.81
.58
.76

163

nBLE

36. BEEF: TiSEEK1S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEVvIFE YiTTKEN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Education of

Size of

Less than
high school
(0 - 11 yrs.)

1-2
3- h
1

5 or more
All
Hip-h School
(1? yrs.)

1-2
3- h
5 or more
All

lore than
high school
(13 or more
yrs.)

1.87
(172)
3.1*3
(82)
3.27
(36)
2.73
(290)

1.13 .3.52
m
1.01 6*80
(128)
.88 6.18
(63)
1.02 1*.73
(275)

2.17
(59)
3.60
(56)
3.6k
(19)
2.98
(131+)

l.Ul
1.05
.63
1.02

1-2

2.88
(36)

1.66

3- 6

3.08

•96

3 or more
All
Complete
range

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,QpQ - U,U99 i|,$OQ or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per

(25)
4.90
(7)
3.17
(66)

.88
1.16

2.28
(52)
l*.ll
(158)
5.29
(60)
1*.02
(270)
3-1*3
(38)
I*.l5
(1*2)
l*.89
(21)
I*.03
(101)

1.80
1.1*0
1.06
1.3U
1.18
1.19
.93
1.10
1.81
1.20
.92
1.21*

2.91
1-1*7
(1*2)
1.18
1*.07
(76)
6.02
.97
(1*1*)
U-30
1.13
(162)

2.1*8
(298)
1*.22
(266)
5.90
(11*3)
3.81*
(727)

3.71*
(61*)
5.08
(95)
5.81*
(67)
1*.92
(226)

1.90

2.78
(175)
l*.3l
(309)
5.33
(11*6)
1*.12
(630)

3.75
(32)
5-15
(71*)
5-25
(21)
ii-81
(127)

1.88

1.1*9
.99
1.32

1.1*6
.98
1.39

1.39
1.23

.99 ■
1.18

1.53
1.25
.92
1.17

1.79
3.35
(101*)
1*.1*8 1.29
(11*1)
5.01*
.91*
(1*9)
1*.18
1.30
(291+)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3>QQQ - 6 >U99 S,5QQ or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
1.13
(172)
2.11*
(82)
3.11
(36)
1.66
(290)
1.1*3
(59)
2.20
(56)
2.08
(19)
1.85
(131*)
1.80
(31*)
2.10
(25)
3.02
(?)
2.01*
(66)

.68
.63
.52
.63
.93
.61*
.36
.63
1.03
•66
.56
.75

1.19
2.33
(86)
3.16
.92
(128)
.63
3.67
(63)
.86
3.02
(275)
1.51
(52)
2.59
(158)
3.26
(60)
2.53
(270)
2.25
(38)
2.61*
(1*2)
2.90
(21)
2.55
(101)

.78
.15.
.51.
.69
1.19
.77
r#
.78

1.08
2.13
(1*2)
.76
2.63
(76)
3.61
.58
(1*1*)
2.76
.72
(162)
,'

1.61
(298)
2.73
(286)
3-51
(11*3)
2.62
(727)

2.51
(61*)
3.30
(95)
3-75
(67)
3.21
(226)

1.27

1.85.
(175)
2.76
(309)
3.33
(166)
2.63
(630)

1.02

2.65
(32)
3.52
(71*)
3-57
(21)
3.31
(127)

i.33

2.23
(101;)
3.01
U6D
3.20
(69)
2.76
(296)

1.19

.96
•

6U

.86

1.00
.66
.96

.90
.80
.59
.76

.80
.57
.75

.87
.60
•86

-

1-2
3- h
5 or more
All

2.07
(265)
3.UU
(163)
U.73
(62)
2.86
(U90)

1.61
3-13
(171*)
1.02 U.38
1.27
(328)
.81 5.62
.99
(11*1*)
1.0U >4.32 1.22
(61*6)

1.25

1.76
3.1*9
(138)
1.38
1*.79
(21*5)
5.81
.98
(132)
U.70
1.27
(515)

1.50
2.73
(577)
1.26
lt-31
(736)
.95
5.53
(338)
l+.Ol
1.19
(1651)

1.28
(265)
2.15
(163)
2.?8
(62)
1.76
(1*90)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.78
.66
•68
•66

2.07
1.07
(171*)
.82
2.82
(328)
3-39
.59
(11*1*)
2.71*
.77
(61*6)

2.1*3 1.23
(138)
3.16
.91
(21*5)
.62
3-67
(132)
3-09
.86
(515)

1.79
(577)
2.78
(736)
3.39
(338)
2.56
(1651)

.98
.81
.58
.76

l6k

TABLE 39.

'.Veek'3 Family
Food

15 F. under

BEEF: PEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - );,U99 U,500 or more Complete Range
Size of
Per
Per
Per
Per Per
Per
Per
Per
Family_____ Family
PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Person
1-2
3 - ii
or more
All

16 - 20

1-2
3 - h
or more

All

1.92
(223)
2.1*5

(65)
.75
(2)
2.03
(290)
3.19
(30)
3.73
(51)
U.17
(19)

3*6,6

1.19
.77
.12

(5 )

1-2

3.00

3 - k

i**3l*
(ho)

or more

S .11*

All

(39)
i*.6l

Complete

1-2

ran?e
3 - h

3.81

1.91

1.06

It.03
(122)
It.69
(18)

1.19

It.OS

1.2lt

da)

1.08

or more

1.26

(6 0 )

All

2.81*
(1*75)

.89

(181)

2.09
3.35
(15$
lj.69

.85

1.71

.77

1.50
*

3.16
(166)
.99 It.37
(322)
.81 5.62
(Ut2)
1.01* It.33
(630)

3.16
(73)
3.18

1.60
.99

(lt6)
1 .2 1

(8 5 )
(259)

1.03

3.08
(198)

1*.16
(11)
1.21* 5.38
(121)
.8? 5.79
(119)
1.02 5-52
(251)
r

(6 )

l.lt6

1.02

(100)
21 F over

2.83
(lilt)
3.33
(79)
i*.7l*

2.1*0
’
1.1*8

1 .0 1
1.21

1.63
1.27
.99
'
1.22

It.oo
(2)
3.18
(121)
3.!t9
(33)
It.8o
(78)
It.8o
(lit)
£*•1*5
(125)
5.10
(20)
5.la
(117)
6.00
(115)
5.65
(252)
3.56
(126)
U.79
(2la)
5.81t
(131)
lt.75
(1*98)

.80

2.39
(tao)
2.99
(190)
3-69

1.35
.93

.65

(9 )
1.27

2.60
(609)

l.llt

1.75

3-53
(lolt)
lt.21
(251)
It.53
(51)
It.08
(1*06)

1.80

i.ia
.9°
1.37
2.55
l.5o
1.00
1.21*,

l*.l*8
<37)
5-21t
(278)
5.78
(273)
5-U5

1.23.

. .85
1.2lt
2.33
1.1*6
.98
1.20

(5 8 8 )

l.8o
1.38
.99
1.27

1.51
2.75
■ (551)
It.29
1.25
(719)
.96
5-51*
(333)
lt.02
1.19
(1603)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000
3a000 - U,U99 U.>5>00 or more Complete Hang?
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person'
1.19
(223)
1.50
(65)
.38
(2)
1.25
(290)

.73

2.03
(30)
2.3lt
(51)
2.1*2
(19)
2.26
(100)

1.09

1.91
(6)
2.77
(1*0)
3.01*
(39)
2.83
(85)
1.30
(259)
2.10
(156)
2.75
(60)
1.75
(it75)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.1*7
.06
.63

1.85
(lit)

2.0g

(79)
3.13
(5)
1.96
(198)

.95

2.16

.63

(7 3 )
2 .0 7

.56

.77

(1*6)
2.22
(2)
2.13
(121)

1.10

.61*

1.55

.88

(ia o )
1.86

.58

(190)
.1*1*

2.31

.ia

(9 )
.85

1.66
(609)

.73

1.22
2.39
(101*)
2.69
.79
(251)
2.68
.50
(5D
2.61
.79
(1*06)

2.6?
(!*1)
2.56
.66
(122)
•U5 . 2.79
(18)
2.61
.67
(181)

1.31* ■ 2.37
.(33)
.76
3.11
(78)
2.89
•53
(11*)
.80
2.89
(125)

1.19

.96

2.1t8
(11)
3-58
(121)
3.1*8
(119)
3.1*8
(251)

1.1*3

3.71*
(20)
3-61
(117)
3.81
(115)
3.71
(252)

1.87

3 .0 7
(3 7 )

1.00

3-1*8
(278)
3.56
(273)
3-1*9
(588)

.97

2.10
(166)
2.82
(322)
3-38
(11*2)
2.75
(630)

1.08

2.i*7
(126)
3.15
( 21a )
3.69
(131)
3.12
(1*98)

1.25

1.81
(551)
2.77
(719)

.99

.62

3 .3 9
(3 3 3 )

.58

.81*

2.57
(1603)

.79
.5i
.63
*
.78
.62
.1*8

.61*

.98
-V
.60

.7 6

.82

•5?
.77

.91
.51*
.89
-

.61*
.81

•91

1.60

.61

.77

.81

•76

16£

T4BLE 1*0. BEEF: IREK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOE, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Occupation of
Head of House

Size of
Family

Professional,
aana perial F
Official

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Skilled,
Semi-skilled
unskilled

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Clerical,
Sales 1 kin­
dred,
Service,
■inemployed,
Retired

1-2
3 — U
5 or more
All

Complete
ranve

1-2
3- U
5 or more

All

Average Consumption
Below 3,000
Per
Per
Per
Family PersonFamily
2.50
(28)
3-ltl
(29)
3.96
(11)
3-U5
(68)
2.65
(52)
3.68
(71*)
U*06
(2?)
3-1*0
(153)

1.32
1.02
1.06
1.11
1.38
1.05
.69
1.00

1.79
(1U5)
3.25
(1*8)
U.73
(19)
2.39
(212)

1.13

2.08
(225)
3.1*9
(15D
U.65
(57)
2.91
(1*33)

1.22

.99
.79
1.01

1.03
.79
1.02

3.03
(39)
U.52
(72)
5.07
(22)
1*.18
(133)
3.05
(80)
l*.ld(
(176)
5.63
(86)
U.U2
(3U2)
3.1(8
(1(9)
U.06
(77)
5.90
(32)
k.25
(158)

(lb£.)
14,1*99"
Per
Person
1.55.

With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Ii,50Q or more Complete Range"
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
3.1(9

i.75

(5U)
1.3U
.91
1.26

1.57
1.29
*98
1.20

5.18
(10U)
6.18
(57)
5.02
(215)
3.31
(1(5)
U.l(8
(88)
5.63
(65)
U.59
(198)

1.79 • 3.61*
(36)
U.62
1.17
(53)
1.06
U-9U
(8)
1.2U
U.29
(97)

I.63
3.17
(168)
1.27
U.37
(325)
5.61
.99
(11(0)
1.22
li.33
(633)

3.1(7
(135)
l*.8l
(21*5)
5.83
(130)
U.71
(5io)

1.1*8
1.05
1.3U
1.66
1.31
.93
1.16
1.88
1.3U
.9k
1.1*1

1.7U
1.39
.98
1.27

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of*.
Below
j,00Q r 1*,1*99 i*,5Q0 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
fer
Per
fir
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person FamilyPerson
.81*

1.59
3.11
(121)
U.70
1.37
(205)
5.88
1.02
(90)
1.28
U-U9
(1(16)

1.58
(28)
2.27
(29)
3.77
(11)
2.23
(68)

3.00
(177)
1*.28
(338)
5.39
(178)
U.2U
(693)

1.65
(52)
2.27
(7U)
2.26
(27)
2.05
(153)

.86

1.12
(11(5)
2.05
(1(8)
2.85
(19),
1.1*8
(212)

.7i

1.30
(225)
2.20
(151)
2.75
(57)
1.80
(U33)

.76

2.1*1;
(23)
U.01
(178)
5.39
(59)
3-1(1
(1(67)

1.51*
1.21*
.92
1.15

1.1*3
1.17
.95
1.18

1.50
2.78
(526)
1.26
U.33
(721)
5.5 3 . •95
(327)
1*.06 1.19
(1576)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.68
.67
.71

.65
•38
.60

.63
.1*8
.63

.65
rU7
.63

2.05
(39)
2.88
(72)
3.13
(22)
2.68
(133)

1.05

2.00
(80)
2.87
(176)
3.1*2
(86)
2.80
(31(2)

1.03

2.28
(1(9)
2.61*
(77)
3-5U
(32)
2.71
(158)

1.18

.85
.56
.81

.83

.76

.76

2.1*8

3.93
(57)
3.37
(215)

.79

2.09
1.08
(168)
.82
2.82
(325)
.60
3.1(0
(11(0)
.78
2.75
(633)

.67
.90

2.26
(US)
2.83
(88)
3-SU
(65)
2.93
(198)

1.13

2.52
(36)
3.07

1.30

(53)
.63

1.2l(

(5W
3-52 1.01
CloU)

3.16
(8)
2.87
(97)
2.1*2
(135)
3.17
(21*5)
3.69
(130)
3.10
(5io)

.83
•59
•7U.

.89
.60
.9U

1.22
.92
.62
.81*

2.13 1.09
(121)
.91
3.12
(205)
.6k
3-71
(90)
2.96
.85
(1(16)
1.96 1.01
(177)
.79
2.73
(338)
.56
3.29
(178)
.72
2.67
(693)
1.58
(230)
2.60
(178)
3.27
(59)
2.19
(1(67)

.92

1.8U
(528)
2.81
(721)
3-1(0
(327)
2.60
(1576)

.99

.76
.58
.76

.82
.59
t-k/
.76

Hvisewife slthiaSiM of Family VHthlB

167

c
5
CO
h
0 ©
(W
u

tu

ON

on

3•

3•

-st

O-

rH
•

-S t
CM

O
ON
•
H

UN

iH
•
rH

UN

rH
•
rH

Os

vO
ao

p-

XA
oo

iH

rH

-S t
CM
•
CM

ON
•
CM

ON
t—
•
rH

On
UN
•
CM

UN

CO
ON

On

P>-

CM
-St

UN

ON
> -

CM
UN

CM
t"

H
CO

CM
On
•
CM

-S t
On
•
CM

O
P~
•
CM

P»
XA
•
ON

O
rH
•
-S t

0

rH
•
-S t

UN
ON
•
ON

-S t
CO
CM

CM
NO

O
-S t

-s t

-St

-s t

S-

MO

rH
•
rH

UN
P—

NO

00
•
rH

iH
•
H

CM
OO

UN
P—

UN
OO

o
oo

oo

O
P—
•
CM

OO
P•
CM

CM
OO
•
CM

ON
O
•
ON

00

•
CM

UN
On
•
CM

ON
On
•
CM

On
rH
•
ON

On
ON
•
ON

_sr
c—
•
ON

NO
XA
•
ON

rH
NO
•
ON

C—
CM

ON
XA

ON
C—
CM

-S t

CM
NO

XA
ON

-St

u

&
w rH
•H
d
© i
M
CO
Ph
53 a>
> FH
<4

•
rH

•
rH

c—

On

C^•
rH

•
rH

«
rH

<<~s
•
to £

0

rH n
£
©
£ Ph

o

•H
40 0
x,

•

•

on

♦

•

l*
13
O H
O •d
<I) to
&0 P=t
cO
SH U
a> 0
> p*

H
-ST
•

On

0

N
»rl
«J H
© 0
&0 (0
cO (x.
Ph
SP
> 0
<4

w
O

©

• •rl

O
3! 8

OO

A
0

r—N
iH

8
o

H

On
On
-S t

On
ON
ON

ON
ON
-S t

On
ON
On

On
ON
-S t

On
On
OS

On
On
ON

On

rH

CM

CM

ON

ON

-S t

-S t

NO

On

1

1

1

•»

*»

1

O

s

M — '

iH

rH

ON
On
On

I

© e3

0 >»
0
0 =G©=

H

CM

On
NO

H

m

01

rH

0

s

O
O

Q
O

•*

rH

1

•»

1
O

O

O
XA

CM

CM

-t

«*

1
Q
O
0

•»
ON

a

1
O
O
XA
•*
ON

*»

1

•»

•»

0

0
0

0

XA
*N

O
O
O

-S t

-St

XA

0

«N

on
On

n

O
O
O

•>
r—

U

©
>

O
a

CS

0
0
0

Q
rH

&tuO
£
<0
U

0
+>
©
rH
p.
0
O

O

information with regard to mentioned variables was available

■a

Total number where

TABLE U2.

PORK: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 19$Q

INCOME CLASS

•H 0

ctf

168

GO
<a

in

»

3
3

vO

la

ca

ca

oo

ca

c*ca

cm

3

<A

c—•
rH

CO

CO

c*•
~- o
•
rH CM

CM

CM

0A

H
•

3

3•
rH

OJ

Ov

O

*

to ft
X> O

O
sH-r C
h
Q)
a Ph
o
•H h
■P a>

ON

vO
MD
OO•

vO
Ov

CO
•

VO
p•

LA
vO
•

LA
vO
•

CO
vO
•

CM
C•

PH
a
o£

o •H
fi
bo

aU
<D a>

CO

A-

vO

p-

vO

CM

<A

Ov

co
o
rH

Ov
CM
•

03
ca

LA
vO
oo•

CM

OV

8•

&•

CM

CA

PCM
•
CA

c—
OO
•
CA

co
p•
3

f—
P•
LA

$

> fL,

o

CO

CM

La

CA

vO

oo

<A

Ov

vO

TABLE U3*

P*ca
rH

a
•H H
O
U Xi
Q) a)
,£ CO
3 o

S3 W

Q
3
'LA

CM

Ov
la
3

CA

<A
3
CA

ov
oo
rH

LA

CM

O
rH

vO

ArH

oo

•LA

OV

0)
*H
O
0
iH
O
O
rH

Ov
<A
OO*k
rH
4
b)D
a
aJ
U
<D
-P
4)
rH
9
0*
o
a

to mentioned

3

information with regard

O

LA
•
rH

number where

CA

rH
•
rH

Total

Ov

3•

/^v/
—N/— 04
3
3
O
vO
• Ov• CO•

variables was available

3

PORK: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

CN
3

169

g
(0
u
©
Ph

CA
-4

sO
XA

OS
-4

VA
-4

PORK: WEEK*S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BT AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

-P

•rt(Xi
■©a
&
•H
<D .
bDfti

XA
<A

nJ

I
«aj

$

CO
c—
•
rH

ft
Pi

XA
.4
•

CO
O•

rH

rH

GO
o•
rH

C*—

-4
•
rH

•
4)
0cd

rH
H

1<e
n
o
£ (0
6
a p-t
o
'H
+3 &
Qip*

is
VO
c*-

o
p*- CO

CSJ

p—
co

c*-

O

o
--*
rH

Os

c•

to
o&
0 H
a

1
«aj

t

•©a
O

-4
•
CM

-=r Os CO
co• O• XA
•
CM

CA

CM

-4
CO•
rH

-4
Os
•
rH

rH

vO•
CM

Pi

a)
&o S
«j ix,
& <n
5 °

e
0

•H
•P

fi

1
o
-p
•o
&
bO
0)
Ci

0)
N
•H

CO H

m
A
■9
•H

a

&4

~=s XA
iH
•
• Os
CA

CA

C*-

ao•
CA

vO
OS
•
CM

O

•

CM

-4

os
•
rH

o
CA
•
CA

3
t
d
o
t

o
•H
cm

W

*§8
XA
at

-4
so

4

35

TABLE hh.

c\)

•>
«M «H
°.g
&
to ®
m
«U d
o
w

.

ia
flj

i
vO
CM

_4
ca

4

Pt
1
sO
CA

CM
-4

XA
XA
1
vO
-4

_4
cm

CM

XA
vO
1
sO
XA

rH
_4
H

£
o
1

as

r'csi
co
8>
8
©
©

-p

I§
o

0)
&
f
u
©

-p

o
Eh

TABLE b$.

PORK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£0

OF HOUSEWIFE

170

C
o
<0
(0 <0
V PU, Pi
3 SH
0)
p
ft
5
1
p<
K H
w •ri
V i
60 ft
«S
Pi Pi
Q)

J

co
_d
*

VO
*
iH

oo

f*-' -d
3

•

•

H

UN

•
iH

v£>
•

UN

rH

CVI
ca

•

H

UN

<M

•
pH

VO
O

C*-

> ft
*4

,— >
•
00 c
rQ o
H (0
u
©
ft
o
•H u
P

C

A
£
H

H
On

vO
CO

CA

CO

VO

r-

VO

o-

-d
UN

On

P—

<0

1
ca
co
U3
SC
(a
<o

rH

■8

|

ft

•H

ao

rH
rH

'od
C
0

CM

t

o

I

’i

4> (4
M ft
(II

IH SH
V 0)
> Pi

U \
c*-

CA

p-

VO
c*•

VO
•

_=f
•

CVI

CM

CM

CM

CM

•

CA

CM

On
c*-

•
H

vO
•

1
0

*5

-P

1
W)
©
Pi

si
CA
O
*
CA

vO

rH

•
CA

rH

CA
•
CA

vO
_=t
•
<A

On

rH

•
CA

CA
CA
•
CA

H
CA
•
CA

-p
0

•H

-P

<a
«H «>
O *rt
nl
i t

C"-

rH
rH

O-

oo

CM

rH
O
-d -

CM

CO
vO

rH

CM
CM

_= t

O

rH

Ptt
Pi
5P
r>

i— 1
rH
1

o

0O

1
ON

1

o
'O
d
oj

CA
H

vO
rH

UN
H
CM

i— 1

flj

CM

rH
OO
H

■8 )
c
OS
Pi

'a
•H
CD

Pi

1
Pi

0)
.Q

©
p

<D
ft
s
O
o

rH

flj

P
o

En
ctt

171

© ft

Os

nO

On

pJ

Pt

nC

*
rH

O
r—
•
rH

Pr~
.
rH

1 &
•H ft
d
a
©
ft h
H

U\

CNJ

c—

CJ-

J

ON

Pf

INCO
«
rH

on

J
NO
•

CO

rH

CO

_d

a

co
CO
.
H

co
UN
•
H

UN
CM
.
rH

CO
CM
.
rH

CO

vO
C«-

On

rH

P-

OO

CO

CM

r>- o n
oo co

rH
UN

UN
CO

NO

O
p•
CM

U \

UN
CM

UN
On
•
CM

CM
O
•

PrH

rH
CM

P t
On

rH

rH

On
CM
•
.—1

O
.

O

PUN
.
H

p

on

•
CM

rH

•
CM

.

CM

ON

•
ON

rH
CK

•
CM

.

.

On

nC

•
CM

S•
CM

©
N
•H

W H

3
t© ©

©

© ft
(h

© Ch
> o
<!

P t

ON
.

UN

vO
«

ON

ON

CO
O
CM

rH

ON

P-

•
CM

UN

rH
.

P t

ON

ON

rH

ON
ON

ON

P-

P•
ON

UN

i—1
.

OO
ON

CO
CM

ON

NO
.
ON

•

rH
•

P t

ON
CM

ON

CM

CM

CM

ON

ON

O
vO
CM

PCM
P t

On
P t

O
UN

O
i—1
rH

P t
ON

ON
(—1

.

.

ra
ft ©
O

. ■H
O d
s ©
ft

VO
CM

PUN
rH

rH
rH

.

©

On
ON
CO

©
c
o
•H
-©P
ft
©
O
o
o

©

a
o

•H

©

M
0)
O
u

ft

©

c
a

rH
©
•H
h
Q>

rH
(0
«H
O

bO-H
©
a ft
© o
a

■ra
t
to

©
rH
©

CO

d
©
•H
ft

tj

o>

H
rH

0)
O
©
CO

TJ
©
H
i
—I
3
3
CO

•d

W
I
©

CO

T©)
H
rH

33
co

tCo

Ti

o

H
ft
§
£

•d
©
u
*rH
-P
©
ft!

•H

CO

CO
cd

rH

O
C
d>

variables
regard

<4

taO

£
©
U
©
-P
©

rH

I
Os
o

with

P t

On
P-

information

&
O Hh
O •d
© 1
&0ft
©
U u
© ©
> ft

vO

where

©
a ft
o
•
•H
P©
ftft

to mentioned

-—*
•
© A
,0 o
rH «
v._' u

was

available

r—

number

© 1
bflft
fH
©
> ft

Total

TABLE 1*6.

PORK: YffiEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BX OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0

a
46so
N—' B
© ©

<©

172

Jn
ra CD
© P*
u
u 0
23 eu
3

-rt

_=j-

ia-

—=t

_=»■

_=*■

ca

Xf\

-rt
XA
•

0\
c>•

O
CM
•
H

CA
XA
•

Cr•

vO
rH
•
CM

CM
i>lH
•
CM

rH

o
XA
•

-rt

a
©
tuO
rt
&

rH

rH

H

•
CM

rH

0)
H
•s
rt
rH

•rH

at
01

CO
VO

OV
•

CM

r—

rH
a

Pt
H

CM
OO

O

rH

o
OO

ca

OO

o

O

•

•

CM

CM

rH

a
CA

On
C*•
CA

rH

CO

■LA
CVI
•
P t

xa

1A
CM
*
-rt

c-~

rt
£
01
rt1
I
—
XJ
rt

VO
vO

£
xt
§
o
•H
p
G

on

•

CM

O

P

trt
tuO
rt
G
CM
P t

VO
CN
•

XA
U \

•

vO
CM
•

XA
O

rH

rH

CM

<A

p i

•

PORK: WEEK'S
TABLE k7.

pi

o

Pi

o

C—

\Q

CO
ca

CD

CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

8CO

cvi

VO

U
rt

TO

1

<D *H

1
rt
U\

*> rH
X H
rt

p q

ON
O
<A

rH
Sa
p i

OO

(A

•

vO
•

P t
CA

XA

1A

CA

c>CJ

CO

r>vo

•

rt

rt

Tt
O
O
(5t|HA

s— '

pi <A ca
r
-tQ
. rrot
N
r t

•

tuD

O,
H

XA

vO

rH
rH

rH

1 1

O
CM
1
vO

rH

XA
CM

o
CA

XA
<A

rH

vO
CM

rH

G
rt
>
O

1 I 1 ■sHrt

CM

CA

VO
CA

§
G
rt
P
rt
rH

i4
o
o

-p

t
§
*-0
rt
o
<+H
G

•H
rt
G
rt
f
8

3
p
O
E-c
«

m

TABLE 1*8. pcmxi 1BEK’S m

Below 3*000
Size of
Family

Per

3*000 -

W W m m

Of ABB E3OTBBITUEES FOB* B7 SXEI OF FA»m WITHIS Sim Of XMOOIffi*
UBSIBG, SPKIKQ, 195®

k»k99

1**500 or wore

Coaj&ete

twage

Belov 3*000

Per
Per
W
”
- Person Faaily Person

fer
#er
Family Person

is -— for
Person

3*000 - k*i*99 k*50® or wore Complete
v ..m 8 f.____
pSr™'" * *»&
Per
IPer' Pfer' P*r
Per
Per
Family Person Faaily Person
Person Family Person

1 -2

1.52
(27b)

.92

2.0b 1.05
(17b)

1.9?
(Ibo)

.99

1.78
(588)

.98

.85
.52
(27b)

1.22
(17b)

.63

1.19
(Iba)

•60

1.0l*
(588)

.57

3-

2.7®
(167)

.82

2.91
(326)

.85

2.90 •8b
(2b9)

2.88
(7b2)

.81*

1.55
(167)

.b6

1.6b
(326)

.b8

1.73 .10
(2b9)

1.65
(7b2)

*U8

b.09
(62)

.70

3.71
(11.5)

.65

b.01 .68
(132)

3.90
(339)

.6?

208
(62)

.37

1.97
(lb5)

•35

•38
203
(132)

2.11
(339)

.36

2.26
(503)

.82

2.86
(6b5)

.81

2.93
(521)

.81
2.7©
(1669)

1.53
(1669)

*b6

h

5 or more
All

.T9

1.25 .b6
(503)

(Figures In parentheses indicate number of families fron which known date were averaged.)

1.60 .85
(6b5)

1.71
m y

.1*6

171;

TABLE- 1*9. PORK:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs*) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Age of
.lousewife
3^ and
under

Size of
Family
1 - 2

5 or more
All
1 -2
3 - 1*
5 or more

All
56 and
over

1 - 2

3 -U
5 or more

All
Complete
Pange

1.28
m

3 - U

36 - 55

Below 3,000
Per
Per
Family Person

1-2
3 -U

5 or more
All

2.1*2
(89)
3.1*3
(210
2.2?
(155)
1.52
(76)
3.53
(52)
U.08
(32)
2*69
(160)
1.5?
(151*
2.59
(25)
6,75
(6)
1.89
(185)
1.52
(272)
2.79
(166)
U.09
( 62)
2.26
(500)

.70
.70

.60
.67
.91

1.06
.70
.88
1.01
.82
1.08
.95
.93
.83
.70
.82

I*,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3,000 3,000 - U,l*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

i*,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

1.58
( 1*0 )

.79

1.58
(127)

.82

l.Olj

2.91*

.86

2.88
(230)

. 8U

.95
(UO)
1.77
(87)

.52

.37

(87)
3.7k

.66

3.57
(109)

.62

2.01

.36

2.68
(1*66)

.75

.76
( 1*2)
1.33
(89)
1.91
( 21*)
1.27
(155)

1.99
(21*0)
2.99
(1*23)
lt.Oli
(198)
2.95
(861)

1.06

1.66
(21lt)
2.1(0
(86)
lt.13
(32)
2.09
(332)
1.78
(581)
2.88
(739)
3.90
(339)
1.70
(1659)

.99

3,000 - l*,l*99
Per
Per
Family Person
1.85
(1*5)
3.53
(51*)
3.31*
(29)
2.90
(128)
2.19
(89)
2.88
(231)
3.91*
(95)
2.98
(1*15)

Average Expenditures (f) With Family Dollar Incomes of:

.91*

.81*
1.3,2
.81*
.69
.82

1.81*
.97
(37)
2.26
•65
(Uo)
.61
3.21
(21)
.70
2.30
(98)
2.03
1.05
(171)
2.91
. .85
(325)
.65
3.71
(11*5)
2.86
.81
(61*1)

(56)
2.89
( 183)

2.21
(75)
2.95
(11*0)
lt.16
(71)

3.06

.76
1.13
.85
.69
.82

(286)
1.88
(23)
2.1*7
(21)
It. 80
(5)
2.1)3
0*9)
1.97
(138)
2.90
(21)8)
lt.01
(132)
2.91*
(518)

.9k

.71
.67
. .77
.99
.81t
.68
.80

.87
.69
.83

.71
.71
.82
.98

.81*
.67
.81

.81)
(76)
1.95
(52)
2.10
(32)
1.U5
( 160)
.88
(151*)
1.55
(25)
3.65
(6)

1.06
(185)
.85
(272)
1.56
(166)
2.18
(62)
1.25
(5oo)

(Fisnires in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

. 1*2

1. 01*

.53

.38

(1*5)
1.97
(51*)

.58

.33

1.61

.38

.27
(29)
1.56
.1*5
(128)

.50

1.36

.59

1.63

.69

(89)
.36
.1*8
.56
.1*9
.58
.53
.52
.1*6
.37
.10*

(231)
2.13
(95)
1.69
(1*15)
1.03
(37)
1.28
(1*0)
1.71*
(21)
1.28
(98)
1.21
(171)
1.61*
(325)
1.97
0-1*5)
1.60
(61*1)

.1*7
.37
.1*6

•5U
.37
.33
.39
.62
.1*8 .
•35
.1*5

•U8

(56)

1.66

1.11
(23)
i.U o
(21)
2.51
(5)
1.38
0*9)
1.19
(138)
1.73
(21*8)
2.23
(132)
1.72
(518)

1.88

. 1*8
. 1*8
.33

(109)
•UU

1.50
( 1*66)

. 1*2

.69

1.19
(21*0)
1.71
(1*23)
2.21
(198)
1.68
( 160)

.6!*

(183)
1.35
(75)
1.76
OUo)
2.38
(71)
1.81
(286)

.92
(127)
1.65
( 230)

.51
.39
•U9
.56
.Uo
.35
.UU

.60
.50
.38
.1*7

.93
(211*)
1.39
(86)
2.22
(32)
1.17
(332)
1.01*
(272)
1.65
(739)
2.11
(339)
1.53
(1659)

.50
.38
.1*7
.55
.U l
.38
•1*6
.57
.1*8
.36
•1*6

50,

ORK: REEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING,'1950
F

education ox
.loaseydiK ____ __
Less than
High School
(u - 11 yrs.)

Size of
Family
1-2
3 - U
5 or more

All

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - k,U99 u,5oo or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Ifer
Per
Per
' Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person
1.6U
(170)

3.38
(83)
U.70
(36)
2.32
(289)

.98
1.00
•79
•93

1.99
(S3)
3.21
(130)
3.56
(6U)
2.93
(277)

1.02
.91+

.61
.83

2.36
(U3)
3.09
(76)
U-59
(U2)
3.29
(161)

1.19
.90

•7h
.87

I. 8I4.
(296)
3.23
(289)
U.15
(1U2)
2.8U
(727)

1.02
.9U
.69
.87

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3>000 3*600 - hsU9P A,566 or more Complete flange
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per H Per
Per
Family PersoriFamily Person Family Person Family Perscn
.88
(170)
1.86
(83)
2.52
(36)
1.37
(289)

.97

2.23

2.2C
(57)
2.58
(18)
1.9U
(13li)

.61*

2.83

1.1U
(36)
2.18
(26)
1(.50
(7)
1.88
(69)

.66

1.5U
(265)
2.78
(166)
U.05
(61)
2.27
(U92)

.93

1 -2

1.1(9

3 - U

(59 i

5 or more
All

i.ore than
^i-h School
(IS or more
yrs.)

1- 2

3 - U
3 or more
All

Complete
range

.55
.U2

.51
-

High School

(12 yrs.)

.52

1 - 2
3 - U
5 or more
All

1.15

1.72
(65)

.87

.82

2.89

.8U-

(51)

•U5
.66

.6?
.81
.70

(155)
U.06
(60)
2.99
(266)
1.8U
(37)
2.26
(1+0)
3.21
(21)

2.30

.71
.82

.97
.65
.61
.70

(98)

.69

2.03
(171)
2.91
(325)
3.71

.82

(Ui5)
2.86

.82

(6ia)

1.05
.85
.65
.81

(96)
U.09
(68)
2.91
(229)

.69
.78

1.95
(32)
2.67
(7U)
2.65
(22)
2.U9
(128)

.98

1.97
(lUO)
2.89
(2U6)
U .01
(132)

.99

2.92
(518)

.76
.U9

1.79
(175)
2.73
(308)
3.89
(1U6)
2.7U
(629)

.98

1.63
(105)
2.U6
(lllO)
3.15

.87

•79
.67
.78

.71
.59

(50)
.72

.81*
.68
.79

2.28
(295)

•71

1.79
(576)
2.88
(737)
3.89
(338)

.98

2.70

.80

.8U
.67

(1651)

(li-nires in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.85
(59)
1.21*
(57)
1 .1*0
(18)
1.09
(13U)

.55

.75
(36)
1.25
(26)
2.20
(?)
1.09
(69)

•UU

.86
(265)
1.55
(166)
2.15
(61)
1.25
(U92)

.36

1.16
(83)
1.80
(130)
1.87
(6U)
1.62
(277)

*
1.U2
(51)
1.60
(155)

.59
•53
•32
•U6

•73
•U7

.21*

2.16

.38

.37

(60)
1.69
(266)

•U6

.38
.39

.Uo

1.03
(37)
1.28
(UO)
1.7U
(21)

.5U

1.28

.39

•37
.33

(98)

.52
.U6
.37
•U5

1.21
(171)
1.6U
(325)
1.97
(1U5)

1.60
(6U1)

1.39
(U3)
1.77
(76)
2.61
(U2)
1.88
(161)

.7°
•51
•U2

.50

1.03
(296)
1.81
(289)
2.25
(1U2)
1.58
(727)

•57

1.09
(175)
1.58
(308)
2.11
(1U6)
1.57
(629)

.60

•53
.38
.U8

•

.62

.
■CD
pr

T- jr.

•35
•U5

1.06
(65)
1.76
(96)
2.25
(68)
1.71
(229)
1.20
(32)
1.63
(7U)
l.UU
(22)
1.U9
(128)
1.19
(1U0)
1.72
(2U6)
2.23
(132)
1.71
(518)

•5U
.51

.38
•U6

.60

•U6
.36
•UU

.99
(105)
1.U6
(1U0)

.53

.27

1.67

.31

.U3

(50)
1.33
(295)

•U1

.60

1 .0U

.U6

•5°
.38
•U6

•U2

.57
(576)
.U8
1.65
(737)
2.10
•36
(338)
.U6
1.53
(1651)

*4

176

TABLE bl*

eek‘s Family
sod Bill ($)
unaer

PORK PEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BX SIZE OF V.EEK’S FOOD BILL YVITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY' WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditures ($) 1IB.th Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,06q 3,660 - U,U99 h,500 or more Complete Range ~ Bslow 3,000 3,600 - U,U99 R.5QO or more Complete Range
Size of
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family_______ Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Person____ Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Person
1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
All

20

1 -2
3 - U
3 or more
All

L

& over

1 -2
3 - U
9 or more
All

miplete

1 -2

jn?e
3 - U
5 or more
All

1.^2
(22U)
2.22
(66)
3.50

(2)
1.69
(292)

.93
.70
•5U
.8U

1.93
(30)
2.95
.(52)

1.03

3.67

.71

(19)
2.82
(101)
1.58
(6)
3-U3
(UO)
3.99
(38)
3.55
(8U)
1.57
(260)
2.77
(158)
3.93
(59)
2.26
(U77)

.83

.83
.79
.98
.67
.79
.95
.82
.68
.82

1.70
(liU )
2.59
(75)
2.60
(5)
2.06
(19U)

.88
.80

1.U0
(73)
2.31

.71
.72

(1*6)

•U6

6.60

.81

(2)
1.8U
(123)

1.32
*7U

2.7 6 1.38
(U0)
.81
2.7U
(121)
2.72
•^2
(18)
2.7U
.8U
(179)

2.92
(33)
2.65
(79)

1.U6

3.20

. .59

3.60
(11)
3.3U
(123)
3.93
(120)
3.63
(25U)

2.75
(20)
3.33
(118)
U.05
(117)
3.62
(255)

2.08
.92
.68
.80

2.08 1.07
(165)
.85
2.9U
(319)
.66
3.73
(11*3)
.81
2.89
(627)

(13)
2.78
(125)

.78 •

.86
1.38
.93
.68
.79

2.01 1.02
(126)
2.91
*8U
(2U5)
.68U.G1
(132)
.79
2.97
(503)

1.55
( l* ii)
2.39
(189)
3.69
(9)
1.8U
(609)

.88
•7U
.65
.81

.86
(22U)
1.23
(66)
1.3U
(2-)
.95
(292)

2.57 1.31
(103)
2.78
.81
(252)
3.28
.61
(50)
2.77
.8U
(UQ5)

1.02
(30)
1.5U
(52)
2.06
(19)
1.U8
(101)

2.81
(37)
3.35
(281)
3.99
(275)
3.61
(593)

.95
(6)
2.07
(Uo)
2.19
(38)
2.05
(8U)

1.U6
.93
.68
.79

1.82 1.00
(55D
2.89
.8U
(722)

3.88
.67
(33U)
.81
2.73
(1607)

(Figures in parentheses Indicate number of families from which known data were averaged#)

.88
(260)
1.5U
(158)
2.12
(59)
1.25
(U77)

.53
.39
.21

.98
(11U)
l.UU
(?5)

1.38

.51
•UU

.25

(5)
•U7

1.17

.U6

(19U)
.89

•55

1.77
(UO)

•UU

1.50 * .1*6
( 121)

.38

1.U2
(18)
1.56
(179)

•UU
•U8
.59
.37
,.U6

.27
•U8 ‘

1.71*
(33)
1.58
(79)
1.59
(13)
i .63
(125)

.1*3

.89
(U11)

.50

.U1

1.33

•Ul

.62
.1*3
.87
.U6
.30
.50

1.69
(20)
2.02
(118)
2.29
(117)
2.12
(255)

.85

.6U

1.22
(126)
1.7U
(2U5)
2.23
(132)
1.7U
(503)

.62

•U6

..1*8

.37

1.98

.35

•U6

(1U3)
1.62
(627)

•U6

(189)
1.75
(9)
1. 0U

.31
•U6

(609)

2.05 1.18
(11)
1.92
.53
(123)
.36
2.09
(120)
2.00
.UU
(25U)
1.2U
(165)
1.65
( 319)

.53

.85
(73)
1.31
(U8)
3.10
(2)
1.07
(123)

.56
.38
.1*6

-50
.38
.U7

1.5U
( 103)
1.53
(252)

.79

1.71

.32

(50)
• 1.56
(U05)

1.68
(37)
1.98
(281)
2.19
(275)
2.06
(593)
1.07
(551)
1.66
( 722)
2.10
(33U)
1.55
(1607)

•U5

•U7
.88
.55
.37
•U5
.59
«U8
.36
•U6

177

TA'oLS 52.

Occupation of
Head of House

PORK: V£SEK*S CONSUMPTION 0? AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY•WTTHTN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Below 3,000 3,000 ~ 1*,1*99
1*,500 or more Complete Range
Size of
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per Per
Per
Per
Family______Family Person Family Person Family Person FamilyPerson

Professional,
managerial &

1-2

Official

3- k
5 or more
All

Skilled,
Semi-skilled
Unskilled

1-2
3- h
5 or more
All

Clerical,
Sales 0 kin­
dred;

Service,
unemployed
* Hetired

1-2
3 - U
5 or more
All

Complete

1-2

range

3-1*
5 or more
All

1.39
(28)
2.03
(29)
3.53
(11)
2.01
(68)

•71*
.61
.63
.61*

2.16
(53)
3.22
(75)
H.li*
(27)
3.02
(155)

113

1.53
(11*7)
2.67
(50)
U.67
(18)
2.06
(215)

.96

1.66

.98

(228)
2.82
(151*)
U.19
(56)
2.39
(U38)

.92
.70
.90

.81
.77
.88

.83
.7!
.81*

2.39
(37)
2.52
(73)
3.27
(23)

1.23

1.69
(51*)

.85

•75

3.01
(loi*)

.86

•5?

.60

2.61

.78

(133)

3.55
(58)
2.82
(216 )

2.22 l . l i *
(80)
.90
3.09
(17U)
.66
3.8U
(85)
3.07
.83
(339)

2.75 1.38
(1*5)
3.02
.88
(88)
U.56
•75
(61*)
3.1*6
.85
(197)

1.57
m
2.87
(75)
3.69
(33)
2.65
(156)

.75

.81

.82

1.57
(38)
2.UU
m

.61*

3.60

.67

•71*

(8)
2.19
(100 )

.73

.81

2.07 1.07
(165)
2.91
.85
(322 )
.65
3.71
(11*1)
.80
2.87
(628)

•71

2.00 1.01
(137)
.81*
2.89
(21*6)
l*.0i* .68
(130) '
.80
2.9U
(513)

Average Expenditures (|) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
BbIow '3>0flQ 3>000 - I*,l*99
1|,500 or more Qpmplete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per Per
Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Person

1.81* .91*
(1-19)
2.70 .79
(206)
3.1*8 .60
(92)
2.62 .71*
(1*17)

.77
(28)
1.11
(29)
2.17
(11)
l.li*
(68)

2.33 1.20
(178)
3.10 .90
(337)
l*.l5 .70
(176)
3.17 .86
(691)

1.22
(53)
1.79
(75)

.61*

1.98

.31*

(27)
1.63
(155)

.1*8

1.55
(233)
2.68
(179)
3.96
(59)
2.28
(1*71)

.90
.79
.69
.79

1.88 1.03
(530) '
2.88 .81*
(722 )
3.93 .67
(327)
2.76 .81
(1579)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

. 85
(11*7)
1.1*9
(50)
2.55
•(18)
l.li*
(215)

•ia

•33
.38
.37

.5i

.53
.1*5
.1*2
.1*9

.93
(228)
1.57
(15U)

•35

2.20

.37

(56)
1.31
(1*38)

.1*6

.1*6

1.36
(37)
1.1*6
(73)
1.87
(23)
1.50
(133)
1.38
(80)
1.72
(171*)
2.02
(85)
1.72
(339)
.91
(1*8)
1.61
(75)
1.93
(33)
1.1*6
(156)
1.21*
(165)
1.61*
(322)
1.97
(11*1)
1.61
(628)

•7°

1.03.. .52
(51*)
1.81
•52
(101*)
2.03
35
(58)
1.67
•UU
(216)

1.07
(119)
1.59
(206)
2.01
(92)
1.53
(1*17)

.55

1.60
(1*5)
1.77
(88)
2.1*9
(61*)
1.97
(197)

.80

1.39
(179)
1.75
(337)
2.18
(176)
1.77
(691)

.72

1.01
(38)
1.U8
(5U)

.52

.31*

1.88
(8)

.36

. 1*1

1.3U
( 100)

.1*1*

1.21
(137)
1.72 .
(21*6)
2.25
(130)
1.72
(513)

•61

.1*3
•31*
.1*5

•71
.50

•35
.1*7
.1*7
.1*6

_

•61*
.1*8
.31*
.1*5

.52
.1*1
.1*9

.1*3

*

.50
.38
.1*7

.89
(233)
1.51*
(179)
2.11
(59)
1.29
(1*71)

1.10
(530)
1.65
( 722)
2.12
(327)
1.56
(1579)

.1*6
.35
.1*3

•51

.37
.1*8
.52
.1*5
.37
. 1*1*

.60
•1*8

.36
.1*6

o
o

o
o

o

-rt

8

00
UN

ON
ON

O

•

on

rH
O

•

o

UN

H

O

•

C 'CM

o•

on

o
o•

Ov

rH

o»

c—
o

o'

CN
CM
O

CO

Uv

CM

O

*

rH

vO
o

€

1h
o«

-rt

o

o
ON
O•

rH

vO
O

CN

o

vO

o

o

-rt

•

•
ON

CO
CM

CM

rH

o•

o•

o

rH

•

•

rH

O

•

y>

•
m a
o

H (0
V-r L
©
c CL
o
u
3J ©

CM

-rt

o

o

O

a

f—
o

oo

oU n

Q
O

o
CM

ON
ON
«

CM

on

•
CN

O

on

UN
UN

H

H

rH

O
O

On
On
On
«
H

ON
ON
-rt
«>
CM

rH

1

1

o

o

CM

CM

UN
on

O

ON

ON

O
O

O
O•

H
o

CM

CM

VO

CL

£

o H
o •|j
©
60 P=4

8

o

rH

H

<H

2
H L
© rt
> CL

CO
•
H

•

VO

co

W
rt >»
H rH
0 U
m r
©t
<0

1
h
o <»

fl^
M

o•4

-rt

8
o

&
*8

&

•

rH

•4
CM

CM
o•

ON

ON

-rt

t—

rH

U \
•

ON

ON

vO
•
ON

CN

P~-

CM

o

CM

vO

rH

rH

ON
On
On
•4
CM

CN
ON
-rt
•*
ON

ON
CN
CN

CN
CN
CN

ON

ON
CN
-rt
•4
-rt

t

t

1

:

o
o

8
o

UN
»4
CM

CO

-4
ON

•4

O

o

UN
«4
ON

o

8•4
-rt

ON

UN

•
ON

r—

H
•

rH

-rt

-rt

CM

co
CM

vO

-rt

CN
ON
CN
•4
vO

On
CN
CN
•4
On

I

t

1

o
o

o
o
o•4

•4

UN
«4
-rt

UN

o

-rt

rt

>

o

rt
rt
at

o
o
o
o«4 o•4
to

O

rH

ON

rt_

o
o
t—
*
H
©
CuO

r
t
at
U

©
.4
+■*
©

rH
a
a

o

a

variables was available

e'­
er!

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

INCOME CLASS

o\
CM
o

TABLE 53.

B
o

LAMB AND MUTTON: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

178

179

o
«H

o

S
o

TABLE 5U.

LAMB AND MUTTON: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

03
CD

U
P*
-P

o
o•

-= f

GA
rH
O
#

o

CM

O
*

o
rH
o

»

CM

rH
O
•

On
rH
O

-— - —.

•

o
o•

O

cO

o

H
O

o
o

vO
o

O
o

o
oo
o

•rl

GO

o

0)

s

-PT
O

p
W)

OO

o

o

o

fo­

es

CO

H

o
o

TO

!
On

rH

o
03

3

o
o,
o•

S3
o

$
o*

GO

o
GO
o

o
o

CM

o
CM
o

C"—

co
o

o
o

ao

XA
rH

o
<D

CJ\

O

SOP
T

CM

H

-ct
O

CM

H

O

CM

MD
CM

*

Pi
£

o
o

8 8

o

go

CO

CO

CM

CO

CvJ

On

O
H

GO

XA

C-

XA
CO

•

co

x a

CO

no

•

ON

NO
<H

CO
CD

°S
* »H
;§ §

XA
-S f

rH

XA
XA
XA

On
NO

ON
-C t
GO

NO
ON

rH

CM

o

rH

o

J3

r—

rH

CO

P»4

C TJ
•H H
O
h ^0)
0)
£

03

g 3
3 o
PS 33

0)
Pi
i
Pi

CM

GO

XA

no

CO

On

O
O
rH

to
§
Pi

CP

+3
<y
H

C l,
53

o

O

TABLE 55*

LAMB AND MUTTON: YiEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1550

180

0
01
u
<D
PL.
U
<D

<A

O
O•

CA

H
O

NO
CM

o
‘•

o

CA
O
•

t*CA
O
■•

On

On

CM
LA
O
♦

oO

H
O
•

(X.

1

II

XA

0), CD

Sol
<s P®.
SH
)
& P0
L,
«»5

O

O

NO

O

o

ft)

rH

a
i
—I
•H
ttf
>

CO

w
pj

a
CJ
o

NO
8

-•

CO
rH
O

«

NO
CM
O
•

t—

LA
O

•

CA

UN
O

•

CM
NO
O
•

o

CA
•

O

ll
Pi

a
P.
cd

a
o

>

o

4)

hO

cd

01

CD
rH

CM

O

r—
o

o

<A

rH

r-5

-aO
)
<-<
o

CM
rH

■H

C
CD
S

!

15
SH

cd
M
0)
u

3
CA

LA
CN
•
cA

-d
OO
«
CA

NO
ON
•
CM

CA
_d
•
CM

CA
On
«
rH

ON
CM
•
CA

t
C
O
£
cd
O

co
<H 0)
o.A

• -H

vO
CM
CM

OO
NO
_=t

UN
-E f
3

ON
_d
CA

LA
CA
CM

On
_d
H

(0
CM
Pco

0)
&
■g
u
0)

a i
hH
ft)

«)
<H 4-t
:
t
5o DO

■< s
o
w

<0

TJ
LA
CA

LA
_d

cd

1

t

LA
CM

NO
CM

1

NO
CA

XA

XA
1
NO

_d

XA

NO
1

NO
LA

f)
t
0
>
o
'S
cd

NO
NO

tft)

.o

p;

cd

U
0)
-p
o

rH

!•
§
U

co
Eoh
-P

cd

TABLE £6.

LAMB AND MUTTON: VffiEi^S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

161

a

o

<0

&
© Ph
g
u ©
•H P-,

CNO

ca

o

H
O

O

XS

H
CJ

o

CM

1-1

o

CN

o
o•

VO
CA

CO
rH

CA

CM

•o

o•

O•

•a©

On
&
& •H
©
.
bp [a*
©
G G
9
% Ph

G
o
S ©
g
©
Ph
c
o
n
•H i
-P ©
Ph

CVJ

o

f-

o

o

I—t

o

9
pH
X
©
H
©
(0
©

to

TO
$
o:
©
bO Ph
ft
G
g
©
l> Ph
*©

CA
O

rH
•

CM
CM
O
•

vO
CA
O
•

C—

vO

O
•

O
•

rH

rH

oXA
O
•

o
CA
O
•

to

©
,0
©

H

•H

g
©
>

r—

CA

O

CM

vO

o

xa

O

©
G
O
*
rl
-P

CN

G

§

g

©
bjQ
©
G

o
o
■•
CA

rH

•
CA

CN
CM
•
CA

XA
-= f
•
CA

CO
H
•
CA

rH

CA
•
CA

CN
CM
•
CA

X

-P

£
G

o
-p

©.
o

ca

CM
rH

CO
CN
vO

xa
On

CM

XA
CM
CM

XA

O

G

XA

H

1
o

co

I
CN

CM
r-t

I
CA

©
}>
O
■©a
MD
i
—1

©
vO

•H

XA

©
G
©
X
£

©

G
©
,Q

OO

bO

§
G

©
+3
©
rH

i4
o
o

©
O
tH

-P

©

182

Os
CM

u\

rt

o

57.
TABLE

O
I—I

o

g

rH
CM

-3
H
O

o

CO
ON

vO

CM

Os

C O

vQ

Os

-rt

~rt

o
CM

c*\

CM

c~

o

o

CM

O

o

CO
CM

rH

o

(
—I

O

o

H
o

UN
o

Ph

5

to
o
b>O

-rt

-rt

o

o

CO

c*«
rH
O

CM

SO

O

O

O

CO

SO

sO

UN

H

UN
UN

-rt
H

o

cti

on

o

un

vO

UN

O

o♦

o

o

r l

I
•
CO
x>
H
v -/

c
o
P
H
rt
£3 to
O

£
|

CO

cm

H

CM
£N

O

CM

SO

SO

Os

CM
CM

ON
sO

CM
vO

iH

OS

Os

CM

CM
CM

vO

CM
-T t

o

C“—

CM
H
«
CM

r—
-C j

CO

r-

os

UN

Os

rl

C O

ON

&
to

CO
£3 >?
o H
o
•g

8) to

rt
r t rt
a) r t
> to
<4

H

o

O

O

O

O

CM

o

rt
M

o £
*rl
a) a
cd to

rt
r
t CH
5°

ON

ON

rt
O•
CM

CM
H
CM

£

vO

_=•
t

«

h

CM

rH

LAMB

AND MUTTON: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY OCCUPATION

OF HEAD

OF HOUSE

a
o
w
n
rt
Ito
u
0)

•

ON

on

fH

ON

On
•
UN

co
Os

r l

•

ON

•
ON

vO
CM

3

CM

C"-

-r•t
ON

rl

UN

co
ON
.
CM

CM
•
CM

O

CO

UN

•
ON

CM
«

ON

oo

Xl

0)

a
o

$
(0
a
p»
o
o
O

xJ
£3

rt

3

£3
O
•rH
CO

(0

•H

r l
OS r l
•rH «*
H -H

a> o

£

t

M

■ S 'S

xt
£3
rt

rt

°

H

•H X I

©

o

rt

ch

rt

o

C

rt
t*£

3
£3

rt

rt

H

O

a
rl

X

w
rt
rt

rt
CO

X3

rt

o
•H

xt

M

H

I
•d

rt

>

r—1

rt

33
co

u

co

o

B

rt
CO

p

•r l

rt

a)

rt
3
•rt

rd
XI
xl
rt
rH
rl
•H

W
£3
30

©
t>»

o

H
&■
a
£3
30

T3
rt
£
4

•rl
-P
rt

to

•r l
CO
CO
c£
r l

&
O
£3

£3
33

3

O

P

C

-P

rt
rl
to

s
°
O

TABLE 58.

LAMB AND MUTTON: "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

-63

c
o
m
U
W Q)
Q)
t-r
I CD
pH

Ov

CM

o•

o
CM

Ov

o
o»

o
CM
o•

P t

«

o
CM
o*

p t

xa

ca

co

vO

O

<A

o•

rA
rH

o»

o
o•

CM

CO

rH
O
»

i

Q)
Pt

8)

|fa
f
i
0) 0)

bfij
cO

4

o

o. .o . o

o*

r—

VO

o

o

fl)

PL.

rH

5

rH
•H

r*-V
•
CO C
Xi O
H CO
i-i
<0

a fa
o

c0

o

vO
CM

o•

0CM
.

o

XA
rH
O
.

rH

CM
ca

o•

Pt

o

CVJ

O

pt
ca

O.

o
<a

Oa

•H iH
P CD

ca

co
fc
ca
0)

rH

fa

X>
cd
•rH

I"

6
>
X<J
D
0
O
•
PH
0
a>
a

a >?
o H

o

ci> c3
&o fa

co
iH **
© ©

CVI

rH

Xa

O

r—

O

o

CA
rH

CVJ

Ov

CM

rH

> fa

o
p

0>
(SI
■H S
CO H
•H
o> a
M
COfa
0) «H
> o

1h
cO
bO
0)
O

Pt
•
rH

vO
Or

•

H

vO
XA

•
CM

vO

CM
•

<A

XA
O

o
r—

P t

-= t

•

•

r—

CM
a'
XA

CA

vO
•
XA

<A
CA

a
CA

X!

P
•H
S.

c
o

•rH
P
cC

IQ
cm

«

• *H

V\

vO

$8 i
fa
T)
O
O
fa =C^=
(Q
PS H
0) -H
P=

CM
CM

ftl

PS
rH

4

O
_H

3

CA
H
<A

CM
CO
I—I

OS
C

C— <0CM
vO
oo
c—

O
•H

4>
<D
X!

u
0)
>

Xi
c

o
H
1

trv
H

lev

vO

rH
rH

cO

1

O
CM
1

XA
CM

vO

H
CM

rH

1

o

o
CA
1

XA

CA
1

■o
c

vO

i— 1

VO
CA

CM

CA

8>
s
f-c
a>
■4-*
0>
rH

cO

I
o

£
U>
d
rQ
rH

CO
P

O
Eh

CO

•iBlS 59.

'ifsi£1 AND UITTOK:

WEEK'S COKSUIIPTTON OF A a EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF PAFILY WITHIN SIZE OF IHCOivE,
LANSING, SPRING, 19?0

Average Consumption (lbs .) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
3>000 ■- Ihb99

0 5 0 0 or more

Complete ranee

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Per
Per
family Person

Be Law 3>000
C

*0?
(230)

.0U3

oOg
(170)

*012

.29

.030

(6k)
•09
(31U

.033

.101

Below 3>000

3,000 - k,k99

h >500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Fcardly Person

Per
Per
Fami3,y Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

•12
(602)

.066

.01
*018
(260)

.09
.0U6
(180)

.15

.08

(lk2)

.0?
(75a)

.020

•03

.009

.Oh
.012
(33k)

.08
(250)

.023

.05
(75k)

.015

.019

.021

.03
.005
(1U6)

.06
(13k)

.010

.06
(3UU)

.010

.09

.025

.06
.018
(1700)

.13
(180)

.06?

.06
(33k)

.017

•

Oo
(lk6)

•on

.09
(13u)

•013

.11
(351}

.06

.023

.13
(326;

.035

.10
.030
(1700 )

(noO)

.20

(1U2)

.12

.035

(250)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:

(170)
.1.2
(6k)

.'-'k
*Ol£>
blk)

•urea in pax entheses indicate number of families fro.:” 'which known Sato vn re avcraned,)

.05
(660 )

.0]14

(526)

•071

•OUU

(602)

TABLE 60.

LAMB

a ND

_________

MUTTON:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BX AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SEEING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:_________Average Expenditure ($) With Family Dollar Incomes
Below 3 >000

Age of
Size of
Per
Per
House id fe_____ Family__________ Family Person

3 - k
5 or more

.02
m
.02
(91)
.00
(210

36-55

.000

.02
(157)

.006

1-2

.16
(79)
.10
(52)
.50
(32)
.21
(163)

.096

5 or more
All

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Complete
range

.006

All

3 - k

56 and over

.011

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

.ou
(157)
.00
(26)
.36
(7)
.ou
(190)
.07
(278)
.OU
(169)
.29
(63)
.09
(510)

.030
.086
.070

.025
.000
.056
.020
.0U3
.012
.050

.033

Complete range

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person______Family Person

.01
(51)
.01
(188)
.02
(78)
.01
(317)
.oU
(77)
.12
(12U)
.11
(66)
.09
(267)
.38
(51)
.10
(22)
.00
(2)
.29
(75)
.13
(179)
.06
(33U)
.06
<H*6)
.08
(659)

.005
.003

.01
m
.23
(87)

.005
.017

.ooU

.08

.oiU

.003

(57)
.1U
(18U)

.037

.021
.035
.019
.025
•19U
.031
.000
.120
.067
.017
.011

.023

.27
(77)
.06
(11*1)
.10
(72)
.12
(290)
.33
(23)
.02
(21)
.00
(5)
.16
(1*9)
.20
(11*0)
.12
(2U9)
.09
(13U)
.13
(523)

.138
♦017
♦017
.032
.165
.00 6
.000
.051
.101
.035
.015
.035

.01
(133)
.06
(366)
.oU
(159)
.05
(658)
.16
(233)
.09
(317)
.18
(170)
.13
( 720 )
.1U
(231)
.ou
(69)
.18
(H*)
.12
(31U)
.12
(597)
.08
(752)
.11
(3U3)
.10
(1692)

.005

.017
.007

.oiU
.087
.026
.031
.037
.082
.012
.027
.058
•066

.023
.019
.030

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

Below 3 >000

.02
(1*2)
.02
(91)
.00
(2U)
.01
(157)

.011

.06
(79)
♦06
(52)
.22
(32)
.09
(163)

.036

.02
(151)
.00
(26)
.10
(7)
.02
(190)
.03
(278)
.03
(169)
.12
(63)
•oU
(5 io )

.006
.000
.003

.018
.038
.030
.013
.000
.016
.010
.018
.009
.021
.015

3>000 - U>U99

Per
Per
Family Person

.005

(51)
.01
(188)
.01
(78)
.01
(317)
.02
(77)
.07
(12U)
.06
(66)
.05
(26?)
.29
(51)
.12
(22)
.00
(2)
.23
(75)
.09
(179)
.OU
(33U)
.03
(11*6)
.05
(659)

.003
.003
.002
.003

.010
.020
.019
.OiU
.1U8
.038
.000
.095
•0U6
.012
.005

.oiU

U>500 or more

Per
Per
Family Person

.01
(1*0)
.16
(87)
.05
(57)
.09
(18U)
.19
(77)
.OU
(H*l)
.07
(72)
.09
(290)
.23
(23)
.02
(21)
.00
(5)
.12
(1*9)
.lU
(11*0)
.08
(2U9)
.06
(13U)
.09
(523)

.005

.0U7
.009
.02U
.097
.011
.012
.Q2U
.115
.006

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

.01
(133)
.05
(366)
.02
(159)
.03
(658)

VA
o•

1-2

U>500 or more

.09
(233)
.06
(317)
.09
(170)
.08
( 720 )

.0U9

.10
(231)
.OU
(69)

O

35 and under

3>000 - U>U99

o ft

.oiU
.ooU
.008

.017
.015

.023
.059
.012

.000

.05

.008

.038

(il* )
.09
(31U)

.oUo

.071
.023
.010
.02U

.07
(597)
.05
(752)
.056
(3U3)
.06
(1692)

.039
.015
.010
.018

TABLE 6 1 .

LALB AND ..-UTTGN: TREK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

UNSING, SPRING, 1950

ducation of
Houser/dfe_______
Less th a n

iiigh S chool
(j - 11 y r s . )

Size of
Family

1 -2
3 - U
5 o r more
A ll

Clis h School
(l? y r s . )

1 -2
3 -

id

5 o r m ore
A ll

-o re than
ili f-h School
(13 o r more

yrs.)

1 - 2
3 - U
5 o r more
A ll

Complete
range

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
A ll

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Average Expenditures Gf) With Family Dollar incomes of
Below 3,000 3,000 - U>U99 14,500 or more Complete Range
Below 3,006
5,000 - U,1|99 Uj5Q0 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
ter
ter
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person______ Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.07
(175)
. 0U
m
•U3
(37)
.11
(296)
.03
(60)
.00
(59)
.00
(19)
.01
(138)
.03
(36)
.13
(26)
.36
(7)
.10
(69)
.06
(271)
•OU
(169)
.29
(63)
.08
(503)

.0l|2
.012
.072
.o ia
.020
.000
.000
.003

.017
.QUO
.065
.037
.036

.012
.050

.029

•2l|
*67)
.12
(133)
.07
(6U)
.15
(28U)

.122
.035
.012
.0U3

.00
(52)
.02
(156)
.ou
(61)
.02
(271)

.000

.07
(38)
.00
(U2)
.07
(21)
.ou
(101)

.037

.13

.067

(177)
.06
(333)
.06
(1U6)
.08
(656)

.006
.007
.005

.000
.013

.012

•U3
(U3)
.09
(76)
.00
(UU)
.16
(163)
.1U
(67)
.10
(96)
.05
(68)
.10
(231)

.217

.026
.000
.QU2
.071
.029
.008
.027

.02
(32)
.17
(75)
.36
(22)

.010

.16

•PU6

.0U8
.067

(129)

.017
.011

.023

.20
(1U2)
.12
(2U7)
.09
(13U)
.13
(523)

.101
.035
.015
.035

.17
(305)
.09
(293)
.1U
(1U5)
.lU
(7U3)
.06

(179)
.OU
(313)
.ou
( 1U8 )

•09U
.026
.023
.OU3
.033
.012
.007

.05
( 6 U0 )

.OIU

.ou
(106)
.11
(1U3)
.2U
(50)

.021

.11

•03U

.03

.018

(175)
.03

(8U)
,.19
(37)
.05
(296)
.02
( 60 )
.00
(59)
.00
(19)
.01
( 138 )

.009
.032
.019

.013
.000
.000
.003
.012

(299)

.02
(36)
.10
(26)
.10
(7)
.06
(69)

.11
.060
(590)■
.08
.023
(7U9)
.016
.09
(3U3)
.10
.030
(1682)

.03
(271)
.03
(169)
12
(63)
.ou
(503)

.018

.032

.QU5

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.031

.018
.022

.009
.021
.015

.18
(87)
.07
(133)
.OU
(6U)
.10
(28U)
.00
(52)
.02
(158)
.02
(61)
.02
(271)
.03
(38)
.00
(U2)
.03
(21)
.02
(101)
.09 •
(177)
.ou
(333)
.03
(1U6)
.05
(656)

.091
.020
.007
.028
.000
.006
. 00U
.005

.016
.000

.30

.0^2

(U3)
.06

( 76)
.00
(UU)
.11
(163)
.10
( 67 )
.07

(96)
.03
(68)
.07
(231)
.01
( 32 )
.11
(75)

.017
.000

.029

*

.OU
(179)
.03
(313)
.02
(1U8)
.oU
( 6U0 )

.005

.02

.051
.020
.005
.019

.031

.006

.25

.0U6

.006

(22)
.11
(129)

.032

. 0U6
.012
.005

.oiU

.lU
(1U2)
.08
(2U7)
.06
(13U)
.09
(523)

.11
(305)
.06
(293)
.07
(1U5)
.08
(7U3)

(106)
.08
(1U3)
.lU
(50)
.07

.0&

.038
.032
.025
.022
.009
.003
.031
.031
.023

.025
.022

(299)
.071
.023
.010
.02U

.07

(590)
.05
(7U9)
.06
(3U3)
.06

(1682)

.038
•035
.030
.038

187

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK1S FO

BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

"'■*" I"*

.000

-

20

1- 2

3 - U

.17
(30)
.00

.091

All

over

1- 2
3 -

U

All

Complete
ranp-e

1- 2
3 -

U

or more

All

.06
(200)

.020

(2)
.12
(125)

.076

.03

.015

•039

(123)
.08
(18)

.015

.09

.026

.ou

.012

.0U6

•36
(UO)
.2U
(86)

.061

.06
(266)
•OU
(160)
•30
(61)
.08

.036

(1*87)

.012

•053

.012
.52
.029

.18
(11)
.12
(12U)
.06
(121)
•09
(256)
.10
(169)
.06
(326)
.06
(1UU)
.07
(639)

.02
(33)
.08
(79)
.00

.010

.023

.10U
.033
.010
.020

.052
.017

.06
(126)
.88
(20)
•15
(119)
.10
(117)
.19
(256)
.22 .
(128)
.10
(2U6)

.08
(U21)
.02
(195)
.00
(9)
.06
(625)

•0U5

.006
.000
.029
.036

.ou

.012

.11

.021

(51)
.018

.06

.018

(Uio)

•UUo
.0U2

.017
•0U2

•53
(37)

.lU
(283)
.12
(278)
.15
(598)

.276
.039
.202
.033

.11
(563)

.061

.029

.07

.020

.ou

.015

.020

(133)
•lU
(507)

.0U6

.012

.00
(68)
.00
(2)
.02
(300)
.07
(30)
.00
(52)
.08
(19)
.03
(101)

.000
.000
.010

.037
.000

.015
.009

.09

.0U6

(116 )
.00
(79)
.00
(5)
•05
(200)

.000

.02

.010

(U2)
.02
(123)
•03
(18)
.02
(183)

.09

•0U6

(75)
.000

.020

.006
.006

.06
(U8)
.00
(2 )
.08
(125)
.02
(33)
.06
(79)
.00

.019
.000

.051

.03

.ou

.028

.000

.019

(625)
.010

.03

.015

(105)
.018

.03

.009

(25U)
.000

(lU)
.006

.05
(1*21)
.01
(195)
.00
(9)

.ou

.007

(3D
.012

(126)

.03

.009

(Uio)
“ i

.111

.011

.02
(230)

.07
(105)
(25U)

.000

(lU)

(183)

(Uo)
or more

.000

.21
(19)

.000

.025

.00

.ou

.00
(6)
.16

.08

.000

(1*2)

(101).

.071

(US)

.000

m
or more

.lU
(75)

.000

(5)

.020

(300)
16

.57

(732)
.12
.021
(338)
.029
.09
(1633)

{Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.00
(6)
.12
(UO)
•15
(UO)
•13
(86)
•03
(266)
.03
(160)
.13
(61)
.OU
(1*87)

.000
•03U

.025
.029

.018

.009
*■' ■

m
.015

.07
(11)
.08
(121*)
.03
(121)
.06
(256)
.07
(169)
.OU
(326)
.03
(1UU)
.05
(639)

.022

.005
.013
.036
.012

.003
. o iu

.63
(20)
.10
(119)
.07
(117)
.13
(256)
.16
(128)
.08
(2U 6 )
.06
(133)
.09
(507)

.315
.028
.012
.028

.081
.023
.010
.030

.36
(37)
.09
(283)
.06
(278)
.10
(598)
.07
(563)
.05
(732)
.06
(338)
.06
(1633)

CO
00

.ou

All

.000

.11
(116)
.00
(79)
.00

•

or more

.031

O
O.

3 - U

•05
(230)
.00
(68)
.00
(2)

Average'Expenditure ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Below 3,006 3*&00" - UVU99 Sk»5ob~ or1more Complete Rar^
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Iter
Per
Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Perscn

V-1

1 -2

—»'

0

15 A under

Size of
Family

- ■

0

Peek's Family
Food Bill ($)

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Below 3,000 j30QQ - U*U99 U,500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

»

•

LAMB AND :,UTTONs

f=r-

TAr'Lft 62.

.025
.010
.022

.39
.015
.010
.019

-188

T;uL? 63. LA.K3 AND kUTTONs WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WTTHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

LANSING, SPRING, 193Q

Occupation of
Size of
Head' of House______ Family______
P ro fe s s io n a l,
M anagerial a

1-2

Official

3- U

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes oft
Below 3,000 3,000 - U>U99 U>500 or more ODmplete ftange
Per
Per
Per
Fir
Per
Fir
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Per3on Family Person

.00
(28)
.00

.000
.000

(29)

.23
(11)

.0U1

•OI4.
(68)

.013

1-2

.11
(3U)

3 - U

.03

5’ or more

(73)
.07

5 or more
All
S k ille d ,
S e m i-b k ille d
. vn ,s k ille d

C le r ic a l,
Sales 1 K in ­
dred,
S e rv ic e ,
Unemployed
r e t ir e d

1-2

3-U
3 or more
All

Complete
range

1-2
3- U
3 or more

.000
.006

*038

•Hi

.072

.01U

.06

(63)
.017

(179)
.012
.021

.07
<®o)
.06
(32)
.33
(19)
.10
(221)

.oUU
.018
.088
.0U2
.OI4I

.10
(86)

.017

.29
(3U8)

.033

.20
J.03
m
.10
.029
(77)
.00
.000
(33 )
.032
.11
(139)

.lU

•0U3

(171)
.06
(330 )
.06

.028
.08
(UU6)

(1U2)
.08
(6U3)

.012

(3 8 )

All

.006

.02
(136)

.07
(137)

.07
(232)
.OU
(136)
.23

.013

(23)

(28)
All

.03
(39)
.02
(7U)
.00

.072
.017

.011

.023

.03
.023
(33)
.19
.03U
(10U)
.02U
.lU
(39)
.lU
.037
(218)
.30
(U6)
.08
(89)
.03
(63)
.12
(200)

.03
(122)
.10
(207)
.12
(93)
.09
0*22)

.013
.029
.021
.026

Average Expenditures,($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Blow 3,000
3*000 - U*U99 U,500 or more Complete Ran^
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Pferson

.00
(28)
.00
(29)
.06
(11)
.01 ’
(68)

.000 .03
(39)
.000 .01
(7U)
.011 .00
(23)
.003 .02
(136)

.09'
(3U)
.ou
(73)

.026

.130

.17
(183)

.088

.023

.06

.017

.008

(3U3)
.08
(179)

.01U

.02

.003

.09

.028

(28)
.ou
(137)

.012

.03

.019

.030

(703)

.76
(38)
.ou
(3U)

.082

.00
(8)

.000

.08
(100)

.026

.16
(139)
.12
(2U7)
.09
(132)
.12
(318)

.080

.012

.033
.016
*033

.11
(237)
.07
(183)
.17
(60)
.10
(U80)
.12
(3U2)
.08
(733)
.11
(332)
.09
(1607)

•06U
.021
.030
.033
.063
.023

.ou

(130).012
.oU
(32)
.29
.0U3
(19)
.021
.03
(221)
<*03
(232)
.03
(136)

.018
.009

.11
(83)
.03
(179)
.03
(86)
.08
(3UB)

.013

.03
(33)

.023

.003

.13

m

(1©U)
.000
.006
.037
.009
.010
.029
.067

.10
(171)
.ou
(330)

.032

.023

.21

(1*6)
.03
(89)
.03
(63)
.08
(200)
.10
(38)
.03
(5U)
.00

.023

(8)
.03
(100)

.012

.11

.019

(38)
.027

.o u

(1U2)
.017
.OIU .03
(61*3).

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.10

.000

.019

(UU6)

.017
.027

(218)

.13
(U9)
.08
(77)
.00
(33)
.08
(139)

.03

.10

(39)

.003

.12
(139)
.08
(2U7)
.06
(132)
.09
(318)

J>3
.013
.003
.020

.03
(122)
.07
(207)
.07
(93)
.06
(1*22)
.12
(183)
.OU
(3U3)
.ou
(179)
.07

.013
.020
.012
.017
.062
.012
.007
.022

(703)
•031

.06

.033

(237 )
.009
.000
.017
.060
.023
.010

.02U

.03
(183 )
.08

(60)
.06
(U80)

.013
•OIU
.021

.08
(5U2)
.03
(733)
.06
(332)

.0U3

.06

.018

(1607)

.013
.010

189

/ '“ S
c

o
u

(0
CO
Q> <D

£

t"rH

Ph

VO

VO

CVJ

o
cvj

co H
t'- oo

vO
oo

t'o

oo

oo

oo

o

oo
r—

CVJ
CVJ

vO

CO

XA

VO

-p d
•rt CD
Cd

♦

CVI
CVJ

CVJ

t

<*>
H

<D S
cd
d

VO

>
<

fa

Pt

o

VO

d

0)
Cd

,-s
•
ia d

& o
rH (0
d
(D

d Cd

o

CVJ
CVI
»

CVI
CVI
a

Ov
CA

vO
XA

Ov

rH

CVJ

CVJ

rH

rH

CA

n

rH
O
a
rH

vO
O
*

oo

CVI
•

VO
CVI
•

H

rH

rH

CA

vO

CVI

•rl d
-P <D
Cd

•.

*

XA

cvi

•

I"
a

o

o

>»
rH

0) ’a

UD CQ
fa

cd
d

•

•

oo

XA

vO
XA

C—

Ov

Ov
Ov

4> d
> Qi
«»! Ifa

Pt
•

CO

4)

N
•rl ►A
CO rH

a
«l fa
M
<D «H
5 °

OO
c—
a
H

CVJ
oa
CA

CVJ
CVI
•
CA

OV
CA

pt

CA

C 'CVI
rH

CVI

3

Ov
Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
P t

Ov
Ov
OV

rH

CVJ

CVI

1
o

1
o
o

C—
XA
a
CVI

VO
OO

10.— V
to
<3 >»
H r*f
O d
cd
« 0)
§ *
P5'—
w

vO
•

CA

CVJ
XA
a
CA

CVJ
OO
CVJ

pj
O
CM

Ov
OV
P t
•4
CA

1

O

O

CA

XA
•
CA

a
Pt

a
Pt

CO
vQ
H

fCA
rH

CA
CO
CVJ

vO

Ov
Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
P t

Ov
Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
Ov

CA

P t

P t

vQ

Ov

1

«

1

8
A

o
o
oA

o
o
XA
A

O
O

oA

o
o
oA

P t

XA

c *-

a

rH

cvj

rH

O

Pt

d

0A
H

d

0)

1

A

1
O

o
oA
H

O
O

a

CVI

A

XA
*

8
oA

CVJ

CA

A

XA

CA

A

P t

A

A

1

A

1

>
o
xt
d
CO

o
o
o

pt
CA
a
CA

cd
P t

oo

vO

4)
ua
c
CO
d

<u
<1)

-p

/— I

s4
o
o

variables was available

cx
K
W

to mentioned

FOR, BY FAMILY
CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950
BEEF STEAK: WEEK'S
61*.

Pt
CVI

CVJ
CVJ

rH

CO

TABLE

H

CVI

CO

Total number where information with regard

INCOME

CLASS

' —^

cd

190

CM
»H
l"»
C\l

o

w

•

ca
H

■LA
rH

O
CM

Os

Os

O

o

W

•

Os

•

XA
N

C—

•

•

u\

ca
o

O

CO

•

co

sO

CM
rH

xa

■&

ao

sO

0)
J3 o
(0
u
0)
C (h
o
rl u
)
•P a
&

rH

xa

ca

c-

ca

H
ca

•

H

cm

*

Os
rH

O

cm

*

ca

r-i

CM

SO
CM

O
0
&>
rt

xa

ca

•

ca
r-

•

CM
Os

CM
CO

Os
Os

OS
OS

o
ca

SO

O

ca

rH

1
co
t—•
c*—

©
N .
j
tf
CO H
©
M .
rt
f-i
© <H
5 °

ca
oo
CM

XA

ca

co

sO

Os

•
o
I—I

Os
CM
•

ca

Os

S.0

<0
<H ©
°s
• * rl

rH

_=t
rH

SO
-rt
XA

sO

ca
Ht
ca

_=t
Os

St

0s"

rtr—

XA

I—I

xa

CO

rH

;g |

fi *tj
•H rl
U J©B
©
.JQ W
§
3 3
o
a w

©
U

©

i

%
u
©
+>
©

1-4
O
CM

ca

IA

SO

CO

Os

tJO

rH

f
o
o

to mentioned

t*-

variables was available

Os

Total number where information with regard

FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
BEEF STEAK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0
TABLE 6$.

VO
H

XA

• ■ •

191

/—* C

o
J-r
(0 ©
P
h
0)
(.

N / ra

rH

i—I

O
C\J

rH
NO

t—

r—
t"- NO

US

_d

UN

CO

On

On

cp
CM

O

CM
CM

rH

CM

UN

CP

cp
cp

NO

CM

OCM

CP
CM

U\
CM

-d
co

UN
NO

_d
3

ON

CM
On
•
rH

On
CM
•

.

TABLE 66.

BEEF STEAK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY A®
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HO US1

Sh

&
■
p©
•H CU

'B
CD
&
© y
bO r
*t
ctf
IH f
n
d)
9> CU
•5
«aj

ra C3
o
s (0
©
ti P*
o
•H IH
-P ©
Q«

CM

CM

CM

-d

NO

«

co

A
o
o
<
D
!lD|

Cn
!U
& V
0.
CIS

C—

C^-

CP
rH
.
cp

On

On

•

UN
On
.
cp

UN
CO
.
CP

On

t«

rH
-d
»

op
_d

On

NO

ON
CM
CM

CM

CM

• CO*

CO

«H ©

o
S3 I*)

OP

CM
CM

NO

cp
_d

_d
CP

Cp

rt
3
oo
rH

In

co

r28
18
<d
us
CM

UN
CP

UN

i

-d
1

NO
CM

NO
CP

UN
UN

UN
NO

1

1

NO

NO
UN

-d

&
>
0
1

s

4
&)0
§
cu
+(I>)
rH

Pr
I
o

192

^_/ a
o
CO

10 3

CD
Ph

On

■P fH

•

OF HOUSEWIFE

&

3

FOR, BY EDUCATION
BEEF STEAK: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

01—I

o
CM

O

CM

CM

NO
1A

lf\
U\

VS
NO

On
NO

1A

C'-

CM

o
CM

CD
Ph

CD

ft* H

&

N

cd

TABLE 67.

rH

•

fH fH
9>

CO

CO

r—

NO

•
0
H
■8
<H

CD
Ph

<

•rl
•
CO 3
•3 O
rH
v-r S®
CD
3 Ph
O
•rH fH
•P CD
|r P h

£

cd
co

cd

fH

is
_d
CM

CA

CM

tCM
r\

Vf\
CM

ON
CM

rH

<A

1A
CM

8

m

a
O H
o •H
CD 3
1)0 P h
cd

H

C—

pH

P—

rH
CO

NO
CO

CM
ON

O

CA
CO

fH fH
CD

ca

a>

rH

>
•a>o
3
o
•H
-P

3
0)
0
O

a)

> Ph

<*j

•P

•o
u
to
CD
fn

<D CO
C3 Q)

8>1

Ctf |i|
<H

rH

O
•
CA

\A
rH
.
CA

On
CM
•
CA

UN
PT
.
CA

ON
rH
•
cA

rH

CA
•
CA

O
CA
•
<A

si
•p

T*
G
o

•H
■P

<«i 0

cd

01
0)
°3
!§ I
&h

o
rH
CM
i— 1

On
OO

CM

CM
O
PJ

Cd

CM
On
NO

CA
CM
CM

fH

COr >
fH 0)

Cd <H
CD .H
f>» £
rH

55

1

o

o

O 3

o trj

CO W

UN

rH
rH

O-

O «

si

CM
O
rH

CO

I
On

0

iH

CM
rH

ON
rH

On
CM

CO

CD

fn

•*
rH

CD

CD

CD

a>

rH

(D

-P

fn

M
3
fH

1

-P

NO

rH

rH

•H

n

&
o

cd
o

cd

193

U

0)
#.
£
+»
•rl
d
G

41
ft
G
4)
ft

vO
CM

0H

CO

CO

CO

co
vO

vO

<A

CM

MD
cvj

o
CM

fO-

O
Ox

XA
XA

CO

xa

CM

oo

XA
CM

H

rH

CM

CM

CM

CA

CO

-rt
On

o

gv

CO
ON

CM

XA

=t
CO

vO

CO
CA
*
CA

vO
•
CA

CO
-rt
•
(A

H

rH

on
rH

CO

H

OO

o
CM

vO

XA
OJ

'■ A

XA

OO

rH

•
CM

_ rt
-rt
•
CA

On
CM
•
CA

C—

OO

On

XA

-rt

CM

rH

rH

rH

8 , >>
9? H
W •H

VN

-Tt

-=t

CA

G U
0) <0
t> f t
<!

rx
•
01 G
d o
H CO
G
41

g

ft

o
•d G
-p 41
| ft

CO

CA

CA

rH

CM

CA

VO
CM

o
CM

OJ

XA

Ov
XA

OJ
-T t

NO
CM
•
CM

CM

rH

0)
g
o H**>
TO •rH
0> §
CO f t

vO
•

rH

cd

rH

XA

CA

.

regard

U G
Q> 41
> ft
«aj

CO

0)

N
•rl !>»
CO H
0> §
bO
cd la,

G
(
0) <4—
r> O
*4

o

rH

-rt
*
CA

CA

-rt

XA
•
CA

*
CM

•
CA

CO

CA
vO
CM

CO
XA

c—-

rH

i—1
r•
CA

CO

CA
•
CM

CO
41

O
*
O gj
s CO
ft

a
o
•rl

■P

cd

ft
n
o
o

o

variables was available

CA

to mentioned

cd

o
CM

vO
On

H

3CM

XA

CA

-Tt

o

XA

O

XA

H
rH

f—I

On

d
ai

H
cd
Cl

O
•rl
CO
CO
0)

«H

O

*

d
g
cd
rH

cd rH
•H cd
G •rl
41 O
O D .H

cd «H
G cp
cd
bic
rl O

i*4

I

d

•H

rH d

cd 01
O SH

•H d

SH G

ri
o

13

d

cd

d

co

$

<D

rH

Cd

CO

d

0)

lCd

rH

3
3
CO

!d
ra
I
•d
§
co

$
i
—I
•rl
XCO
g

to

a)
CM

d

0)
&

rH

£
Cl)
G
tD

•H

d

CD
fn

•H

-P

0)

•H

CO

CO

cd

rH
Cl
G

to

cd

i
—I

D-

XA
CO

number where information with

§
8>
cm f t

Total

TABLE 68.

BEEF STEAK: 'WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BI OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

G
o
CO

cd

BEEF STEAK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

19U

& §
03
I-t
03 ©
© Oh
u U

nO

H

CA
CM

Si

CO
XA

C~
vO

_=f

vO
rH

piH

NO

ca

o

CM

o\

O
CM

03

-p

PH

1(D
&
a rl
©
bO
nJ fa
u
©
ft
5

O
CM

•

CM
CA

*

•

c-

CN

On

NO

©
r—t

g
(0
IH
CD

Oh

H

CM

CO
CM

NO
CM

CN

CM

ON
pH

pH
CM

CO
CM

XA

CM

&
Ph

&
•d
CA
CM

CM

-Ct

CM

C-

co

NO

H

O

On

ca

H

CA

CA
OO

69.

©
§

t

§
o

-p

u
tuO
©
O
-=r
•
rH

ai
CH ©
°3
• -H
£ ft
§

ISCn
•
rH

XA
XA
•
CM

NO
CM
•
CA

XA
O
•
-G

o
p•
-G

pCM
•
XA

CA
NO
•
XA

CA
CA
•
CA

XA
MD

OO
H
CM

co

Q
-G"

T3
O
O
ftv=—«$•=*
03

“ rH
X
rH
<U .H
03 PQ
SB

-p

t
a
o
•H
-P
ca
0

NO

co
—ct

CO

o
CO

o

CO
rH

On

A-

XA
NO

On
XA
Pn
pH
©

a

1
ca
0Q
ca
*
01
©
'rH
•8

XA

fH
©
>
o

o

rH

XA
rH

o
CM

XA
CM

O
CA

XA
CA

1

1

1

1

1

1

G
©

NO

rH
pH

NO
pH

rH
CM

NO
CM

H
CA

NO
CA

TJ

bO
G
IH

©

©
•P
©
rH

ft
S
o
o

•rl

©
U
1
IH
©
A
■3
-p

o

Eh
<a

TABLE 70*

BEEF STEAK:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOE, BT SIZE OF FAMILY 'WITH SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs,) With Family Bpliar Incomes of:
Below 3*000

3,000 - U,b99

U,500 or more

Complete range

Size of
Family

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

1-2

.1*6
(277)

.26

.61*
(167)

.19

.61

.10

3- h
$ or more

(61*)
All

.51*
(508)

.20

.76
(177)

•39

.88
(333)

.26

1.00
(ll*U)

.18

.87
(651*)

.25

.

Average Expenditures (f) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000

3,000 --

l*,i*99

ii,5oo

or more

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Fhmily Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

1.00
(il*l*)

.51

.67
(595)

.37

•36
(277)

.22

•59
.30
(1.77)

,82
(11*1

.1*1

.51*
(595)

•30

1.03
(2i*8)

.30

.88
<7l*8)

.26

.51
(187)

.15

.73
.21
(333)

.86
(21*8)

.25

• 72
(71*8)

.21

1.27
(133)

.21

1.03
(3U l)

.18

.i*?
(61*)

.08

.78
.11*
(ll*l*)

1.01
(133)

.17

.81
(3 lfl)

.lU

1.08

.29

.1*3
(508)

.16

.70
.20
(651*)

.89
(522)

.21*

(522)

.81*
.25
( 168U)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.

.

.68
.20
(1681*)

196

TABLE 71.

BEEF STEAK:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Age o f
Housewife
35 and
under

Size of
Family

1 -2
3 - k
5 or more

All

36 — 55

1 -2
3 - k
5 or more
A ll

56 and

1 -2

over

3 - 1*
5 or more
All
Complete
Range

1 -2
3-1*
5 or more
All

Below 3.000 3,000 •- 1*,1*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

•U5
(ia )
.76
(91)
.2 2
(2U)
.59
(156)

.25
.22
.01*
.17

.Ik
(77)
.50
(51)
.81*
(32)

•1*1*

.6 8

.22

(160)
.32
(157)
.50

.15
.11*

.20
.16

.93
(7)
.36
(188)

.11*

•1*6

.28

(275)
.61*
(166)
.61
(63)
.51*
(5oU)

.18

.19

.10
.20

.76
(51)
.78
(187)
1.01*
(77)
.81*
(315)
.71
(77)
1.09
(121*)
.95
(65)
.91*
(266)
.81*
(1*8)
*65
(22)
1.00
(2)
.78
(72)
.76
(176)
.88
(333)
1.00
(HO*)
•88
(653)

.38
.23
.18
.22
.37
.31
.17
.26
.1*3
.20
.18
.32
.39
.26
.18
.25

1*,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Fer
Family Person Family Person

1.19
(1*0)
1.18
(85)
1.20
(56)
1.19
(181)
.92
(77)
.95
(11*1)
1.33
(72)
1.0U
(290)
.96
(22)
1.01*
(21)
1.20
(5)
1.02
(1*8)
1.01
(139)
1.01*
(21*7)
1.2?
(133)
1.09
(519)

.60
.35
.21
.31
.1*7
.27

.22
.28
.1*8
.30
.17
.32
.51
.30
.21
.30

.80

(132)
.87
(363)
.97
(157)
.68
(652)

.la
.25
.17
.21*

.79
(231)
.93
(316)
1.09
(169)
.92
(716)
•1*9
(227)
.72
(67)
1.01*
(H*)
.56
(308)

.1*3

.68
(590)
.88
(71*6)
1.03
(31*0)
.81*
(1676)

.38

.27

.19
.26
.29
.22
.15
.25

.26

.18
•25

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:

Below 3,000 3,000 - 1*,I*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

.1*0
(1*1)
.61
(91)
.18
(21*)
.1*9
(156)
.58
(77)
.1*0
(51)
.66
(32)
.51*
( 160)
.25
(157)
.39
(21*)
.63
(7)
.28
(188)
.36
(275)
.51
(166)
.1*7
(63)
.1*3
(501*)

.22
.18
.03
.11*
.35
.12
.11
.18

.16
.12
.10
.11*
.22
.15
.08
.16

.62
(51)
.63
(187)
.81
(77)
.68
(315)

.31
.18
.11*
.18
.28

.51*
(77)
.90
(121*)
.77
(65)
.76
(266)
• 66
(1*8)
.51*
(22)
.72
(2)
.63
(72)

.26
.13
.21
.31*
.17
.13
.26

.60
(176)
.73
(333)
.76
(11*1*)
.71
(653)

.31
.21
.11*
.20

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)
#

1*,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person
.91
(1*0)
1.01
(85)
.97
(56)
.98
(181)

.1*6

.30
.17
.26

.77
(77)
.77
( iia )
i.o 5
(72)
.81*
(290)
.88
(22)
.81*
(21)
.91
(5)
.87
(1*8)

.39

.83
(139)
.86
(21*7)
1.01
(133)
.89
(519)

.1*2

.22

.17
.23
.1*1*

.21*
.13
.27

.25
.17
.21*

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person
•61*

(132)
.72
(363)
.77
(157)
.71
(652)
.63
(231)
.76
(316)
.87
(169)
.75
(716)
.1*0
(227)
.58
(67)
.71*
(11*)
.1*5
(308)
.51*
(590)
.72
(71*6)
.82
(31*0)
.68
(1676)

.33
.21

.11*
.19
.31*
.22

.15
.21

.21*
.18
.11
.20

.30
.21
.U*
.20

197

I '. U - 72.

Education of
H o u s e w ife

Less than
High School
(0 - 11 y r s . )

BEEF STEAK:

PEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WE THIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 195Q

S iz e o f
F a m ily

1-2

3 - 1*
5 or more
All

High School
(12 y r s .)

1-2

3 - U
5 or more
All
-ore than
high School
U3 or more
y r s .)

1-2

3 - k
5 or more
All

Complete

1-2

ranee

3 - k
5 or more
All

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - 1*,1*99 I*j500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
.38
(175)
.66
(80)
.80
(37)
.51
(291*)

.23

.61
(59)
.61
.(58)
.26 •
(19)
.56
(136)

.1*0

.51*
(35)
.68
(26)
.61
(7)
.60
(68)

.32

.1*5
(269)
.65
(166)
.62
(63)
•5U
(km

.27

.20
.13
.19

.13
.05
.10

.21
.11
.22

.19
.11
.20

.79
(81*)
1.0?
(132)
.97
(63)
.97
(279)

.1*0
.31
.17
.27

.61
.31
(52)
.22
.76
(158)
1.06
.19
(60) .
.80
.22
(270)
.89
(38)
.76
(1*2)
.90
(21)
.81*
(101)

.1*7

•76
(171*)
.89
(332)
1.00
(Hi!*)
.88
(650)

.39

.22
.17
.26

.26
.18
.25

.88
(1*3)
.88
(76)
1.12
(1*1*)
.91*
(163)

.1*1*

1.10
(66)
1.09
(95)
1.31
(68)
1.16
(229)

.56

•9U
(32)
1.16
(71*)
li*.6
(21)
1.16
(127)

•U7

1.00
(11*1)
1.03
(21*5)
1.27
(133)
1.09
(519)

.51

.26
.18
.25

.32
.22
.31

.33
.27
.31*

.30
.21
.30

.57
(302)
.91
(290)
.97
(11*1*)
.78
(736)
.79
(177)
.83
(311)
1.0?
(11*7)
.88
•(635)

.32
.27
.16
•21*

.1*3
.21*
.19
.25

.79
(105)
.96
(11*2)
1.10
(1*9)
.92
(296)

.1*2

.67
(581*)
.89
(71*3)
1.03
(3U0)
.81*
(1667)

.37

.28
.20
.29

.26
.18
*2^

(?icures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - U»U99 1*,50Q or more, Cbmplete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family PersonFamily Person Family Person Family Person
.30
(175)
.51*
(So)
.61
(37)
.1*0
(291*)

.18

.50
(59)
.1*7
(58)
.22
(19)
.1*5
(136)

.32

.1*3
(35)
•51*
(26)
.51
(7)
.1*8
(68)

.25

.36
(269)
.52
(166)
.1*2
(63)
.1*3
(1*98)

.22

.16
.10
.15

.11*
.01*
.15

.17
.09
.18

.15
.07
.16

.62
(81*)
.88
(132)
.76
(63)
.77
(279)

•32

.1*7
(52)
.62
(158)
.81*
(60)
.61*
(270)

.21*

.72
(38)
.67
(1*2)
.70
(21)
.69
(101)

.38

.59
(171*)
.73
(332)
.78
(11*1*)
.70
(650)

.26
.13
.22

.18
.15
.18

.19
.13
.21

•30
.21
.11*
.20

.78
(1*3)
.68
(76)
.81*
(1*1*)
•75.
(163)

.39

.87
(66)
.93
(95)
1.06
(68)
.95
(229)

•1*1*

(32)
.97
(71*)
1.22
(21)
.97
(127)
.82
(11*1)
.8?
(21*5)
1.01
(133)
.89
(519)

.20
.11*
.20

.27
.18
.25

.27
.23
.28

.1*1
.25
.17
.21*

.1*5
(302)
.73
(290)
.71*
(11*1*)
.62
(736)

.25

.63
(177)
•69
(311)
•86
(11*7)
.71
(635)

.35

(105)
.80
(11*2)
.90
(1*9)
.76
(296)
.51*
(581*)
.73
(71*3)
.82
(31*0)
•68
(1667)

.21
.12
.19

.20
.15
.20

.23
•17
.21*
.30
.21
_•

•ll*
.20

198

t*btf 73. BEEF STEAK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of :
Week’s Family
Food Bill 0)
I--

under

size of
Family
1-2
3 - U

5 or more

Below 3,600 3,006 -- U,U99 U,S 60 or more
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person
•U2
(227)
.38
(66)
.00

.26

.00

.59
(HU)
.75
(79)
1.2U

.21

(5)
.67

.12

(2)
All

16 - 20

1 - 2
3 - U

5 or more
All
21 k over

1- 2

•ia
(295)

5 or more
All
ioinplete
ranre­

1 - 2
3 - U

5 or more
All

(Pi?

.23
.22

.26

(198)

.87
•U7
(30)
.80
.23
(52)
.09
•U9
(19)
.22
.76
(101) '

1.17
(Ul)
.77
(123)
1.29
(18)
.91
(182)

.59

.17

.70
(11)
1.0.8
(123)
.95
(118)
1.00
(252)

•Uo

.09

(6)
3 - U

.30

.80
(Uo)
.68
(UL)
.70
(87)

.1x7
(263)
.62
(158)
.60
(62)
.53
(U83)

.23
.12
.15

.28
.18
.10
.19

.23
.2U
.28

.30
.16
.22

1.02(33)
.83
(79)
.93
(1U)
.89
(126)

•U7
.23

.69

.33

(9)
.58
(617)

.51

.19

1.01*

.12
.30

.53

.80

.23

.17

(25U)
.89
(51)

.17

.27

.87

.27

(U09)

•66

1.30

.28

.36
.22

1.27
(132)

.21

.25

1.08
(SOU)

.29

.30

•9U
(37)
1.12
(261)
1.07
(275)
1.09
(593)

*3U
(227)
.30

.21
.09

.00

.00

(2)

.2U

1-31
(23)
1.28
(118)
1.33
(116)

■Bssiow 3,Oo5 3,000 -- U,U99
ffer
Per
Per
Per
Family PersonFamily Person

(66)

(10U)

.17

.26

.62

.00

.51

.88

.32

(152)

1.01
(128)
1.03
(2UU)

.39

.56
(Ul6)

(25U)

.75
(166)
(325)
.98
(lUl)
.87
(632)

.92
(75)
.73
(U7)
.00
(2)
.83
(12U)

Complete Range
Per
Ikr
Family Person

•U9
.31
.18
.2U

.68
.37
(557)
.88
.26
(727)
1.02
.18
(335)
.25
.8U
(1619)

in parentheses indicate number of families from which data were averaged.)

.23
(295)

.17

.66

.35

(30)
.65
(52)
•39
(19)
.60
(101)

.18
.0?
.18

•13
(6)

.07

.6k

.12

(UO)
.50
(Ul)
. .5U
(87 )
.37
(263)
•50
058)
•U5
(62)
•U2
(U83)

.08
.12

.22
.15

.US
(11U)

.23

.61

.19

(79)
1.01
(5)
.53
(198)

.18

.21

.95
(UD
.6U
(123)
.99
(18 )
•7U*
(182)

.U8

.62
(11)
.89
(123)
.76
(118)
.82
(252)

.36

.60
(166)
.73
(325)

.20
.19
.23

.25

U, 30Q or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
^er
Family Person Family Person
.73
(75)
.59
(U7)
.00
(2)
•66
(12U)

.87
(33)
.6U
(79)
.72
(lU)
.71
(126)
1.18
(20)
1.09

•37
.16
.00
.27

•UU
.19
.13
.22

.59
.30

(118)
.13
.18

.31
.21

.08

.78

•1U,

.15

(lUl)
.70
(632)

.20

.25
•UU
(U16 )
.50
.16
(192)
.10
.56
(9)
•U6
(617)
•8U
(10U)
.6U
(25U)
.69
(51)
.70
(U09)

•2U

•U3
.19
.13
.22

.8U
(37)
•9U
(281)
.85
(275)
.89
(593)

•UU
.26

1.06
(116)
1.08
(25U)

.18

.83

•U2

•5U
(557)

.30

.25

.72

.21

(128)
.85
(2UU)
1.01
(132 )
.89
(50U)

•2U

.1?
.2U

.lU
.20

(727)
.81
.lU
(335)
.20
•68
(1619)

“A.-LV7U. '&ZF STEAK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BX OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE’WITHIN SIZE-OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Occupation of
of House

S iz e of

Professional,
managerial oc
JrfxcrH

1-2
3 - h
5 or more

All
Skilled,
Semi-skilled
4 unskilled

1-2
3 - 1*
5 or more

All
Clerical,
Sales 1 kin­
dred,
Service,
Unemployed,
Retired

1-2
3 - 1*

5 or more

All
Complete
range

1-2
3 - k
5 or more

All

Average Consumption (lbs.) With;Family Dollar Incomes,of:
Below 3,060 3,q 06 - 1*,1*59 1*,5Q0 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
.Per
Per
.52
(28)
1.Q3
(29)
.1*0
(11)
.72
(68)

.28

.57
- (39)
1.02
.31
(71*)
1.01
.07
(22)
.89
.23
(135)

.36
(11*8)
•1*7
(50)
' 1.16
(19)
.1*6
(217)

.23

.72
(53)
.67
(7U)
.38
(29)
.63
(156)

.38

•L*6
(229)
.67
(153)
.61*
(59)
.56
(1*1*1)

.11*
.19
.19

.19
.06
.18

.27
.20
.11
.20

.92
(1*9)
.71*
(77)
.99
(32)
.85
(158)
.75
(80)
.90
(178)
.97
(85)
.88
(31*3)

.29
•30
.18
.27
.1*7
.21
.18
.25
.39
.26
.17
.21*

.76
.39
(168)
.26
.89
(329)
.98
’ .17
(139)
.87
.25
(636)

1.01*
(55).
1.02
(101*)
1.55
(58)
1.17
(217)
.97
(37)
1.31
(53)
.88
(8)
1.15
(98)
1.00
(1*6)
.92
(88)
1.09
(65)
.99
(199)
1.01
(138)
1.05
(21*5)
1.28
(131)
1.10
(5il*)

.52
.29
.26
.31
.50
.38
.17
.38
.50
.27
.18
.25
.51
.30
.22
.30

.77
(122)
1.02
(207)
1.28
(91)
1.01
(1*20)

.39
.30
■
.22
.31 !

.58
•3U
(23U)
.83 . .21*
(180)
.18
I.03
(59)
.26
.73
(1*73)
.80
(179)
.85
(31*0)
.92
(179)
.86
(698)
.70
(535)
.90
(121)
1.01*
(329)
.86
(1591)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,0q Q - h,l*99,1*,560 or more Complete Range
Iter
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per

.1*1
.25
.16
.23
.38
.26
.18
.25

(figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

*

.37
(28)
.82
(29)
•36 ,
(11)
.56
(68)
' .30
(11*8)
.37 '
(50)
.81*
(19)
.36 ’
(217)

.20
.25
.06
.18

.19
.11
.11*
.15

.1*9 •
(39)
.82
(71*)
.85
(22)
.73
(135)
.71
(1*9)
.63
(77)
.75
(32)
.68
(158)

.57
(53)
.51*
(71*)
.27
(29)
.50
(156)

.58
(80)
.15 ‘ .71*
(178)
.05
.79
(85)
.71
.15
(31*3)

.37
(229)
.51*
(153)
.1*7
(59)
.1*1*
(1*1*1)

.22

.30

.16
.08
.15

.60
. (168)
.73
(329)
.79
(139)
.71
(636)

.25
.21*
.15
.22

.39
.18
.13
.20
.30
.21
.11*
.19
.31
.21
.11*
.20

.90
(55)
.88
(101*)
1.25
(58)
.98
(217)
.80
(37)
1.06
(53)
.73
(8)
.91*
(98)
.76
(1*6)
.73
(88)
.85
(65)
.78
(199)
.83
(138)
.87
(21*5)
1.02
(131)
.90
(5il*)

.1*5
.25
.21
.26
.1*1
.31
.11*
.31
.38
.21
.11*
.20
.38
.21
.17
.21*

.65
(122)
-.85 .
(207)
1.05
(91)
.83
(1*20)
.1*6
(23W
.68
(180)
.78
(59)
.59
(1*73)

.33
.25
.18
.25
.27
.20
.11*
.21

.62
.32
(179)
.20
.69
(31*0)
.73 - .12
(179)
.18
.68
(698)
.56
(535)
.68
(727)
.82
(329)
.69
(1591)

.30
.20
.11*
.20

200

OS

00

CSJ

H

CM

rH

CM

CM
CVJ

o
CM

o
CM

o

os

CM

H
03

SO

in
os

os

o

sO
CM
•

VS
OS
•

CM

M3

M3

VS

CO
v \

sO oo
C*-

CM
CM

CM

-CM
ct

os
rs

O

Os

rH

-= t

sO
OS
•

MD
-= t
•

VS
OS
•

rH

rH

rH

OS
•
1—1

os
o-

H
VS

SO

CM
t

_rf
•

CO

CM
CO
•

o•
.

o.

rH

rH

os

os

OS

o-

H

O
CM

CM

os

rH

CO

vs

CM

Q

O•
H

SO

SO

OS

O
H

•

H

©
13
• d fcj*

03 rH
©
txO

§

(3

«J t o
5-i
© <H

O
CM

os

o

os

SO
IS
•
OS

os

co

0—

CM
SO

Os
OS
Os

Os
Os
Os

Os
OS
Os

SO

Os

CO
0•

SO
VS

rH

CM

OS

os

OS

os

os

CM

o
OS

VS
H

co

OS

sO
O
CM

CO
SO
rH

rH

Os
ON
Os

Os
Os

Os
Os
Os

Os
Os

Os
Os
Os

Os
.s *

rH

CM

CM

OS

OS

-ct

1
o
o
o•»

1
8
vs

1
o
o
o

1
o
o
vs•»

CM

OS

OS

•

-3
os

H

OS

4°
sO
co

to

05

rH t>S

s &
o t>»
u
d

H'-'

o

o
o

3

t
•» -=*

1
u

<15

■
5a

rH

CM

A

CM

•s

•»

1
O
O
O

•*

•t

CM

1
o
o
8
vs
•s o
-=!■ 1 A
1

•*

•

sO
Os
M3

u

%
o
45

o
8•V O
Oo
H

©
w
9
u
©
4>
H
£
o
o

variables was available

H

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

CO

1,000

TABLE

75.

GROUND BEEF: "WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF FAN EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

INCOME CLASS

CM

(4

a
w
m b
0 Oh
u ©
U

CM
CM

On

H

i~I

CM

pH
CM

CM

co

_=t

S

O

8

H

rH

rH

CM

ON

CN

CM

On

CO

O
CM

CO

CM

ON

GO

-O=t
n

UN

P«CM

CO

e'­
en

o
on

"UN

O

UN

O
UN

rH

CM

O

-p
•rl

©
OJ

C--

CN

cn

NO

on

co

NO

(X,

On

CO

co

CN

ON

co

St

On
ON

UN
NO

CM

f-rt

CO
CN

•

0
N
*
iH
CrO
« •H
a
w> §
CSl ft,

•

rH
•
rH

CM

ON

on

r^
NO
4

•
rH

•
rH

On
•
rH

UN

NO

NO
On

CM

On
•
rH

CM

ON

»
rH

On
CM

«
CN

NO
(—1

CO
CM
•

GO

ON

ON
OO«
O

r-

UN

00
•
rH

© CH

rH

•
rH

co

i0

©
Vi ©
• -rj

;§ §

u\
-rt
H

UN
IA

St
ON

rH

O

rH

O

_=t

rH

©
co

•\
rH

©
U
O
6
CM

ON

UN

NO

CO

On

&
O
rH

©
SF
©
u
©
-p
©
rH

I

O

variables was available

I

CM

to mentioned

©
b!i,pt*
CO
IH &

Total number where information with regard

I%■H

TABLE

76.

GROUND BEEF: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

201

202

oo
pH

CM
CM

A

XA

C~-

oo

•

CM
CM

VO

h-

pH

rH

CM

rH
CM

« _rt•

no

TAB|£

O

CM

XA
NO
.

©
rH
03

a

CtJ

g

CO

g
fu

CD
XA

A

On
(A

A

(A

rH

•8

to
H

CD

bfl P>4

ctf

1

g
(U

ra

©

(0U)
a
o
0

8

NO
CA

CA

o

A

«

O
A*

XA
*

pH

rH

H

H

NO
H

»

XA
b•

OO

A

•

NO

rH
•

rH

H

TcJ
a
>
tJ
©
S3
O
£
g
S

o
p
•d
8
bo
-=t

rH
.
A

XA
On
«
A

P}
CO
.
A

XA
On
•
CM

CM

-rt
«
CM

A
ON
•
H

XA
CM
•
A

©
Sh

5
c
o

•rl
P

53

U\
CM
CM

CO

NO
vO

CA

tA
<A

CM

OO

r?

cfl

_rf
NO

oo

o
'a
■H
©

U
©

77.

GROUND BEEF: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
UNSING, SPRING, 1950

On

©

Vi
o
© (0
bo d
6
W

b
§

©
XA
XA

XA

CA

XA
NO

CM

NO

CM

NO
CA

NO

_=t

NO
XA

u

©

©

1

cC
XA

>
0

«
bO
d
ca
u

$

p

©

H
I'
O

o

3
P
o
6-«
ca

203

TABLE

o
CJ

o
CM

•

*

*

CO
CO

Co

MO

o
CM

CM
CM

r-

o
CM

NO

XA
NO

rH

•H

C^“

o
o-

XO

CD

rH

■8

rH

•rH

§
(0
u
<D
PM

&
PM

£
cd
W

c
o
CM
•

pi>- c
o
•

CO

MO

CO

OO

CO

o
CO

$

NO
CO

CO

0)

rH

•8
SM
f>
TJ

•rl

ON
NO

NO

H

H
CM

CM

CM
CM

O
O

to­
rn

CD

-P

A
0)
S
0
•p

8

a

CO

CO

On
CM
•
CO

XA

_ZT
•
CO

oo

rH
•
CO

H
CO
•
CO

On
CM
•
CO

1
tkO
CD
U
$
£

o

•H
«!
0
CO
CM

rH

CM

CN
CM

p-

o

NO
ON
NO

xo
CM
CM

XA 00
O

rH

00

•H
CD

u

78*

GROUND BEEFr TOEK«S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

OF HOUSEWIFE

co
H

o ra

o d
•o
sSt
.u
£

CO W

pI

o

■LTV
I—I

co

I
On

o

<1>
CiO
s
u

C3

■P

cci

CM

H

u
!>

CO
H

NO
rH

1
S-.

as
£

CD

0)

rH

§
o*
o

•3
-p
o
6-«
cd

20U

.

O

CM

OO

rH

CM
CM
•

rH

nO

rH

O
oo

in

VO

CM
0*1
«

On
cn
*

c^-

o
cn
•

cn

OO
O
•

UN
-d
*

U \
cn
«

1A

H

rH

cn
rH
•
cn

ON
CM
•
cn

On
vC.
cn

i
—1

00

NO

rH

- •

rH

CM
•

co

u\
NO

"UN

<n

CM
cn
•

CM
•

cn
CM
»

C—
CO
•

H

rH

rH
-3
•
cn

vO
us
•

H
c—
•
CM

rH
rH

-3
VO

vO

GO
•

CM
•

VO

OO

CM

•

•

•

rH

rH

rH

ON
rH
•

O

rH
•

CM
•

CO

u \

0)
fG

o
p-

\o

CO

_3•-

CM

1S\

vO•

CU

y*"N

•
to G
O
Q
H
_<• <
G
.q

<0

g (G

o
£ &

NO
cn
•

cn
*

cn
«

-=r

CM
CM
•

U \

_cf

u\

CX
•

cn
•

CM
•

cn
•

Ph

t

03
G
O H

variables was available

Q)
is?
&
ftH
w •d
o> (3
W>f l
CO
G
G
)
(U a

OO

CM

On
-G•

UN
P•

-3
OO
•

nO

rH

O•
H

CM
vO
«

oo
-H
•

cn

CO
cn
•
CM

rCM
•
CM

CM
rH
•
CM

P-3•

OO
CM
•
cn

o
us

O
in

CM

P~

On

rH

r» Ph

«
N
•H
CO H
•rl
© a
uo CD
c«

G

fl)

regard

<!

cn

cn

> o

(0
H a
O •H

<H

• •rl

O a
3

CM

CM

rH

iH

H

rH

On

CM

<H

iH

On

rH

CO

tl

xi

t
ca
rH "d

o
o

•G“ IG
a) *h
H M
o

a>
G
•
a
•H
,*4
X5
xa

<D
H
d

CO

TfJ
i>
0
o
a
&
CO

xi
Qi

I
—I
rH

£s
CO

•H

m

i

co

*d
0)
H
iH

a
W
g

CD

•d
0)
b*
o
iH

•<O
D

0)
U)
g
co

<H
•rl
W
0)
CVS
<H
O
e
CD

e>
•p
(1)
H
a
o
o

•H

•Co
D
G

i1 -P
o
d)
fti
£

G

with

CD <D

iH
•
i
—1

information

US f l
G G

CVJ

number where

o |]

to mentioned

a

Total

TABLE

rH

CVI
•

u g

*p

79.

GROUND BEEFs "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

g

*o
as
G
CO as
0) (G

vO
rH
■•

■LTV
H

On

O
CA
•

OO
-fl
•

O
OJ

rH
CM

CM
CM

CM
CM

O

CM

O
CM

NO
-

ir \
CO
- •

CM
•' *

vO
H
♦
rH

\T \
rH
*
rH

$*

•

o
H

(II

rH

•s
rH
■
ca fl

JO

£
01

o

H 0)
v—* fl

cd

(D

fl PH
o
•H f l
01
| Pfl

rH
CM

CO
CM

-fl

<A

XA

CA

CA

CO
CA

St

vO
CA

ca
f l !=>
o rH
o •H
CD

uoli)
ca
A fl
01
9
>> O.

On
CM
.

-fl
XA
•

vO
co
.

XA
i— 1
■.
H

O
«
H

xa
-

Ov
O•
rH

■

rH
n
♦
CM

XA
O
.
CM

80.

CO
rH
•
rH

«*!

?E
01

CD
rH

•3
*£!
$
xOf
J
c
"aS
)
&
o

<D
CO
•rl r>»
CO H
•H
01 &
Ul TO
cd !fl

fl

<D (fl
> o

■fl
A
0
bO
0)
A

o

-fl
•
rH

vO

ON
•rH

NO
XA

•
CM

XA

CM
•
(A

XA
O

•
-fl

O

P—
-•
-fl

c *-

CM
.

•

XA

CA
vO

*
XA

CA
CA

•
(A

St
-P

fl

o

•H

-p

(0
<D

O *H
rH

• »H
O &
S ro

XA
vO

rH
CM
CM

-fl

CM

VO

CA
-fl

CA

OO
H

On

C—

t>~

vO

C0

XA
C—

C—

01
3

1i
A

tJ
0
0*-N
pfl
01

TABLE

XA
CA

*

GROUND

BEEF: lEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY SIZE

OF WEEK*S

FOOD BILL

205

^

rH

0) .H
® CQ

01

A

fl)

0)

pi
fl

tci
XA

X>

>
o
O
rH

XA
rH

O
CM

XA
CM

O
(A

XA
CA

1

1

1

1

1

1

vO

rH
H

vO
rH

rH
CM

vO
CM

rH
CA

'd

rH

cd
-p
o

vO
CA

6-i

206

riT.yn ,-vrn rn*> QEuuid.) HEEF : WEEK 1S CuPSUjMPTION OjF A1PD EXPKPDITUH.es FOR, BY brow
ui1 L'AiIILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Aver-:ige Cm:isumpti on (lbs. ) With F,amily Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3*000

3,000

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Per soie Family Person

.80
(179)

Complete ranee

Per
Per
Family Person

.61
(llj.2 )

.31

Below 3*000

3,000 - U,u99

1*,500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Per
Per
Family• Person

Per
rer
Family Person

.62
(601)

*3U

•28
(280)

.17

.23

.35
O U 2)

.18

.19
.35
(601)

.50
(280)

.30

1.09
(169)

.32

1.39
(332)

.I4.O

1.32
(290)

.38

1.30
(751)

.36

*60
(169)

.13

.77
(332)

.22

.76
(250)

.22

.21
.73
(75D

1.33
(6U)

.31

2.12
(1U6)

.37

1.85
(13U)

.31

1.96
(3UU)

.35

.99
(6a)

.17

1.16
(11*6)

.20

1.0U
(13U)

.18

1.08
.19
(3kh)

.32

1.39
(657)

♦39

1.26
(526)

•2k

1.19
*36
(1596)

J'P

.18

.77
(657)

.22

.72
(526)

.20

.20
.6?
(1696)

.86
(S13)

•

I4I

U,£00 or more

Average Expend!tures ($) With Family Dollar Incoimes of:

(513)

{ftpures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.16

(179)

I

207

TA^tf 8?. wr.ND BEEF:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

**

Age of.

Sise of

nunewife

Family

5 and
under

1-2
3 - U

Average Consumption (lbs•) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3>000 3,000 -• I*,1*99 U,500 «or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
.75

02)
1.03

.III

.30

(90)
5 or more

1.67

.29

i.o5

1-2
3 - It
5 or more

All

>6 and
over

1 -2
3 - U

.66
(79)
1.1*2
(52)
1.85
(32)

.1*0

.91
(77)

.1*8

1.1*9

.1*3

.32
.38

*36
(157)

.23

.67

.21

(26)
2.57

All

(?)
-.1*8

.UO

.21*

0-90)

lomplete

1-2

.50

.30

3 - U

(278)
1.10
(168)

.33

1.86

.33

Range

5 or more

All

(63)
.67
(509)

.31
.36

.143

.32

(123)
2.56
(66)
1.58
(266)

.79
(1*0)
1.21

.Uo
.35

(87)

1.35
(317)

l.lU
(163)

5 or more

.39

•31

(156)
;6 - 55

.35

(78)

(2k)

All

.69

(51)
1.36
(188)
1.71*

.1*5
.UU

.70
(50)
1.02
(21)
2.25
(2)
.81*
(73)

.36

.79
(178)
1.39
(332)
2.12
(1U6)
1.39
(656)

.Ul

.32
.Ul

1.59
(57)
1.23
(181*)
.57
(77)
1.1*6
(H*l)
2.09
(72)
1.38
(290)
.1*6
(23)
.81*
(21)
1.1*0

.28
.32

.29

.1*0
.37
.39

.71

.38

.1*2

.23

.36

CU2)
• .55
(90)

.16

.1*2
.35

.37
.23
.21*
.19

.72
(1*9)

.23

.62
(H*o)
1.32
(21*9)
1.85
(13U)
1.27
(523)

.31
.38
.33

.35

1.1*6
016)
2.23
(170)
1.1*0
(719)

.16

.31*

.57
(156)

.17

.38

.38
(79)

.23

.51*
(77)

.1*2

.81

•2.1*

.82

.38

(52)
.99

.17

(32)
.Uo

.6U

.21

(163)
.26

.20
(157)

.13

.83

.25

.38
(26)

.12

1.1*5

.23

.61
(5?6)
1.30
(71*9)
1.97
(31*3)
1.19
(1688)

.19

.90
(2U)

.1*1*
(230)
(68)
2.11
(11*)
.60
(312)

.37
(51)
.76
(188)
.96
(78)
.71*
(317)

.30

(233)

(5)

.35

.71*
(133)
1.21*
(365)
1.68
(159)
1.25
(657)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3>000 3,000 •- l*jl*99 U,500 .or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.32

(7)
.27

.27

.38

•35
.36

.28
(278)
.60

(168)
1.01
;i (63) '
i .1*8
I
■
1
(509)

(figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which know date were averaged*)

.38
(50)

.11*
.17
.18
.18
.18

.20

.92
(57)
.71
(181*)

.16

.28

.32
(77)

.16

.2U

.81*

.21*

.17
.20

.25
.25
.19

.18
(21)
.69

.23

(87)

.13

(2)

(190)
.31*

0-23)
1.1*1
(66)
.89
(266)

.22

.1*5
(1*0)
.70

.1*5
(73)

.19

.1*5
(178)
.77
(332)
1.16
(11*6)
.77
(656)

.23

(11*1)
1.15
(72)
.78
(290)
.27
(23)
.1*7
(21)
.75
(5)
.1*1

.19

.19
.21

.lU
.iu
.10
.13

(1*9)

.22
.20
.22

.35
(11*0)
.76
(21*9)
l.Ol*
(131*)
.72
(523)

.18
.22
.19
.20

.Ul
(133)
.69
(365)
.93(159)
.69
(657)
.1*1
(233)
.83
t
016)
1.22
(170)
.79
(719)
.25
(230)
.1*7
(63)
1.09
(U*)
.33
(312)
.35
(596)
.73
(71*9)
1.09
(31*3)
.67
(1688

.21
.20
.16
.19
.22

.21*
.21
.23
.15
•IU
.17

.15
.19
.21
.19
.20

208

TiRLE

i R•

ducat.ion of
Housewife
Less than
Li in School
(J - 11 y r s . )

GR/UHD BEEF:

AEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE AT THIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SfeE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Income Of:
Below 3>000
3jQQ0~-l*,J+99 i*,50Q or more Complete Range
Size of
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family______ Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
1-2
3 - 1*
5 or more
All

Hi.Ti School
{u y r s .)

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

i^ore th a n
High School
(13 or more
y r s .)

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

Complete
range

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

.1*1*
(175)
1.0?
(81*)
1.98
(36)
.80
(295)

.26
.32

•3k
.30

.62
(60)
l.li*
(58)
1.81*
(19)
1.01
(137)

.ia

.72
(36)
1.08
(26)
1.57
(7)
•9k
(69)

.1*2

.52
(271)
1.09
(168)
1.89
(62)
.88
(501)

.33
.32
.35

.33
.28
.35
.32
.32
.33
.32

.38
(86)
1.30
(131)
2.28
(6k)
l.J40
(281)

.1*5

.65
(52)
1.1+3
(158)
1.99
(61)
1.1*1
(271)

•31*

.86
(38)
1.1+9
(1*2)
2.00
(21)
1.36
(101)
.80
(176)
1.39
(331)
2.12
(1U6)
1.39
(653)

.38
.39
.1+0

.1*2
.35
.39
.1+6
.1*3
.38
.1*2

.1*1
.1+0
.37
.39

.31*
(1*3)
1.38
(76)
2.15
(1*1*)
1.31
(163)

.17
.1*0
.35
.31*

.66
(67)
1.37
(96)
1.85
(68)
1.31
(231)

.31*

.85
(32)
1.20
(75)
1.25
(22)
1.12
(129)

.1*3

.61
(H*2)
1.32
•(21*7)
1.85
(13W
1.26
(523)

.1+0
.31
.35

.31*
.23
.32

.31
.38
.31
.31*

•55
(30U)
1.26
(291)
2.16
(11*1*)
1.1!*
(739)

.31

.61*
(179)
1.36
(312)
1.91
.(ll*8)
1.29
(639)

.35

.81
(106)
1.26
(11*3)
1.61
(50)
1.16
(299)
.63
(589)
1.30
(71*6)
1.97
(31*2)
1.20
(1677)

.37
.36
.35

.1*0
.33
.37
.1*3
.37
.30
.36

.35
*38
.31*
.36

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes Of:
Below jvOQQ
3,000 - lul*99 1*7500 or more Complete Ttenge
£ter
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ifer
Per
Tfemily Person Family Person Family Person T&nily Person
.21*
(175)
.58
(81*)
1.07
(36)
.10*
(295)

.11*

.36
(60)
.63
(58)
.99
(19)
.56
(137)

.21*

.la
(36)
.61
(26)
.88
(7)
.53
(69)
.29
(271)
.60
(168)
1.03
(62)
.1*9
(501)

.17
.18
.17

.18
J?
.19
.21*
.19
.16
.20

.18
.18
.18
.18

, .1*9
(86)
.73
(131)
1.23
(61*)
.77
(281)
.37
(52)
.80
(158)
1.11
(61)
.79
(271)
.1*9
(38)
.80
(1*2)
1.08
(21)
.71*
(101)
•1*5
(176)
.77
(331)
1.16
(ll*6)
.77
(653)

.25
.21
.21
.22

.19
.23
.20
.22
.26
.23
.20
.23
.23
.22
.20
.22

.

.19
(1*3)
.79
(76)
1.18
(1*1*)
.71*
(163)

.19

.35
(67)
.79
(96)
1.01*
(68)
.71*
(231)

.19

.50
(32)
.70
(75)
.73
(22)
.65
(129)
.35
(11*2)
.76
(21*7)
1.01*
(131*)
.72
(523)

.23
.19
.19

.23
.18
.20

.25
.20
.13
.19
.18
.22
.18
.20

.30
(30!*)
.70
(291)
1.17
(11*1*)
.63
(739)
.35
(179)
.77
(312)
1.06
(11*8)
.72
(639)

.17
.20
.20
.19
.20
.22
.18
.20

.1*7 .25
j
(106)
.21
.71
(11*3)
.90
.17
(50)
.20
.65
(299)
.35
(589)
.73
(71*6)
1.09
(31*2)
.67
(1677)

.19
.21
.19
.20

209

T4BLF SU*

Week's Family

1$ &

under

GROUND BEEF: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN1SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of
Family

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
All

16 - 20

1 -2
3 - U
3 or more
All

21 & over

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
All

Complete
range

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
All

Average Consumption (lbs*) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000
3,000 - h,k99 U.gOO or more Complete R*nge
Per
Per”
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Peru

.U8
(230)
.79
(68)
.75
(2)
.55
( 300 )
.67
(30)
1.06
(51)
1.7 6
(19)
1.08
(100)
1.17
(6 )
1.35
(Uo)
2.02
(UO)
1.65
(86)
.52
(266)
1.02
(159)
1.90
(61)
.85
(U86)

.30
.25
.12
.28
.36
.30
.U2
.32
.59
.39
•3U
.37
.32
.30
.33

.31

.78 '.U l
(116)
1.13
.35
(79)
1.60
.29
(5)
.37
•9U
(200)
.72
(U l)
1-.3U
(122)
1.86
(18)
1.25
(181)

.36
•UO'
.35
.38

1.U5
(11)
1.5U
(12U)
2.18
(121)
1.8U
(256)

.8U

.81
(168)
1.36
(325)
2.12
(1UU)
1.39
(637)

.U2

.U2
.38
.UO

.39
.37
.39

.65
(75)
1.05
(U8)

.33

1.50

.30

(2)
.8 2
(125)

.33

.68
(33)
1.30
(79)
1.57
(lU )
1.16
(126)
.68
(2D)
1.U7
(119)
1.91
(117)
1.61
(256)
.66
(128)
1.33
(2U6)
1.86
(133)
1.30
(507)

.33

•3U '
.38
.29
.36
•3U
•Ul
.32
.35
.33

.38
.32;
.35

.59
(U21)
.99
(195)
1.39
(9)
.73
(625)
.69
(10U)
1.27
(252)
1.7U
(5D
1.18
(U07)
.99,
(371
1.U8
(283)
2.0U
(278)
1.71
(598)
•6U
(562)
1.28
(730)
1.98
(338)
1.20
(1630)

• 3U
.31
.25
.32

.35
.37
.33
.36

.52
.U1
.35
.38

.35
.37
•3U
.36

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

Average Expenditures
With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,'OOCi
3,006 - U»U99 U>500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
'er
er
er
Per
Per

.27
(230)
•UU
(68)
.38
(2)
.31
( 300 )
.39 '
(30)
.57
(51)
.93
(19)
.58
(100)

.68
(6)
.76
(UO)
1.11
(UO)
.92
(86)
.29
(266)
.56
(159)
1.03
(61)
•U7
(U86)

.17
.IU
.06
.16
.21
.16
.17
.17
.3U
.22
.19
.20
.18
.17
.18
.17

•UU
(116)
.61
(79)
.87
(5)
.52
(200)
*U2
(U l)
.73
(122)
.96
(18)
.68
(181)
.82
(11)
.88
(12U)
1.20
(121)
1.03
(256)
•U6
(168)
.76
(325)
1.16
(1UU)
.77
(637)

.23
.19
.16
.20
.21
.22
.18
.21
•U7
.2U
.21
.23
.2U
.22
,

.20
.22

.38
(75)
.59
(US)
.98
(2)
•U7
(125)

.19

.37
(33)
.75
(79)
.85
(lU )
.66
(126)

.19

.38
(2 0).
.86
(119)
1.07
(117)
.92
(256)
.38
(128)
.77
(2U6)
1.0U
(133)
•7U
(507)

.18
.20
.19

.22
.16
.20
.19
•i2U
.18
.20
.19
.22
.18
.20

.3U
(U21)
.55 (195)
.79
(9)
•Ul
(625)
.Uo
(ioU)
.70
(252)
.92
(51)
.65
(U07)
.56
(37)
.85
(283)
1.13
(278)
.97
(598)
.36
(562)
.72
(730)
1.09
(338)
.67
(1630)

.19
.17
.lU
.18
.20
.20
.17
.20
.29

.2U
.19
.21
.20
.21
.19
.20

210

1DBLF 8 ^ .

GROUND BEEF: WEEK1S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

LANSING, SPRING, 19gO

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 5/000
3,000 - U*U99 U,500 or more Complete Range

Cccuoation of

Size of
Family

■eacfof House

professional,

1 — 2

jv.anageriai *

Official

Per

Per

Family

Person Family Person Family Person

.76

.1*0

(2 8 )

.

3

- U

5 or more

1.21
(29)

2.11

(11)

.36

1 - 2

.67
(5U)

.35

• u n s k ille d

3 “ U

1 .1 7

.33

(75)
.36

(28)

Clerical,
Sales k kin-

1 - 2

dred,
Service,
Unemployed
2 Retired

3 - U

.38

.35
2h

(150)

5 or more ■
A ll

.95
(51)
1*31

23

(18)
.59

25

29

(219)
Complete

1 - 2

range

*U9

29

(232)

3 - U

5 or more

1.11
(155)

1.85

33
32

(57)
A ll

.8 8
(UUU)

1.3 0

.38

(23)
1.2U
(13U)

Skilled,
Serrd -skilled

1.17
(157)

.1*3

1.76

.38

A ll

.61*
(39)

.37

1.17
(6 8 )

2.11

Per

(72)

A ll

5 or more

Per

31

.83
(82)
1.1*7
(179)
2.20
(86)
1.50
.76
(1*9)
1.28
(77)
2.21
(33)
1.31
(159)
.83
(170)
1.39
(328)
2.11
(11*2)
1.1*0
(6U0)

.32
.37
.1*3
•U3
.38

.u i
.39
.37
.UO
.38

.1*3

•UO
.37

.Uo

Per
.73

Per

.37

(55)
1.3 1
( 10U)
1 .73

(59)
1.28
(218)

.38
.30
•3U

•5U
(1*6).
1.1*9
(89)
1.95
(65)
1.1*2
(200)

.27

.55
(38)
1.07
(51*)
1.67
(9)
.93
(101)

.28

.62
(139)
1.32
(2U7)
1.83
(133)
1.27
(519)

.31

•U3
.32
.36

.31
.25
.30

.38
.31

•3U

Per

Per

Average Expenditures
3,000 "Per
Per
Per
Family Person Fami

Bslow 3,000

1

Family Person

.77
(122)
1.29
( 205 )
1.78
(93)
1.25
(U20)
.71
(182)
1 .U1
(3U3)
2.10
(179)
1.U0
(70U)

.39

•U3
(28)
.69
(29)
1.19
(11)
.66
(68)

.38
.31
.36
.36

.37
(51*)

.U l

.63

•36
'
.38

•U9
.29
(237)
1.13
.33
(182)
1.86 -.32 ‘
(60)
.90
.32
(U79)
.63
(51*1)
1.31
(730)
1.95
(332)
1.21
(1603)

•3U
.38

..3U .
.36

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

(75)
1.10
(28)
.62
(157)
.22
(150)
.51*
(51)
.72

(18)
•3U
( 219)
.28
( 232)
.61
(155)
1 .0 0

(57)
.1*9
(UUU)

•U6
(39)
.21
.73
. (72)
.21
.97
(23)
.21 - .69
(13U)
.23

.19
.18
.19
.18

(f) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
U,U99 U>500 or more Oomplete fhnge
Per
Per
Per “ Per
Per
Person,Family Person Family Person

.21*
.22
.18
.21

.U8
(82)
.81
(179)
1.20
(86)

.23

•83

.23

.25

.21

(3U7)
.11*
.17
.12
.15
M7
.18
.17
.17

.U2
(U9)
.73
(77)
1.19
(33)
.73
(159)
•U7
(170)
.77
(328)
1.15 ,
(11*2)
.78
(61*0)

.22
.21
.21
.21
• 2U
.22
.20
.22

.1*3
(55)
.77
(101*)
.95
(59)
.73
(218)

.22
.22
.16
.19

.SO
(1*6)
.81*
(89)
1.09
(65)
.80
(200)

.15

.31
(38)
.62
(5W
1.05
(9)
.51*
( 101 )

.16

.35
( 139 )
.77

(21*7)
1.03
(133)
.72
(519)

• 2U
.18
.20

.18
.15
.17
.18
.22
.17
.19

-UU
(122)
.7U
( 205)
.98
(93)
.71
(U20)
.80
(182)
.78
(3U3)
l.llt
(179)
.77
(70U)
.28
(237)
•6U
(I8t)
1.0 3

(60)
.51
(U79)
.36
(51*1)
.71*
(730)
1.08
(332)
.68
(1603)

.22
.22
.17
.20
.21
.23
.19
.21
.16
.19
.18
.18

.19
.22
.19
.20

211

C
o
co

G
co 0)

u
•
P 0)
•rl (U

o-

o•

US
OJ

-fl
CSC

'O

CJ

Os
CVJ

co
cn

CS1
US

vO

O-

-fl
•
rH

-fl

P~
<n

Os
cn

rH

rH

rH

Os

H

I—1

rH

H

H

rH

rH

-fl
•
rH

us
oo
.
H

cn
CSI
•
cn

CO
r.
cn

so
o•
-fl

Os
us
•
-fl

to­
rn
•
us

CVJ
-fl
.
us

so
CV1
•
U\

oo
CM
•
US

Os
o•
M3

SO
P•
US

-fl
sO
•
-fl

-fl
Os
.
rH

CO
rH
•
CSI

rH
rH
•
CM

-fl
rH
•
CSI

rH
CSI
•
CSI

Os
CSI

SO
-fl
•
CSI

Os
<n
•
CSJ

Os
cn
•
CSI

o

so

O
cn
•
CSI

us
cn

sO

cn

co
us

p.

cn

•

in

so

co

oo

•
CO

Os
SO
•

cn

l> CO
•
c—

US

CO
•
sO

co

- fl
•

sO

•

en
r—
.

CO

us
o
•

rH
CSI
•

- fl
r—

c—
us

H
\D

cn

cn

so
us
.
cn

CSI
CSJ

Os

-fl
c—
CSI

o
o

Os
OS

Os
OS
Os

•

.

•

•

•

.«

•

•.

•

•a

CD

&|
£
<£*

CO

.q
G
o

•

CSI

cn
•
CSI

rH
•
CSJ

O
o
bO

•

cn

SO

sO

•
CO

- fl
•
Os

o•

Os

e'­

CO
us
•

o
rH

OS

cn

rH
•

US

«

-fl

-fl

cn

us

!>

CD
N
•rl >>
£0 H
•H
0)
bO
fl! (it
SH
a)
> O

i—1

in

.
CSI

.
cn

•
cn

•
cn

cn
•

CO

<v

°3
• *H

cn

CO

sS eiL
(0
W r-S

OJ
H

O H
<D irJ

a £
8 ^
Mf l w

8
o»»

so
cn
rH

Os
Os
Os

rH
b

rH
1
O

•o

o

CD

G

S

o

n

rH

rH

Os
OS

-fl

<H

Os
OS
Os

CSI

•*

-fl
*v

CSJ

CM

cn

cn

1

1

i

i

-fl
•»

o
o
o•»
CM

o
o

us

•»

CM

o
o
o•c
cn

*»

o
o

us
cn

p-

US

m
!>-

p-

U>

cn
rH

CM

Os
Os

Os
Os
Os

Os
Os
Os

OS
Os
Os

sO

OS

»

1

rH

-fl

I
o
8
-zt

«*
-fl
i

*»

cn

•»

aS

co
oj
sO

u

d)
>

o

&
G
05

■s

JH

<0

o
o
o
o
o
8
o
us o•V o•s o•s
•»
-fl us p— o
H

CD

•P
<y
rH
Q*
s
O

variables was available

&

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

TABLE 86.

ALL MEATS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY FAMILY INCOME

CLASS.

CD 0.

212

0 0 *1

fl

0
m

fl
©
fl

fl
©
fl

CN •
UN
•
H

O
C*•
rH

vs
•
H

-5f
•
rH

rrH
•
rH

P
rH
•
rH

CSI
O
♦
tH

CM
Os
♦

C«V
C\
♦

*H

■aH
>
&
£
Si
aJ

ir \
rH

E'­
en
•
rH

CN

v\
•
rH

O

fl
•
CN

- rH
NO
•

fl

t—
CN
•
UN

UN
CO
•
UN

CO
UN
•
NO

rH
H

•
O-

f l ”^ N O ^
CN
• CN«

O-

OO

r?'

CM

fl
•
CM

UN
•

o\

CO
CM

fl

-5

CQ fl
.Q O
<Q
f
©l
flpH
O
fl
•
+H
> a;
& Oh
»
O
0
2
M>]
01
fl

r
—
rCN
UN
•
CM

H
C•
CM

On
fl
•
CM

fl
CM
•
CM

0
0

•
CM

rH
On
•
H

H

co

o
c-

co

CM

CN
•
CN

CO

H

CN
UN
•
CM

H
fl
•
UN

t—
fl
•
C—

fl
On
•
CO

On
On
•
On

CN
fl
•
3

On

vO
•

IsUN
•

CM

CN

rH

&

■oL•A
O
CM

fl

I
o

CO

CN

CO
H

(0
«H ©
°3
• *H

£ §
fl
fl <13
O
f l .f l
©
©
fl (0
I
§
S3 fl

' CM

CN

un

vo

On

CO

•
3

On
CM

•

CN

On

NO
CM
CN

t" CM

1—I UN

fl
3

NO
CN
CN

CO

rH

UN

CN

fl-

C—
rH

"fl

UN

CO

©
fl
O
a

•H rH

a

o
CM

CN

UN

NO

CO

ON

©
if
fl
©
<D
rH
f
CO

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

TABLE 87. ALL MEATS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1S£0

FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY

m
©
&

213

01
01

sO
CM
•

SO
CM
■

O
_ rt
•

CXA
•

OS
_d
•

sO
CA
•

co
CA
«

rH

rH

H

H

H

rH

H

AOs
a
CA

AOS
a
_=r

CA
-=t
a
XA

*11?
SO
a
-d

-d
XA
a
CA

CA
sO
a
CM

_d
XA
a
_=f

TABLE 88.

ALL MEATS: WEEK'S C CM SUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

-p

?!
01
%

0
W))
cd
u

I

•
0)

pH

3

rH
*H

$
<d
cu
cd
CA
rH
•
CM

Os
oa
CM

CM
CA
a
CM

O
-d
sO
CA
a■
•
CM
CM

Os
CM
a
CM

CO
CM
a
CM

01
fl>
X>
05
rH

£
tj

O
r—•
vO

XA
CM
a
CO

c—
XA
a

CM
O•
Ox

CM

CM

1A

1A

»
•H

CO rH

*rrt

© g
bO t3
cd
M
® VI
< °

-ciin
a
CA

-d
Os
a
CA

OO
CO
a
CA

XA
OS
a
CM

CO
CA
a
CM

CA
Os
a
rH

O
CA
•
CA

©
d

o

£
c
©
a
xs
k
©
d
x:
•p

£
c
o

•rH

-P

cd
o

C

H
CVI

lf\

XA
4

rH

CM
4

CO

CM

CA

H
CM

•&
ri
CA

XA
-d

XA
XA

XA
SO

1

1

1

1

xa

H

cd

XA
CM

SO
CM

sO
CA

sO
-d

so
XA

XA

<A

d
©
&
Ci
cd

SO
sO

«d

CM

•H

r—

©
d
©

So

x>

d
©

§
d

©
P©

H

3
p

o

Eh

O8

©

OF HOUSEWIFE

21U

OQ
03

vO

cn

O
-= t
.

1A

<n

-=t

l
•H

VO
m
•

rH

H

rH

rH

rH

<n

vO

vO
vO

vO

•

ALL MEATS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

N

•

P»
CM
•
i—1

rH

CM
CM

-c*
UN

e'­
en
.

CD

w
0)

rH

bl

TABLE 89.

•

ca

CM

r—

u

«

03

4

03

rH

£>
ca

rH

(0 O
O
3 (0
fn
a)
a |CM
o
•H Sh
03

p

:
cn
•

o
<n
•

in
cn
.

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM
CM

CO

o

O
f-

cn
•

TLA
<n
•
'"fvl

H
O
.

CM

CM

CM

•

"Oi04
o

a
«

bO

^8

2
«
4

CM
1A

vO

3
%
(0
ca
£
ra
<L>
rH
£>
aJ
•H
U
£
'ad
)
cJ
o

•H
03

a
o
•p

»
N
•H

a> s
bo 3
03hi
U
03 <H

cn
O

•
<n

Pt
rH
•
<n

CM
CA

•
cn

vO

pt
•
cn

CO

rH
«
<n

CM

cn
*
cn

rH
cn
•
cn

Xl
&
bO
<13
U
■s
fj

4°

o

•H
P

flj
o

m
rH
rH

tI
O

P t
r—
CM

CO

co
<n

vo
vO
vO

VO
rH
CM

1-0
co

I
Ov

On
On

U
03
>
O
TCJ

1A
C-

03

I
5H

cn
rH

vO
H

■a
•H

0)
<u
f
U
03
,0

<13

P

03

CM

H

CO

rH
o

o

3
P
O

E-<

215

§
OF HOUSE

CO

b
d) fa
P.
u
3 C
D
E fa
CO

xn

H
on

CM

xn

on

~=t

IN-

e'­

on
«

on

en

rH

-d

rH
OO
•
rH

CO
H

rH

•
rH

on
rH

CO
CN

o
MD

xn

in

-d

CN
CM

O

.

•
i—1

Ov
on
•

rH

N-

rH
•
rH

_d
CVI

e'­
en

vC

CVJ
xn

-d

-d

CO
CVI
•
CM

.
rH

•
1—I

■a

90.

VO
CVI

•

Ov

Ov

rH

-d

CO
•
CVI

o

CO

on
on
•
CM

o
o

CO

CM

CM

on
on
•

VO
CM
•

xn
rH

ov
_d

_d

*
C—

•

«

on

-d

•
CM

CM
•

•

fa

•

CD

C

O

fa

£ O
n fa

u \

- 3-+
.•
CVI

rH

.
CVJ

rH

•
CVI

•
CVI

-d

CV
•
CVI

•
CVI

on
•
CVJ

on
•
CM

o•

CN

CM
•

xn

xn

-O j
•
CM

rH

CN
CM
»
CM

on
H
•
CM

-d
_ -t
«
on

CN
CM
«
on

CN

Xn

-d

co

cd
_d

CM

•

o•

8
o H
o ■rj
s
M fa

CD

XA

cd

on
•
IN -

U IU
0)

>

xn
x r\

<D

rH

on

•

Cv
•

rH

oo

xn

c

H
xn
•
on

_d
r—
•
CM

3

•

vO
IT .
•
(N-

CM
VO
•
CO

oo

•
OO

OO
on
•
on

xn
r •
on

_d
vO
•
on

CM
xn
*
on

CM

co

co

Ov
on
«

O

O

fa

CM
_d
•
on

•
on

CO
<H CD

• *H
ao 3
8
fa

rH

o

CM

CN

CM

-= f

xn
rH

CM

IN -

CO
rH

rH
CN

xn

CM

3

-=f

_d

O

CN

rH

co

■d
id
o
•H
-p

cd

13
o
o
o

•d
rH

a
a

01
01

CD
fa
O
SH
PH

'd

a

cd

S3
o
•H

cd

•rl -H
Ih O
CD iH
tuD m
cd <H
C O
cd

;s?

rH Td
Cd CD
• H 'g
&
£
(D .rH
H Pd
O

•s
£
•H
'O
C

CO

(0

0)
bO

rd
a)
o
o

CD

H
<C
CO

available

VO

- d

CD

•

was

- d

•

variables

on

xn

to mentioned

*

regard

-ltv
_=j-

with

»

co f i
rO o
rH CO
v > 5h

fa

TABLE

U

x a

information

I

Ov

m•

where

ALL MEATS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1?50

?h

in

$

8

CO

a>
3
£
oo

23
CO
I
cu

co

raS>
rH
iH
2C3
O
aa

T>
0)
>s
O
rH

§
*
a>
s

Q>
•H
<H

T3
ffl
•rl
-P

a>
Pi

•rl

CO
CO

cd
rl

O
C
d>

0

1

0)
*P
QJ
i
—I
3
o
rj

number

£
w •H
0)
So! fa
cd

Total

OF HEAD

<D

TABLE

w
Q>
bfl|
d

vO

-S t
m

-S t

-S t

C**cn
•

Ov
c+\
•

rH

rH

CO
Cr'l
•

rH

rH

rH

CO
P"V
#

rH

rH

rH

CO
•

$•

O

0 -

H

ca

CM
CO

CVI

rH
•
rH

-St
•

ON
CA
•
H

OO
O•
OJ

tvON
•
HI

c—
o•

-rt

CM
-rt
•
H

VO
Ov
*
rH

CVI
vO

XA
o
CVI

O

rH

•

H

•

-rt

c-•
XA

-rt
•
vO

rH
CA
•
OJ

-rt
CA
•
CM

CA
•
OJ

o

rH
CA
•
CM

CA
CA
•
CM

pCM
•
CM

OO
CM
•
OJ

CO
CO

CA
VO
•
C^-

H
CA
•
Ov

VO
OO
•
H

CO
CM
•
OJ
H

c—
CO
•
CM
H

rH
vC
•
P-

XA
XA
•
CM

VO
CM
•
CA

XA
O•
_rt

rH
O«
-rt

vO
CM
•
XA

CO
VO
•
XA

-rt
CA
•
CA

-rt
Ov
CA

vO
CM

O

rH
CA

-rt
c—
rH

vO

in

CVI

i
(0
§
fl CO
J-(
CD
c fL.
o
•rt u
-P CD
s* Ph

o>
a
o ft
0 •H
§J
1

*4
4)
O,

Tt
O
O
pt,
a
H
CD -H
CD CQ

M

•

-rt

o

o-

OJ
§
•<§
0
XA

O
H
1
vO

XA
H

O
CM

XA
CM

o
CA

XA
CA

1

1

1

1

1

vO
rH

iH
CM

vO
CM

r* t
CA

H
i—1

CM

M3

*4
CD
!
O>
c

c\J
vO
CA

«s
O
o

CD

ttf)
st
CCS

u

4)

-P
V

I§
o

to mentioned

tU

C"\
CM
•

information withregard

CD

CVi
•

CO

number where

91*

ALL MEATS: VJEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

BILL,

u

Total

a
o
m
u
CD
d.

variables was available

216

aJ

217

IE 92*

ALL MEALS:

LEEK1S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY 3I2E OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 195'0

Average Consumption, (lbs*) With Family Dollar Incomes
Below 3>000

3*OGj - U,U95

U^gOOjor more

Complete range

Per
Family Person

Per
Per
F amily Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

3*68
(26?)

2.3b

3*86
(172)

3*02

0 *03
(135)

3*06

7.19
(162)

2.13

8.US
(317)

2*1)7

8.65
(2U3)

2.50

•62
(61)

n
C^
«L $ O

10.91;
(1.U2)

1*92

11.6 k
(129 }

1.96

8.32
(631)

2*33

8.72
(507)

2.36

if

jJ

3 *b2
(U90)

a

. i i i

•9j
2 * /r
(576)

8.29

2*61

(1 2 2 )

11*16
(332)

1.92

7 *69
2.30
(1626j

Average Expenditures (30 With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000

3,000 *-

k th 9 9

or more
U,5oo <

Comolete rai

Per
Per
Family P e rs o n

Per
Per
Fanlly P e rs o n

Per
Per
Family Perse

1.U0

3*68
(172)

1.90

3.98
(135)

2.01

3.11
(5?u)

1.71

3*22
(162)

1
jL* OuJ

5.11
(317)

1.U8

5.U2
(2U3)

1.57

5.02

1.1*6

5*69
101)

1.01

6.26
(1U2)

1.10

6.89
(129)

1.16

3*39
(I1.90)

1*23

U.?8
(631)

l.lj.1

5* Ul
(507)

1.U7

Per

Per

FamiJp7 Person

2.31

(267)

parentheses indicate number' of families from which knuvm data were averaged*)

(722)

6 .I1U

1*11

(332)
U.6U
1.39
(1628)

218

n?I5 91.

hLL

MEATS:

WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND MFENDITUEBS FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INOCME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs*) With Family Dollar Incomes of;

nd

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

55

1-2
3 - U
5 or more
All

.nd

1-2
3 - k
5 or more

All

3.99
(i*i)
6.61
(38)
3.39
(2)4)
6.19
(153)

2,18

It.50
(73)
8.72
(1*9)
11.37
(31)
7.21*
(153)

2.65

3.51*
(151)
6.37
(21*)
15.70
(6)
I*.32

1.90

1.1*7
1.83

2.60
1.95
2.35

2.21*
2.01
2.35

2.20

a s i)
>lete

1-2

3-1+
5 or more

All

3.87
2.35
(265)
2.13
7.23
(161)
10.62
1.81
(61)
2.11
5.82
(1*87)

5.5o
(50)
7.81*
(183)
10.51
(77)
8.13
(310)
5.99
(75)
9.57
(U 7)
n .5 3
(63 )
9.00
(255)
6.06
(1*6)
7.87
(17)
9.60
(2)
6.61*
(65)
5.87
(171)
8.1*8
(317)
10.95
(11*2)
8.33
(630 )

2.78
2.28
1.85
2.16

3.11*
2.75

2.01
2.51
3.09
2.1*7
1.75
2.79
3.03
2.U7
1.92
2.35

6.07
(39)
8.58
(85)
10.92
(51*)
8.71*
(178)

3.01*

6.31*
(72)
8.87'
(137)
12.12
(70)
9.03
(279)

3.23

5.19
(22)
7»66
(20)
12.90
(5)
7.06
(1*7)

2.60

6.07
(133)
8.67
(21*2)
11.6U
(12 9)
3.75
(5ol»)

2.51
1.93
2.31

2.56

200
2.1*2

2.22
1.79
2.23
3.07
2.51

1.96
2.3 6

Below 3,000 1,000 • U,U99
->r more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
2.U5
(U l)
3.86
(88)
U.7U
(2U)
3.62
(153)

1.3U

1.57

2.63

2.67
(73)
5.07

1.98

m
6.20

1.06

2.1*1+

(31)
U .16
(153)

1.35

2*1+9
1+.23
(219)
2,21
7.21
(61)
13.68
290h
(13)
5.27 ‘2
(293)

2.07
(151)
3.86
(2U)
8.81 (6)
2.53
(181)

2,76

2.30
(265)
U.23.
061)
5.89
(6 1 ),
3.39
(U87)

2.68
(130)
2.21*
7.72
(356)
1.82
10.32
(155)
7.81* '2.13
(61*1)
5.20

5)61
(220)
9.11
(303)
11.68
(165)
6.61
(688)

1*.99
(569)
8*26
(720)
11.13
(333).
7.70
(1622)

3.03

2 . la

1.91
2.29

(Fi.gures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

1.11

.83
1.07

1.51

1.31
1.2 2

1.32
1.29
1.39
1.25
1.00
1.23

3.30
(50)
U.67
083)
6.08
(77)
U.80
(310)

1.67

3.77
(75)
5.68
017)
6.53
(63)
5.33
(255)

1.97

3.96
(U6)
5.98
07)
5.12
(2)
U.52
(65)

2.02

3.68
(171)
5.11
(317)
6.26
(11*2)
U.99
(630)

1*36
1.07
1.28

1.63
1.H+
1.1+9

1.88
.93
1.90

0
c

Size of
Family

l*,500 <Or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

-tfl

of
ewife

Below 3,000 3,000 ■ l*,l*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofs

3.91
(39)
5 .U6
(85)
6.37
(5U)
5.39
078)

1,96

U.18
(72)
5.5U
037)
7.25
(70)
5.62
(279)

2.13

3.53
(22)
U.67
(20)
7.5U
(5)

u.uu

1.60

1.13
1.1*2

1.60

1.20
1.51
1.77
1.35
1.05

1.1+0

(U7)

1.90
1.1+9

1.10
1.1+1-

3.99
033)
5.UU
(21*2) ,
6.89
(129)
5.U3
(50U)

2.02
1.58

1.16
1.1+7

3.22
(130 )
U.66
(356)
5.97
(155)
U.69
(6Ul)

1.6 6

3.5U
(220)
5.52
(303)
6.73
065)
5.18
(688)

1 .9 1

2.62
(219)
U.72
(61)
7.75
03)
3.28
(293)
3.11
(569)
5.02
(720).
6.1*2
(333)
U.6U
0622)

1.3 5
1.0 5
1.27

1.6 0
1 . 1U

1.U7
1.5U

1.U5
1.16

1.U6
1.72
1.U6
1.1 0
1.3 8

219

o?,LH 9b.

-XL MEATS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
. LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

Average, Consumption (lbs») With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditures ,{j) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000
3,000 - b.jii99
or more Comple te Range
Bslow 3,000
3*000 X R,U99
or more Complete Iknge
Size of
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
^er
Per
Per
Fbr
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family_____ Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Less than
ni-;h Softool
(:f~
11 y
\
* r s .)

1- 2
3 -U
5 or more
All

Hi rh School
[Idyrs.)

1 -2
3 - U
5> or more
All

3.81
(167)
7.81
(82)
11.35
(35)
5-90
(28U)
3.77
(58)
6.96
(55)
7.52
( 18)

5.62

2.27
2.31
1.91*
2.20
2.1*3
2.02
1.31
1.92

(131)
-ore than
Fi-n School
(13 or more
yrs.)

! - 2
3 - U
5 or more

5> or more

2.06
2.35
2.12
1.81*

(60)
All

5.78
(1*80)

2.10

5.85
(169)
8.7*8
(316)
10.87
(1U3)
8.36
(628).

2.52
2.68

2.32
1.92
2.22
3.22
2.12

5.79
(1*2)
8.17
(73)
12.28
(U3)
8.66
(158)

2.92
2.38
1.98
2.28

6.07
( 61)
9.0U
(91*)
12.08
(65)
9.12
(220)

3.08

6.33
(32)
8.61

3.17

2.6U
2.0U
2.U3

2.U5

(73)

1.78,
•

3- h

3.90
(259)
7.20
(161)
10.61

1.92

1.99

-d-

1 -2

1.72

6.09
(37)
7.38
(UO)
9.U0
(21)
7.33
(98)

2.76

00

t'ciiiolet-e
nnre

(7)
S.61
(65)

2.60

5.20
(51)
7.99
(155)
10.97
(59)
8.12
(265)

3-lU

CM

All

U.52
(3U)
5.66
(2U)
10.69

6.15
( 81)
9.1*7
(121)
11.73
(63)
8.99
(265)

3.02

2.U7
1.89
2.35

8.99
(21)
8.10
(126)

1.67

6.05
(135)
8.65
(2U0)
11.6U
(129)
8.72
(50U)

3.06

2.35

2.50
1.96
2.36

U.75
(290)
8.63
(276)
11.80
(11*1)
7.67
(707)
5.03
(170)
8.13
(30U)
11. ou
(1U2)
7.95
(6 l6 )
5.65
( 103)
7-7U
(137)
9.1*1
(1*9)
7.28
(289)
5.00
(563)
6.25
( 717)

2.6U
2.52

2.20
(167)
U.52
(82)

1.31
1.3U
1.09

1.97

6.36

2.35

(35)
3.38 , 1.26
(28U)

2.76
2.37
1.90

2.25
3.02
2.23
1.75

2.32
(58)
U.08
(55)
U.16
( 18)
3.31
( 131)

1.50

2.86
(3U)
3-5U
(2U)
5.91

1.19

3.UU

2.1*1

11.13

1.91
(332)
2.29
7.71
(1612)

(?kures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

2.31
• (259)
U.22
(161)
5.88
(60)
3.37
(U80)

1.68
1.12

1.50
1.72
1.39
1.11

1.13

(59)
U.86
(265)

1.33

1.6U

3.72

1.97

1.08
1.06
1.26

(65)
2.75

3.3U
(51)
U.78
(155)

1.96

6.36

.73

(7)
2.26

3.8U
(81)
5.76
(121)
6.60
(63)
5.37
(265)

1.39
1.2U
1.02
1.23

(37)
U.U5
(UO)
5.35
( 21)
U.37
(98)

1.28
1.01
1.3U

3.66
(169)
5.12
(316)
6.22
(1U3)

1.U9

5.00

1.U0

(62b)

1.89

1.08

3.83
(1*2)
U>96
(73)
7.1U
(U3)
5.26
(158)
3.9U
(61)
5.66
(9U)
7.15
(65)
5.63
(220)
U.2U
(32)
5-5 7
(73)
5.58
(21)
5.23
(126)
3-98
(135)
5.U2
(2U0)
6.89
(129)
5.U1
(50U)

1.93

2.89

1.61

(290)
l.UU

1.15
1.38
2.00
1.65

1.21
1.50
2.12
1.58

1. 0U
1.52

2.01
1.57
1.16
1.U7

5.18
(276)
6.70
a u i)
U.55
( 707)

3.20
( 170)
u .93
( 30U)
6.UU
(1U2)
U.80
(616)
'3.60
(103)
U.89
(137)
5-53
(1*9)
U.5U
( 289)

3.12

1.51
1.12
1.39

1.76
l.UU
1.11

1.36
1.93
1.U1
1.03
l.U l

1.71
(563)
S.02
1.U6
(717)
1.10
6.U2
(332)
U.6U- 1.38
(1612)

220

9£# A.,X MEATS. WEEK*S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF vtfEEK5S FOOD' BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY ‘WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

pjOs Family
,,
'
00(jBill ($)_____

Size of
Fairiily

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes oft
Average Expenditures ($) With Fanily Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3jOQO
3,000 ~ .l}.7i;99 l4-,500 or more Compile Range
Below 3*000
3,0OQ - 4,h£ft 1|,5Q^ ~ o r more Complete fenge
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per " Per
Per
Per
Tfer
Per*Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person FamilyBerson

1-2

3.70
(218)

2.27

3-U

5.61
(63)
5.50

1.77

5 or more

.85

(2)
All

U.iU

2.06

(283)
1-2
3 - h
5 or more

5.62
(33)
7.71
(51)
9.53

3.01
2.18
1.76

(19)
All

7.1*3
(100)

1-2
3 -

h

5 or more

1

All

i “ 2
3 -

b

5 or more
All

2.19

5.13
(70)
2.13
6.25
(1*6)
1.51* 12.60
(2)
5.69
2.33
(118)

7.17
(IP)
7.90
(120)
6.1*8
(18)
7.79
(178)

3.59

5.17
(6)
8.78
(1+0)
11.16
(37)
9.58
(83)

8.90
(11)
2.51 10.11
(117)
1.88 u.!*5
(117)
2.11* 10.70
(21*5)

3.96
(25U)
7.13
(151*)
10.1*3
(58)
5.32
(1*66)

2.37

2.59

2.11
1.80
2.12

2.65

5-15
(112)
6.91
(75)
8.61*
(5)
5.93
(192)

5.90
063)
8.1*9
(312)
10.97
(11*0)
8.37
(615)

2.60
1.91*
2.52
2.27

7.08
(33)
8.16
(77)
9.10
03)
7.97
(123)

3-51*

8.1*0
(20)
9.96
2.77
(116)
1.98 11.92
(111*)
2.31* 10.73
(250)

U.20

2.31*
1.61
2.39.
S.11*

3.01*

6.18
(123)
2.1*6 8.66
(239)
1.92 11.61*
(129)
8.83
2.35
(1*91)

2.1*0
1.69
2.1*6

2.77
1.98
2.35
3.12
2.50
1.96
2.36

1**35
(1*00)
6.30
(l8k)
8.82
(9)
5.03
(593)
6.69
(103)
7.91*
(21*8)
9.01*
(50)
7.76
(1*01)
8.02
(37)
9.85
(273)
11.61
(268)
10.56
(578)
5.05
(51*o)
8.25
(705)
11.11*
(327)
7.75
(1572)

2.1*5
1.96
1.56
2.21

3.1*1
232
1.69
2.36
I*.18
2.71*
1.97
2.31
2.77
2.1*0 ■
1.92
2.30

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

2.19
(218)
3.18
(63)
2.1*2
(2)
2.1*2
(283)

1.31*
1.00
.37
1.20

1.78
3.33
(30)
i*.l*3 1.25
(51)
5.25
.97
(19)
'1*.25
1.25
(100)
3.25
(6)
5.1+3
(1*0)
6.29
(37)
5.66
(83)
2.35
(25U)
1*.18
(151*)
5.82
(58)
3.39
(1*66)

1.63
1.55

3.18
(132)
1+.05
(75)
5.16
(5)
3.57
(192)

1.61*
1.25
.92
1.1*1

1**80
2.1*0
(1*0)
1+.68
1.38
(120)
1*.80 , .91
(18)
1*.72
1.1*5
(178)

i*.i*9
(33)
5.10
(77)
5.06.
(13)
1*.93
(123)

5.07
(11)
6.28

5.78
(20)
6.30
(116)
7.11
(111*)
0.63
(250)

2.93
1.72

(117)

1.06
1.26
1.1*1
1.21*
1.01
1.21*

3.36
(70)
3.80
'(1*6)
6.32
(2)
3.58
(118)

6.55
(117)
6.35
(21*5)

l.ll*
1.39

3.71
1.91
(163)
1.1*9
5-13
(312)
1.10
6.27
(11*0)
5.01
1.1*1
(615)

1.71
1.18
1.26
1.1*3
2.25
1.50
•91*
1.52
2.89
1.75
1.18
1.1*5

2.05
l*.o5
(123)
5.1*3
1.57
(239)
1.16
6.89
(129)
5.1*7 1.1*6
(1*91)

2.67
(1*00)
3.69
(181*)
lj.81
(9)
3.02
(593)
li.27
(103)
1*.76
(21*8)
5.01*.
(SO)
1*.67
(1*01)
5.16
(37)
6.16
(273)
6.75
(268)
6.37
(578)
3.15
(51*0)
5.02
(705)
6.1*1*
(327)
1+.67
(1572)

li50
1.15
.85
1.32
2.18
1.39
.91*
1.1*2
2.69
1.71
l.ll*
1.1*0

1.73
1.1*6
1.11
1.39

221

p£ctv
'

ALL MEATS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Occupation of

Size of
Family

professional,
Managerial &
Official

1-2
3 - it
5 or more
All

Skilled,
semi-skilled
- unskilled

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

fiericol.
Sales k kin­
dred.
oemee 5
nea;ployed,
; retired

1-2
3 - b
5 or more
All

Coir- Is
range

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Average Consumption (lb^s)
Below 3jOQO
3,000 ■» U,l*99
Per
Per
P"er
Per
Family Person Family Person
1*.1*3
(27)
6.10
(26)
11.1*0 .
(10)
6.22
m
S.12
(52)
7.95
(71*)
9.98
(27)
7.31*
(153)
3.55
(11*2)
6.91*
(1*7)
11.36
(18)
5.00
(207)
1*.03
(221)
7.28
(11*9)
.10.89
(55)
6.03
(1*25)

2.301.82
2.01*
2.00

2.67
2.26
1.69
2.17
2.25
2.12
1.87
2.12
2.36
2.13
1.81
2.12

6.05
(37)
8.11*
(71)
9.95
(22)
7.85
(130)

3.10
2.1a
1.79
2.35

With Family Dollar Incomes of:

ksi00 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
5-67
(53)
9.03
(102)
11.1*1*
(55)
8.81
(210)

6.05
(78)
8.85
(169)
11.17
(81*)
6.78
(331)

6.93
(1*3)
2.56
8.51
(86)
1.91* 12.13
(61*)
2.38
9.35
(193)

5.59
(1*8)
7.92
(73)
11.07
(32)
7.85
(153)

2.88

1.98

5.91
(163)
8.1*7
(313)
10.95
(138)
8.35
$11*)

6.07
(132)
2.1*6 8.68
(21*0)
1.92 11.72
(127)
8.76
2.35
(1*99)

3.12

2.27

2.28

3.05

5.61*
(36)
o.28
(52)
10.1*1*
(8)
7.1*7
(96)

2.81*
2.59
1.91*
2.36

3.1*7
2.1*9
2.00
2.35

2.80
5-51
(117)
2.1*2
8.31
(201)
11.06 ■1.92
(87)
8.09
2.3O
(1*05)
5.99
(173)
8.56
(329)
11.31*
(175)
8.62
(677)

3.07
2.1*7
1.92
2.33

1*.32
2.51
(226)
7.76
2.2?
2-39
(172)
11.07
1.99
*.95
(58)
2.1*6
2.25
•3.1*7
■ (1*56)
2.91

3.07
2.51
1.97
2.37

5.15
(516)
8.29
(702)
11.21
(320)
7.81*
(1538)

2.78
2.1*1
1.92
2.31

?s in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes oft
Bslow 3,Pod
3*000 - I*>1*99 hi^QQ or more Complete Itenge
Bsr
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
2.66
(27)
3.71*
(28)
7.00
(10)
3.80
(65)
3.02
(52)
!*.6l
(71*)
5.12
(27)
1*.16
(153)
2.11
(142)
4.08
(47)
6.39
(18)
2.93
(207).
2.39
(221)
4.28
(149)
5.88
(55)
3.50
(425)

1.39
1.11
1.25
1.22

1.57
1.31
.87
1.23
1.34
1.24
1.05
1.24
1.40
1.26
1.00
1.23

3.72
(37)
4.97
(71)
5.93
(22)
4.78
(130)
3.83
(78)
5.29
(169)
6.41
(84)
5.23
(331)

1.92
1.47
1.07
1.43
1.97
1.53
1.11
1.42
1.80

3.82
(53)
5.81
(102)
6.89
(55)
5.59
(210)
4.38
(43)..
5.16
(86)
7.08
(64)
5.62
(193)

3.49
(48)
4.83
(73)
6.24
(32)
4.70
(153)

1.12

3.71
(163)
5.11
(313)
6.29
(138)
5.00
(614)

3.99
(132)
1.48 - 5-44
(240)
1.10
6.94
(127)
1.41
5.44
(499)

1.38

1.37
1.91

3.79
(36)
5.19
(52)
6.15
(8)
4.74
(96)

1.91
1.66
1.17
1.49
'
2.19
1.51
1.17
1.1*1

1.95
1.50
1.17
1.56
2.02
1.57
1.17
1.1*7

3.53
(111)
5.22
(201)
6.66
(87)
5,01*
(1*0$)
3.72
(173)
5.11
(329)
6J46
(175)
5.1Q
(677)
2.67
(226)
U.73
(172)
6.27
(58)
3.91
(1*56)
3.22
(516)
5.05
(702)
6.1*8
(320)
1*.73
(1538)

1.79
1.52
1.15
1.1*1*
1.91
1.1*8
1.09
1.38

1.55
1.38
1.10
1.36

1.71*
1.1*7
1.11
1.39

222

B
0)

a.

d
vO

oo

CA
H

d
vO

US

rH

H

us

oo

€

vO

t*- 00
vO

O
C*-

\Q

CM

Os
d
•
CM

Os
<A
•
CM

CA
US
•
CM

cA
O

1A

vO

vO

o

-=t
o
C“-

dCM

CO
d
«
CM

o
Os
•
CM

•
CM

o•

CA
£v-

d
CO
•
E»-

u\

o-

tvO
•
C*-

C"vO
•
US
CM

Cv1—I
•
US
CM

CO
US
•

Os
CA
•
CM
CA

d
U \
•
CA
CM

CA

vO
us
•
CA

O
rH
•
d

fA
rH

d
CA

d

<A

!>-

CM
vO

Os
CA

<A

vO

Ph

a> c3
u
<0

•

•

Isoo

H•

•
CM

d

H

P-I

vO

CN
•

o

vO

Os
CA
•
CM
H

CO
r* •
H

vO
CO

(0
03
O

(h

cd

03 Q)

g *
gs

0a
H

C"-

o•

CO

rl

i> -

c*H■

^9

vO

vO

i~4
U \
•

OS
vO
•
O
CM

CA
OO
■
CA
CM

vO
OS
•
fCM

rH

OS
CA
•
CA

CM
C*•
CA

co
rH

o

us
•

o*

CM

CA

CM
•
CA

CA
d
rH

O
CA
rH

CA
US
rH

oo

CM

O
CM

OS
Os
Os

Os
Os
d
A
CM

Os
Os
Os
A
CM

Os
Os
d
A
CA

a

rH

I
O
o
us
a

&

1=>
t

CM

CM

CM

d

«s
CA

O

U \

d
CA
•
vO
CM

rH

Us

•
CA

VO

•
CA

OS
vO

CCA

rH

rH

Os
Os
OS
A
CA

Os
Os
d
A
d

Ov
Os
Os

1
O
o
u s•s

I

CA

8
oA
d

CO
CM

Os
Os
Os
A
VO

•

vO

rCM

e

&

US

•

a
Os

vO

A
Os

o

in

•

o-

a)
W)

Os

I

I

o
o

O

o
o
oA
o

rH

d)
-p
a)
rH
Ph
S
=T
o

o

Total number "where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

TABLE 97.

vO

u
a>

BOTTLED MILK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

INCOME CLASS

=89= O

(0

a
8
01Jj
0
u
l 0
a.
*0
s

rH
XA

C—

XA

3

CO

CO
VO

CVJ
VO

CO

UN

Ov

xa

O

XA

in

Ov
rH
«
rH

XA
O
•
CM

r—
vO

9

CM

o
CA
•
CA

CA
c
.
CA

vO

o

A3
CA
-=t ir\

rH
Ov
•

CA

3
CM

xa

(0 a
0
£ 01
u
©
a p.
o J-r
£ 0
a.

XA
.

XA
C—
O

XA

VO

vO

CO

Ov

-=!■
C^-

O
H

•
P-

XA
Ov
•
vO

XA
CA
•
VO

CA
XA
•
XA

CA

CM
XA

XA

Ov
Ov

o

3

0

§0
2

C—

o•
vO

VO
H
.
CA
rH

CM
CM
•
CM
CM

vO
OV
•
Ov
CM

o

XA
•
XA
CA

rH

O•
3

CO

_V
•
3

”^OV
3
o0 X A•

CM
•

3

3

o•

vO
XA

CA
CM

‘ CA
CO

Ov

1

Ov
CM
•
CO

CM

CA

"LA

CO

vO

CM

Ov

«
o
H

XA

r—

vO

«

CA

Ov
vO
rH
XA
XA

vO
vO

-cr

Ov
H t
CA

XA
Ov
rH

CM
o
rH

o
n *

f—

H

c—

CO

0
TABLE 98.

€

O
CM

&

ft
4
h f-*
£ (0U
4

CM

J-

a _

•H tJ
. HO
0
& J02
S
3 w
p

is : o
»-ri

o
CM

CA

XA

vO

CO

Ov

0
M
Cl
OS
U
0
+>
0

rH

£
O
o

Total number inhere information with regard to mentioned variables was available

BOTTLED MILK: "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

223

0

22k

Pi
ta
p.
(0 0
)
0 p*
u u
0
3

TABLE 99. BOTTLED MILK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY ACE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

o

NO

VO

O-

1A
vO

0_

P t

J-

0
ft
I*

•
CM

CO
P t
•
CM

XA

vO

UN

p t
XA

vO

XA

■a

0

5a|

O

vO
«
CM

O

Ov
•

rH

CA
•

rH

O

•

H

H

rH

•
CM

rH

■d
0
03
g

? 03
P

■I1f
CU
,'—'
’d
o
+>
&
<0
Pi
o
o
0
fad
FH
0

0
i
—I
•g

vO

vO

H

rH

CM

vO

VO
CM

VO

VO
H

CA
O

vO

03

0

rH

■8
£
X)

CO
P j
•
CM
CM

CM
•
Os
CM

Os
P t
•
OCM

CA
CO
•
Os

rH

P t

rH

•
XA
i—1

co
co
•
i—1

rH

CM

rH

•
CA
CM

0
d
0
•H
-P
Pi

1
o
p

-*4

TJ

jh
co

hfl
0
u

«
IS
•H i>>
CO H

' *H
0 S
to §3
capt,
p«
0 «H

CQ
<H 0
O#
O ‘gj
a 6

P t
rH
•
CA

vO
CM
CM

XA
Os
•
CA

vO
vO
P t

P t
oo
•
CA

Pt
P3
P 3-

f* -= *
CA

UN
TA

XA
CA

vO
CM

XA
OS
•
CM

vO
ca

vO
P t

CM
_= t
•
CM

CA
CA
CM

■LA
vO

vO
m

CA
OS
•
rH

r—
p t
H

*4
0
>
O
20
vO
vO

OS
CM
•
CA

CA
vO
CO

0
bo
a
<tj
u
0
p
v
rH

§
O*
O

si
p
Pi

o
•H
P
0
O
*
*H
0
&
£
p>
0
o
rH

0
O
Eh
P

TABLE

100.

BOTTLED

MILKi WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

FCE, BY EDUCATION

OF HOUSEWIFE

22$
£
O
m
k» a
CD 0)
Pm
§
pJ
-p £
•H 0)
TJ P->
£

C—

ON
UN

H
frH

_
=r O
CO
rH
•
•
CM
1
—1

<A
UN
■
NO

UN
CM
•
NO

■
LA
vO
CN

NO*

vo _H
vO
NO
• *

OCM
•
CM

UN

O
CM

NO
o•
NO

NO
ca
»
C'-

O
UN
•
N

vO

rH
NO
•
On
rH

H
CA
•
CM

ON
CA
»
UN
CM

CM
On
•
CA
CM

CO
vO
•
_=t
CM

On
rH
•
CA
CM

i—t
o
t
CA

_=t
rH
»
CA

O
CA
•
CA

UN
-rt
•
CA

On
iH
•
CA

rH
CA
.
CA

O
CA
.
CA

CM
CM
rH

UN
On
CM

o

On
NO

CA
CM
CM

UN
O
rH

UN

-3

NO

©

& Hh
M •H
© §
X

bOi
cO
5h 5-i
0) 0)
> Pm
«aj

.

rH

•
CM

•
CM

rH
H
«
CM

0}

•p

a
o

_=r CA
O

ao

o
a
;
So|
cd
U
o>

CM

« w
N CP
•rH «H

tQ H
•<H
bfl 3

Cd(x<
0) <H
£ °
<aj

r*I

o

C«-

_= t

UN
CO

I
On

CM

I
I
CA

£
£
o

cC
NO

rt
O

n

CO

©
bO
£
ctf
£
©

-P
©

r~I

i*

o
o

etf

226

a
to

u
©

PL,

CA
NO

o
<A

vO
CM

cvi

CM

XA

vO

XA
vO

XA
vO

vO

XA

XA

nV
b-•-

P~
O

rH

OV

Ov
CA

CA

CM
OV

Ov

ca

rH

CM

CNJ

CM

CM

rH

rH

H

<A

rH

-=t Zf
o* CNl

Ov

CO

Ov

vO

vO

vO

NO

O

o
£>•
rH

C*CM
*
XA

r•
-= f

CM
*
XA

Ov

NO

vO

Ov

c-~XA

XA
vO

XA
XA

vO

Ov
CM
•

r-

CA

CM
OV

rH

&
PL,

»

•

-rt

&
•H
P*h

a?

*

.

•

•

.

•

*

CA
«

•
rH

•
rH

o

.

CM

Ph

(a C
Oa
t
pH
©
g PL,
Ph
a>
q,PL,

-p

PL,

o

CA

O

rH

XA

r—{

CA
.

XA

-A•
"

r-i

NO

C—

VO

A-

O

CO
Ov

•

O

.

rH

O

to

S&
O H
©
M
CO

PH

Ph

4)

4

Ph

0)

Ov
CM

.

rH
•

XA

*

rH
rH
.

XA
CM

Ov

CA
CM

-= t
CM

XA
CM

XA
CM

vO
XA

r—

CM

- z lrH

OV
CA
«

Ov
vC
*

CM
NO
.

QO
•

CA•

CA

CA

CA

CM

CO
CM
.
CM

cA

rH

Ov

CVl

CM

3

OO

XA
CM

CM
_=i•

NO

CA

•

NO

o.

vO
NO

*

rH

PL,

« .
C*OH H
•H
(t) g
bo 3
aJft,
© 'H
4 °

CA

•
fA

rH
rH
CM

VO
CM

•

CM

OV
XA
rH

»
CA

CA
rH
rH

CA

OO
Ov

vO

CM

O

XA

rH

-=r

rH

C"-

*

rH

o

o.

CM

CA
CM

CM
rH
•
CM

r—

Ov
CM
•

p-

Ov

Ov

•
CA

H

CA

ctJ

vO

co

T3
©
Ph

a

TABLE 101.

OvO

r&

o

rH

-P

CJ
O

•rH

(0

* rt

!

o

o

CO
CO

©
O

Ph

PL,

cti

rH

ro H

•P.S
© u
bOtH
CC
p; <+h
ro o

*8

tJ
rH

1
aJ
«
•3-8
Ph a
O

£
03
ca

©

rH

c\S
CO

rH

©
o

3
pH
©

CO

tJ

3
rH
•H
CO

3
0}

i

CO

*©
x?
r
—I

T©3
£

23
©
5

e
©
£

rH

rH

©
bO
C
©

t©J

P,

©
©

•H

©

10
©
i
—I

©
P5

Pi

p,
•H
-P

S3

-P

fH

a

t§

8
o

Total number where Information with regard to mentioned variables was available

BOTTLED MILK: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

o

227

d

TABLE 102.

BOTTLED MILK: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AMD EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK’S FOOD BILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

o

co
to Ph
)
CD 0
u |Ph

0

vO

on

cm

U\

UN

vO

ON

vO

p

On
vO

co
vO

UN
CM
•
ON

vO
UN
•
ON

Pt

vO

&
'ad P h
03

S
nj
.
bDk,
Cd
Ph Ph
CD
£ a.
CD

O

$

un

pt

o•

58

CVI

CM

O
O
•
P t

P t
»H
•
CM

a>

rl

■8
rH
•H

ca a
P o

a. ca
u
CD

c PL,
o
fH
•H <
P D
& PU

cd

>

cd
UN
CO
•
ON

Ov
CO
•
UN

Ov
co
•
vO

c *Ov
•
vO

vO
CM
•
tv -

ON
vO
•
—

P

CM
U \
•

C"-

CM
UN
•

o•

03
Ph

ca

a>
rH
8
•H
Ph

o

b0(

■=

0-

W
§
CD

ca
cd

vO

cd

Ov
on

•
UN

03

P t
UN
.
H
H

r—
UN
«
rH

H
o•
CM
CM

Ov
ON
•
On
CM

P t
CO
•
UN
ON

P t
vO
.
Ov
ON

vO
O ',
•
CM
P t

o

UN
•
ON
CM

£

f>

Ti

S
0

1(U
O

P

O
P t
•
rH

vO
Ov
«
rH

UN
UN
.
CM

vO
CM
•
ON

UN

o•

P t

o
C '-

•
P t

0CM
•
UN

ON
VO
•
UN

ON
ON
•
ON

T3
u
cd
&D
CD
Ph

+3
fi

0

•H
P

1
UN
vO

CM
CM
CM

rH
3

Ov
ON
P t

rH
rH
ON

CM
CO
H

Ov
C-~

C^-

vO

vO
•V

•H

tH
CD

CD

&
8

bO

tJ

Ph

CD

O &&
Ft,'—'
ca H
- H
r^lCc «H
03 PQ

S

UN

>
O

o
<H

UN
rH

O
OJ

UN
CM

1

1

1

vO

rH
rH

vO
tH

O
ON

UN
ON

1

1

1

H
CM

vO
CM

rH
ON

cl

§

&

.Q

Ph

a)
o

P

cd

H

vO
(A

£
O
o

Hcd

P
o
E-c

cd

TABLE 103.

BOTTLED MILK:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofs

Average Consumption (pts.) With Family Dollar Income of:

Below 3*000
Size of
Family

3,000 •- U,l)99

U,500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3*000

3,000 -- k,h99

U,500 or more

Complete r^

Per
r'er
Family Person

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Perj

.97
(279)

.59

1.21
(180)

.62

1.15
(11)2)

.58

1.08
(601)

.60

1-2

10.58
(279)

6.U5

12.98
(180)

0.69

12.88
(11)2)

6.51

11.8U
(601)

6.5U

3- U

2U .22
(169)

7.17

26.25
(33U)

7.63

25.70
(21*9)

7.1)3

25.61
(752)

7.U7

2.12
(169)

.63

2.35
(33U)

.68

2.14)
(21)9)

.71

2.33
(752)

.68

31*.01
(6U)

5*83

1)0.1)2
(1U6)

7.10

1)0.91) 6.93
(13U)

39.U3
(3UU)

6.80

3.39
(6k)

.58

3.66
(1U6)

•6U

3.62
(13U)

.61

3.59
(3Wt)

.62

18.01
(512)

6.57

25.77
(660)

7.30

26.12
(525)

23.51) 7.05
(1697)

1.65
(512)

.60

2.32
(660)

.66

2i39
(525)

.65

2.lit .61t
(1697)

5 or more

All

7.08

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

229

TABLE 10b*

BOTTLED MILK:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF A © EXPEND ITU RES FOR, BY AHA IF HOUSEWIFE W I T H I N SIZ E QF FAMILY W I THI N SIZ E OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

A ve ra g e C o n su m p tio n ( p t s * ) With F a m ily D o l l a r Incom es o f :

A?e of
oo’isewlfe
i
irv?»r
. ,

Size of
Family

1-2
3 - b
5 or more

l -?
3 - h
5 or more
All

r;ri

1-2

V
3 - h

5 or more
All

■oFsf'1!ot<©
Ban**.

1-2

1U.1U
(51)
27.3k
(188)
kl.78
(78)
26.77
(317)

7.1k

12.08
(77)
7.03 25.36
(12!*)
5.60 39.18
(66))
6.38 2k. 95
(26?)

6 .3?

6.8)4

9.7b
(156)
18,98
(26 )
3k Aik
(7)
11.92
(189)

6.20

6.81

10 .U?

6.38

26*22

7.53
(90)
36 0
6.32
(2k)
23.9k 7.08
(156)

.?

11.03

(79)
23.U2
(52)
32 5b
(32)
19.20
(163)

(27?)
2h.2h

(168)
5 or more

all

6.63

31*.10

(63)
17.95
(503)

6.6b

6.03
5.36

13.3k
(51)
21.96
(2?)
28 ,h0

7.86
7.37
7.65

7.31

6.9?

6.91
5.16

\c/
6,05

16.2?
(75)

13.03
(179)
7.17 29.25
^23b)
5* 8b bo 4)42
(1 )46)
25.80
6.58
(659)

6.75
6,72
7.63
7.10
7.31

Per
Per
F a m ily Person

12.73
(133)
26.92
(365)
39.b5
(159)
2? ®06
(65?)

6.56

7.10

12.23

7.b3

(233)
25.26

11.5k
(1*0 )
26.73
(87)
37.69
(57)
26,82
(18!*)

5.77

13.91
(77)
25.8b
0.1*1}
bb.b6
(7?)
27.30
(290)
11*63

(23)
20,79
(20)
27.bO
(5)
17.09
0*8)
12.86
(lbo)
25.75
(2b8)
bO. 9b
(13b)
26.19
(522)

range
Per
F a m ily Person
C o n p le te

Per

7.79
6.6?
7.06

7.37

7.36
5.82

(317)
ho.17
(170)
2b. 69
(720)

lo.?3

1.05
(b2)
2.33
(90)
3.99
tel*)
2 •2b
(156)

.57

6,70

1.11
(79)

.67

7.32

2,00

.60

7.80
6*96

7.36

6,8b
7.03

3.81

20,88
(68)
31,06

.51
.58

6,28

.53

h-73

(26)
8.26
(?)
1,05

6.b9

11.80
(596)

6*52

7.bb

25.63

.51
.53

(l8?)

7.b7
(750)
391k/ 6,80
i3b3)
23.56 7.05
(1689)

.96
(277)
2,12
(163)
3.1*0
(63)
1.6b
(5o8)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of faroiles from which known date were averaged.)

1.26
(51)
2mkk
(188)
3.72
(78)
2.57
(317)
1.17
(77)
2.26
(12b)
3.61
(66)
2.28

.65
.70
.66

,61

.65

#JV
*63

.58
.60

1.21
(51)
2.02
(22)
2,06
(2)
1*1*6
(75)

1.26
(179)
2.35
(23k)
8.66
0M6)
2.33
(659)

bj500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

1.05

1.13
(133)
2.1*1
(365)
3.61*
(159)
2.1*5

(ho)
2ebb
(87)
3.38
(57)
2*b3
(I8it)
1.22
(77)
2.53

.53
.71
.60
•6U
.62
.73

(Ibl)

.63

3.88
(72->•
2.52
(290)

.6b

.62

1.06
(23)

.53

•6b

1.79

.51

•6b

(26?)

,5b

6,09

7.10

.66

•85

13.76
(312)

6.93

.70

(156)
1 *6?

(lb)

5,39

'Api
-/
P #QQ
(32),
1.76
(163)

.67

6,31

(230 )

5.9b

Below 3>000 3,000 - b>b99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family P e rs o n

C O

55

12.13
0*2)

b>500 or more

($ ) With Family Dollar Incomes oft

0•

All

B e lo w 3,000 3,000 - bjb99
Per
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rso n

A verag e E x p e n d itu re s

,b8
*61

.62
.68
•b6
.66

(20)
2.6?
(5)
1.53
0*8)
1.15
(UiO)
2,bb
(2b8)
3.62
(13b)
2.1*0'
(522)

.68

.37
.

b8

1.17
(233)
2.3k
(317)
3.61
(170)
2.26
(720)
.95
(230)
1.81
(68)
2.96
(lb)
1.23
(312)

.58
.70
.61
.67

.6b
.68
.61
.65
•56
.56
eb5

•5b

.58

1.08
(596)

.60

.71

2.33
(75o)
3 ,6 0

.68

.61

,65

Uk3)
2.1k
(1669)

.62
«6b

230

IDS,

BOTTLED MILK: W E E K 1S C O NSU MPT ION O F A N D E X P END ITU RES FOR, B Y E DUC A T I O N OF ROUSEVJIFE Y.ITHIK S I Z E OF F A M I L Y W I T H I N SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1*50

Average Consumption (Pts.)

Size of
Family

ic&tion of
*pew! t'e

1 -2

•,p than
A School
- 11 .VTS.)

3 -5

p or more
Ail
A School
:yrs.j

1 - 2
3 - 5
5

or more
All

ore i,nan

1-2

0;. 'jCliool
13 or more

3 - b

? 'T S . )

3 or more

Below 3,000
b ,500 or more Comple te Range
3,000-5,^99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Fami ly Person
10.91
(175)

6.53

22.86
(8U)

6.78

32.78
(37)
17. Ok
(296)

dOd"
p
xi

9.29
(60 )
25 *5U
(58)
33.SU
(19)
20.01
(137)

13.05

: *73

12.31

■S. 25

11.51

7.1*0

(52)
26.89

7.82

(67)
26.95

7.86

(-■-79)
2w/«60
(312;

r~i /nrr
i«fo

b 2 .61*

7 .3 6

(±58)
6.UU

6.83

6.52

3 or more
All

(168)

6.02

6.07

36.29

3 - b

5.96

6 .56

7.67

(271)
2U-13

.
5.63

6.65

0.33

25.08
(26 )

10.60

0 .9 8

11.9U
(305)
27.79
(253)
35.50
(1U5)
21.. 21
(7U3)

(bb)
2b .9li
(163)

6.56

1 - 2,

7.20

36.88

1*5.18
(61)
28.35
(271)

7.91*

13.52
(36)

7.15

29 .1*8

b.5U

7.75

(1*2 )
39.73

7.51

(21)
7.oh

(69)

omple t;
44:6

30.11

7.06

1)4.25
(1*3)
2b . 08
(76)

6.19

11.29
(36)

19.02

6.52

(6b.)
23 .kl
(261*)

(7)
All

12.81*
(87)
■2b .21
(133)

25.61
101

( )

7.88

13.05

7.Ill

(177)
26.15
(333)

7.60

U0.U2

7.10

6 .01*

18.12
(502)

u .01

0 . 7 3

(656)

12.88
162

( )

7.27

7.29

26.12

6.11
7.32

c
dO*

(0

J

11.86
(590)
25.56

.93

26.Hi 7.08
(522)

(7U7)
39.52

.63

.58

3.33

.57

1.60
( 296 )

.59

(61*)
2.11
(261*)

.60

/
*:;O
fS \
\O0)
2.23
(58)
3. bb
(lh)

.56

(37)

.65
.60

0 . 6I

.99
(3 6 )

•58

2.15
(26)

.66

7 .80

3.36
(7 )

.61

7.63

l.o7
(09 )

.62

•97
(271)

7 *U5

®ii.3 .

6.61

(166)
3.5,3
(63)'

7.73

(256)
51

.60

(67)
2.15
(133 )

.61

i

7.U6

1 .1 ?

1.79
(137)

(lie)
8.U9

.60

1.00
a?5)
2.03
( 8 b)
3.bb

7 .bo

(639)

25.73
i+0.91*
(13U)

p
c^
Oi
'9^

(ib b )

(21)6 )

(1U6)
25.79

12.22
(32)
25.85
(7U)
1*5.91
(22 )
25.89

7.11

(126)

o.U 2

3b. b3
(63)

(96)
1*1.95
(6 8 )
27.12
(231)

5.97

Below 3,000 3,000 -- 1*,1*99 U,5oo 1or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
TSPer
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

r' ^

•00

(3U3)
23.61 7.05
(1680.)

yures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

1.66
(502)

1.29
(52)
2.1*1
(158)
3-96
(61)
2.5U
(271)

.59

1.28

.65

1.09
(305)

.61

.75

2.22

•65

.53

(293)
3.3b
(11*5)

.57

•6b

1.98

.61

(U3)

2.58
(76)
3.28
(UU)
2.1*3
(163)

(7U3)

.6 6

1.09
(67)

•55

.70

2.1*2

.71

.70
.69

(96)
3.71
(68)
2.U2
(231)

.63
.65

.6b

1.08
(32)

•5b

2,66
(b2)
3.7 6
(21)
2.3b
(101)

.77

2.32

.66

.71

(7b)
b.Ob
(22)

•75

.72

2.30

.66

*39

1.21

.62

►62

(177)
2.3U

1.21

(38)

do
s

.60

(128)

(156)
1*33
(656)

•58

.68

2.bb

•6b

(2U6)
2.55

.71-

.66

(13U)
2.39

.65

(522)

1.10
(106)
2.39
(11*2)
3-83
(50)
2.17
(298)

1.08

•59
.69
•65
.66

.59
.69
.71
.68

.59

(590)

(1U2)

(333)

3.66

1.15

1.07
(17°)
2.38 .
(312)
3-78
(1U8)
2.3U
(639)

.71

2.32
(7U7)
2.32
(31*3)
2.15

(1660)

.68
.68
.6b

231

BOTTLED iilL K : PEEK’ S CONSUMPTION 0? AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF 'BOOK1S FOOD B IL L WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRITE', 1950

A ve ra g e C o n su m p tio n ( P t s . )
.,0 0 0
B elow 3
3 *00 0
S iz e o f
P er
Per
P er”
Per
F a m ily _______ F a m ily Pe r son F a m ily P e rs on

';;eeVrfs Family
M'oaj Bill (;
|)

1-2
3 - 5

10.07
(229)
21.60

0,22
0.79

(67)
5 or more
A ll

i-i

on

1-2
3 - 5
5 or more
A ll

1-2
3 - 5
5 or more

23.20
(2)
12.75
(298)
13.65
(30)
or' •Ov
A'<./
(52)

3.57
0.38

7.30
7.31

30.38

5.61

U9)
23.10
(101)

6.79

A ll

5.26
0.90

0 .8Q
7.58
0 .65
7.31

11.05
(520)
21.93
(19U)

0.23
0 .83

5.80

2o .&!4 5.73

15.53
(125)

5.82

(9)
15.67
(623)

12.90
(33)
23.96
(79)
25.03
(15)
21.18
(126)

p.55
7.03
6.67
6.10

13.UQ
(10£)
23.19
(25U)
80.56
(5i)
22.8)4

O'.56

0.85
7.35
5.71
0 .95

(hio)

7 .7 6

28.6? 7.88

17.35
(37)

29.58

(125)

(118)

8.17

21.7>J 7.96
(282)

6.19

51.61 7.25
(121)

53.38
(117)
35.09
(255)

7.77

hi. 52
(278)
35*06
(597;

7.08

6.55

11,91

0.58

7.39

7.58

6.95

25.72
(730)
39.56

7.10

(338)
78.63

36.53

0.83

35.13
(256)

7 .5 0

0.76

12.96
25.73
(255)
51.16
(133)
2o.55

10.63
(265)

6.55

i3 .ll

3-5

2 5 .5 0

7.22

2o .35

7.65

5 or more

(159)
35.18
(61)

5.92

50.37
(155)

7 .0 9

6.61

2o.Ql

7 .3 6

18.10
(585)

6.05

( 2)

1-2

A ll

r .08

9.85

(86)
•oTsiplete

13.36
(11)

7.32

11.19
(75)
19. Ul
(58)
25.00

19.68
(20)

8.53

3 0 .8 0

13.60
(52)
25.70
(123)
35.07
(18)
23.85
(183)

6.65

7 .7 2

16.85
(6)
27.17
(Uo)
(5o)

.

12.91
(116)
23.73
(79)
29.55
(5i
17.60
(200)

W ith F a m ily D o l l a r Incom es o f :
—
L,5QQ— o r *
more
C o m plete Range
Per
Ter
Per
Per
F a m ily Per so n F a m i ly ? er son

-

3 06*

(169)

(326)

(639)

(128)

(506)

7.66

9.03

Ayer acre E x p e n d itu re s (S ) W ith F a m ily D o l l a r Incom es o f:
---------—
--------------------3blo w 3 ,0 0 0
3 ,0 0 0 - 57599 5 ,5 0 0 o r more C om plete Range
fter
Per
^er
£br
Per
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rs o n

•69
v---;
1.69
(o7)
2.55
(2)
1.12

( 9001

1.59( 30 )
2 .26
(52)
2.86
U9)
2.15
(101)

.55
•59
.38
.56

.80
.65
.53
.63

(562)
T6.83
7.07

(1630)

nires in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data w e r e averagoa.)

.62

1.25
(52)
2.29
(123)
3.10
(18)
2.13
(183)

.62

.65
•59

.62

.08
.59
.65

1.00
(75)
2.55
(58)
2.10
(2)
1.57
(125)
1.15
(33)
2.12
(79) ,
2.25
(15)
1.88
(126)

.51

2.10

.65

.52

(19 U
2.5it
(9)

.55

.63

1.36

.60

(623)

.65

.62

1.28
(105)
2.23
(25U)

• il2

2.78

.52

•58

2.06

.58

.69

1.27
(125)
3.75
(121)
3.08
(256)

.68

3.13
(255)

.68

.97
(265)
2.IB
(159)
3-53
(61)
1.66
f !C r-' \
UAo;

.59

1.22
(169)
2.35
(326)
3.62
(3-55)
2.35
(639)

.63

1.16

.59

.68

2.55
(255)
3.65
(133)
2.53

.63
.59
.61

.89

.73

(20)
1.77
(118)

,89

.65

3.83

.65

(I!?)

.65
.66

(128)

(506)

.63

(Uio)

2,51
(50)
3.75
(50)
2.57
(Oc)

0OO

.65

(51)

>73

.65

•56

.7o

1.2?
(11)

1.77

1.00

(U20)

.80

1.5:

(0)

7.57

1.21
(116)
2.07
(79)
2.75
(5)
1.59
(200)

1.59
(37)
1.59
282
3.78
(278)
3.09
(597)

>83

1.09

.60

( )

►83
.65

.68

(562)
.70

2.35
(730)

.68

.61

3.60

.62

.65

(338)
.65
2,17
(1630)

107* BUTTLED 1-iILKs

OccuoatiOii ol
Head of House
Profuscional,
^anapec'ial and
Oflie:lal

Size of
Family
1-2

3 - U
5 or more
All

Skilled,
Sen!-:skilled
and unskilled

1-2
3 - U
3 or more
All

Clerical,
Sales and kindred. uervice
Unemployed,
and Ketired

1-2
3 - U

5 or more
All

Corrpl'ete
range

1-2
3 - k
t> or more
All

wEi^S CtNSUjdkTlGN OF AND aXPENDITUKuE FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOFSE WITHIN SIZE OF FaMLY WITHXi4 SI IE OF INCG72E ,
M n STn G, SPHINX;, I9SO

Average Consumption (?ts») with Family Dollar Income^ of;
Beloxf 3>000
3>000 - U>U99 U.pQQ or more
Complete iange
Per
Per
Per ~ Per
Per
"per ^ Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
11.11
(28)
22.76
(29)
36.85
(11)
20.25
(68)

5.39

10.03
(189)
23. ?U
(61)
3a. 72
(19)
15.50
(219)

6.35

13.26
(58)
23.85
(75)
33.53
- (28)
21.93
(157)
10.92
(231)
23.68
(l5>)
36.88
(58)
18.50
(1+liit)

0.81
6.63
6.69

7.32
>.95
6.57
6.96
u.79
5.72
6.1*9
b.!*6
0.96
5.96
6.51*

lit.75
(39)
27.71
(76)
U3.71*
(23)
26.70
(136)

7.56
8.20
7.92
8.02

13.09 6.75
(69)
28.12 8.08
(77)
37.1*0 6.70
(33)
25.<tl 7.39
(159)
12. lit
(83)
2U.90
(179)
itO.28
(86)
25.66
(3U8)
13.01
(171)
26.28
(330)
1*0.17
(11*2)
25.82
(61*3)

b*26
7.22
0.98
7.01
6.71
7.61*
7.07
7.29

12.83
(35)
23.57
(103)
1*5.32
(59)
26.75
(217)
11.13
(38)
27.67
(6U)
3U.U0
(8)
21.92
(100)

6.42
6.73
8.23
7.12
5.72
3.04
6.53

7.26

14.69 7.30
(1*6)
27.25 7.92
(89)
37.81* 6.23
(65)
27.73 7.02
(200)
12.93
(139)
25.80
(21*6)
1*0.97
(132)
26.22
(617)

6.51
7.1*6
6.92

7.11

13.Op
(122)
2U.9k
(206 )
U3.92
(93)
25*69
(U21)

6*66

10.63
(236)
26*81
(132)
36.hu
(60)
20.14
(673)
13.09
(183)
25.28
(3u3)
38.34
(17.9)
25.U3
(705)

o» 71

Average Expenditures
ilth Family Dollar
Below 3>000
3*000 - hfk99 U>500 or more
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person
.68

1,01
(28)
1.36
(29)
3.US
(11)
1.77
(68)

.53

6.33

.88
(11*9)

.56

1.30
Ql9)

.67

7.86

2.08

• 6U

2.61

.72

7.2?
7.9k
7.40

0,43

7.04

7.31
0.p2

o.91

12.10 o.sU
(5hi)
23.57 7.u3
(731)
39.56 6.81
(%'*0^
7.06
(160U)

figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known d ata were averaged*)

(51)
3.34
(19)
1.37
(219)
1,33
(6U)
2.15
(75)
3.38
(28)
2.13
(137)
1*00
(231)
2.0?
(135)
3.U8
(68)
1.70
(444)

.36

.62
.67

•56
.58
.70
.61
,61

.63
.59
.61
.59
.60

1.33
(39)
2.50
(7U)
0.96
(23)
2.41
(136)

(77)
3.40
(33)
2.33
(169)

• 7U
.72
.72

.61

.68

1.12
(56)

.56

2.11

.60

(103)
3.97
(59)
2.36
(217)
1.01
(38)
2.1*7
(5U)
3.05
(8)
1.96
(100)

1.11
.57
(83)
2.21
.63
(179)
.63
3.63
(W )
2.30 .6 3
(3U8)

1.31
(U6)
2.83
(89)
3.38
(65)
2.66
(200)

1.21
(171)
2.35
(330)
3.63
(11*2)
2.33
(6U3)

1.15
(139)
2.U5
(21*6)
3.62
(132)
2*1*0
(517)

.62
• 68
•64
♦60

.60

.63
.52
.72
.58
.65

Incomes of:
Complete Range
Per
Per
Family Person
1 .1 6

(122)
2.21
(206)
3.91
(93)
2.28
(1*21)
. 99
(236)
2.38
(182)
3.3U
(60)
1 .8 1

.59
.61*
.71
•66
.58
.70
.59
.63

(1*78)
.6 0

.32
.56
.67
.58
.71
.61
.65

1.23
(183)
2.36
(31*3)
3.53
(179)
2.36
(705)
1.11

.63
.68
.6 0

•61*
.6 0

(5 ia )
2.a2
.67
(731)
3.60
.62
(332)
•61*
2.18
(1601*)

233

G
o
'—
to

03
Ph
(0

© CM

vO

C—

NO

St

O

XA

XA

rH

rH

C—

rH

1
a)
Phb
•H
S s59
<u Pm
00
cd Ph

XA
CM

xa

ca

MD

OO
H

CA

NO

CA
NO

CO

OO

NO

CA
NO

XA
XA

XA
XA

5

rH

CM

ON

-d

-d

o

co

O
r•

XA
NO
•

NO
XA
*

tH

rH

rH

CA
NO
.
CA

NO
XA
•
CA

O
rH

O
rH

rH

c~CA

rH

C—
CO
CM

-d

On
On
On
•n

On
On
-d
•N

On
On
On
•k

On
On
On

CA

CA

_d

-d

NO

1

1

1

1

1

oo

ca

ca

ON

_d

r—
CM
»

NO
CM
.

rH

CM
NO
•

CM
XA
»

rH

rH

CM
NO
.

H

XA
_d
.
rH

rH

tH

co
r—
.
rH

ISXA
•
CM

a
o*

O
CM

CA

•
cA

On
CA
.
CA

CM
IS*
CA

rH
XA
•
CA

NO
CO

CA
_d

O
CA

XA
XA

-d

rH

CM

D—
O
CM

On
NO

On
On
On
•k

On
On

ON

ON
On

ca

-d

_d

ON
NO
*

XA
O
•

-d

•
-d

<A

•
-d

to
<B
• -rl

3 p§
t|

to

ta^->
A hr
a rH
f.

0)

s
o
o

0)

a
H N-'

O

o
o
rH

u
©
a

Co

rH

rH

On

rH

CM

On
•V
CM

1

1

1

o

O
o

•N

rH

-d

O

o
o

CO

O

O

XA
•\
CA

o
o•k

XA

o
o•k

CM

CM

CA

«k

o

O

O
O

o
o•k

XA

.d

_d

«k

a

CM

NO

On
On
On
•k
On

1

o
o
o*k

O

XA

C'-

O

o«k

O

-d

Ph
a)
>
o
■ca
d
O

o
o

CA
-d

tomentioned

Os

variables was available

Sh <0
© Ph

-d
CA
•
cA

n>

O

O

o-

<
Mu
C
flj
<u
-P
4)

rH

Pr
S
o

o

Total number where information with regard

TABLE 108.

CHEESE: PEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY INCOME CLASS
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

& »H
-P (D
Ph

cd

23k

H

rH

t—

CM

CO

CA
rH

rH

CM
rH

•

On
O

•

H
rH

cm

o*

CM

CO
CM

OO
CM

-=r

rH
O
*
CA

H
_=•r

CA

co

•

rH

*

XA

OF FAMILY
FOR, BY SIZE
CHEESEs KffiEKfS CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0
109.
TABLE

CM
CM

OO

CM

CA
-=t

ca

xa

o\
UN

M3

C-~

g—

r-

rH

oo

t5

-=t
XA

rH

-*
CO
,Q
rH
'w '

fA

CA

C
o
03
P
)
C Ph
O
•H P
)
-P
| Ph

0

OO

CO

OO

cn

"LA

CO

CA

-=r
CA

CA

«

XA
CM

•

•

CA

-=3

0
co

CA

a > *
O H
o •d
© 3
cue f it
ctf
P p
> ©
> Ph

0

CM
CO
CO
•

r—
O
•
rH

rH
_=t
*
rH

rH
XA
•
rH

ON
CO
«
rH

CA
O
•
CM

ON
CA
«
CM

CM
O
•
CM

XA
•
CM

rH

<

CO

CM

Ov

•
o
I
—I

XA

C'-

XA
CO
CO

CO

CM

XA

CA

OO

M3

On
MD

to

0)
°3
• -H
S I
(it

rH

XA
XA
XA

On
M3
-ct

On
_=J<A

M3
On
rH

CM
O
rH

O
-CJ

t-rH

4)
U

£ tf
O
P) X4I
0
)
<0
9 S

§
u

•H H

3

S

EC

.

CA

o
CM

CA

XA

NO

OO

On

a

rH

©
bO
£
P
4

)
-P

©
a
a
o
o

rH

235

S3
O
01
u

W ©
Q
c).dt

&

xa

H

01-4

O
CM

-d
vO

OO

co
rH

On
rH

VO

CA

r—

-d■

u

TABLE 110.

CHEESE: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

+> ©
*rl <n
*8

©
Or

W
©

H

bfi

F—

I

XA

©

XA

-d

CA

co

<a

xa

U

© ©

> dr

•
©

o

H

S3
o
ra

s—-* Sh

©

S3 dr
O

co

a-

CA

«A
•>

<A

-d

xa

_d

_d

ON
rH
•
rH

XT>
-= r

XA
vO

CO
XA

vO

O

-d
rH
*
CA

XA
On
•
CA

-d
oo
•
CA

NO
On
•
CM

CA
«
CM

CA
On
•
rH

$

a

On
-d

XA
<a

On
3

U

-P ©
dr
a

o r-l
o •H
© cl
bD d.

nJ

U

JH

On

© ©
> tH
<4

vO
CVI
CM

-d

3

CA

-d

CM

u

©
©
«H -H
° te
© 01
M 2
*4} O
33

•d

g
9

S

(A

XA
XA

vO

I
VO

XA

N*

XA
CM

H

CM

V©
ca

-d

XA

©
>
O

vO

On
CM
•
<A

«s

CM

C"-

CO

0)
bO
a
ctf
U
©
-P
©

rH
vO

XA

vO
vO

I
O

236

TABLE 111.

CHEESE: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

OF HOUSEWIFE

SO
rH

i-4

r—
rl

lA
1A

-d

•

SO

O
CSI

OO

sO

-d
XA

vO

XA

OO
XA

-d
XA

.

rH

rH

a>

rH

£0

r-4
•rH

£

0

CA

CA

CA

-d

CM

_d

ca

XA

O

XA

ox

0
£

CA
-d

to
a>

H

•s

•rt
CO
ON

XA

XA
-d

CM

oo

CM
-d

so

£
'CO
D
13
o

t0)
S
o
■p

v
•H

fn
0
M
0)
(H

CO rH
4)

0 (x<

o

0 Ch

(A

W> .
w

>

<4

o

O

-d
H
•
<A

On
CM
•
CA

XA,
—4
•
CA

OO
rH
•
CA

rH

CA
*
CA

ON
CM
.
CA

£
•H
£
S3

O
‘-P

0

oa

«H CD

o
a 0
■

CA
CM
H

CO

XA
ON
CM

On

NO

XA
CM
CM

XA
O
H

<4

P

ra^
u 0)
« i tH
8> ti
5*5
o m
o 0
4o3 WO
CO'-'

PI
o

XA

rH
rH

rH

CM

oo

On

rH

1

CA

H

Sh
r*
o
•n

(3
0
NO
rH

0
NO
XA
co
•t
H

0)
to
a
0

o

•a
•H
CD

a>
Is
J
H
<D
.O

u

<L>
•P
ax

rH

f
sr

O
O

rH

0
O
Eh
-P

0

237

112.

CHEESE: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

o
co
u

0)
Ph

CM

H

03

M3

tH

H

H
M3

$

XA

-=f

C~■c
j*

CO

c—
XA
•
rH

CO
M3
•
rH

CO
XA
•
rH

XA
XA
•
03

P—
•
CM

Pi

CM

x a

rH

03
H

CM

M3

oo.

oo

XA

sO

rH

rH

-P CD

•H Ph
(0
*

Oh

h0|

CO
Pi
<0

CM

03

_ct

M3

AJ
O-i

M3

CO
CM
•
rH

O
H
•
i—i

rH

•
03

Os
03
•
03

sC

03

co

-rt

HJ
XA

-d

XA

o

Hf

CM

03

CN
03

XA

>

Ac

o

CO
Pi

a>
d Ph
o

sO

XA

CM

CM

03

03

M3

-d

2-

On
CM

-t

58
e
rH

CM
03
•
H

O
i—!
•
rH

sO
_=f
«
tH

XA
C\
•

XA
CO
•

o•

CM

rH

Os
•
03

so

CM
•
03

h—
-=t
•
03

OO
O',
•
CM

rCM
•
CM

CM

rH
XA

XA

_=t

M3

I-1

03

53 fe
apH
CO

d
o
o

CD

hi)

s

CD

H

-5
CD
N
•H ^9
CQ rH
•H
CD
hi)
Cd F=r
Pr
CD PH
> O

rH

CM
H
•
CM

0-

—r
•
03

a;

Os

XA

A*
.

03

<s

CO

«H 0)
S 1

OJ
r
H
CM

H

XA

M3

sO

CM

rH

rH

Os

M3

CM

rH

_d
-d

O

03

rH

H

Os

CO

CO

P*«

d

CD
4)

c
•H

HI

cd
Oh

o

o

TABLE

O

OO

CO

-P

o

O

o

a

•H

10
CO

CD
'H

Q
Ph

Ph

1

CD

Cd rH

Q) O
txO.H
cd <H

C Ch

cd- o

33

3 3

O Pi

•d'S
o

d
d

rH

cd

©

co
0)
id

t

rH
.0

O

Pr

CD

03

d

(0

rH

H

S3

CO

H
3CO
I
o

CO

uo
s

d

d

CD

d
d

<D

H

rH
•rH

CQ
S

&

rH

9?

s
CD
tC
TD

Pi

«H

CD

*rl
d

CD

Pi

•H
-P
CD

PJ

CO
CO
Cd

tH

C
C
d

CD

I
I
S3

iH
i*
O

o

/'•'s £
=€©■ O
N_X ra

£

ca CD

0)

eu

H

H

co
H

vO

•vO
CM
•

P~

vO
-d

.evj

<A

XA

-d

vO

XA

CM
P—

vO

Ov

£

H

"LA

-d

On

.3

-d
••

CM

vO
H

& £
-p 4)

*H (X,
CD

>»
& rH
I
C-

CA

XA

CO

.O n

C-

XA

c—

v£3
(A

<A

<A

ex,

to £
O
£ W
£
03

CVI

«.

£
0
)

fa

££
o
o H
a)
So|
cd
£ £
0>
£ fa

*

1— 1

H

CM
CA
«
H

VO
Cv
«
rH

VO
XA
*
CM

vO
CM
.
CA

o«

CO
r—I

•

c—4

iN Cl

VO
On

CM
O

CA
_d

H

CM

rH

CM

pH

XA
O
.
-d

O
o*
-d

c—
CM
.
XA

CA
vO
*
XA

CA
CA
•
CA

(A
H
CA

CM
CO
H

On

vO

0r~
0-

£

8)
5

•

•

«

•

•aj

O
-d
«
rH

CM
CM
CM

TJ
Q
O '-*>

fa
CD

Ssd
,®0)*H
pQ
iS

s

P-

§3
£

1

o
H

XA
H

O
CM
1

o3

I

I

XA

vO

i—
rH

f

vO
H

XA
CM
1
pH

CM

O
(A
9
vO
CM

XA
CA

0)
>
O

1

OS

pH

vO
CA

CA

CM

£

variables was available

vO

to mentioned

bfl
ctf
£ £
a) 0)

number where information with regard

a>

©

-P
H
I*
O
o

Total

TABLE 113.

CHEESEs WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

238

239

TABLE H U *

CHEESEs

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

______ Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of;
Below 3>000

a i&e of
n'anily

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Per son Family Person

1.22
aao)

.63

.37

1.U2
C33U)

.25

.9 h
(280)

.57

3 - U

1*26
(170)

or more

lJ<8

1-2

m

All

3>000 - U,U99

i.u
(S ih )

•h i

U,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Pe.
Family Person Family Person

1.19
OU2)

.60

.ill

1.68
(250)

2.11
(D46)

.37

1.52
(660)

•U3

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
h 3h99

1.1,500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3 >000

3>000 -

.33
(280)

.20

-U3

•U9(170)

•m

.55
(33 U)

.16

.35

.59
(6U)

.10

.85

•15

•ill

.15

1.08
(602)

.60

Ji9

1.U7
(75U)

2.13
(13U)

.36

2.00
OUU)

1.66
(526)

•U5

l.UU
•U3
(1700)

*h9

.25

(180)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.60
(660)

.Ul
(602)

.23

.65(250)

•19

.57
(75U)

.17

.78

.13

.77

.13

OU2)

(lk 6 )

G ih )

.21*

.h i

OUU)

03h)

.1?

.63
(526)

.1?

♦16
.55
a7oo)

2U0

TABLE 115.

CHEESE:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND E XPE NDITURES FOR, B Y ACE OF H OUSEEYFE W I T H I N SIZ E OF F A M I L Y W I T H I N SIZE CF INCCME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

A ve ra g e C o n sum p tio n

iiffG of
•niisew ife

30 and
■andor

S iz e o f
F a m ily

1-2

3 - h
or more

All

B e lo w 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 - h ,h 9 9
P er
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rs o n

.99
042)
1.38
(91)
l.h3

.25

(2m )
1.17

*35

.5h

.3h

(157)
1 - 2
3 - h
or more

All
56 and

1-2

OV^T*
3 - h

or more

All

1.33
(79)
1.38
(52)
1.5?
(32)
1.39
(163)

.73
(157)
1.20
(26)
l.h9
(7)
.82

.80
.hi
.27
•h6
,h6
(51
.38
.23
.h2

(190)

Oorf’Tjlete

1-2
3 - h
or more

All

( l b s . ) W ith F a m ily D o l l a r Incom es o f :

,9h
(278)

.57

1.25
(169)
i.5o
(63)
1.11
(5io)

.37

.82
(51)
1.29
(188)
2.09
(78)
l.hl
(31?)

1.28
(7?)
1.65
(12k)
2.1?
(66)
1.67
(26?)
1.56
(51)
a . 23

'(22)
1.35
(2)
l.h-6
(75)
1.23

.la

.3 ?
.37

.38
.67

.h8
.38
.h7

.80
.39
•><
c.>

.61

.63

(179)
.26

.III

1.52

(33h)
2.11
(1^6)
1.52
(659)

.la
.37

•h3

Average E x p e n d itu r e s

($ ) W ith F a m ily Dollar Incomes of:

h ,5 0 0 o r more
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n

C om plete ra n ge
Per
Per*
F a m ily P e rso n

B e lo w 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 - h , h 99
Per
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n Family P e rs o n

.80
(hO)
1.55
(37)
1.89
(57)
1.U9
(l8h)

.ho

.87(133)
1.32
(366 )
1.92
(159)

.37
(h?)
•h7

•1.36
(11)
1.71
(iia)
2.38
(72)
1.78
(290)

.69

•h5
.33
.39

1.36

.55
*38

.39

(233)
1*63
(31?)
2.15

.h8

(170)
1.65

.1x9

•?h
•36

.65

1.19
(lho)
1.68
(2h9)
2.13
(13h)
1.67
(523)

.60

.97

,7?

.h?

.17
,51

.U9

3.6
.h5

.10
.lh

a8
(79)
.A3

.23
,16

(52)

y
o *i

.59
(32)

.10

«h /

Ji?
(163)

•16

,?9

.18

.57

(231)
.59

.59
(2U)
•U6
(157)

3(720)

1.29
(23)
2.06
(21)
1.20
(5)
1.61
(h-9)

•lh

(91)

(658)
1.32

.20

(157)

l»i!
./
(69)

•h5

1.37
ah)
1.10
(31U)

.21

.61

.09

.h9

(7)
'•32

,16

1*09
(597)
1.57
(752)

*60

,33

.53

(278)
•h9

2,01
(3h3)
uhh
(1692)

.35

a69)
rTc
• ,9 /

«hh

•lh

(?6)

(190)

♦h3

(63)
0 141
(510)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaaed.)

.20

.33
(5D
.50
(188)
.87
(78)
•56
(317)

.17

.51
(77)
.63
(12U)
.83
(66)
.6)4
(26?)

.27

.63
(51)
.51
(22)
.51
<2^
N i
.59
(75)

,32

.1)9

.25

ah
.15

.15

•18
ah
.18

.16
.09
.2h

(179)
ah
.10

.15

.55

.16

(33h)
.85
(lh6)

.15

.60

.17

(659)

h ,5 0 0 or more
Per
Per
Family P e rs o n

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

•3h
0»o)
.61
(87)
.65
(57)
.57
(18li)

-•35
(133)
.52
(366)
.75
(159)
.5h
(658)

.18

•U7
(233)
.63
(317)
.81
(170)
•62
(720)

.26

.17

.18
.12
.15

•53
(77)
.66
(lhl>
.90
(72)
.68
(290)

.27

.51
(23)
.70
(21)
.52
(5)
.60
049)

,26

•h7
(lho)
.65
(2h9)
.78
(13h)
.63
(523)

•2h

.19
.15
.18

.20
.07

.19

.19
a3
.17

.39
(231)
•5h
(69)
.56
ah)
•h3
(31h)
.hi
(597)
.57
(152)
.77
(3h3)
•55
(1692)

.15
•13
.15

.18
.lh
.18

.23
.17

.09
.19
.23
.17
.13
.16

2UX

116.

on of
,fe
.an
hool
yrs.)

CHEESE:

YiESK'S C ON SUM PTI ON OF AND EX P E N D I T U R E S FOR, B Y E D U C A T I O N -OF BODBIYvIi ; PITKIN SIZE 07 FAMILY 1IITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of
Family
1-2
3 - 6
5 or more

All

cool

1 -2

*i
3 - 5

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar incomes ol‘:
BeloTf 3,000
3,000 - 6,699 65,500 or more. Complete Range
Rsr
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Fkmily Person Family Person Pamilv Person Family Perse
.78
(173)
1.32
(8)
4)
1.59
(36)
1.03
(293)

•hi

1.13
(87)

.5?

1.33
(U3)

.07

.39

1.60

.Ill

1 .6 6

.58

.35

(76)
1..85
(55)

.30

1.62

.53

1.03
(60)
1.03

1.01
(67)

1.75

(133)
.2 ?

2.03

.38

(65)
1 •66
(266)

.ol

.67

1.16

•60

.30

(52)
x.39
(158)

.60

2.21
(61)

.39

1.53
(271)

.52

1.55
(38)
1.56
(U2)

.81

1.36
(32)

.69

•1|6

1.63

.56

1.55
(106)
1.61

2.36
(22 )

*55

(153;
/.15

1.69
(129 )

.59

1.19
(1U2 J
1.68

.60

(59)
3 or more

All
.an
h.00l
more

1 - 2

3 - 6
3 or more

.21

1.19
(15)
1.03
(137)

•36

1.68

n
•40

(36)
1.35
(26 )
1.79

.i|8
.32

(9)

All
■f;

1 -2
3-/4
5 or more

All

1.63
(71)

.72

.93
(271 )
1.26

.58
.37

(169)
1.30
(63)

.26

1.12

.61

(503)

.96
(305)
1 .55
r90 Jj
0\

.63
1.23
(177)
1 •6 ^- ..Ul
(333)
2.11
.37
(1U6 )
1.52
.53
(656 )

.15

.62

.10

1.32
(752)

«39

*15

.51

1.06

.39

*55

(179)
1.53

.52

2.25
(68 )

.38

(813)
2.10

Oc

1.68

.5-5

•59

(247)
2.13
(13U)

.36

1 .6 6

.55

(523)

1.86

\r5?)

(75)
.51

.18

(36)
.50
(295)

(231)

1.67
(101 )

.30
(175)
*52
(85)

*31

(96)

.39

.62

(155)

(163)

2.08
(21 )

.53

/verage Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofi
BsIovj 3 7 ^ * 3,000 - 5,699 6,500 or more Compete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ter
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

1.5c
(639)

•5i
Ojs
*<
£'
.57

*4^-

(52)
.X0X /
(301 )

*51:-

1.09
f

*O'■

1.57
(759)
2.01

.53
-5
,—'
*

(35-3)
*5c
1 *55
(1662 \
/

ures in parentheses indi cat e number of f a mil ies from w h i c h k n o w n data w e r e a v e r a g e d . ;

•3 (
(60)
1,
—
* LL
4(59)
.57
(18)
*LlO
(137;

.25

•55
(87 )
.5?
(133)
*79
(65)
.58
(285)

.22

.62

.22

.17
.15
.16

(52)
.12

.51
(158 )

*15

.08

*83
(61 )
*56

.15

.

li|

.15

*13
.17

.20

.17

.66

.18

.51
(71)

*

.15

.22

.17

.62
(52)
1.05
(21 )

.10

.20

.61

.17

.76
(101 )

*23

•69
(177)

nk

•55

.66

.16

(75)
.91
(22 )

*38

.16

.39
(67)
.71
(96 )
.79
(66 )

.11

.18

.71
(38)

(271)
*69
(169)
.59
(63)
-6?
Kg03 )

.18

.26

.25

O,
• C.\J

.61

(76)
.70
(55)
.62
(163)

*52
(32)

.52
(35 )
•5; 4
(26;
*53
(9)

A.

.27

(231)

(271)

•17

.56
(63)

(129 )
.67 .

.25

(162)
.16

(333)
.15
.85
(156 )
.60
*17
(656 )

.65
(267)
.78
(136 )
.63

(523)

.19
.13

.17

.37
(305)
.57
(293)
.72
(156)
.52
(752)

.21

.39
(179)
.55
(313)
.77
(167)
•55
(639)

.22

.17
.12

.15

.16

.13
.16

.29
.55
(106 )
.60
.17
(163)
.18
.97
(52)
.21
.65
(301)
.23
(590)
.57 . .17
(769)
.13
.77
(363)
.56
.17
(1682 )

Jil

PnDLF 117.

FJ&.LIv
//T
-\
WJ
under

CHEESE: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF M D EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE; OF WEEK’S FOOD BILL LITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950
' *

Size of
Family
1 - 2
3 - U
5 or more

All

20

1 - 2
3 - U
5 or more

All

over

1- 2
3 - U

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Below 3,000 3,uQQ~— U,li99
Per
Per
Per
Per""
Family Person Familv Person
.96
(230)
1.07
(68)
2.50
(2)
1.00
(300)

.92
(30)
1 .5.3
(52;
1.29
(19)
1.25
(101)
1.18
(6)
1.U3

.59

(116)
•3U

1.32

.38

(79)
2.90
(5)

All

ete

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more

All

.60
.
•Ul
.52

.50

1.27
(200)

.50

•U9

1.22

.61

.UO
•2U
.37

.59
•Ul

(U2)
1.25
(123)
l.°2
(18 )
1.29
(183)
1.68
(n)
1.69

.37
.33

.Uo

.97
•U6

to)

(Uo)
5 or more

1.16

1.56
(UO)
l.U?
(86)

•26

.96
(2 06 )
1.28
(159)
1.50
(62)
1.13
CU87)

.58

.33

2 .1U
. (121 )

.37

1.90

•U2

(256)

.38
.26
.Ul-

1.21
(169)
1.U3
(326)
2.11
(lUU)
1.53
(639)

.62
.Ul
*37
•U3

With Family Dollar incomes of; Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofg
lt,50o or more Complete Range
Below 3>000 3,000 - UjU99 ‘ U,50Q or more Complete fenge
Per
Per
^r~~ '~Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per - Per
Family Ferson Family Person.
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
1.01
(75)
1.39
(U8)
1.10
^2)
1.21
(125^
1.15
63)
107
(79)
1.8U
(lU)
1.U9
(126)
1.72
(203
1.87
(119)
2.20
(117)
2.01
(256)
1.21
(128)
1.68
(2U6)
2.15
. (133)
1.68
(50?)

.51

1.02
(U21)

*Ed

•U3

1.25
11953
2 .U1

.39

.22

•U3

(9)
•U8

1.13'
(625)

.50

.58

l.li
(105)
4 .39
(25U)
'1.59
(519
-L.3U
(U10 )

.57

•U6.

*
•3U •
•U6

.86
.52
.37

•UU

.j 1
-U9'
•37
.U5

1.6 2
(37;
1 »71*J
2
(283)
2 .Ou
(2?6)
1.69
(596)
1.09
(533)
l.US
(73D
2.01
(339)
1.U6
(1633)

•Ul
.30
.Ul

.33
(230)
.38
(68)
1.29
(2 )
•35
(300)
,39.
^.30)
' .5U
(52)
*Ah
(19)
.30
(101)

.2 j
.12
.20
.18

.21
.15
.10
.15

.26

.U9

•6U

.18

.35

(Uo;
.57

.10

•U2

(Uo;
.60

.13

(86)

»o0

•3U
(266)
.5°
(159)

.21

.35

.59

.10

.53

(62)
.U2
(U3?)

•15

•U3

miress in parentheses indicate number of famil ies f ro m w h i c h kno wn data w e r e averaged.)

,5°.

•2lt
.16
.20
.20

.25 •

.09

*1.1L'
•(123V
.73
(18)
.51
(183 V
.51*
(11 )
•6U
(12UV
.85 N
(121)
•78. '
(256;
48
(169)
•55
(326)
.85
.(lilt)

.60
(639)

.U6
(75)
.53
(U8)
.Uo
(2>
•U8
(125)

•23
.17
.08
.19

•U5
v33)

.-23

.iu

.60

.18

.1U

(79)
.73
du)

.1U

ihz)

.52
(6)

.Gk

•U7
(116)
.52
(79)
l.lU
(5)
.50
(200)

.16
.31

.57
(126)

.18

,63

.32

(20 )
.18
.15

.16

.25
*
.16
.15
.17

.72
(119)
,80
(117)
.75
(256)
.U8
(128 )
.65
(2U6)
.78
(133)
•6U
(507)

.20
.13
.16

.2U
.19
.13
.17

.39
(U21)
•U7
(195)
1.01 ;
(9)
•U3
(625)

.22

45
(105)
.53
(251t)
.66
(51)
.53
(Uio)

.23

.15
.18
.19

.15
.12

.16

.59
(37)

.31

.67

.19

(283)
.79
( 278)
.72
(598)

.13
.16

.Ul
.23
(563)
.57
.17
(731)
.77
.13
(339)
.56
■.17
(1633)

TCCLb 118.

CHEESE: 'WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, B Y OCC UrA TIO N OF H A D OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSINC-, SPRING, 1950

O cc up a t i o n o f
head of House

Size of
Family

P r o fe s s io n a l,

1-2

m a n a g e ria l &

Officii.

3 - U
5 or more
All

Skilled,

1-2

S e n d - s k ille d
■ u n s k ille d

3 - It
5 or more
All

Clerical,
sales 0. kin
urt-d,
Service,
Unemployed
Retired

1-2
3 - h
3 or more
All

Complete
ran re

1-2
3- It
5 or more
All

Average Consumpti on (lbs.) IffiLthFamily Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000
3 j00Q - I*,1*99 l*j500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
1.13
(28)
1.18
(29)
2.1*1
(ID
1.36
(68)
.3?
(51*)
1.23
(75)
1.11
(28)
1.08
(157)
1.07
(150)
1.21
(52)
1.61*
(19)
1.15
(221)
1.03
(232)
1.21
(156)
1.53
(58)
1.16
(1*1*6)

.60
.35
•1*3

.1*1*
.1*6
.35
.19
.32

.68
.37
.27
.1*9

.61
.36
.26
.1*1

1.1*8
(39)
1.51
(71*)
1.81
(23)
1.55
(136)

.76

.1*5
.33

.1*7

1.00
(83)
1.33
(179)
2.22
(86)
1.1*7
(31*8)

.52

1.1*1
(1*9)
1.59
(77)
2.05
(33)
1.63
(159)

.73

1.23
(171)
1.1*3
(330)
2.11
(11*2)
1.53
(61*3)

.39
.38
.1*1

.1*6
.37
.1*7

.63
.1*2
.37
.1*3

1.30
(55)
1.77
(101*)
2.11*
(59)
1.75
(218)

.65
.51
.37
.1*7

1.39
(1*6)
1.66
(89)
2.17 ■
(65)
1.76
(200)

.70

.83
(38)
1.61
(51*)
2.01*
(8)
1.35
(100)

.1*3

.1*8
.36
•1*1*

.1*7
.39
.1*5

1.20 -.60
(139)
.1*9
1.69
(21*7)
2.15
.37
(132>
.1*6
1.68
(518)

1.32
(122)
1.59
(2101)
2.09
(93)
1.62
0*22)

.6?

1.06
(183)
1.39
(3U3)
2.03
(179)
1.1*7
(705)

Oi

1.10.
(237)
1.1*9
(183)
1.92
(60)
1.35
(1*60)

Arerage Expenditures ($)WLth Family Dollar Incomes of
B5low^370Q0
"3,000 2“"]*,1*99 Ii.,500 or more
rtr
Ter
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ter
bam;ily
Person Family Person Family Person Family Persen

.1*6
.36
*1*0

.1*0
•51+
.1*0

*61*
.1*1*

.3U
h"?
•U
!

l.ll*
(51*2)
.1*3
1.1*7
(733)
1.78
.31
(332)
1.1*8
.1*1*
(1607)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data w e r e avera ged .)

.1*7
(2B‘)
.1*2
(29)
.93
(11)
.52
(68)

.25

.37
(5U)
.52
(75)
.**0
(28)
.1*5
(157)

.19

.31*
(150)
•1*6
(52)
•o2
(19)
.39
(221)

.22

.36
(232)
.U8
(156)
.60
(58)
.1*3.
(1*1*6)

.21

.13
.16
.17

.15
.08
.13

.11*
.10
.17

.11*
.10
.15

.53
(39)
.57
(71*)
.79
(23)
.60
(136)

.27

•39
(83)
•50
(179)
.59
(86)
.57
(3U8)

.20

.62
(1*9)
.6*
(77)
.77
(33)
.66
(159)
.1*9
(171)
.55
(330)
.81*
(11*2)
.60
(61*3)

.17
.11*
.18

.11*
.15
.16

.32
.18
.11*
.19

.25
.16
.15
.17

.51
(55)
.69
(101*)
.so
(59)
.68
(218)

.26

.58
(i.6)
•65
(89)
•77
■(65)
.67
(200)

.29

.29
(38)
.57
(5U)
.82
(8)
.*8
(100)

.15

.1*7
(139)
.65
(2U7)
•79
(132)
.6)4
(518)

•2U

.20
•Ul

.18

.19
.13
•17

.17
.16
.16

.19
.13

.17

.51
(122)
.61
(207)
.81 .
(93)
.62 .
(U22)

,26

•U3
(183)
•5U
(3U3)
.78
(179)
.57
(705)

.22

.39
(237)
.57
(183)
.73
(60)
•50
(ItSO)

.23

•U3
(5U2)
.57
(733)
.78
(332)
.57
(1607)

.23

.18
.lU
.18

.16
•13.
.16

.17
•13
.17

.17
•I3
.IT

%
<

ALL DAIRY
TABLE 119.

OO

CM

On

ON

co

VO
NO
•
rH

UN
#
CM

o

~=f
t—
•
CM

CO
co
•
CM

ON
_rt
•
ON

erH
•
St

CO
P'«
rH

NO
UN
•
CM

On
ON
•
CM

ON
CM
•
ON

rH
.UT
»

UN
CO

On
rH

CO
CM
rH

rH
UN
rH

On
On
ON
«

ON
ON
-C t
«N

rH

CO

CO -—*

° &
a
o
o

c '

o
o
o•V
f—l

IH

a)
Tj

a

H

O

vO

O

ON

rH

O

NO

o

St

On
CO
•
ON

On
On
•
ON

C"CO
•
ON

On
on
*
St

NO
ON
•
St

NO
w4
.
ON

st
o•
ON

st
UN
.
ON

ON
MD
•
ON

0UN
•
ON

ON
O
•
st

ON
rH
*
St

St
ON
»
ON

O
CO
CM

Pt

o
CM

CM
NO
rH

0ON
rH

H
CO
CM

CM
NO

CO
ON

On
ON
ON
•t

ON
ON
-C t­
rl

ON
ON
On
•N

On
On
On

On
On
On

On
ON
On

o
>
o

Q)
fctO

CM

CM

ON

ON

On
On
st
*1
St

St

vO

On

1

1

1

1

1

0)

8
o«v

o
o
o•»

I
O
o

1

'S
si

rH

CM

on

On

UN
•v
CM

CM

O

on

1

O*N
ON

rH

O
o
UN

O
O

ON

St

•*

O

•»

O
O

•N

UN
-C t

o
o
o

•N
UN

•V

J
o

o
o

•N
P-

u

o
o
o

*1

o

rH

o

«lP—
NO
NO

cs
k

number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

©
W>
0$
b

ON
On

p

6)
H
a
a

o
o

Total

a
8
xn
o> &
(U
u
■p
0)
(U
i©
&

PRODUCTS: WEEK‘S EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY FAMILY

INCOME

CLASS

2hh

2U5

o

CO

..—^
ft

ft

<A
»

CM

vO
CM
CM

rH
CA

rA

«

ca

CM
O
•
XA

H
XA
•
XA

X A ^C n
CO
(A
ft
»
XA
M3

•
NO

" 3
ON
ft
r—

3

•
CA

variables was

in­
ch

co
c<•-O

ca

CM

XA

ca

CO

VO

On

ft
o

O
CA
•
ca

H

On

NO

/*■
ACA
XA

NO

3

ON

CA
OA

_ct
On
rH

CM

o

rH

o

-d-

t*~

XA

p—

H

tA

CO
CA
CO

rH

TABLE

120.

ALL DAIRY

CA
O
•
rH

<D
b
a

fl)
t
rtf

sh

6)
-p
0)
rH
O.
r
o
o

o
CM

CA

XA

NO

CO

available

ft

On

o

with regard to mentioned

CO

CM
c—

information

PRODUCTSs "WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£0

o

O
CO

number where

CM
ON
•

Total

ca

2li6

01
a>
to P
L.
0
u
u as
U

co

On

CA

ON

o

a

C~
O
•

rH
O

On
On
•
CA

cA

rH

o

O

CN-

rH
■4

•
CNJ

•
CNI

ON

Oh

1a>
m?£
a
>D
tu

rl

Cd

& Ph
CD
5 Oh

fA

•
XT

C—
CM
•
CA

-f

rH

•
CA

■s
r
H
•H

£

ns

I
CO
CD

H

■s
t

CO
>

n

CO H

cflfel
a>

-4
H
•
CA

LA
On
•
CA

NO
•
CA

CO

LA
ON
•
CNI

CA
Xj
•
CM

CM
On
•
rH

ON
CM
•
CA

$

o
3
c

CD

O

•P
T3

&
txo
CD
S-4
si
-p

ALL DAIRY

PRODUCTS: WEEK'S EXPENDITURES
LANS IN G, fFRING, 1950

FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE

g

CM
CM

CNJ
NO
-=r

CA
CA
X*

On
CA
CA

LA
CM
CM

CA
xj
rH

cd

NO
CM
CO
•»
rH

t

c

o

*
B
u

121.

o

•H

CD

TABLE

CD

M

V
»rl

O

v

(h
©
’S
c
3

g

n
bD 0
<«J O
K

Ti
S3

*h
LA

la

CA

LA

LA
NO

NO
Xt

LA

(0

LA
CM

NO

CNI

NO
CA

NO

O
a
Hi
NO
NO

9

Sh
CD

■P
CD
H
g
O
O

9

X!

SH
CD
o
rH

C0

-P
O
Eh
CCS

TABLE 122.

ALL DAIRY

PRODUCTSj WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$Q

OF HOUSEWIFE

2kl

§
01
£
u 0)
0) px<

CO
CO
•

CA
CK
•

u

CM
-= f
•
•
rH • rH

o

O

CM
CM
•
rH

co

o.

rH

_=t
•
rH

O

-p

•H XU
01

$
w
0
1
5b]
cs
£

rH
1A
VO
.
CM

-£ •
CN
.
CM

C*CA
.
CA

rH

vO
*
CA

CO
CO
•
CA

vO
XA
•
CA

CA
P t
•
CA

■8
•H
«S
>

r—I
as

w
S

I

CO

01
rH
X>
♦H

rH
O

•
CA

XA

rH

•
CA

rH

CA
*
CA

vO
_ rt
«
CA

CO

rH

.
CA

rH

CA
•
CA

CO
CM
•
CA

>
TO
01
£
0
‘
•P

£
01
s
o

•p

xf
£
cd
bO

s
(0
«H 01
O -H
rH
• *iH
o g
Cd
Pt)

On

rH
H

O
On
CM

CO
CK
CA

o-

ao
vO

CM

CM
O

H

RS

CA
rH

co

-p
£
£
O
•H
13
0

CO-—s
*4 0)
CCJ «H

H

o_
O

CO

o 3
o sc
co'—
S3 O

I

O

XA

rH

rH
co

I
ON

£
01
!>
0

CM

rH

ON
rH

1
vO

0
1
b0
g
£
01
-p
01

rH

f
O

*rl

01
£
1£
£
01
rQ
rH

as

P

o
&H
at

0

ca

p

rH
•
rH

905
•
rH

xa

CO
•
CA

(0 a)
<D P h
e.
u Pi
■p 0
•r» Ph
TP
d

c—
0

•

0

vO
O
•
1— 1

CO
On
•

CA
CO
•

OO
ca

_d
On
•

CM
•
CA

CA
Cv
•
CA

_d
XA
•
CA

rH
O'.
•
CM

ON
CM
•
CA

vO
o\
•

H

•
rH

_=t
CO
•
O'I

P~
co
•
CM

oCA
•
CA

CM
-=t
■•
CA

vQ
XA
•
<A

-=r
c»•
CM

XA
rH
•
CA

O

O
•
CA

CA
vO
•
(A

H
XA
•
CA

On

•
CA

VO
O
CM

OXA
CM

mD

1— 1

XA
rH

rH
rH

Oo\

CM
vO
CM

CM
CA
_d

ON
_P

Ov
-d

•
rH

Ov
On
•

1— t
CO
•

CA
O
•
I-1

(A
H
•
CM

1— 1
rH
«
CM

vO
A*
CM

O

t—
CM
•
CM

-4
H
•
CM

rH
-A
•
CA

O
CA
.
•
(A

CO
O
rH

-d
On

r—
rH

cd
CO
CA
CO

0

Pi

X
pa H
•H

0

ClO
cd (i.

U

V
CA

d
> (1)
< Pi

variables was available

d
co

0

N
•rH fc>»
CO H
•H
0 g
bO (u
0 Ix,
Pi
a) <+H
l> O

ca

•
CM

<

CO
<H 03

O

n .
•
O a
S3 co

1— 1

a
0

•H
-P
cd
a.
S*

0
0
0

rH
Cd
d
O
•H
10
03
03
«H
O

P.

FP

T)
PJ
<xJ
rH rH
cd cd
•H >H
S O
<13 -H
W>< H
cd <H
PJ O
cd

3

'd
d
cd
TP
H
a>
cd P,
0 tj
•H d
Pi •rH
' U> X
rH
a

Tp
0)
Pi
tP
d
•rH

03
xJ

X
TP
d
cd
a>
rH
cd
CO

(13
rH

X
m
1

CO

sj
03
CO

a>
0

01

a>
•H

0

rH
rH
•H
•H
>
Pi

0

CO

H
•rl
P4

BP

tj

TJ

0
1— 1
rH
•H
03
P!

t=>

TP
03
O

H

CX,
S
03
d

t=>

X)
03
Pi
•rH
•P
03
ffi

*H
(0
CO
cd
r-H
O
d
d>

cd

u
0
£
0

d

X

d
F3

-p
03
rH

9*
id

0
0

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

TABLE 123.

ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS: WEEK’S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0

OF HOUSE

218

o

fit

-d-

x rv

O

so

c*o

CM

CM
C—
.
CM

rH
-C f
.

so

5A

OS

UA

rH

so

Os

«

o#

Os
Os

-=f
O

T-f \

ca

CM
*
CA

CM
.

-d

rH

C"CSi
» CA

so

.
CM

O
A)
CM

CA
O
_=J

sO
CM
-d

CO

■■ *

-ao

O

•

_

H
r—I

-=f
o

CM
•

sO
•

CO'

O
.
■ur\

•
T-A

H
t—
•
_=)

c—
CM
•
T-T\

OS
C—
1—i

Os

SO

CA
sO
*
U \

CA

CA
CA
*
CA

CO

«H <D
• -H
O g

S c3

■of
o
O
(£ #5=
05
H
0) *H
P»

o

CA

C-

so

0)
sO
_=r

<D
til)

U
CD
d

U

0)

UN

'H
rt
x rv

I
O

rH
rH

O
CM
MD
rH

lA
CM
H

CM

>
O

o
CA

1A
CA

1

1

sO
CM

i—1
CA

£

CO

U
<D
CD

d
£

H

CA

O

cti
sO

I

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

TABLE 121)..

ALL DAIRY

PRODUCTS: "WEEK’S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF "WEEK’S FOOD BILL,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

2b$

250

TABLE 125.

ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS:

WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
UNSING, SPRING, 1950

Average expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofs
Below 3,000
Per
Per
Family Person

3,000 - k,U99
Per
Per Family Person

Uj500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

1-2

1.69
(27U)

1.03

2.57
(175)

1.32

2.26
(11*0)

l.ll*

2.09
(589)

1.15

3 - h

3.12
(16W

•93

3.65
(325)

1.06

1*.09
(21*5)

1.18

3.68
(731*)

1.07

U.66
(6W

.80

5.61
(H*6)

.99

5.1*5
(133)

.92

5.37
(31*3)

.93

2.53
(502)

.92

3.80
(61*6)

1.07

3.95
(518)

1.07

Size of Family

5 or more

All

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

Complete range

3.1*6
1.01*
(1666)

251

TABLE 126.

Age of
Housewife
35 and under

ALL M I R Y PRODUCTS:

Size of
Family
1 -2
3 - U

5 or more
All

36 - 55

1 - 2
3 - U
5 or more

All

56 and over

1 - 2
3 - U
5 or more

All
Complete
Range

1 - 2
3 - U

5 or more
All

WEEK’S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar
Below 3,000
U,500 or more
3,000 ■• 1*,1*99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person
Family Person
Family Person
.95

1.73
fti)
3.32
(89)

.96

3.16

.90

(21*)
3.18
(lSU)

•91*

2.02
(77)
3.03
0*9)
U .26
(32)
2.80
(158)

1.22

1.1*8
(15U)
2.55
(25)
U.88
(7)
1.76
(186)

.91*

.92
.73
.93

.81
.76
.89

1.6?
1.02
(272)
3.12
.93
(163)
.80
U.67
(63)
.92
3.53
(1*98)

2.11
(50)
3.6?
(187)
5.61
(78)
3.91
(315)

1.07
1.06
.99
l.OU

2.36
(75)
3.71
(119)
5.63
(66)
3.81
(260)

1.2k

3.1*3
0*9)
3.05
(19)
5.08
(2)
3.37
(70)

1.75

2.59
(171*)
3.65
(325)
3.61
(11*6)
3.81
(61*5)

1.3U

1.07
.98

1.06

.95
.92
l.Uo

1.06
.99
1.07

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

1.90
(1*0 )
3.98
(87)
lt.97
(56)
3.83
(183)

.95
1.16
.88

Incomes of:

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person
1.92
(131)

3.66
(363)
5.32

.99
1.06
.91*

1.01

(158)
3.71
(652)

1.01

2.1*8
(76)
t*.26
(137)
5.87
(72)
1*.20
(285)

1.27

2.29

1.21*

2.25
(22)
3.51
(20)
1+.75
(5)
3.05
(1*7)

1.13

2.28
(138)
l*.io
(21*1*)
5.1*5
(135)
3.96
(515)

1.15

1.23
.97
1.13

1.00
.66
.96

1.19
.93
1.07

(228)
3.85
(305)
5.1*7
(170)
3.71*
(703)
1.98
(225)
3.00
(6!*)
1*.86
(11*)
2.33
(303)

1.12
.93
1.07

1.16
.91

*7k
1.03

2.09
1.15
(581*)
3.68
1.07
(732)
5.38
.93
(31*2)
l.OU
3.1*7
(1658)

252

TABLE 127.

ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS:

WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
UNSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Education of
Housewife

Size of
Family

Less than
High School
(0 - 11 years)

1-2
3 - h

All

High School
(12 years)

1-2
3 - k

All
More than
High School
(13 or more
years)

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Complete
Range

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

il,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

1.61*
(172)
2.96
(80)
h.63
(37)
2.39
(289)

2.18
(83)
3.52
(128)
5.21*
(61*)
3.51
(275)

1.21*

2.1*3
1.23
(1*3)
lull
1.19
(76)
5.01*
.82
(1*1*)
3.92
1.03
(163)

1.90
(298)
3.52
(281*)
5.02
(H*5)
3.16
(727)

1.06

2.27
(52)
3.65
(155)

1.17

1.10

6,06

1.06

.91*

(60)
3.92
(267)

1.07

2.02
(176)
3.71*
(308)
5.62
(11*7)
3.70
(631)

1.11

.83

2.16
(65)
1*.20
(96)
5.H8
(68)
1*.00
(229)
2.26
(32)
3.95
(70)
6.21
(21)
3.90
(123)

1.13

2.80
(10lt)
3.85
(137)
5.85
0*9)
3.81
(290)

1.50

2.26
(11*0)
U.10
(21*2)
5.1*5
(133)
3.95
(515)

1.11*

.98
.88
.81
.90

1.61*
(59)
3.21
(57)
U.7U
(19)
2.71*
(135)

1.06

2.0?

1.21

(35)
3.36
(26)
5.06
(7)
2.87
(68)
1.69
(266)
3.11
(163)
U.71
(63)
2.55
0*92)

.93

1.03
.91
1.06
1.02
.92
.83
.93

3.96
(37)
3.99
(Id)
5.76
(21)
I*.36
(99)
2.59
(172)
3.61*
(321*)
5.65
(H*5)
3.81
(61*1)

1.03
.90
.99

1.06

2.10
1.15
1.09
1.31*

1.31*
1.06
.99
1.07

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

1.22
.93
1.07

1.13
1.11*.
1.13

1.18
.98
1.10

1.03

.97

1.09
c*On
.

5 or more

3>000 - U,h99
Per
Per
Family Person

7
5?
CO
•

5 or more

Below 3*000
Per
Per
FamilyPerson

1.05

1.12
1.09
1.19

2.10
1.16
(578)
3.68
1.07
(729)
.96
5.1*0
(3l*i)
I.0I4
3.1*8
(161*8)

253

TABLE 128.

ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS*.

WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000

3,000 -• U,U99

1*,500 or more

Complete range

Week’s Family
Food Bill ($)

Size of
Family

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

15 and under

1 -2

1.61
(226)

.99

2.69
(113)

1.39

2.00

1.02

1.98

3 - h

2.69
(65)
3.99

.85

3.26

1.01

(75)
3.7U

1.17

3.19

.71*

(us)
2.50
(2)
2.68

5 or more

.61

(2)
All

16 - 20

1 - 2
3 - h
5> or more
All

21 and over

1 - 2
3 - U

1.87
(293)

2.26
(30)
3.38
(50)
3.8U
(19)
3-13
(99)
2.3U
(6)
3.63

.9h
1.21

All

Complete
Range

1 - 2

.96
.71
.93

1.17

1 .0U

5.15
(to)
U.25
(86)

.87

1.70

1.02

.9k

(262)
3 - U

$ or more
All

2.39

1.16

1.20

.50
1.07

2.20

1.10

3.7U
(78)
3.77
(1U)
3.3U
(125)

1.10

3.20

1.60

3.U2
(118)
U.59
(17)
3.30
(175)

1.01

2.70
(11)
U.15
(122)
5.8U
(121)
U.89
(25U)

1.56

2.62

1.35

2.2U

1.13

a28)
U .10

1.18

.87
1.01

1.1U
1.02
1.07

(16U)

.9k

3.66
(318)

1.06

.81

.99

2.56

.93

5.6U
(lU3)
3.8U
(625)

(20)
U.50
(115)
5-7U
(116)
U.97
(251)

.70
1.02

1.08

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

(501)

2.38

.66
1.05

2.29
(103)
3.51
(2U6)
U.08

(50)
3.27

1.17

1.02
.76
.99

(399)

1.25
.96
1.08

(2U1)

5 .U8
(132)
3.99

(191)
3.7U
(9)

1.00

(6lU)

(33)

3.16
(155)
U.70
(61)
(U78)

(UlU)

(125)

(Uo)

(Uo)
£ or more

(78)
U.13
(5)
2.95
(196)

1.12

.92
1.07

2.91
(37)
U.22
(277)
6.70
(277)
U.83
(591)

1.52
1.17
1.00
1.06

2.10
1.15
(55U)
3.70
1.08
(7iU)
5.U1
.93
(336)
3*50
1.0U
(160U)

25U

TABLE 129#

ALL DAIRT PRODUCTS:

WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures ($>) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Size of
Family

Professional,
Managerial and
Official

1-2
3- 1 *
5 or more
All

Skilled,
Semi-skilled
and unskilled

1-2
3 - 1*
5 or more
All

Clerical
Sales and
Kindred;
Service,
Unemployed,
and Retired

1-2
3-1*
5 or more
All

Complete range

1-2
3 - h
5 or more
All

Below 3,000
Per
Per
Family Person
1.95
(28)
2.82
(23)
5.73
(11)
2.93
(67)

1.03
.85
1.02
.95

2.22
(53)
3.18
(73)
U.58
(28)
(15U)

1.16

1.58
(11*7)
3.00
(51)
i*.l*8
(19)
2.17
(216)

.99

.91
•
—o
CO

Occupation of
Head of House

.91
.81
.92

1.78
1.05
(228)
.90
3.05
(151)
.81
U.77
(58)
2.61
.92
(1*37)

3*000 ■• L*U99
Per
Per
Family Person

L,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

2 J4U
(37)
3.90
(70)
5.92
(23)
3.81*
(130)

2.1*8
(55)
3.92
(100)
6.01
(58)
I*.12
(213)

2.09
r.eo)
3.1*5
(176)
5.63
(86)
(31*2)
3.55
(1*9)
3.92
(75)
5.1*3
(32)
U.11
(156)

1.25
1.15
1.07
l.li*
1.08
1*00
.98

1.83
1.12
.97
1.19

2.60
1.3U
(166)
3.66
1.06
(321)
5.63
.99
(lUl)
3.82
1.08
(628)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

2.1*3
(1*6)
1*.!*3
(89)
5.08
(65)
(200)
1.71*
(36)
3.91*
(53)
U .60
(8)
3.18
(97)
2.27
(137)
l*.ll
(21*2)
5.1*6
(131)
3-96
(5io)

1.2)4
1.13
1.02
1.10
1.22
1.29
•8U

.90
l.U*
.88
1.05
1.11*
1.19
.93
1.08

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person
2.31*
(120)
3.76
(198)
5.95
(92)
3.81*
(1*10)

1.19
1.10
1.03
1.09

2.22
(179)
3.65
(338)
5.27
(179)
(696)

l.U*

2.02
(232)
3.67
(178)
5.01
(59)
3.02
(1*89)

1.17

1.05
.90

1.01*
.88
1.06

2.16
1.17
(531)
3.69
1.07
(711*)
.96
5.1a
(330)
1.01*
3.53
(1575)

255

G

^3jb O
CO
5h

h
■p

5h

©

CJ
CM

•

VO
rH

•

VO
rH

•

rrH

vO

p- OO

iH

O

H

CV1

CM

H

UN

rH

H

ON
CM

DO
rH

CO
00

ON
0\

£

CM

vO

CO
CM

rH
ON

Ov

CM
Ov

O
H

-3
ON
•
ON

CM

Oh
G
AN
t
t)
& h*

bC Hr

Ov
on

ON

rH

-3

u \

UN
U \

U>
VO

‘ON

-3

VO

CM

CO
CM

Ov
CM

ON

co

CO

vO

Cd

to

P-

f-4 ©Sh

> Oh

x-*»
•

03 C
Xi O

H

m

to
©

g

Oh

-3

on
on

-3

CO
UN

rH
vO

ON

CO

UN

O
O•

rH

P•
CM

ON

ON

ON
-3

O
ON

Ov
Ov

CM

CM

CM

CM

0
3 &

ON

OV

ON

Oh
1*
S

0
0

©

bo

*
cd

cd

u
©
>

<*

O

CO

Sh
©

co

ov

Ov

o

Oh

©
N

•H >*
CO rH
•H
©
bO
s (in
©

Os

•
ON

CM
P•
ON

H
UN
♦
ON

ON
vO
•
ON

vO
UN
•
ON

O
rH
»
_3

-3
UN

-3
co
CM

c—
0
CM

ON
vO

pON

CM
OO

VO

Ov
Ov
OV

Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
OV

Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
Ov

Ov
on

-3

O

01
©

•H
rH
* tfj
O n
Si CO
(in
O

VO
CO

M

01
cd
rH H
O
G
cd
© ©
l>4
O
O #3=
G v_«r
M

O
O
O
•k
rH

G
©
G
5

H

rH

Ov
Ov
Ov

*

,3
•t

rH

•k

-3
n

•k

rH

CM

CM

ON

ON

1

1

1

i
O

1

O

O

O

O
O

O
O

H

CM

*

•V

O
UN

O
O

CM

ON

«k

•h

O

O
UN

•k

ON

rH

-3
•k
-3

J
O
O
O »k
-3

rH

•k
-3

CM

Ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
Ov

vO

Ov

1

1

Ov
»k

1

O

O
UN

•v

-3

CM

O

*v

O
O

8

UN

p-

«k

0

*v

O

-3

£
o
xi
o
o
o

©

Ov
Ov
vO

©
Ufl
c
cd
U
©

-©p

1—I
§*
o
o

with regard to mentioned

0> H

variables was available

rH
*H

W

Total number where information

TABLE 130.

BUTTER: WEEK*S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£0

INCOME CLASS

CO ©
O Hr
t

cfl

256
CM

m
ON

OS

VO
CM

•

o

CM

•

O-

pH

vO
H

H

CM

U \

O

vO

rl

O

i—I

CN

CM
UN

vO

O

CO

Us

00

CM
CN

ON
UN

l>rH
On

CO

o
ON

U \
CM

-dCM

Csl
CM

OO

I—I

■a

CM
CM

OO

CM

vO

os

© nS
tuDEe<

CO

l>«

O

OS
•

o
o

CM
CM

~OS
=f

Os

OS

OS

os

-Cfr

e—

OS
Os

CM

CO

C—
•
t*-

os

CO
CM

OS

US

so

CO

• •r!

o a

a 8
f*»

H

os

Os
VO .

co

•+H ©
O -H
H

OS

Os
CM
.

rH
US
US

Os
vO
-c t

OS
~ :t
c*S

vO
Os

H

CM

O

f-

pH

us

c^-

6)
JH
Q

a

u
o
CM

OS

US

VO

CO

Os

3

CS
Os
occ
H
<D
M

a
u

<«
•
-p
©
H
f
O
o

variables was available

o'*

os

information with regard to mentioned

©
Wfl
cj
fH
2
<4

Total number where

TABLE 131.

BUTTERS WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION 0? AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY.

&

257

» c
N_-

o
to
u

to 0
0 Oh
h
cl U

p

CNJ
CNI

xa

rH

On
H

NO

-xt XA
c^- NO

-cl­
ou

CA
CNI

ON
H

0

•rf Oh

BUTTER: "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

■a

0)

a !»
H
£

a> l!
M [*H

_=f

ON
UN

iH

NO

cd

G b

(D 0)
> Oh
<1

i

rH
to

G

1

o

3 2
(0
ex.
o
3
$ a,

cd

CNI

X t

CNI

ON
CNJ

rA

ON

rca

XA

ON

OO
CNI

•H

(0
§
o
0
bO

ca

On

£ u
0)
a a.
<*!

CM

iH

On

O

On

INNO

<A
On

s
X0J
)
a
o

•H
P

Cl

CD

a
xl

4)

3
bO

IS)
•H
CO H
0 *a
t>0 cd
fi.

a
4)
4

a>

X*
H
•
CA

XA
On
•
(A

.xlco
•
CA

NO
On
•
CM

Xt
3
■
CM

CA
ON
»
rH

On
CM
•
CA

o

CO
«H a)
O >H
rH
• *H
o a

v

xj

NO
CM
CM

On

ct
<A

CM

^

CM

CO

C—

rH

NO
CO

J

over

&H

TABLE 132.

W
cd
£
to
<u
rH
3

0
0
ch <H
° *H
0 0
bO CO
«a{ £
O
m

•a
0

-d

XA
CA

XA
Xt

XA

cd
•LA
CM

XA

1

1

1

NO
1

NO
CM

NO
<A

NO
Xf

NO
XA

XA

a

XI
NO
NO

§

x;
p

t
a
o
$
ce
a
3
'a
•H

0
3
x:
4)
rQ

<u
M
c
<d
u
0

iH

CD

p

P

rH

g
*
o
o

cd
o

&H

cd

d
O
0)
03 d
4> a)
d a.
d
•p d
•rH a)
cd
■a

TABLE 133.

rH
CM
•

On

CO

ci NO
•

NO

On
H
•

rH

On

rH

t'rH

CO

$

u\

NO

1
—i

a >»
M i—1
W •d
a> S
bO fe
rt
d d
0) CD
>

00

NO
•

no

CA

rH

a.

«
CO d
,q 0
rH (0
v—r d
<u

d Cd
0

•rl d
•p O

1
—<DI
o
at
i-H
•rH

£

CK
rH
ca
•

ON
CNJ
•

CO
CNJ
•

t*—
CNI
•

CO

CNI

CNJ

OO
CNJ

a>

rH

CO

d
8

CO

*5
CO

Cd

|

■8
t!

s

H

a> al
no [d

at
d

d
a)
> Cd
<«!

at

ca

rH

On
*

On
•

cr\
On
•

-= t
On
•

ON

CO

On

CO

On

8
+2
§
s
o

Q> (0
N fl)
8>8
at

-P

0
0

•
ca

3

•
ca

ON
CNJ
•
ca

xa

-3 ’
*
ca

On

rH

•
ca

rH
ca
•
ca

0

ca
•
ca

I

> *HO

BUTTERs PEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AMD EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HOUSEWIFE

258

•o
8
m
a>
d

,d
-p
d

o
•
H
-P
cC

m
CNI

rH

XA
ON
CNI

O

rH

-d -

NO
On
NO

-Z t
CNI
CNJ

CO >

0 d

.0a tc0
CO •«—'

ca
UN
co

•*
rH
0)
to

d <t>

at cp
a)
I5? p
rH 5
0 ca

XA
O
H

rH
rH

t*1

0

CO

I
On

XA

rH

CNJ

rH

1
ca

rH

d
<U
>
O

u
d

■o
d

-P
0)
1—1

NO
1—1

Cd
B
O
O

(0

O
•H
Q>
d
a>
£
p*
d

a>

,0

a>

-P

o

E-i

259

£
O
OO

rH

rH

CM

<A

XA

rH

Os

XA

rH

O

CM
CM

rH

OO

vO

CM

CO

XA

XA

-=t

CO

VO
rH

CM

CM

o

Os

CM

©

CM
x r\

CM

c*~

vO

CO
CM

CA
CM

OS
CM

C*~
CM

-=t
CM

CA
CA

CM
CA

Ov

CO

co

VO

XA

Ov

CM

rH
•
CA

Os
CA
•
CA

Os
vO
•
CA

CM
vO
•
CA

O
XA
•
CA

Os
CA
•
CM

CA
rH
rH

OO
Os

vO

-=t

o

Ov
-= t

C—

XA

$

CO
CM

CM

(A.

C*CM

Oo \

CM
rH

f-

CO

CM
-St
•
CA

XA
XA
•
CA

H
r—
•
CM

rH
i— 1
CM

XA

CA

CA

Os

vO

vO

•

to £
,q
H
£
O
£

O
ra
£
©
E£

•

*

•

r—

co

CM

CM

CM

C—
XA

o
o

CA
Os

rCVi
•
CM

XA
i— 1
•
CM

~=i

CM
H
rH

XA
Os

Ov
rH

r~-

£
©
PH

i*
to

£
o H
O
■d
©
t>0
©
£ £
SP ©
> Ph
*©

f"-

o

OS

co

©

N
•H
CO H
•H
© g
M
© pt.
£
©
!>

•

CA

o

*4

rH

©

4

Ot
£
o
o
o

£

O
•H
to
to
©

vO

CM

rH

*8

©

rH
© rH
•H ©
£ *H
©

O

bO.H

©
O
£
Ph

rH

vO

£ c*H
O

©
ta i

£
©

H

©

©

•H

£

£ -H

© j*

rH
O

CM

-£■

XA

©3
©
u
■a
n
"Cl

•o
©
•H

©

£

O t3

CM

(Q
©
rH
©
CO

o

*o
H
rH

IH

©

CO

2

CO

•H

©
£
•H
+>
©

m
c/i

CD

rH

O
rao

©

OS

r—
co

©
to
a
©
£
©
-P
©
rH
a
s
o
o

to mentioned

o

M3

where information with regard

&D
cd
£ £
© ©
> PH
<j

number

©

variables was available

>?
K H
W •H

£
o
TABLE 13h.

OO

Total

BUTTER: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

to

£
10 ©
<D f£
c.
& £
•p ©
•H PH
£

©

260

TABLE 135.

BUTTER: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK’S FOOD BILL
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

B
O
co

U

CO
0)
tj
£
■p
•H

CD
CL,

vo
CM

CM
CM

O
CM

a-

CO
~=r

XA

co

CO

H

©
&

co

rl

H

a

vO
CO

XA

o

R
CD
CL,

Ov

i
—I

t»»
H

£
CD
hO &=.

cd

H

Ov
XA

0\
M3

o>

H

CM
vO

R
CD
!> CL.
R

a>

<

rH

■8

-■— ■»
•

H

m
£> R

t

rH p
vx m

u

CQ CD
R CL,

o
•H
-P

cd

r—

rH

CM

CA

<A

CM

VO
CM

CO
CM

OO
CM

H

CA

CO

CM

SH
CD

pH

■8

CQ
C t>»
O H

o •d
W
(D cd
ho X.
cd
R R
!
U CD
> P.

w
n)
£
w
CD
H
•rH

CM

CM

vO

CO

Ov

OO

_=t
o

H

CM

r-

CA

CA
Ov

SH
cd
>
xCt
D
R
0

«a*

1

CD

a
o

©
N
•iH !>s
CO rH
Q> *3
ho CO
0 [XJ
H
CD CH
> O

O
-= t
•
rH

VO
Ov
•
H

XA
XA
•
CM

VO
CM
•
CA

XA
O
•
-0

O
c—
•
-= t

A—
CM
•
XA

CA
vC
»
XA

CA
CA
•
CA

xJ
u
hO
0)
R
5
c
0
•H
-P

10
<H CD
O •H
rH
• •rH
o a
£5 TO

XA

VO

CM
CM
CM

CA
,—t

Ov
CA
-d

CA
rH
CA

CM
OO
rH

Ov
r—

AvO

O
OO
A-

(i.

1
£

•H
<D

R
CD
►
XJ

o
o
Ph «o<•
=

&

CD
rH
H

(D
0)

•P
PQ

o

rH

XA
rH

O
CM

XA

cd

1

1

1

CM
1

XA

vO

rH

vO

rH

S

H

H

CM

O

U
%
o

CA

XA
CA

1

1

a)

vO
CM

rH

vo

CA

ci

CA

©
Ofi
S
U
©
-P
©
rH
a
£3
O
o

&
8
I

i
—I
cd
-p
o

EH

cd

TABLE 136.

BUTTER:

VffiEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BI SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs) ftith Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000
Size of
Family

3,000 - k,k99

Per
Per
per
Family Person Family

U,500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
Person Family Person Family

Per
Person

Average Expenditures (g) With Family Dollar Incomes oft
Below 3,000

3,000 - k,k99

Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family

ll,500 or more Complete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
Person Family Person Family

Per
Person

1-2

•56
(279)

.3k

.79
(180)

.la

.89
(1U2)

.L5

.71
(601)

.39

.37
(279)

.23

.53
(180)

.27

.60
(U*2)

.30

•U7
(601)

.26

3- U

•79
(170)

.23

.86
(33U)

.23

1.11
(250)

.29

.93
(7510

.27

.52
(170)

.15

.57
(33k)

.15

.75
(250)

.19

.62
(7510

.18

.11

1.17
(11+6)

.21

i.5o
(13U)

.25

1.27
Ohk)

.22

.68
(6U)

.11

.77
(H*6)

.lU

.97
(1310

.16

.83
(3UW

.lU

.25

.91
(660)

.26

1.15
(526)

.31

.28

•ho
(513)

.17

.60
(660)

.17

.77
(526)

.21

.61
(1699)

•18

$ or

more

All

1.00
r6U)
.69
(513)

.92
(1699)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

TABLE 137.

BUTTER: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Age of
Housewife

Size of
Family

35 and under

1-2

3 - h
5 or more
All

36 - 55

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

56 and over

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

Complete range

1-2
3 - h

5 or more
All

Average Consumption
Below 3*000 3*000 per
Per
Per
Family Person Family
.57
0*2)
.71
(91)
.81
(2U)
.69
(157)

.31

.57
(79)
.83
(52)
1.05
(32)
•7U
(163)

.31*

.55
(156)
♦97
(26)
1.1*3
(7)
.61*
(189
.56
(277)
.79
(169)
1.00
(63)
.69
(509)

.20
.11*
.18

.25
.18
.25

.35
.31
.22
.32

•3U
.23
.17
.25

.71
(51)
.68
(188)
1.06
(78)
.78
(317)
.81*
(77)
1.08
(12U)
1.27
(66)
1.06
(267)
.32
(51)
1.21*
(22)
2.75
(2)
.99
(75)
.80
(179)
.86
(33U)
1.17
OU6)
.91
(659)

(lbs.)
l*,i*99
Per
Person
.36
.20
.19
.21

•1*1*
.31
.22
.30
.1*2
.39
.50
.1*1
.la
.25
•21
♦26

With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditure ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
1**500 or more Complete Range
Below 3,000 3,000 - 1*,1*99 1*,500 or more Complete Range,
Per
Per
Per
F*er
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person FamilyAPerson. _ Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person :

.71
(l*o)
1.07
(87)
1.31
(57)
1.07
(181*)
.96
(77)
l.lit
(11*1)
1.67
(72)
1.22
(290)
.95
(21*)
l.llj
(21)
1.50
(1*)
1.08
(1*9)
.89

cm

1.12
(21*9)
1.51
(133)
1.16
(523)

.36
♦31
.23
.28

.1*9
.33
.28
.33
.1*8
.30
.21
.31*
.1*5
.32
.26
.32

.6?
(133)
.78
(366)
1.11
(159)
.81*
(658)
.79
(233)
1.07
(317)
1.1*0
(170)
1.05
(720)
.65
(231)
1.11
(69)
1.65
(13)
.79
(313)
.71
(597)
.93
(752)
1.27
(31*2)
.92
(1691)

.35
♦23
.20
.22

•1*3
.31
.21*

.30

.38
.33

.25
.31*
.39
.27
.22
.28

.38
(1*2)
.1*7
(91)
.51*
(21*)
•1*6
(157)
.38
(79)
.55
(52)
.70
(32)
.50
(163)

.21
.11*
.10
.12

.23

.23

•55

.29

.13
.12

.u *

.17
.12
.17

.23

.37
(277)
.52
(169)
.67
(63)
.1*6
(509)

.23

.20
.15
.21

.15
.11
.17

.72
(12k)
.83
(66)
.69
(267)
.56
(51)
.81
(22)
1.92
(2)
.67
(75)
.53
(179)
.57
(33U)
.77
(11*6)
.60
(659)

.1*8
0*0)
.73
(87)
.81*
(57)
.71

.21*
.21
.15
.19

(181*)

(77)

.36
(156)
.61*
(26)
.98
(?)
.1*2
(189)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged,)

.1*6
(51)
.1*5
(188)
.69
(78)
.51
(317)

.65

.33

(77)
.21
.11*
.19
.29
.25
.35
.28

.27

.77
(ua)
1.08
(72)
.82
(290)

.22

♦62
(21*)
.75
(21)
.99
(1*)
.71
(1*9)

.31

.60

.18
.22

.20

.11*
.22
.30

(H *l)
.17

.11*
.17

.75
(21*9)
.98
&33)
.77
(523)

.22
.17
.23

.1*1*
(133)
.52
(366)
.72
(159)
.55
(658)

.23

.55
(233)
.71
(317)
.91
(170)
.70
(720)

.30

.1*3
(231)
.73
(69)
1.13
(13)
.53
(313)

.25

.1*7
(597)
.62
(752)
.83
(31*2)
.61
(1691)

♦15
.13
.15

.21
•16
.20

♦22
♦17
.23

.26
.18
.11*
•18

263

TABLE 138.

BUTTER:

Education of
Housewife

Size of
Family

Less than
High School
(0-11 yrs.)

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

High School
(12 yrs.)

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more

All
More than

1-2

High School
(13 or more

3-4

yrs.)
5 or more
All

Complete
range

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

¥ E E K * S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE O F FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Income of:
Below 3,000
3,000 - T f h 9 9 4,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.59
075)
.76
(81*)
.90
(37)
•68
(296

.35
.23
.15

.1*7
.27
.21

m

.25

.1*9
(60)
.85
(59)
1.11
(19)
.73
(138)

.32

1.31
(36)
.73
(26)
l.li*
(7)
.66
(69)

,.30

.56
(271)
.79
(169)
.99
(63)
.69
(503)

.92
(87)
.92
(133)
1.23

.25
.19
.25

.22
.20
.24

.34
.23
.17
.25

.99
(283)

.28

.57
(52)
.83
(158)
1.25
(61)
.87
(271)

.29

.82
(38)
.80
■ (1*2)
.81
(21)
.81
(101)
.79
(177)
.86
(333)
1.17
(11*6)
.91
(65o)

1.00
(1*3)
1.03
(76)
1.65
(1*1*)
1.19
(163)

.51
.30
.27
.31

.1*1*

>

.87
(67)
1.15
(96)
1.15
(68)
1.18
(231)

.1*3

.80

.1*0

•2l*

.22
.21*

.23
.15
.25
♦
.la
.25
.21
.26

.31*
.26
.32

.21

.63

.36

(179)
.93
(313)
1.35
(11*8)
.95

.ia
.27

.28

.27
.23
.2?

(61*0)

(32)
1.15
.33
(75)
.21
1.15
(22)
1.06
.31
(129)
.89

.71*
(305)
.91
(293)
1.2?
(11*5)
.91
(7U3)

.1*5

(H*2)
.32
1.11
(21*7)
•26
1.50
(131*)
.31
1.15
(523)

.71
(106)
.97
(11*3)
1.00

.38
.28
.19

(50)
.88

.27

(299)

.71

.39

(390)
.93

.27

(71*9)
1.27

.22

(3R3)

.92
(1682)

.27

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Income of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - U,i*99 4,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.39
(175)
.51
(8U)
.59
(37)
.1*5
(296)

.23

.59

.30

(87)

.15
.10

.61
(133)
.81

.18
.11*

(61*)

.17

.65

.18

.21

.35
(36)
.1*7
(26)
.75
(7)
.1*3
(69)

.20

.55
(38)

.29

.lit

.53

.15

.1^

(42)
.53
(21)
.63

.37
(271)
.52
(169)
.67
(63)
.1*6
(503)

(.Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

•20
.17

.78

.21

(163)

.32
(60)
.56
(59)
.78
(19)
.1*9
(138)

.39
(52)
.55
(158)

.20

♦11*

.80'

.17

.17

(61)
.57
(271),

.16

.16

.34

m

(281*3

.16

.67
(1*3)
.60
(76)
1.06

.59

.30'

.i*9
(305)
.60
(293)
.83
(D»5)
.60
(71*3)

.27
•18
.14
.10

.17

.id*
.24
(179)
.62
'.18
(313)
.89
.15

.80
(231)

.22

(DtS)
.OR

.53
(32)
.77
(75)

.2?

.47
(106)

.25

.22

.65

•19

,.10

.6?

.12

.16

(2:2)
.70

.20

(6?)
.16

.79

.23

..(96)

(101)

1.00
(68)

.10

(640)

(129)

(lk3)
.'62
(So)
.58

.12
-.18'

(2 9 9 )

.22

.52
(177)

.27

.60
(11*2)

.30'

.47
(590)

.15

.57

.17

.75
(21*7)

.22

.U*

.97

.16

.17

(13k)
.77
(523)

.21

.15
(749)
.83
.14'
(.343)
.ol
•10
(1682.)

.11

.17

(333)
.7?
(11*6)
.60
(.656)

.62

•26

26U

TABLE

139•

BUTTER: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION GF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEKS FOOD BILL, WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITH SIZE OF INCOME
LANSING, SPRING, 1950
9

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 -T7199 17500 or more Complete Range * Below 3,000"3,000 - h*U99 1^500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per~
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Iterson Family Person Family Pers on Family Pe rson
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family person

Week’ Family
Food Bill ffi)

Size of
Family

15 and under

1-2

•53

33

3 - 1

.68

,21

5 or more

(229 )
(68)

.00

,00

(2 )

All

.56

28

(299)

16

*

20

1-2

3 - U
5 or more
All

.81
(30)
.77
(52)
.51
(19)
.75

13
22
11
22

(101)

21 and over

1-2

.78

(6)
3 - 1

1.01

5 or more

m
i.n

(10)
All

i.ol

(86)
Complete
range

1-2
3 - 1
5 or more

.39
.29
.19
.23

.79

.23

.68
(186)

.23
.29

•11
.23
.15
.25

•66

1.02
.28
(121)
1.23

.16

.21

1.13
(256)

.25

.80

.U

.25

.85
.25
(326)
1.18
(H«
.91
(639)

.71
(75)
.80
(18)
1.50
(2)
.75
(125)
1.00
(33)
1.03
(79)
1.23
(H)
1.05
(126)
1.31

(20)

(169)

(61)
All

1.15

.21

(121)
.31

.91

.87
(12)
.79
(123)
.81
(18)
.81
(183)

.39

(11)

.56
(265)

(160)

.75
(116)
.68
(79)
1.30
(5)
.73
(200)

1.30
(119)
1.51
(117)
1 1*1
(256)

.36
.25
.30
.33
.50
.30
.23
.32

.67
.36
.26

.

.31

.88

.11

(128)
1.11
(216)

•312

.21

1.51
(138)

.26

.26

1.16

.31

(507)

.62
(12)
.71
(195)
1.06
(9)
.65
(621)
.89
(105)
•86
(251)
.85
(51)
.87
(Ho)

.36
.22
.19
.29

.15
.25
.16
.26

.62
1.19
(37)
1.11
.32
(283)
.32
1.31
(278)
1.21
.27
(598)
.71
(362)
.93
(732)
1.26
(338)
.92

(1632)

.39
.27
.22

.27

.35
(229)
.15
(68)
.00
(2)
.37
(299)
.53
(30)
.52
(52)
.10
(19)
.50
(101)
.52

.22
.11
.00
.19
.28
.15
.0?
.15
.26
.19

(10)
.75

(10)

.51
(12)
.51
(123)
.50
(18)
.52
(183)
.78

(11)

(6)
.65

.51
(116)
•11
(79)
.90
(5)
.19
(200)

.69

.26

.18
(75)

.21

.11

.51
(18)

.17

.16

.31

.30

.57

.58
(105)
.57

.15

(251)
.55

•10

.71

.2 2

(51)
.57

.17

.15

.88
(20)

♦11

.19

.87
( H 9)
.99
(117)
.93
(256)

.27
.15
109
.16

.37
.23
(265)
.52
.15

.53
(169)
.56

.27

.62
.11
(61)
•15
.16
(186)

♦77
(HI)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.60

(639)

.16

.11
.17

.59
(128)
.75
(216)
.97
(138)
.77
(507)

(621)

(HO)

(126)

.81
.11
(121)

(326)

.68
(33)
.21
(79)
.82

(11)

.16

(160)

.13

•20

.75
(256)

(86)

.15

.11

.15

.69

(2)
.51
(125)

.21

(195)
.73
(9)

.21

.23

.19

(121)
.13

1.01

.12
(120)
.17

.17

.21

.79
(37)
.76
(283)

.21

.17

.87

.15

.20

(278)
.32
(598)

.18

.30

.17

.26

.22

.16

.21

(562)
.62
(732)
•82
(338)
♦61

(1632)

.11

•18
.11
•18

—— —
—
Occupation of
Head of House

BUTTER:

Size of
Family
■

" —.

,1*2
3-1*
5 or more
All

Skilled,
Semi-skilled
and unskilled

1-2
3 - 1*
3 or more
All

Clerical,
1-2
Sales and kindred:
Service, un3-1*
employed and
Retired
5 or more
All
Complete
range

Average Consumption
Below 3,000 3,000 Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family

1-2
3 - 1*
5 or more
All

(lbs.)
i*,l*99
Per
Person

—

.55
(28)
1.07
(29)
i.ia
(ii)
.91
(68)
•66
(5M
.81
(75)
.71
(28)
.Ik
(157)

.29
.32
.25
.29
.35
.23
.12
.22

.53
(U*9)
.67
(52)
1.17
(19)
.62
(220)

.31*

.56
(231)
.81
(156)
1.00
(58)
.71
(1*1*5)

.33

.20
.20
.26

•21*
.17
.25

.78
(39)
•86
(7M
1.21
(23)
.90
(136)

.1*0

.81*
(83)
.88
(179)
1.27
(85)
.97
(31*8)

.U3

.80
(1*9)

•la

.81

.23

(77)
.98
(33)
.81*
(159)
.62
(171)
.86
(330)
1.19
(li*2)
.92
(61*3)

With Family Dollar Incomes of:_____ Average Expenditures (#) With Family Dollar Income off,,
i*,500 or more Complete Range'
Below 3,000 3,000 - ii,li99 *1,500 or more Cniapl».ti>
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
VpI
Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
. . . , -- —
.. .... ■■■ ■'■■-..... - ■
— ...............................
—■ i M. M ■ i
■■■..) i
i.wia-^iUV

.25
.22
.27

.26
.22
.27

•18
.21*
.h2
.25
.21
.26

.97
(55)
1.17
(10U)
1.1*5
(59)
1.19
(218)

.h9
.31*
.25
.32

.85
(51)
1.12
(91)
1.58
(65)
1.20
(207)

.1*3

.85
(33)
1.01
(52)
1.31
(8)
.88
(93)

.1*3

.90
(139)
1.12
(21*7)
1.51
(132)
1.16
(518)

.33
.26
.31

.29
.25
.32
♦1*5
.32
.26
.32

.81
(122)
1.05
(207)
1.39
(93)
i.o5
(1*22)

.ia
.31
.21*
.30

.79
(188)
.93
(31*5)
1.29
(179)
.98
(712)

.1*1

.61*
(231)
.83
(181)
1.08
(60)
.77
(1*72)

.37

.73
(51*1)
.91*
(733)
1.28
(332)
.91*
(1606)

.27
.22
.2?

.21*
.19
.27
.39
.27
.22
.28

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.36
(28)
.70
(29)
.95
(11)
.60
(68)
.1*3
(51*)
•5U
(75)
.1*7
(28)
.89
(157)
.35
(H*9)
.1*1*
(52)
.81
(19)
.ia
(220)
.37
(231)
•51*
(156)
.67
(58)
.1*7
(1*1*5)

.19
.21
.17
.19
.23
.15
.08
•li*
.22
.13
.11*
.17
.22
.16
.11
.17

.52
(39)
.57
(71*)
.79
(23)
.59
(136)

CM
.

Professional,
Managerial and
Official

i

WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION O F HEAD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

-

TABUS ll*0.

.51*
(83)
.58
(179)
.83
(85)
.61*
(31*8)

.28

.56
(1*9)
.51*
(77)
•61*
(33)
.56
(159)
.51*
(171)
.57
(330)
.78
(11*2)
.61
(61*3)

.17
.11*
.18

.17
.11*
.17
.29
.16
.11
.16
.28
.17
.11*
.17

•61*
(55)
.79
(101*)
.91
(59)
.79
(218)

.32

.59
(51)
.75
(91)
1.0k
(65)
.80
(207)

.30

.57
(33)
.69
(52)
.88
(8)
.66
(93)

.29

.61
(139)
.75
(21*7)
.97
(132)
.77
(518)

.23
.17
.21

.22
.17
.21

.20
.17
.21
.31
.22
.16
.21

.53*
(122)
.70
(207)
.89
(93)
.69
(1*22)
.52
(188)
.62
(31*5)
.85
(179)
.65
(712)
.1*3
(231)
.55
(181)
.73
(60)
.57
(1*72)
.1*9
(5ia)
.62
(733)
.81*
(332)
•62
(l6o6)

♦28
.21
.15
*20

.27
.18

•lit
•18

.25
.16
.13
.18
•26
.18
.H*
.IB

266

£
0

<o
co u
a>

'— /

INCOME CLASS

CD PH

u

-p

•H
r
£j

ao

o

vO

XA

XA

CO

i
—J

0H

CJ\

CO
H

VO

vO

$

a
vo

XA

XA

CO

OV
ca

CA

O
CM
•
CA

OS
CA
•
CA

CA
A•
CA

rH
XA
•
CA

CA
VO
•
CA

XA
XA

VO

rH

P t
OO
CM

o

CM

Os
sO
i—!

Os
Os
Os

Os
Os
P t

Os
Os
Os

CM

(A

CA

O•

O•

O•

P t

CA

XA

o•

P t
O
•

ca

rH

CO

ca

CO

CS1

co

Os

o

■US

sO
XA
•
CA

O
rH
•
Pt

O
H

Pt
<A
•
CA

ACA
H

aOO
CM

vO

Os
Os
P t

Os
OS
CK

Os
OS
OS

Os
Os

P t

P t

vO

Os

XA

O•

O•

o

o

pt

o

£
CD

PH

c

CD
H
•H

MARGARINE:WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£0

cd
5h U
0)
>

04

H

i-(

CQ

H

r-J

o

CD
PH

•
w

£

,-Q O
rH CQ
'— '
£ PH
O
•H £
-P CD

C—
rH
•

XA
CM
•

pt
CM
«

Pt

pt

rH
VO

CD
A•
rH

aXA
•
CM

o•

VO

CA

o

rH

rH

Os
Os
Os

OS
OS
P t
•s
CM

i-t

XA

rH

o

O

so

H

PH

CO
£

h
o rH
o

•H

<u $
bo H
cd
HCD £CD
PH

rH

CN

CM

«*!

CD
6d

•H t»
CO H
0) ‘9
bO (3
cd Ixj

£
(D
>

CH

O

<A

•
Pt

o

vari bles was available

bflfH

regard to mentioned

CD TO

with

Or
W

CO
(D

O •H
H
• •iH

o

3

Os
Os

VO

cd

CO
cd

rH rH
£
O
CD CD
Hi i>s
O
0=60=

1

CA

PH

w

E
M

Pt

<0

O

o
o
rH

H

1

1

T)

o
o

o
o
o•s

CQ

r-l

CM

£
CD

£

O

•%

*

1

•»

o

CM

CA

XA

1

1

o
o
o•s

o

#s

O

o

A

•>

CA

•»

•»

*»

1

1

O

o
o•s

o
o

XA

o
o
o*

P t

P t

XA

1

Os

•S

O
o
o

H
<v
>
O

to
c
cd
H
'S
cd
Q)
-P
<d
o
o
H
o•\ a,
a
o
o
rH
o

Total number where

TABLE 12*1.

a

co

CVI

information

■ai

cd

267

o
O
ra
JH
a)

(X,

•d
%

CL.

sO

o

Lf\ -=f
o
O

LA
O

LA

O

-Pt

O

(A
O

CA

O

o

LA

O

&

-Pt
CA

vo
o

CN
O

(A
rH

CO

rH

p
d- _
aCM
CVI

CM
CVI

OO
Lf\

LA

rH

a

1
LA

o

vO

LA

vO

vO

CVI

CM

CM

rH

vO

rH

pH

v©
rH

!>»
8
o rH
o •H
© ro
bfl
©
?H U
© ©
> CL.
<4

> ' ■'x
O

CVI
•

rH
CA
•

p

3

-Pt
•

CA
•

sO

_rt
CO
«

vO
OO

•

VO
OO

o

vO
O

•

rH
•
rH

•
CVI

r—1
r—
»

rH
LA
•

CA

OO

OO
©

CQ
t>s
c/3 H i
© t
t© ©
© Cn
f-.
<+H
> O
<4
•H

OO
CVI

CA

LA

CO

O

CVI
•

CA

OS

MARGARINE:

CK

vO

-—

n

«rt ©
O -H
pH
• *H
,o g
s ©

LA
-Pt
pH

LA

St

la

(A

LA

vO

CM

S'

pH

o

O

-—

-Pt

■-—'
C"pH

LA

O-

©

-Pi­

co

OO

**

rH

f i.

CD

TABLE

1U2.

CD

U

5 3o
Jh) JvS
a
.Q »
8 ©
3 o
s w

i

u

o
CVI

CA

LA

sO

CO

to mentioned

o
•H U
-P 0)
|r (L.

O
CVI

regard

pH CQ
v— *
©
a O.

with

•
03

information

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, 8X SIZE

(h

Ov

o
H

©
CD
■P

©
•A
g
o

number where

£
w
a)
tuO
Cd

variables was available

©

Total

OF FAMILY

Ui

0
&
-p

ol

268

xt

O

xt

O

xt

O

o

o

xt

ca

iv~

o

XA

O

E
\0
H

H

r-S
©

iH
•8
H

5

/**N
•
CQ c
f
i
tO
m
H

u

©
C PD
O
d
£
©
| P-t

O

CO

CO
cd
*

XA

rH

rH
•

CO

Xt

CM

XA

rH

•9
•H

I

©
a

tJ

t>s

o H
o •H
©
bjD 34
cd
fn Si
© ©
> Ph
«a<

in
©
rH

©
c

OO
Xt
•

vO
XA

CA

XA

r~

O

XA

xt

H

XA

■o
•H
©
6

o
-p

tcd

tiQ

©

U

CO H

0) 'H

x t
H
•
CA

XA
OV
•
CA

X t

OO

•
CA

vO

Cv
•
CVI

CM
x t
•
CM

CA
Ov
•

rH

O
CA
•
CA

x
:
•p
d

o
•H

Id
a
p

o

m

«H ©

°H

♦ »rl

cd
vO

OJ
CM

CO

\0
Xt

XA

3

Xt
xt

CA

CA
CM

Ov
xt

H

rH
c~

CO

5§ §
CA

Q>

xt

1
ID

*3

9
XJ
£

|i|

H

<D

CkO

&
"H
pj

Cd
)
c
XA

CM

<3

>
o

XA
CA

vO

CM

XA
Xt

XA
XA

xa

1

1

1

■acd

vO
CA

vo
xt

vO
XA

vO
MD

vo

5-r
©

C

cd
h

©
•P

rH

©

rH

©
-P
O

(X

E-i

I

o

OF HOUSEWIFE

269

o

TABLE 1UU.

MARGARINE: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY ECUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

on

U>

)£\

vO

MD

O

O

H1

rH

©

i
—I
■s

rH

CO

•>d

£

cd

c

on

rH

o

r-

UN

H

UN

vO
H

£
a

co
at

£
co
a)

rH

to

•8

PS
o
O

•rl

6uD
cO
U
0)
>
<*1

un

UN

S-

0-=f

O

UN

rH

UN

I
•d
o
■H

g
o

•P

=r
o _
o# rH•
ON ON

On
CM
•
ON

UN
-d
•
ON

On
rH
•
ON

H
ON
•
ON

On
CM
•
ON

•d
&
bo
V
Pt
£
t
c
o

m
©
O -H

•H
■P

<h

fH

• *H

o e

on

CM

un
On

CM

a §

o
H

co

CN

vO

Xt
CM
CM

$

UN
UN
CO

o
•H

©

U
ft)

4)

0Jr-»
(h (I)

aJ Vt
© -H

5)
o w
o d
XoJ mo

rH

CO w

•6

hO

0s—

s
o

UN

rH
H
CO

1
ON

rH

a
at
u
«

-p

4)

CM

C**\

rH

rH

o

o

-9
i
—l
at

-P

o

£h
at

P-»

1
TABLE

€

on

CM

CO
rH

-d
rH

rH

£
ft)

o

u
33 CD
(U

on

rH

rH

CO

in
o

o

-d

Os

m

vO

H

rH

rH

o'

o

on

on

H

in
o

MD

-d

rH

C—

-d
CM

co

CO

H

CM

CM

on

Os

Ox

oo

v£>

CM

rH

rH

rH

1
o £rl
Q>
MCn.

ca

CM

CM
-d

in

rH

vO

6-d

<C*

Ov
vO
•

CM
vo

in

U\

_d

CO
on
•

0CM

CM
rH

CM

CM

CM

-d
•
on

o

on

r-

Os

-d

VO

in

C^-

CO

& &

Ph

•>
N
•H rp
CO H
CD

60
«S f o
£

H
c*~

_d
rH

rH
•

m
m

m

on

CM

•
on

rH

in

rH

on

•

«-

CN
on
•
on

-

on

6-

•
on

-d
•
on

CM
-d

m

•

•

CM
•
on

with

JD «H

5 °

■rl
P

ca
&
o
o

o

OS
£
O

•rl

0}
(0

CD
<H

O
£
f£

rH

CM

CM

£
o

vO

vO

H

•cda
H
cd 3
•H •rl
£ O
V •rl
60«H
as
£ O
■JS

1 '0O)
3 £
O £
•H •H
u

rH

a

X

rH
H

oo
On

-d
vO

CM

TJ
0)
£
*8
£
as
co

.3
c0
CO

-d

rH

in

Ov

H

«J
_d
co
CO

CD

60

'd

T3
ft)
•H

CD

tj

0?
o

t
&

CO

Ti
cd

H

rH

$

CO

I

CD
CO

CO

T3
CD
.
—1
1— 1
•H

X

CO
£
to

CD
o

rH
O'

55
ft)
£
to

information

A

$

number where

a
o
m

€

ch

r)
0)

£

•rl
P
CD
«

•H
CO
CO
as

H

o
£

Total

to

in
o

variables was available

in

MARGARINE: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, EY OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD

O

to mentioned

on

regard

OF HOUSE

270

<0

2?1

*— s G

O
to

V__ s

u

TABLE

lit6;

MARGARINE: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1S£Q

FOR, BY SIZE

OF WEEK'S FOOD BILL

CO CD
0 PH
IH

&

•p 0
id

$

$

u\

-d

o

o' 0d
o

<A

<A
rH

O,

o

-d

o

o

<A

LA

CA

On

in

o

PH

Cl
0)
p< >?
H

I
0) i

o

&c Ph
CD
u )H
<D 0
> PH

rH

rH

CM

CM

in

"LTV
rH

o
rH

rH

rH

<

10
G
5 O

CO

0
pH
Sh
<0

r—
i—I

c—

rH

CO

rH

rH

i
—l

rH

£

rH

f-

-CM
ct

-d
<A

vO
_d

-d

vO

vO

CO

O

vO

CM
LA

O
-d
'•
rH

VO
On
•
rH

VO
■LA
•
CM

vO
CM
-•
CA

LA
O
•
_d

o
r-

fCM
•
LA

A

•
_d

vO•

(A
fA
•

LA

cm
CM
CM

_d
H
-d

CM

On

1

CO
rH
A

co

On

LA

J*
|
PH

8
•H }»■»
tO H
M a
c3
CD ( i ,

P)
i Ch
0
>
<»s O

la

(0
ch 0
O -H

i i

vO

co
rH

C—

A

(0

CM

vO

CO

c~-

£r,

T)
O
o
Ph 10
CO
Pd
0 •rH
0 PQ
?e
HUO■ 'JN«/

•»

in

p<
g

a>
1
IS

O
H

O
A

1A
A

LA
rH

O
CM

LA
CM

1

1

1

1

vO

rH
CM

vO

rH
(A

a

1

1

■LTV

vo

rH
i—1

rH

CM

o

xi

G
Cl)
vO
a

a>
to
C3
cD

fH
a>
-p
0
rH

f
O

(D

TABLE lil7e

MARGARINES WEEKfS CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF M I L Y WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incones of:
Below 3,600 3,000 -• U,U99 U,500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Family

Per
Person

.17

.18
(1U2)

.09

.30
(602)

.17

.10
.06
(280)

.09
(180)

.05

.06
(11*2)

.03

.09
(602

.58
(333)

.17

.39
(250)

.11

.53
(753)

.15

.06
.19
(170)

.16
(333)

.05

.12
(250)

.03

.15
(753)

.96
(1U6)

.17

•6U

♦11

.89
GW*)

.16

.32
(610

.05

.28
(D46)

.05

.19
03M

.03

.25
(3WO

.Ob

.60
(659)

.17

.11

.52
(1699)

.16

.16
.06
(5110

.17
(659)

.05

.12
(526)

.03

.15

.05

Size of
Family

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

1-2

•3U
(280)

.21

.33
(180)

3 - h

.65

.19

*22

(1 7 0 )

5 or more

All

1.26
(6U)
.56
(SiU)

.20

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Income of*
Below 3,000 3,000 -■U,U99 ii.,500 or more Complete Range

(L 3 k)
. hO

(526)

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

(1699)

.05

Tf-W 168*

01
e.-ife
oier

MARGARINE: PEEK’S CONSUMPTION CF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF FQUSKV/IFE Y-TTHIN SIZE OF FAMILY ..ITHIN SIZE OF INCOME*
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of
Family
1-2

3- 6
5 or more
All

1-2
3-6
5 or more
All

over

1 -2
3 - 6
5 or more

All
lete

1-2

Average Consumption (lbs.) kith Family Dollar* Incomes of;
3,000 - 6,699 U756o or more Complete Range
Below 3,660
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Person Family Person Family* Person Family Person
Family
.29
(U2)
.63
( ? i)
.85
(26)
.57
(157)

.16
.16

.15
.17

.25
(79)
.63
(52)
1.67
(32)
.61
(163)

.15

.1*1
(157)
.76
(26)
1.86
(7)
.51
(190)

.26

.36

.19

.25
.20

.21*

5 or more
All

.65
(169)
1.28
(63)
•56
(510)

•35
(77)
•58
(1210
1.05
(60)
•CJ
(267)
07
(51)
.53

.13
.17
.16
.16

.18
.17
.16
.18’

.29
.26

.00
( 2)
.1*1

.17
.00

.33

.22
.21

.58
^333)
.96
(1U6)
.60
(656)

.15
(77)
.39
(11*1)
.72
(72)
.1*1
(290)

.08

*il

.09
.09

.11
.12
.11

.20
.10

.11*

.17

.1*1*
(1*9)

.lli.

.17

.18
(160)
.39
(21*9)
.61*
(131*)
.1*0
(523)

.09

(179)

.19

*06

(5)

( ik )

.21

.11
(1*0)
.39
(87)
«39
(57)
.26
( 181*)

.1*0
(23)
.36
(21)
1.00

.19

(a)

(278)

3-6

.26
(5D
.59
(186)
.92
(78)
.62
(317)

.17
.17
.17
-

.11
.12
.11

/yr>>
*66
(133)
.35
(3;
--6)
.7 6

(159)
*s
(653)
.25
(233;
.*>G
(317)
.99
(170)
•96
(720)
.1*0
(231)
.57
(66)
1..29
(11*)
.1*7
(313)'
.30 ^

.11
.16
.13
.15

.1 6
.1 6

171
«X
.15

.26
.1 /
«20
.21

.17

BbIow 3,000 3,660 - 6,699 6,5o6 or more Cbmplete Ran*
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Fanils^ Perso n Family Person Family Person Family Pen
.08
(1*2)
.19
(91)
.21.
( 26 )
.17
(157)
.07
(79)
.18
(52)
.36
(32;
.16
(163)

.12
(157)
.a
(26)
.66
(7)
.16
(190)
.10

(557;

(278)

.15
.53
(75D
.90
.1 6
(363)
.52
.16
(1691)

.19
(169)
•33.
(63)
.15
(5 io )

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.06
.05
.06
.05

o).
.05

,08
(51)
.16
(188)
.27
(78)
.18
(317)
.10
(77)
.16

.06

.03

.02

.05

(60 )
.12

.03

.05
.05

.05
.05

(126)
♦06

.05
.08

.07

*30
(66)
.18
(267)

.05

.09
(51)
.il*

.05

.05

.06

(a)
.0?
.07

.06
.06
.06
.06

.00
(2)
.11
(76)
.09
(179)
.16
(333)
.28
(1*6)
.17
(658)

.00

(87)
.15
(57)
.11
(186)
.05
(77)
.12
(1*1)
.20

(72)
.12
( 290)
.12
(23)
.11
(21,
.68

.03

.22

. 01*

.16
(658)

. 01*

.03

•07
(233)
•lb
(317)
•27
(170)
.15
( 720)

. 01*

.03

.03
.03

.06

.11

. 01*
.05
. 02*

.06

(231)
.03

.09

.05

.06

.03

.05

(160 )
.12
.03
(269)

.05

.05

.03

.05

.19
(136)
.12
(523)

.16
(159)

.17
(69)

.05

. 01*

( 366)

(5)
.05

.07
(133)

.03

.03

.16
( 68)
.1*7
(lb)
.u*
(313)

.05
<07
.06

.09
.05
(597)
.15
.01*
(751)
.01*
.25
(31*3)
.0?
.15
(1691)

27U

1*9

:Vu,CrlT_,ICn Cl

, "pl/4 f'f=

c 'til SI1
1 School
- 11 vrs •)

*

'

Sx 2)6 0.{
Family
A.

C

3 -1 *
0 o r more
A ll

h School
7TD . )

1 -2
3 - h
3 or more
A il

e than
a School
or 0.0 re
N
_>X0♦ 7

1 -2
3 -1 *
9 or more
A ll

w'rlRt-0
F-':6

i - 2
3 -1 *
9 oi* more
A ll

:i;EK*3 CONSUMPTION CP AND FXrFhDIlUPiiS h*OR, 21 LEGATION OF HOOSFPIFE hlTHih SIZE OF FAMILY AIT H IN. SIZE OF INCOME,
LAF3IIG. SPUING, I9?0

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family fol i a
3el_ow_3A000
3,000 - F?)*99
ET^OCT'or more
i 02*
Per
'er
Per
Fer
Per
Fam ily Person Family
Person Family Person
.37
(179)
.71*
(81*)
1.9E
(37)
.62
(296)

.22
.22
.26
.23

.31
(67)
.61*.
(133)
.56
(614)

.16

.6 1

.17

.19
.16

(261+)

.28
(60)
.91*
(99)
.98
(19)
*
• Ux'
(136)

.18

.38
(52)

.20

.1 6

.5 1

*l9

.32
(36)
.99
(26)
.37
(7)
.1*3
(69)

.19

.3)*.
( 2 71 )
.63
(169)
1«2 0
(63)
.56
(903)

.17
.1?

.18
.10
.17
.21
.19
.22
.20

(158)
.93
(61)
•56
(271)
.28
(36)
.70
(1+1)
1.07
(21)
.62
(100)

.16
.1 6

.15
.20
.20
.19

•33
(177)
•59
(332)
.96
(11*6)

.1?

.60

.17

(695)

.17
.17

.26
( Ll3 J
: 35
(76)
.5?
(UU)
.39'
(163)
.11*
(67)
.1*1
(96)
.65
(66)
.1*0
( 23I )

.13
.10
.09
.10
.0 7

;12
. 11
.11

.15
(32)
.39
(75)
• 77
(22)
.1*0
(129)

.08

.18

• 09

(11*2)
.39
(2)47)
.61*
(131*)
.1*0
(523)

.11
,11*
.12

.11

r Inco..ies of :
Average Expenditures
Complete Range 3elov» 3, QQQ
3,000 ~
re r
per
Pi■r
? er
Per
Fsmd.ly Person Ifend.lv
PersonFamily
.3a
(30?)
.59
(293)
ano
5'A
0?0)
•5 J
{?! V)

3O
*X
„•

,26
(179)
.1*9
(313)
60J( lli 8)
• 20
(61*0)

*11*

•O
Ft;A
(106)
*c2
(1 6 2 )
»0 /
h J
«AjvO1
(296)

07

.09

( 8?)
•17
.1?

.21

.39

(37)
,1?

06
07

m

09

.1 1

.03

09

(76)
.19

.03

(1*U)

•I7
(281*)

09

.12
(163)

.03

.08

05

.11
( 92)
il*.
(156)
Op

06

.09
(67)
.12

.03
.03

.19

.03

(60)

,11*

.2?

05

(19)
,1 k

05

(138)

.15

.09
(36)
.17

• 05
.0 5

*

(61)

Oli
09

.1?

*30
(? 90)

.16

.53

.19

(736)
.12

,1 6

.11

(3U3)
•5 2 _ .16
( lo t ! }

i n pa renthes es in d ic a te number o f 1 .:mi lie s from which known la te. were avcaged

.16
(?)
.13
(69)

.03

.10

. 06

.05

(9 7 )

(68)

05

.12
(79)

.03

.30

06

.2 1

.Oli

.09

03

.0 6
.19
(169)
.06
.32
(63)
.0 6
.16

.16

09

( 332)
?p
• no
(lLj.6)

09

.19
(11*2)

01*

.2J*

Oil

(»)

.12
(129)

.03

.11*
(298)

Oil

.06

.03

.09
(990)
.19
(71*8)
.29
(31*3)
.19 .

09

( lii 2)

05

(659)

01*

(106)

(22 )

(177)

O il

Ql*

.19

(271)

ol*

.07

<32)

09

09

.03

09

.17

09

ol*

.09
(38)

( 1 00 )

09

.111
(61*0)

(231)

(a)

.07
(179)
.1U
(313)
.21*

06

.03

03

.09

.10
(339)
.17
(293)
.28
(ii*5)
.16
(7U3)

(1U8)

.17
(271)

(26)
.16

.OU

06

Op

.11;

.08

.1?
u

.16

.16

.17
(133)
.27

09

(6U)

,1?

i" 1
1Cl

PU

IV/ithPfemily Dollar Incomes of:
ir/U99 li,8JQQ or more Complete Bangs
Per
Per
Per
Per
fer
Person Family rerson Family Persen

.12
(21*7)
.19
(13U)
.12
(923)

.03
.03
.03

ol*
ol*
09

275

BILL, .viTHIK SIZE 0? FAMILY LiTHIN SIZE OR INCOME
APGARINE; aF.KK'S CONSULTION OF KNB EXPENDITURES FOR, BY ST25! 0? BERK
LANSIEG, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs_._) b 'ith Fami l y

i xv
(B)

Size o f
Fam ily
1 - 2
3 - 4
5 or ..or*

A ll
1 -2
3 - U
5 or more

All
1 - 2

5 or more

All
1-2

.37
.(230)
.74
(68)
2.50
(2)
•pO
( 3 00 )

.23

*00
-~s
(30)
.55
(52)
1.52

.16

(19)
•65
( 101)
0^

(6)
•71.
(50)
1.09
(50)
.85
(66)

.33'
(206)

or more
A ll

(116

.23

(160)
1.2?
(61)
.57
(US7)

• 53

.16

19
.38

.6!4

.11

iS)
.23

• it3

• 17

.12
\ sX /
J42
<58)
..75
(2J

D', >.
■!,'--H

.13

(195)
»

X.'j

-X* 1

.SB'

. -tt

.15
..28
.19

. 11
.20
.18
.19

• 30
( 52)
.56
(123)
1.01
(16)
*56
(183)

.21

.17
.19
.17

,09
(33)
.32
(75)
.Ul
(16)

*O'j

.27

,08

.18
(20)
11
.GJ>
*(119)
*0?
(117)
r-' ry
*y’P(256)

(169)
• 59
(326)
.96
(155)
.6 1

»OS'
9\J'
■)

►17
.17
►17

(126)
.39
(236)
• 65
(133)
.ill

.6 1

.09

.22

.ou

.0 7

(5)
.12
( 200)

.°5

.13

»e3
(lO'v )
-,C(253)
5
57, "
.i..«

•1e
5'>
♦Jj
.c
.,

( ~~\ ■

«'jy
9,
i-c.

.11 •

.10

.12

,0 6

.11
.12
.11

.55
(610)
n•">
*4
( ly )
~\14.
«
■
:
’
(
#J nj
a,
( 2:;3;
.86
,13
(Vv7;
'
w1'
•^
4'J•'
*iX
(5^0
. 3i
(563)
.2 6

*i /
*16

(■732)
.89
.16
(336)
,53
.1 6
(1633)

•^j"j
( 30)
*i'
■3
:
'
.
(52)
.37
(19)
.18
(101)
•Go
(6)
y1
•(50)
9cr-,. yy
(5oj

,07

.05
.09

.07
.05

.03

.06
.05

.05

.1 0

.06

■‘
are 3 in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

•Op

.111

.J4

(79)

0)
.
♦_
<4
(86)

(266)
.19
(160)
,r
(61)
.16
(567)

.10

^lio)

(300)

(126)

.23 • • 13
(11)
.18
(1 2 6 )
.9 6
.17
(121)
.76
.17
(256)

.21

.22

• 15

."! B
(230)
*21
f oc
£0 \
V
)

(2;

3;

.20

3 - U

.19

Average Expenditures (S ') VAth Ttmily Dollar Incomes of r
Below 37000 T^0X2F~IT,7IS 9 5,500 or more Complete~Rang e
JrSr
!Per
’
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
'er
jam l y Person Family Person Family Person Family Pers<

.06
• 06
.06

.05

.15

.05

.07
( il)
.IQ
(125)
.28
(121)
.23
(25o)
,lQ
(169)
.16
(326)
.28
(155)
.1 7

(439)

.1 0

.05

.05
.05

.05.
.05
.05.

.03
(33)
.10
(79)
.12
( l5 )

.02

.08

.02

.03
.02

(1 4 )
.05
.03
.05
.05
.0 5
.05
.0 5

.05

•OS
(20)
.12
(A?)
.20
(117)
•16
(25 s)
.06

.10

•06

(U21)

(1 :5 )

.l*.l
(52)
(123)
.26
(13)
.15
(183)

.08

(75)
.13
(58)
.25
(2)

.03
.05
.03
.05
.03

(128)
.12
.03
(256)
.19 • .03
(133)
.12
.03
(507)

.1 6

(195)
.31
(9)
.12
(625)

.08
(105)
.15
(255)
.26
(51)
•15
(5io)
.06
(37)
.17
- (283)
.25
(278)
.20
(598)
.09
(563)
.16
(732)
.25
(338)
.15
(1633)

.05
•05
•05

.05
.05
.05
.05

.03

tA
O.
-

3 - 5

J o lla r In comes of
Beiov""3,000 " 3 7 0 0 Q~~^U>599 lIV!?QCr6r mere damole te Banpe
Per
Per
Per
PerPer
Per
Pe:
Family Person Farn.ly Person Fam ily Person

.05
.05

.05
.05
.05
.95

1^1.

Tft~K*S CONSUMPTION OF AND 'EIPKaiTIJRES FOR, BY OCCUPATION 0:-' HIAD O'? HOUSE HIT HI I SIZE 0? F M X X Y.TTHTN SIZE Of INCOK,
UHSIM3, StHIEG, 195'0

^

')rc r .I;on 'Oi

ouse

?rof esslsnsi 3
s r ia l &
:I

SdL.e of
Family

1 - 2
3 - Ii
5 or moire
All

S kille d*
Srmi-s i'd lie d
u n s k ille d

1 - 2
3 - k
5' or more
All

CAeriosl,
Hal ss "I k in ­
dred },
;jend ce,
errrrpleyed 1
He tire.I

1 - 2
3

- U

3 q t no re
A ll

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Below 3,uoO~~J73oq ' - ~ C T T
te T
t^er
r'er
Per
Family Person Family Person
MO

(26)
.39
I, 2 9 i
•oft
HD
.Ii8
l c If j
. 11
(5h)
.fa
(7?)
1.5?
(261
•~.
H “ 7)
.31
(150)
,.6ly
(52)
1.15
(15)
.1+6

.26
.12
•12
.15
• 20
.19
.27
.22
. 2D
.20
.20
.19

'-y -*

C elsie
r n,-e

1 - 2
3 - it
5 or move
M l

.33
(232)
* jO
(156)
1.28
<56)
.56
(666)

.21
.16

.22
.20

.2 8

(39)
•56
(73)
•56
(23)
.50
(135)

.16'
.17
.11
.15

• 32
(83 J
•57
(179)
.92
(86)
. : jQ
(3.88)

.16

.35
(89)
...b3
(77)

.16

1 .3 2

(33)
.69
(156)

.32
(171)
.59
(326)
.96
(lb.2)
.60
('662)

.17
.16
. ic

.16
.214
.20

.16
.17
.17
.17

Aver a
(t) With.IgailyDollar Incomes of*
With Family Dollar Incomes of:
CT j9^ h>500 or siore
Beloir
h»500 'or' more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Fer
Per
Per
1Aer
'Fir
Per
Per
Per
Family Perso'n Fam ily Perso n _ Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.19
(55)
. il
(io 5 )
,.?ii
(59)
•39
r-,i8 )

.10

.20
<U6>
•65
(69)
•55
'65*
.52
(200)

.10

.15
(36)
•U6
-(51*)
.69
(8)
.36
(100,
.20
UiiO)
.39
(21*7)
.62
(131;
•liO
(518)

•Op
,.13
.10

.13
.09
.±1
.OP
.13 5

.13
.12
.10

.29
(122)
.12
(2 j 6)
.69
(93;
.10
(521)

.15

.31
(163 i
.56
(353)
.66
(17^)
•Ag
(, 7Or j
.29
(237)
.58
(163)
1.20
*(60)
-.52
(,5.607

.17

i''

.16

.12

.11
.11

.07

.0'?

.03

(39)
.16

.17

.Oh
.05

.03

.26

.13
i 6b ).

.Oh

(23)
.15
(135)

.05

.16

.11
(56)

*06

.09

.05

.16

.20

.06

(83)
.16
a i9 )

.05

.25

.oh

.12

(11)

.13

(75)

.15
.16

.17
.21
.16

.13
.53
(732)
.66
.16
(331)
.52
.15
(I6u6)

• 37
(26)
.20
(167)

.06

.09
(150)
.19
(52)
.35
(19)
.11;
(221)

.06

.10
( 232 )
.18

(156)
• 33
(56)
.16

ikho)

(rl go res In parenfc-heses indicate number of I!’amili.es fro® which known bat a w ere tvernged .)

.05

.06

.06

.06
.06

.17
(353)

.09
(xoh)
.21

.03

.oh

.12

.03

(a s)
.06
(1*6)
•13

.03

.OI4.

(8 9 )

.05

•17
(65)
•13

.03
.03

(200)

.10
.05
(1*9)
.16
.05
(77)
• 35 . .06
(33)
.06
.19
(159)

.09
(171)
.16
.05
(329)'
.06 * .28
( 1 I4.2 )
.06
.17 .
(61,2)

.03

■(59)

'(86)

,06

.06

(55)

(73)

(29)

(5h3)
.11

.1 -5
(26)
.10

• 05
.05
.05
•05

•05
(38)
•11*
(51*)
.23
(8)
.11
(100)

.06
(11*0)
.12
(21*7)
.18
(131)
.12
(518)

•03
.oh
.oh
.oh

.03
.03
.03
.03

.08
(122)
.12
(206)
.22
(93)
•13
(U2l)

.oU

.09
(163)
.16
(3U3)
.214
(179)
.17
(705)

.05

.oy-'U
v’/'l
.oU '
.OU
'v.

.05
' ' '■.V1
':
.OU
'

.05 H
,A

.09
.05
(237)
.17
•05
(163) ■
.06
• 33
(60)
. -osH-e..;
.15
(U80)
.eg v
.09
(5U3)
.oU
.15
. ( 732)
.OU
.25
(331)
, A U /U
•15
(1606) 1
■■

(l'H

277

CO

00

rH
On

On
On

-J
O
1*
H

O

ON
U\

UN
NO

$

NO

CM

CO
NO

NO

ON
O•
rH

PC—
•
H

r~pi
CM
O
•.
•
CM
CM

rH
ON
•
CM

O
pi
•
CM

PCM
•
CM

CO
c*•
rH

CO
UN
»
CM

O

rH
%
ON

On
H
•
ON

Pi
•

pi
c^-

&

NO

ON

on

ON

1A

CM
pi
rH

On
CM
rH

Pi
UN
rH

CM
CO
CM

UN

OO

C—

NO

CM

H

H

CM

On
CA
On
•»
rH

ON
On
Pi
n
CM

On
On
On
•N
CM

On
On
pi
•*
on

On
On
On
«N
ON

On
On
Pi
•V
pi

1

1

1

1

1

1

O
O
O«

UN

ON

O
O
•»

ON

On
1X\

NO

ON

NO

On

c»MD

O
Pi
•
rH

INC0151 GLASS

CM

on

On
CM

on

o

ON

CM

00

CM

on

ON

O

CM

NO

rj

ON
UN

UN

€

ON
rH
•
CM

pi
3
•
CM

NO
rH
•
CM

ON
H
•
CM

CO

Pi
ON
•

ON

0

H w
Nw' u
0)
fU
O
•H h
-P 0
Ph

<T>

CM

If
CO

a >>
0 H
0 •d
0) to
CuD
00

0

on

•
ON

on

c*~
un

ON

O £
a)
(U 0)
g >*
o
o
pJ

h

o
o
o

I

Q
O
O
•»

rH

O
O
O

•k
CM

O
O

UN
•N
CM

no

O

O
O

•N
Pi

ON

CO

NO

On
On
On
•n
Pi

ON
On
On
*k
NO

On
On
On
•k
ON

1

1

O
O
UN
•k
pi

O
O
O

•»
UN

1
O
O
O
•k
O-

co
0N

K
>
0
•a
H
«
O
O
O

•n
O
rH

(It

o-

CO
NO

*>
0$

U

<D
d)
rH
a.
S
o
o
-P

number where

£0

O

Total

OO

information

with

3
>
<!

Per

FOR, BY FAMILY
ALL FATS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

ON

•
01 «

01

152.

c—

CM

variables was available

o

CM

to mentioned

NO

UN
CM

regard

0~CM

CJ

on

TABLE

D—

on

at

278

CM

CM

os
CM

sO
OS

o

CM

CO

O
CM

•

3

Os
CM

CO
CM

rH

CM
Os

♦

(H
OS

•

variables was available

o'

try

LANSING,

SPRING,’ 1950

a
.& o
P CO
,r
pi

ShJ
Q
I
f
§ UL
<0

us

OS

US

C—

SO
SO

Os
O-

OS
-d

OS
OS

Mi
-d

rH

rH

CM

o-

u \

us

o

us

o

Os
-d

Os
us

CM
OS

T“-d
•

0

O

-d

SO

Os
O
•
CM

os

Os
CM
•

& Pi
M
c
o
0
0)
b0[
CO

•

•

•

•

US

0

•
os

•

OS

os

•
-d

*

_d

os
•
so

1

00

fl) «
a 0
3 o
K «

JO CO

CM

os

CM

Os

3

-d

US
SO
-d

us

CM

OS

Os
-d
OS

US

SO

_d
Os
rH

CM
O
pH

us

so

O
_d

CO

Os

rrH

US

CO

a

0-

os

o
C"

co

Os

©
*1
o
a
SH
o
o
rH

4
&>Q
Pi
ctf
U

CD
-P
CD

rH

■a
o

o

regard to mentioned

CO
CO

CM

information with

so

number where

CM

OS
CM

Total

SO
OS

-=t

TABLE 1^3.

ALL FATS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FMILY

CM
.d

«

279

d
8
*
p.

CA
CM

J
CM

co
CM

fA
b-

so
Os

CO

*

.

CM
ca

rA

CA

oo
CM

Os

-zt
co

c*sO

CM
Os

£
f«4
fe
cu

•

• 1 O•

4)

rH

t

H

10
a 10
h
0)
d P
L,
o
JH
# «>
Ph
»
§
8
0
0)
bo

03

1
*=•!

1A
8
SO

la

sO

■US

-z t
SO

rH

C'-

"LA

C—

OO

o*

TABLE

so

8»
<u

rH

■8
A
>
r»
SO
IS—
.
rH

CA
CM
•
CM

C*_zt
•
CM

o
rH

.
CM

CA
CO
.
rH

o
1A
.

H

O

rH
.
CM

§
o
£
3
o
-p

US
rH
•
CA

"LA
Cs
.
CA

-Zt
CO
.
CA

-zt
OS
•
CM

CA
-Zt
•
CM

CA
Os
•
rH

Os
CM
•
CA

TJ
a
bO
0>
h
S
*H
s®
d
o

•H
1b

(0
Vi ©
O *H
rH

O §j
s w

e

XA
cm

CM

t—
so

4

CM
3

4

\A
-zt
m

CM
ca

CM

SO
_dH

151*.

ALL FATS: TSEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

H
(Xf

r—
u\
CO

bD

*1
® CO
bD O

1A
CA
1
sO
CM

1A
"LA

1A

"f
SO

I

CA

M3
-zt

UN
sO
1
vO

U\

£
0

1
SO
SO

o

sN

it

0
Pi
§

o

73
-p
o

EH

&

o
cr\

rl

-=r

CO

S

8
8
»

§ P*

On

C—

C^-

OO
CM

CO

OO

CM
On

XC\

On

vO
"LTv

1A
O•
CM

CO
CO•

xr\
oo•

rH

rH

U\

oo
rH
•

rH

•

w

vn

CM

CM.

On

On

cr\
On

1A

vo

On

H
C^

On
vO

1A

VO
o•
CM

-O’ CO
CM CM
•
•
CM CM

o
oa

-rf
rH

m

n

On

P,He
m
a

o&
o cH
0)
b0|Fm
U

& a>
P*

O
rH
•
CM

4

CM
H

•

O
o"\

•

<r\

ON
CM

w

O
_d-

rr\

On
no

CM
CM

CV
•
C"\

4
O
H

o
CO
•

cr\

C0
CM
~=t
CO

So

155.
TABLE

UN
CM

CM

On

ALL FATSs WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY EDUCATION

OF HOUSEWIFE

280

® -H

II

O 03
CO

£
0
cI

o

co

d
I
On

1

CM

H

cn
H

NO

H

S'
u
CD

*

rH

f

o

£

MD

T-A

s

co
o
•
CM

C^H
•
CM

58•
rH

U\
CO
•
rH

CA

C—
UN
•
CA

CA
C—
•
CM

OO

tA

<A

CM
CA

CM

On
CM

GO
CM

O
o

GO
CO

o
oo

CA

co

\A

On
Os

CM
On

sO

58

(HSO

On

CA
o-

vO

_=t
sO

SO

-=f
O
•
CM

t*<A
.
CN)

GO
CA
•
CM

CA
<A
•
CM

O
ON
•
rH

OO
NO
•
rH

O
CA
•
rH

rH
CM
•
CM

Os
O
»
CM

m
rH
»
CA

Os
CA
•
<A

GO
SO
*
CA

CM
SO
•
CM

O
■LA
•
CA

On
CA
•
CM

On
CM
.
CM

CA
H
•
CM

•
CA

On
CM
«
CA

CM

CO
ON

<A

o
1A

Os

H

sO

On

sO
GO

NO
GO

£
JpH
8
JH
■P <u

Os

CU

£
§
o frlt
©
MlPh
ci) U
0) 0)
Ol
4
ca
•h S
cn rH
CD

M

Cfl p4

0) CH
> O

«aj

rA
H

CM

CM

3

sO

CM

1

-Cf

rH
rH

Os

a
O

H - !>co

•s
I
—I

'O
a)
o
•H
+3
o)
fft,
3
o
O

I

T3
(D
•rl

'tJ
a)
o

T)
03

CD
rH
rH

sm
5

0)

t

rH
rH

CO

&
w

3
co

03

rH
C0

<D
M

o

T)
0)
Ph

1-

*H
-P

!

Pd

a)

•rl

[13

10
([)
H
o

o

0)
+3
(1)

rH

(3*
O
o

valuables was available

£

CA

CM

to mentioned

O

V\

CM

information with regard

CM
Os

CO
CM

Os

number where

156.

C*- "UN
CM
• CM•

On
CM

8
03

•H

es

TABLE

C—
CM
•

t*CVJ

Total

03

3

ALL PATSs WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDTTIRES
LANSING, SPRING , 1950

FOR, BY OCCUPATION

OF HEAD

OF HOUSE

281

Cl)

282

o
m
&
Oh

Os

H

H

ca

O
cn

CO
CVJ

O-

CM

CO
CVJ

H

O
CO

CM

CO
CM

CO
CVJ

-P &
p*
i
<0

#
On

vo
U\

r-i

ca
•

Os

I
y— s

•

03 S3
rQ O
rH ca

|

1A
vO

1A
vO

in

C*-

-rf

OS
m
.
CM

CM
O
.
ca

o

o

•
ca

CM
*

cn

ca
rH
•
CM

C—
CM
•
ca

in
o•

o
p-~

p—

•

CM
•
in

cn
MD
•
m

ca
ca
»
ca

ca
ca
_=f

CM
rl
ca

CM
CO
rH

CO
C-

vo

in
VO

vO

M3

in
•

CO
CVJ
>•
H

vO
•
rH

_d
O
•
CM

O
_rt
•

vO
Os

rH

H

in
m
•
CM

1A
vO

CO

3
~d

%
O

Ov

CM

vO

&

pu,

ra
a N

o H
o
0)

il

ap

CO

SH lH
0>

Ph

...

_d

1aB
s 1
m vO

rH

O
CM

in
CM

1

1

I

o

t

vO

cO

ca

Os

vo

p-

bjO
£3
aJ
SH
0)
-P
©
rH

f

number where

in

31

o
rH

as

Total

£

in
o
ca ca
l «
26

W -H

0)
'O

21

M 3

tv-

U

16

TABLE

03

o
oo

CM

11

l£7.

n

H

information

with

-«S

P-

variables was available*

O

to mentioned

CIS

P-

CM

regard

8L
tuo|

ALL FATS: WEEK*S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOE, BY SIZE OF WEEK'S

FOOD

BILL,

S3

O

Of

TABLE 158.

ALL FATS:

WEEK*S CONSUMPTION O F AN D EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

--------------------------..........................................
Average Consumption (lb s .) W ith Family D o lla r Incomes o f:

Size o f
Family

Below 3.000 3.000 - U,U99 U.500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

-~

th

.......

Average Expenditures ($) W ith Family D o lla r Incomes e f i
Below 3,000 3,000 - 1*»1*99 U,500 o r more Couplets ranee
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
i
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

1 -2

1.21
(277)

.71*

1.57
(178)

.81

1.1*3
(H»0)

.72

1.37
(595)

.76

.51*
(277)

.33

.71*
(178)

.38

.71*
(H*o)

.37

.65
(595)

.36

3 - 1*

2 .lii
(170)

.63

2.23
(332)

.65

2.20
(21*8)

.61*

2.20
(750)

.62*

.89
(170)

.26

.92
(332)

.27

1.01*
(21*8)

.30

.95
(750)

.28:.:;;

3.38
(63)

.58

3.35
(11*5)

.59

3.16
(131*)

.53

3.28
(31*2)

.56

1.25
(63)

.21

1.31*
(11*5)

.21*

1.1*2
(131*)

.21*

1.35
(31*2)

.23

1.79
(510)

.65

2.30
(655)

.65

2.21*
(522)

.61

2.13
(1687)

.61*

.75
(510)

.27

.96
(655)

.26

1.06
(522)

.29

.93
(1687)

.28

5 or more
All

(Figures in parentheses in d ica te number o f fa m ilie s from which known data were averaged.)

28b

TABLE 159.

ALL EATS:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) with Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - a 7C99 b,500 or more Complel
Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

1.38
(51)

.70

.60

.59

1.96
(188)

.57

-U3

3.19

•56

.55

(78)
2.17
(317)

.58

1.20
(39)
2.13
(87)
2.85
(57)
2.16
(183)

1.23
(131)
2.02
(366)
2.95
(159)
2.09
(656)

1.U9
(76)
2.23
(139)
3.31
(72)
2.30

.76

Housewife

Size of
Family

Per
Per
Family Person

35 and

1-2

1.07

Age of

under
3 -

1*

5 or more
All

36 - 55

1-2
3 - b
5 or more
All

5o and
over

1-2
3 - b

5 or more
All

Complete

(la)
2.05
(91)
2.bb
(2b)
1.35
(156)
1.17
(78)
2.19

(52)
3.81
(31)
2.00
(161)
1.27
(156)
2.37
(26)
b.86
(7)
1.56
(189)

.58

.70
.66
•65
.66

.91
.75
.81
.81

1.21
(275)

.7b

3 - b

2.lit
(169)
3.b0
(62)
1.79
(506)

.63

6 or more
All

(123)
3.51*
(65)
2.58
(265)

1.56
(1*9)
2. to
(21)
1.60
(2)
1.86

.90
.76
.62
.72

.59
.66

1.57
(177)
2.23
(332)
3.35
(11*5)
2.30

(651*)

.50
.57

.61*

.55
.62

(287)
.80
.75
.65
.77

(72)

1-2

Range

1.71
(77)
2.63

.62

.81
.65
.59
.65

1.6b
(23)
2.26
(21)

b.5o
(5)
2.20
(1*9)
1.1*3
(136)
2.20
(2U7)

3.16
(131*)
2.21*
(519)

.82
.65
.63

.70

.72
.61*

.61

1.1*6
(231)
2.38

(31U)
3.1*9
(168)
2.31*
(713)
1.37
(228)
2.35
(68)
1*.55

(il*)
1.73
(310)
1.35
(590)
2.20
(71*8)
3.28
(3i*i;
2.13
(1679)

Average Expenditures
With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,000 3,000 - b,b99 i*,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
.51
(Ul)
.81*
(91)
.9U
(21*)
.77
(156)

.28

.79

.51*

.32

.69

(78)
.93

.63
.59

.52
.57

.59
.67

.81
.72
.72

.77

.75
.61*
.57
♦6b

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

(52)
1.33
(31)
.82
(161)
.55
(156)
.99
(26)
1.81*

(7)
.66 .
(189)
.51*
(275)
.89
(169)
1.23

(62)
.71*
(506)

.21*.
.16
.23

.28
.23
.27

.35
.31
.31
•3b

.33
.26
.21
.27

•65
(51)
.78
(188)
1.27
(78)
.88
(317)

.33
.23
.22

.60
(39)
1.03
(87)
1.2b

(57)
.23

.30
.30

.22

1.00
(183)

.26

.88
(77)
1.10
(123)

.1*2

.79

.bo

.32

(76)
1.06

.30

1.1*0
(65)
1.09
(265)

.21*
.31

(139)
1.50
(72)
1.10

.25

.30

(287)

.75
(1*9)
1.11
(21)
2.17
(2)
.89
(72)

.38

.83

.b2

.35

(23)
1.01

.29

.75
(177)
.92
(332)
1.3b
(11*5)
.97
(651*)

.39

.39

.37

(21)
2.29
(5)
1.06

.32
.3b

m

.27

.75
(138)
1.05

.38
.30

(21*7)
.2b
.27

.60
(131)
.85
(366)
1.21
(159)
.89
(656)

.31

.71
(231)
1.05
(311*)
1.1*7
(168)
1.03
(713)

.38

.62
(228)
1.03
(68)
2.05
(11*)
.78
(310)

.36

.25
.21
.21*

.30
.25
.29

.32
.32
.35

.65
(590)
.96
(71*8)

.36
.28

1.1*2
(13b)

.2b

1.35

.23

1.06
(519)

.29

(31*1)
.93
(1679)

.28

285

1.60*

ALL FATS: LEEK’S GONSUsaPTION OF ALT) EXPE1IDITCRIS FOR, BY KDUCATIOP 0? YOU 5ELIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY LIT HIM SIZE OF INCOME,
LAc’SI MG, SLR 11.G , 19 50

Liucation of
housewife

Size of
Fami ly

Less than
if Mi School
(o'- 11 yrs.)

1 - 2
3 - 3
5 or more
All

hig; School
(12 yrs•)

1 - 2

5 or more
All

ghan
Mi gh School
01.3 or .-ore
yrs *}

1-2
.3 - 3

.79

l.O l*

.68

.71
.62
.71

2 .C &

(60;
2.98
(19)
1.7U
(139)
1.02
(.36)
1.60

.60
.32

All

.1-2
^ 3 - 3
5 or more
All

1.63
(87)
2.1*7
(132)
3-39
(6)4)
2.22
(283)
1.19
(30)
2.0)4
(137)
3.3 k

.93
.72
.62
.63

•d
*39
•39

^60)

*39

.39
•U9

(26)
5 or more

Oooolete
Range

1.32
(173)
2.39
(63)
3.68
(36;
1.91
(292)

(6o)
3 - 3

''■ox' e

Average Consumption (lbs«) With Family hollar Incomes of
3,sOO or more Complete Range
Per'
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person*

Below 3,000 3,000 ■- 3,399
Per
Per
Per
rer
Family Person Family Person

2.93
(?)
1.13
(69)

•33

1*22
(269)
2.13
(169)
3.38
(62)
1.80
(3oo)

*73

.33

.63
•38
.63

s. 1?
(2o?)

.39

1.31
(38)
2.19
(33)
2.63
(21)
2.O3
(102)

.80

1.38
(173)
2.23
(332)
3*33
(135)
2.30
(632)

.63
.30
.62

.81
.63
.39
.63

1.69
(33)
2.16
(73)
3.U2
(33)
2.38
* (161)

.83

1*33
(63)
2.23
(96)
3.17
(68)
2.26
(229)

.69

1.23
( 3D
2.18
(73)
2.39
(22)
2.02
(127)

.62

1.33
(139)
2.20
(233)
3.16
(133)
2.23
(317)

.72

.62
.33
.62

•66
.33
.60

.62
.38
.36

.63
.33
,61

1.92
(303)
8.3?
(269)
Jj •eg:
(163)
2.32
(736)

.p-4»1

1,20
(173)
2,11
(313)
3.21
(137)
2.11
(633)

.66

.69
,60
.71

.61
*55
s 39

.66
1.26
aop)
.60
2.08
(133/
2.66
*39
(30)
1.89
*39
f OO C: i
l.JO
(563)
2.20
(733)
3.26
(331/
2.13
(1669)

.76
,63
*57
.63

.Below 3,000 3,000 -- 3,399
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

x~ e r

.58
(173)
•93
v6 3j
1.26
(36)
.77
(292)

.35

.38
(60)
•91
(60)
1.10
(19)
.77
(139)

.31

*37
(36)
.73
(26)
1.12
(7)
,63
(69)
.53
(269)
.89
(io9)
1.25
(62)
.75
(500)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.28
.21
.29

.2 1

.19
.26

*27
.23
.20
.23

.33
.37
.21
.2?

.85
(87)
1.00
(132)
1.33
(63)
1,05
(283)

.33

•56
(50)
.87
(157)
1.36
(60)
.92
(267)

•29

*73
(38)
•67
(33)
1.00
(21)
.85
(102)

.99

.73
(175)
.92
(332)
1.33
(l35)
.96
(652)

.38

.29

3,500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person
.86
(33)
.97

Complete Haigp
Per
Per
Family Person

*70

•33

(303)

.97
(289)

.28

(73)
*25
*30

.25
.23
.25

*25
.19
.26

.27
.23
.27

1.58
(33)
1.11
(161)

.26

.71
(65)
1.09
(96)
1.33
(68)
1.09
(229)

.36

.63
(31)
1,06
(73)
1.03
(22)
.95
(12?)

.32

.73
(139)
1.05
(233)
1.32
(133)
1.06
(517)

.37

1.1*3

( H I)
.95

.29

.39

.28
.21*
.29

(736)

• 59

.33

(175)
.32

.95

.23

1.36

.28

(313)

.23

(1U7)
.29

•

.95

.27

(635)

.62

.33

(105)
.30

•9U

.27

(11*3)
.19
.27

.30

I .03

(50)
.81*
(298)
.65
(583)

.96

.19

.26 ■
.36
.28

(71*5)
.23

1.36
(31*1)

.29

.93
(1669 )

.23
.28

zrr====s=rr-r

,.eekfsFamily
;o°d B i l l (3)
15 'E under

ALL FATS: "WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF TREK'S FOOD BILL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF IIC®®,
LANS KG, SPRING, 1950
v
.

~r.•■.-■

Size of
Family
1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

16 - 20

1-2
3 - U •
5 or more
All

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Below 3>000-* 3*000 - [*,1+99
Per
Per
Per
rer
Family Person Family Person
1.21
(227)
1.59
(68)
3.25
(2)
1 .U0
(297)
1.1(8
(29)
2.08
(52)
3.22
(18)
2.11

.75
.63
.50
.70

.76
.59
.59
.62

(.99)

21 ■: over

1-2
3 - 1+

1 •oO
(6)
2.68

.75
.77

(hO)

5 or more

3.27

.35

(Uo)

Complete
range

1.58
(11U
1.86
(79)
3*1U
(5)
1.73
(198)
1.57
(la)
2.15
(122)
2 .8U
(18)
2.U9
(181)

.57
.56
.68

.79
.63
•5k
,6 k

1-2

1.2U
(262)
2.19
(160)
3.26
(60)
1.81
(1+82)

.75

1.60
(166)

.82

.65

2 ,2 k

.77

All

.56
.70

1.1*2
'■33)
205
(77)
2.61*
(11*)
1.95
(121*)

.63
.53
.52
.58

.21
•60 .
.h9
.66

1.1*3
(126)
2.20
(244)
3.18
133;
2.26
(503)

,6 k

5 or more

1.26
(73)
1.71
(U8)
2.60
(2)
1.1(6
(923)

2*06 1.06
(20;
2.1*9
.69
(119)
.51*
3.25
(117)
.61 .
2.80
(256)

2.87
(86)

(325)
3-3U
(1U3)
2.32
(634)

.59
.65

■'

i'-’gi ^

With Family Dollar Incoroes of:Average Expenditures ($) With
k >500 or more Complete Range , Below 3>000 3,000 - l*,i+99
Per
Per
? er
Per
Pir Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person

1.89 1.09
(U)
2.58
.71
(121*)
3.1+2
.59
(120)
.65
2.9*4
(255)

All

3-4

---

vt

.
CO

TABLE 161.

.72
.03
•54
•60

1.32
(i*ii*)
1.87
(195)
3.01;
(9)
1.52
(618;

.75

1.50
(103)
2.10
(251)
2.92 '
( EQ J
2.05
■i.)..(01*)

.78

.58
•5k
*67

•61
.5k
.65

.53
(22?)
.79
(68)
.83
(2)
•59
(297)
•7k
(29)
.89
(52)
1.02
(l6)
.87
(99)

1
J- •0j 0c. 1.02
137,,
2.56
.71
(283)
Kn
00
•S'
$ —7
U r7 J
Q*(-7
.<•*J
.63
(597)

•.72
(6)
1.11 _
(kOi)
1 .2?
(JUO)
1,15
(86)

'7f
I.397
* 10
155k)
Cq
2.22
(729)
3.26
.56
(336)
2.15
.65
(1619,
;
)

.55
(262)
.9O1
vl6o)
1.18
(60)
.75
(1*82)

r-»

\

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.33
.25
.13
.29

.39
.25
.19
•r\C.sj'

.36
.32
.22
.26

.33
.27
.20
*i00
cy

•71
(ill*)
.75
(79)
1.50
(5)
.75
(198)

.37 .23
.27
.29

.81
(iii)
.86
.(122)
1.01
(18)
.86
(181)

.1*1

.99
(ll)
1.09
(12k)
1.38
(2 0 )
1.22
(255)

.57

.76
(166)
p.i'
#ii
•«
/t
c
(325 i
1.33
(143)
.9?
(634)

.25
.19
.26

*30
.2i|
.27

•39

Family'Dollar tciejewi^^^’iu

U*500 or more

Coinplete Rangp

Per

Per
Per ^
Family Peggpifr

Per

Family Person
.62
(73)
.79,
(1+8)
1.37
(2)
.70
(923)

.31
.25
.25
.28

.78
(33)
.97
(77)
1.17
(Hi)
•9k
Cl2l|)

•39

1.07
(20)
1.20
(119)
1.1*6
(117)
1.31
(256)

.55

.73
(126")

•37

.28
.22

*78
(.103)
#90
■.26;
(251)
•20
1.06
i$ o )

.33

.33
.2If
.29

.32

1.05

.30

•23

(2i|i+)
1.43
(133)

•2l|

.27

1.07

.29

(503)

#60 ; •3U
ciaw.77
.24
(195) '
1.32 V
(9) ■
.66
•m
*■
(6ii).

.28
.89
{llOli)'
.99
(37)
1.1U
(283)
1.40
(277)
1.25 (597)

.52

.65
(554)
*96
(729)
1.5I1

.36

.329
•2f*.
L2|-'

.,30Jin4
*!!

(336)
im&l
•94 ■ »i2!£S"
(1639)

ALL FATS: LEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOE, BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE LITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY VITHIN SIZE OP'
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of
Family

p r o fe s s io n a l,
m a n a g e ria l &
o ffic ia l

1-2
3 - 1*
5 or more
All

S k i l l ed,

1-2

Semi-skilled
1 u n s k ille d

3 - k
5 or more
All

Cle ri c a l ,
Sale s S: kin­
dred,
Service,
Unemployed

1-2
3 - k
5 or more

6 R e t ir e d

All

Complete

1-2

range

3 - k
5 or more
All

l.L*5
(28)
2.07
(29)
2.82
(11)
1.93
(68)

.77
.62
.50

.62

1.1+9
(51+)
2.33
(75)
3.61+
(27)
2.27
(156)

.78

1.13
(U+8)
1.93
(521
3.57
(19)
1.53
(219)

.72

1.25
(230)
2.15
(156)
3.1+6
(57)
1.85
(1+1+3)

.66
.62
.67

.59
.60
.65

.71*
.63
.59
.65

1.1*2

(39)
2.09
(73)
2.60
(23)
1.98
(135)
1.73
(83)
2.31

(179)
3.52
(85)
2.1+7
■ (31+7)

1
1

IS
°3
11
1

O c c u p a tio n of
Head o f House

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Belov; 3 >000 3,000 -- V + 9 9
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family
•
V ►d
a> «n
■i

TABLE

.73
.62
.1*7

.59

.89
.67
.61
.71

1.53
(1+7)
2.21
(76)
3.1+9
(33'
2.27
(156)

.79

1.60
(169)
2.2U
(328)
3.36
(li+l)
2.32
(638)

.82

.63
.63
.66

.65
.60
.66

With Family Dollar Income.s of: Average Expenditures (,$) With Family Dollar ^neomesuj
£,>00 or more Complete Range
.below 3j0Q0 3,000 -ni,ii99 1*,500 or more Complel
Per
rer
^e r
?er
xer
Per
Per
Per
^er
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family p l i l f
1.53
(5U
2.19
(102)
3-17
(59)
2.29
(215)
i.l*i

(1*5)
2.26
(89)
3.21
(65'
2.39
(199)
1.38
(38)
2.08
(5U)
2.90
(8)
1.88
(lOO)
1.1*5
(137)
2.20
(21*5)
3.17
t o 2)
2.25
(511*)

.77
•6p
•5U

.61

.71
•66
.53
.60

.71
.60
.55
.62

.73
.63
•5U
.61

1 «)*8
(121)
2.11*
(2OI4.)
2.99
(93)
2.13
(1+18)
' 1.58
(182)
2.30
(31+3)
3.1+2
(177)
2.1+0
(702)

.76
.52
.52
9

^ J.

.81
.66
.58
.67

1.25
(235)
2 .09
(182)
3.1+1+
(60)
i.S5
(1+75)

.73

l.l+l
(536)
2.21
(7291
3.30
(330)
2.17
(1595 j

.76

.61
.61
.65

. 6)4

.57
.61*

.59
(28)
.99
(29)
1.31
(ll)
.88
(68)
.6)4

(51+)
.96
(75)
112
(27)
.8?
(156)
.51
(11*8)
.78
(52^
1.U6
(19 )
.66
(219)
•55
(230)
.91
(156)
1.2?
(57)
.77 ,
(1*1*3)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

.31
.30
.23
.28

•31*
.27
.19
.26

.32
.21*
.21*
.28

.32
.2?
.22
.27

.63
(39)
.87
(73)
1.26
(23)
.88
(135)
.80
(83)
.95
(179)
1.1*0
(85>
1.02
(31*7)
.75
(1*7*
,90
(76)
1.26
(33)
.93
(156)
.76
(169)
.92
(328)
1.35
(31*1)
.97
(638)

.35

.80

.1+0

(51+)

1.05
(102)
.23 , 1.35

.26

.30
.23

.26

(59)
X .07
(215'

.28

•Ul

.72

•36

.28

1.07

•31

.21*

(89)
1.50
(65)

.25

.29

1.13
(199)

.29

.39

.72
(38)
.99
(51+)

•37

(1+5)

.26
.23

1.32

•29
.25

.2?

(8)
.91
(100)

.30

.39

.75

.38

.27

1.01+
(d+5)
1.1+2

(137)

.21*
.27

(132)
1.06
(5H+)

.71
( ia )

.30
.21+
•29

.98
(20+)
1.32
(93)
.98
(1+18)

'F iY t
f fF

»:2|

.73
■ .37
(182)
.28 .
.98
4JL1
(31+3)
.21*
1*39
(177)
1.02
.28
(702)
.59
(235)
.89 .
(182)
1.33
(60 )
.80
'
(1+75)

.35
. 2$

.23
.28

•3 6 .
.67
(536)
.96
.28;:
(729)
1.36
(330)
•9lt . .+.28L
(i59s;
> :' i f

288

C
O
c
ot
©f
u 0
)
ft
■a
s
>
f
Wt*
©
boft
(
I0
HFH
<!PH
^— s
m

CO

o

"LTV

o

$

u>
o

UN

O-

pH

pH

C\

Cv

CN

UN
rH

c>

$

-d

UN

O

o

UN

O

u

O

rH

H

CM

CM

r~

os

00

rH

rr\
iH

UN

CM
UN

vo

_d

CM

rH

variables was available

VO

CD

f—x
•
CO F3
d O
H a)
Fh
CD
PS ft
O
5h
•P 55
f t ft

C\

O

00

H

pH

cpH

CO
Pi

0
0

H
•ri
0) ra

ttO
cd

r—
H

vO

_d

-d

O
UN

CM

CN

-d

UN

VO

CM
C-

rH
rH
•

Ov

UN

UN

Pr Pr
CD CD
> ft
«aj

©
C3
•rH

CO H
CD •g
UO CD
cd ft
h
(D
>

O c-

OO
•
pH

UN
•
CM

OS
OS
•
CM

rH
CM
•
CN

Ov
CN
•
CN

UN
r—
•
CN

CN
UN
•
CN

8•
CN

t—
UN
•
CN

-d

O
_d
rH

sO
CM
pH

-d
UN
rH

Os
C—
CM

Os
O
CM

sO

CM
CN
rH

CO
CM

vO

Ov
Ov
Os

Os
Os

OS
Os

Ov
OS
Ov
*k

Ov
Ov
Ov
•>

Ov

ov

rH

CM

Os
OS
OS
•k
CM

Os
Ov
Os
•%
Ov

1

1

1

cm

-d

rH

CN

CN

O

rH

09

09
0<D uQ)
ES rN
o
o
C
M

o
o
o
JH
0)
Tl
&

•» -d
•V

O O
O

O
O

•V
pH

O

•k
CM

O
O
UN
CM

-d1
CN

1

O

O
O

•»
CN

CN
I
O
o

UN
•k
ON

Ov

-d
OV

-d
I
o
o

UN

rH

Os
•»
vO
o
o
o•k

UN

H

OO
CN

u

£
o
§
O
o
o*>
o
H

OS

SO
SO

vO

0)
tuD
<D
•P
rH
Or

i
o

number where

00

information

<*5

Total

TABLE

sO

to mentioned

a>
>

vO

with regard

-p

cn

o

163.

OILS: TREEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY FAMILY INCOME

CLASS

CD

Ctf

289

€

g
(0
(0

o

vO
o

VO

O

in
o

$

€

XA

O

CA

CVJ

o

o

on
o

CJ

J*
IO,

FJ k
(U

•H cm

XA

rH

vo

oo

r-J

rH
CM

CA
CM

VO

CM

00
CA

CA

OJ

CM

5t

CO

-it

£

xa

in

co

CA

OO
CM

o

CA

CM

•
CO
J
O
H

a
o
D>

!h
a)

C Ph
o

H

rH

drH

CA

r—

CO

o

rH

rH

rH

vO
rH

•H u
•P 0)
eu

a
oo Hb
s>
g <D
%
<

CM

O
xa

xa

vo

Ov

vO

Ov

CO

C—
CM

OV

r-

rH

CU

Ov

a-

r—

CVJ

XA

CA

CO

vo

Ov

rH

•

0O

VO

On
ca

H

O
-it
XA

id:

Xa
xa

_=t

Ov

Ov

Ov

Ov

of
Ov

XA

CA

CA

CO

CA

TABLE

161u

CM

V

V
bfl

a
u
o

u
U
<o

3

rH

U
O

CM

CA

XA

vo

regard to mentioned

H

information with

-it
O

CO

Ov

a
8
o

number where

Q)
CUD|
fi
OJ

Total

s

variables was available

CA

*S
O

OILS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY SIZE

OF FAMILY

-P

290

to

©

$

o'

O

LA

\A

J

\A

t—
H

rH
CM

O

vO

rH
I— I

(V-

CrH

O

O•

O•

O•

ia>

it
«L
Ml
a)

u
©

CM

*

O

•
V

H

■s
H

FOR, BY AGE

OF HOUSEWIFE

I

irt
C—
rH

LA

H

VO
rH

c«rH

co
S

CA

rH

to

V

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPHENG, 1950

rH

■s
"p !

©

>
XJ
LA

$

vO

O
la

CA

CM
CM

{A

V
a
o.

•iH
C5
©
a
o

•p
XJ

&•
Pf
rH
•
CA

LA
Ov
•
CA

>00
•
CA

VO
Ov
•
CM

CA
Pf
•
CM

CM
Ov
•
rH

O
CA
•
CA

TABLE

165*

OILS: WEEK'S

£
a
o

•H
-P

©
O

co

CH 0)
O -H
H
* *H

o

CM
CM

On

"LA
pr

co
CO
Pt

<2.
PI­
CA

vO

CM
CM

LA

3

co
CM
CO

S I

(xi

©
°5
©
CO

M pJ
<S O
«

a)

U

©
■a
© 1 1
pi

12
PS
lA
CM

■LA
CA

vO

CM

LA

-P t

VO
CA

la
la

vo

-=t

LA
vO
vo
LA

P»
0)
!>
0

1

cP

td
Pc
0)
■p
(D
rH

g1
I
O

•rH

©
fn
©
-Ej
£
Pi
©
n
rH

rt

•P
o
E-i

291

TABLE 166.

OILS: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY EDUCATION

OF HOUSEWIFE

■

a

o
to
H
©
p
.in PU
p5
K
©
fV
■‘S

xa

o

•

XA
o

XA
O
«

XA
O

sO
O

•

XA
O
•

XA
O

NO
rH
.

C*H

oo
rH
*

rH
CM
•

rrH
•

P~rH
•

•

•

•

©

s*
rH

©

XA
rH
•

1

t© IV
oj
& Sh
!P ©
> Oh

«

©

rH

✓--H
•
(0 S3;
XJ O
H to
>■*’ Si
0)
S3 IV
O
Si
■P ©
V

rH

sO
rH
.

XA
rH

M3
H
•

XA
rH
•

frH
•

MO
rH
•

XA
rH
•

°o
Hj

vO
-ST
•

CM
XA

CA
XA

CA
XA
•

CA
XA
•

rH
XA
»

•

a

>>
o rH
■rl

o

©

qj

ttOIV
©

•

Sh Si
!P

•

•

©
> V
*4
©
N

r>
CO rH
till •d
M
ttO 1
ra (
xi

ON
CA
•
CM

© =H

f> O
<«!

-Xf
rH
•
(A

H

fA
«
CA

sO
.
CA

00
rH
•

CA

H
CA
»
CA

O
CA

•

CA

©
©

(3

'

O
CM
H

Os
OO
CM

CM
O

-rf

rH
co
sO

t^
rH
CM

XA
O
rH

A*_rf
rH
CO
•»
H

V

to
Si ©
(0 •H
© 2
>»
H ©
O ©
o S3
XJ O
o 53
to— -

>

0)
S3
o
•H
%

*H

O •H
rH
. •H
o

•H
(0
>
d)
to
|e
to
©
H
•2
•H
Sh
Cfl

C*1

o

rH
H

OO

•
i
Os

XA
H
CM
rH

1
CA
rH

Si
«
>
o
xi
S3

©
£P
c
Sh
©
P
©

©

H
o«

SO
H

oo

0

©
0
o
■p
■CJ
S
IO
tr
6)
U

5
£
S3
0

1
0
Sh

O
'a

292

V -/

G
O

m

OF gOUSE
J '

G
■P ©

OF HEAD

G

£*4
1

£
H

XA

O

CO

o

-=J
o

VO
O

XA

O

OO

O

O

<A
O

XA

O

_G
O

XA

XA

CM

Ov

Ov

l>rH

O

O

H

co
"H

CA

rH
CM

H1

CA
W

r—
XA

•J-

vo

vO
XA

-=t

VO
CM

XA

-©•

Ov
CA
•

1— 1
rH
•
CA

CA
vO
•
CA

XA
•
CA

CO
XA
CM

c—
<A
_=C

CO

CM

rH

rH

O

>

<S
•
© G
43 O
G. ©

^^ G
©

G CG

O
•H

CM

vO

vO

G

■P «
CG
01

G S
0 rH

CD •rj

V ©
W> fG

CM

-=f

XA

xa

CM

f-

Ov
CM

Ov
CA
•
CM

OO

CA
rH
•

ov

rH
rH

<A

8

rH
XA

g G
© ©
> CG

-=f

CM
rA

r—
O
CM

C>-

XA
*r
cA

•
CM

•
<A

vO
XA
CM

XA
XA
H

S

H

rH

CA

vO
On

-=t

CM
•
CM

1
—I

CM

t—
-T t
•
CA

CA
Ov

Ov
rH

Ov

CM
•

CA

at

Ov
CA

CO

T3
©
G

O
•H
-P
03
a
g
o
o

l

rH

©
G
o

*rt

at
co

©
o

T3
©
1
—I

■a

33 1 ^
33

rH ©

© G

M

at ch
G O

05

o3
•H Pi
&33
H
O

•-■a

oS
(0
©
H
©
CO

T)
©
rH
1
—I

3
3
CO

X
T
©

CO

T3
©
rH
rH

3r3a
G

CD

•d
©
t>s
O TJ
©
H
G
&
•
rl
© -P
©
G
G>

T5
©
•rl
'XH
•H
m
©
©
rH
O
G
CD

V
&a
G
©
G

©
©

-P
rH

l
CD

!

o

information with regard

CM

number where

-=r

op

00

©3
© G
SH ©
© CG

to mentioned variables was available

© 1*4
O h rH

Total

FOR, BY OCCUPATION
SPRING, 1950
^

o

(G

© PG

LANSING,

XA

o'

G

OILS: WEEK'S

TABLE 167.

PH

£

CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDtTUBES

<Q ©

©

293

a
o
U

PS

vO

CO
O

On

-st

vO

CM

ON

CO

O

o

O

&

vO
O

vO

o

VO

vO

ON
CM

CO

C—

PH

O

o

XA

O

1CD
a,

£

s

% fa

V3 S3
o
& CO

P

U

CD

S3

O

fa

a

rH

vO

U\

rH

CM

vO
H

•
r! CD
-P

fafa

5
9
S3
O
0
0)
bQ
cd

O

f=t

CM

CM

rH

vO

CO

C-

H

CO

rH

-«

XA

XA
O

ON
vO

vO
CM

VO

CO
•

XA

CO
co
•
CO

c-

C1
S
_=r

u

•

CM

•

1
H

•
H

CO

vO

VO

rH

CM

•

CM

CM
«
CO

xa

3-

CM

-=r

•

_zt

CO

o
CO

•
_=t

o

CO

.
XA

CO

o-

vO

u

XA

VO

XA
CM

O
CO

XA
CO

1

1

1

26

1

20

10
*1
<d

XA
rH

16 -

b
'd

CO

•* r—I
Xt H
CD *H
.0) fQ

-st
•LA

11

TS
O
O
fa ^3=

C—
Ov

-st
•
rH

H
CO

rH
CM

CD
>
o

•a
cd

vo

CO

-=t

r—

»
bO
S3
cd

U

a)
4>
£
§
O
P

variables was available

CO

to mentioned

CM

with regard

CVJ

information

O

rH

number where

O

Total

CD
txO fa
CIS
SL<

-

TABLE 168.

xa

cm

0)
P fa

OILS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF WEEK'S

FOOD BILL

CO
(H

CO CD
03 fa

TABLE 169.

OILS:

WEEK fS CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR. BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME.
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumptions (pts•) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
3,000 - k ,k 9 9

lj.,500 or more

Complete rang©

Size of
Family

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

1-2

.19
(27U)

.12

3 - U

•5U
(167)

5 or more

Below 3,000

All

•35
(176)

.18

.16

.53
(329)

.92
(63)

.16

.39
(SOU)

.1U

.28
(590)

.15

.18

.57
(737)

.17

.81
(131)

.lU

.82
(339)

.lU

.61
(512)

.17

.16
.52
(1666)

.38
(1U0)

.19

.15

.6U
(2U1)

.78
(1U5)

.lU

.5U
(650)

.15

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes o f f
3,000 - h 3k99

U,500 or more

Complete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Faiily Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3,000

.OU

.12
(176)

.06

.13
(lUo)

.07

.10
(590)

.06

.18
(167)

.05

.17
(32 9)

.05

.2U
(2 ia )

.07

.20
(737)

.06

.27
(63)

.05

.25
(1U5)

.oU

.26
(131)

.oU

.26
(339)

.OU

.13
(50U)

.05

.18
(650)

.05

.22
(512)

.06

.05
.17
(1666)

.07
(2 1 k )

(Figures in paretheses indicate number of families from which known data were a/eraged.)

295

TABUS 1?0.

OILS?

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE fF INCOME.
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (pts.) With Familv Dollar Incomes of:
of
Housewife

Si?.e of
Family

35 and

1-2

under
3 - h
5 or more
All

1-2

36 - 55

3 - b
5 or more
All

96 and
over

1-2
3

- b

5 or more
All

Complete

1-2
3

-h

5 or more

Below 3*000 3,000 - k,k99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

.35
('42)
.57
(89)
.60
(2h)
.51
(155)

.1?
.16
•11
.15

.23
(77)
.58
(52)
1.21
(31)
.53
(160)

.1)4

.12
(15b)
•3k
(25)
.89
(186)
.18
(186)

*08

.1?
(273)
•5i*
(166)
•9b

.17
.21

.ilO

(5oi)

figures m

.39
(76)
.52
(123)
.85

.22
.16
•13
.15
.20

.18

.11
.m
.09
.12

.15
.15

•16

.16
.16

.57
(265)

.16

.23
m

.12

•3k
(20)
.85
(71)
.28
(71)

.11

.26
(175)
.53
(329)
.78
(lb5)
•5k
(6k?)

Per
Per
Family Person

.b7
0 *o>

.2b

.70

.20
ell|

(ffli)
.79
(5k)
.68
(178)
•3b

.13
.17

(77)

(e>6)

(62)
All

•b3
(50)
.56
(186)
*71
(77)
.58
(313)

b*5oo or more

.15
.12
.19
.15
•lU
.15

.63

(137)
.76
(71)
.59
(285)
.bb
(22)
.50
(19)
l.bo
(1*6)
.5?
(bo)
.39
(139)
.65
(2bO)
.80
(130)
.62

(509)

Complete range
per
Per
Family person

.1-2
(132)

.22

.60

.17

052)
.72
(155)
.59
(6U6)
•32

.13
.16

.17

(230)

.58
(312)

.17

.13

.88

.15

.16

(168)
.57
(710)

.13

.16

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3*000 3*000 ■• b,b99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

b*500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

.16
(b2)
.18
(89)
.18
(9b)
.18
(155)

.17
(bo)
.29
(8b)
.26
(5b)
.26
(178)

(132)
.21
(359)
.23
(155)
.20
(6b6)

.08

(77)
.19
(52)
.35
(31)
.17

.09
.05
.03

.05

.05

•13
(76)
.13
(123)
.27

.07

♦06
.06

.19

.17

*18
(166)

.05

.lb

.82

.lb

.27
(62)
*13
(501)

.05

.07
(186)

•Ob

.0?

.ob

parentheses indicate number of families from which know data were averaged.)

.ob

.05

•06

.03

(20)
.35
(71)

.06

.10

.ob

(71)

(273)

.3.6

.26

(130 )
.22
(509)

♦Ob

(b9)
.11

*16

.17

*0b

.ob

.29

(337)
.52
(1659)

.07

.08

(587)
.57
(735)

.12

•lb
(139)
.2b
(2bo)

.03

.20

.18

.05

.12

(175)
.17
(329)
.25
(lb5)
.18

(6b9)

.0?

.08

.05
.05

.ob

.05

.15
(22)
.17
(19)
•b2
(U6)
.19
(b.6)

.05

.19
(265)

(186)

.08

.06

.06

.16

.09

.11
(77)
.21
(137)
.2b
(71)
.19
(285)

(66)

1.07
(303)
.26
003)

.19

#12

.Ob

.15
(313)

.11

•lb

,05

.05

(160)

.05
(15b)
.13
(25)
.25

(So)
.13
(136)
.23

.07

(77)

.18
(225)
.39
(6b)

.22

.lb

.06
.05

.06
.ob
.05

.05
.06
.06

.07

.16

.08
.06

.ob
.0 5

.11
(230)

.06

.19

.06

(312)
.27
(168)
.19
(710)
.07
(225)
•lb
(6b)
•33
(303)
.10
(303)
.10
(587)
.20
(735)
.26
(337)
.18
(1659)

.05
.05
.Ob
.ob
.05
•Ob
.0 6

.06

.Ob
.05

296

T4BL17 171#

education of
Nousewife

Less than
High School
(0 - 11 y rs .)

oiIS: VvEEK!S CONSUMPTION OF M D EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HO..SEWIFE RITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY 71 THIN SIZE OF INCOME,
UNSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of
Family
i —2
3 - 1*
5 or more
A ll

in.gh School
v11' yr s «)

1 -2
3 - U

Average Consumption (pts.)yith Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditure ($)Vith Family Dollar
Below 3,000 3,000 - A,Ii99 1**500 or more Complete Range Below 3, QQv
3,000 - 1^1*99 1*,500 or more
Per
Per
Per
"Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ifer
Per
~Per
Per
?er
Per
Fgmily Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person
.15
(173)
.1*6
(81*/
1.21
(36)
.37
(293)
.23
(57)
*<-■y

.0 9

. 1)4
.20

.11*
.15

A ll
.-ore than
High School
i 13 or more
s r s .)

1 -2
3 - h
5 or more
A ll

Comolete
range

1 -2
*
j"3 “ 4
5 or more
A ll

.57
(19)
«£
.l.
(13U)
.28
(36)
.66
(25J
.1*9
(7)
.4
(68)
1o
( 266 )
. 5)4
(16 7 )
•91*
(62)
.1*0
(1*95)

.38

.16
.1 6

.11*
.15
.20

(50)

.17

(58)

3 or more

.31
(85)
.56
(131)
.83
(63)
.5)4
(279)

.10
.15

.51
(157)
.77.
( 6 l)
.51*

.15
.11*

.20
.09

.18

.16

.13

(307)
.75
(11*5)

.66

.12

.19

.38

,18

.11*
.15

.63
(238)
.81
(131)
.61
(509)

.13

.51* .
(621*)

®ly

.31*

.18

.61
(137/

.18

.11

.60

.11

.16

050)
• E*
(293)

.16

.10
#iS

*29
(572)

.17

.58

.1?

(733/
.11*

*8%

-»t
.JJ!

(3 3 8 )
.17

*

(1 6 5 0 )

.07
(173)
.15
(81*)
.35
(36)
.12
(293)
.12
(57)
,19

.0*

.01*
.06
.01*
.08
.06

(56/

(106)

(IRQ)
.1 6

0i d

.56

.H*

.36
(173)
.56
(328)
.76
(11*5)
.51*
(61.6)

.16

.18

,28
(32)
.65
( 72)
.57
(22)
.51*
(126)

.12

.16

.19

.2 3

.16

.50

.13

.3 U
(172)

.21

.10*
(38)
.52
(1*0)

.15

.2 3

(3 01)
*dd
(289)
.97
( lli 3)
(733)

.16

.52
(99)

.11*

.1 6

.61
(222)

.16

.16

.18

(65)

{2V

.16

.1*1
(65)
.62
(92)
.78

.21

.15

(268)

.16

.1*1
(1*3)
• 61*
(71*)
.97
(1*1*)
.67
(161)

.16

.17
^19)
.16
(13U)

.03

•u
(36)
.23

.05

(25)
.15
(?)
,15
(06)
.0?

(266/
.18
(16?)
.2?
(62)
.13
(U95)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

.05

.07
.03
,06

.Oil.
.0 5

.11
(85)
.19
(131)
.26
( 63)
.18
(279)
.12
(50)
.16
(157)
.25
(61)
.17
( 268 )

.06
.06
.01*
.05
.0 6

.05
.0]*
.05

.15
(38)
.17
(1*0)
.21
(21>
.17
(99)

.08

.12
(173 J
.18

.06

.05

.25
(11*5)
.18
(61*6)

.2 2

.08

.06
.05
.06

(161)

.05
.01*
.05

.05

(328)
.0 5

.15
(1*3)
.20
(71*)
.30
(1*1*)

.01*
.05

.13

(65)
.22
(92)
.26
(65)
.20
(222)

.07
.06
.01*
.05

.11
(32)
.29
(72)
.20
(22)
.23
(126)

.06

.13
(150)
.21*
(238)
.26
(131)
.21
(509)

.07

.08

. 0)4
.07

.07
.01*
.06

Incomes of: ■
Complete Range

Pei?
Per
Family Person
.09
(301)
.18
(289)
.29
(11*3)
.16
(733)

.05

.12
(172)
.18
(307)
.21*
(11*5)
.18
(621*)

.0?

.12
(106)
.21*
(137)
.20
(50)
.19
(293)
.10
(579)
.20
(733)
.26
(338)
.17
(1650)

.05
.05
.05

.05
.01*
.05

.06
♦07
.01*
.06

.06
.06
.d*
.05

297

3LB 172*

;Haild1,;
11 ('>)
0 x*
w

OILS: LFFKfS CONSUMPTION 0? AND EXI;ENDITUHSS FOR, BY SI ZE OF LEEiNS FOOD blJJu YI THEN SINE OF FA LILY FIT HI N SINE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Size of

Iasi.

1 -2
3 - U

Average Consumption (ots.) Pith Family Dollar ^r.cones of
Aver;ge Expenditures (L) Pith Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3,0 30 3,000 S I4.,I*.9"5 U,500 or more Complete Range
Belov; 3>000 3>000 - A,U~95 U,500 or iriore CompTeti Range
r.er
rer
Per
Per
Per"
Per
er
Per
Fer
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
.18
(225)

.11

.uu

.H i

A ll

2.00
(2 )

.31

• 25

.12

3 - U
or more
A ll
1 -2
3 - U
o r more
A ll
1 -2
3 - U
or more
All

. 26
(30)
*55
(50)
.67
(19)
*U9
(59)

.1+5

.1U

.80

.16

.Ui
(Ul)

.21

.16

.50

.15

.12

(121)
.6U

.lit

.32

.55

.6 8

.19

(11)
.62
(12+)

.17
.18

.19
(261)
•5U
(157)

.11

.92
(60)
• UO

.16

(1+78)

.16

.12

.15

.15

.17

1.00
(1)
.Uo
(122)

*30
( 33)
*53

..20
.16

.’
15

.15

.77
(13)

*15

•U9

*15

.73
(20)
*79

.lU

.37
(165)
•Sh
(323)
.78

.19

.62

*37
.22

.16
.11+

.15

.15
.31+
.20
.lU

*33

.1?

O 2

( 2U5 +
•^0
w./
( 50)
• U9
(399)
.61

(
v3"5'V
f)
* (0

.lU

*63

.17

.39
(127)
.65
(237)
.81
(130)

.20

.62
(U9U)

*17

.7 6

.15
.13
.15

.lU

.07

•Op

.ou

.00
(30/
.18
( No +
.22
.16

.05

.05

.32

.06

*05

(1)
.lU

.06

(192)
.35
(8)
.11

.06
.05

(612)

( 122)

.06

.05

.16
(l21J

.05

.0?

.19
(21+5)

.06

.oU

.19
(18)

.ou

*2U
(71+)
•2U
(13;

.05

.21

.01+

.16

.05

.21
(120)

.07

(50)
.18
(399)

.05

*2U

.12 -

.21

.11

.05

(180)

.0 6

.1U

.05

.22

*13

(20)

(ll)

(39)

.17

.2U
(85)

.05

.16

.08
(2 6 l)
.17
(157)
.27
(60)

.05

igyres in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data wrere averaged*)

.05

.11
(101+)

.21

(1*76)

.05

.06

(UO)
.28

.13

.05

(7U)
.17
(U7)

.11
(33)

.19

.17
*56
(717)
.82
.iu
(333)
.16
*53
(1603)

.09 .
(UL2 )
*15

.07

.0 6

<~

(5)
.13
(196)

.12

.06

.06

.13
(51)

.11
(6)

.3

.11
(113)
*15 .
(78)
.30

.oU

C999

(553/

.19

.05

(19)

(592)
.29 ,

.1*7

.01*

(2 9h)

(275'/

.60
(252)

.07
( : 25)
.15
(67)
(2)

*33
(612)

(260)

(116)

.15

* L. 0
(UX2 ;
»Ll6
(l>- 2 >
1.13
(6)

KlOhJ

(116)

.80
(120)
.70
(255)

.55
( 631)

*15

(120)

(1U3)
*15

(71+)
.1+9

*17

(7U)

(18)
•U9
(180)

.30
(6)
(UO)
.96
(39+
.79
(6 5>

.11+

.Uo
(196 )

.lU

-31+
(1+7)

(3 )

(29U)
1 - 2

.18

(78)

(67)
or more

.35
(113)

.20
(12U)
*25
020)
.23
(255)

.26
(116)

.07

*0U

.2?
( ll6 )

.05

.05

.26
(252)

.06

.13

.07

.10
(553)

.05

.0?

.20

.06

.06

.05

.18

.05

.05

(323)
.25
(31+3)
.18
(631)

.06

.05

.12
(165)

.05

(37)
.23
(280)
.25
(275)
,2U
(592)

.OU

.05

(127)
.2U
(237)
.26
(130)
.22
(U9U)

.ou

.06

.01+

.05

(717)
.01+
•26
(333)
.18
.05
(1603)

298

"ABLE 173*

Occupation of
Head of House

r r c ie ss io n s l,
Dana g e r i a l &
O ffic ia l

OILS: PEEK’S CCMS'JILTIOH OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF Hi,AD OF HOUSE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LAHSII G, SPRINC , 1950

Average Consumption (pts.)
Below 3,000 3,000 - li,1^99
S iz e of
Per
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily ______ F a m ily Person Family Person
1-2

.26

(28)
3 - a
5 or more
A ll

.50
(29)
.76
(11)
•UU

(68)
id lie d }
jc ! ;ii- s k i l i e d
o u n s k ille d

1-2

3 - U
5 or more
A il

,.1U
.15
.13
.lU

1-2
3 - U
5 or more

GmiHlete

1 - 2

3 - U
5 or more
A il

.16
.11
.16

.19

.17

•5U

.16

.10

.86

15

.U6

.lU

(85)
.58
(3U5)

.17
(lU6)
.U6
(50)
1 .U8

(16)
All

.23

.22
(53)
.59
(75)
.59
(26;

.12

.36

(82)

(156)
C le r ic a l,
te le s -- k in ­
dred,
Hen v ic e 5
,ne:n.".loyed. 1
H e tire d

•UU
(38;
.53
(71)
.63
(23)
.52
( 132 )

•

ii

.lU
.2U

.35
(21U)

.15

.19
( 22 ?)
.53
(13U;
.90
(57;
.Ui
(U38 )

.11
.16
.15

•lU

.26
(U7)
.51
(77)
.70
(33)
.U8
(157)

.35
(167)
•53
(326)
.78
(1U1)
•5U
( 63U)

With F a m ily Dollar Incomes of:Average Expenditures ($) With
U*500 or more Complete Range
Below 3,000 3,000 - L|,U99
Per
Fer~~ P e F ~ “Per”~
Per
Ter ‘Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
F a m ily Person F a m ily Person
•35
(t5 )
.58
.17
(99)
.11
.62
(57)
.IU
.53
(211)
.39
(U6)
.69 ,
•(87 )
.96

.20
.20
.16

(6h)
,16

13
15
13

.72
( 197 )

.20

•Ul

. 21

(36)
.68
(52)
.68
.59

13
,1U
.15

• JO
(137;
• 6U
( 236 )
.82
(129)
.62
(50U;

.16

.19
(29)

.06

.6U'

.11

. 22

.ou

.lU

( U il)
.33
( 181 ;
•55
(3U0)
n/
• 0c
( 177 )
»50

• 25
•

0 "7

.17
.17
• 15

.96
(5?;

.19

•U5

.16

• 15

.16
*

1f

.16

(U67)
.

10

.18

.lU

171

• J-

.16

(66)
.11
(53>
.19
(75)
.18

.05
.06

•05
•03

(28)

( 179 )
.17

•05

(11;

(91)
IL

.10

(28;

(.229)

.20

(9o)
,18

.18

(696)

(s)
,1U

.36
(121)
.55
(199)

.29
(531)
.5?
(718)

.16

.82

.IU

i ~
«- L ;

.16
vl56)

.05

*06
( 1 U6 )

.ou

3.6

.05

*

.05
.05

(itu;
.ou

(327)

.26
(57)

.T
.16
('.1,'
lU rf?A'i
^/

.lU

.05

(U38)

which ]Kncrvn1 data were •aver aged.)
;s from
(Figures in parentheses indicate number oi families
from

.12
(82;
.17
(178)
.2?
(85)

•0?

•05
.OU
.05

.06
•05
.05
.05

(3 U5)

(50)
.07
.U2.
US;
.11
,05
(' 1 i
.08
(22?)
.18

.lU
(38)
.17
(71)
.21
(23)
•17
(132)

.09
(hi)
.18
(77)
• 2U
(33;
.16
(157)

.12
(167)
.17
(326)
• 25
( 1U1 )
.18
( 63U)

.05
.05

.ou
.05

.06
•95

.ou
.05

Family Dollar Incomes of:
U',500 or more Complete Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Persoh

•07
.13
(55)
.22
.06
(99)
.22
.Oil
(57)
.20
.05
(211)

.lU
(U6)
.21
(87)
• 31
(6U)
• 23
(197)
.18
(36)
•31.
(52;
• 25
(8)
• 2U
(96)

.22

.06
.ou

(91)

.18

.05

dill)

.06

.12

.06

.18

.05

•05

.27
(177)
.19

.05

.06

(181)

.05

(698)
•07
.09
•05
.08
.0?

•2U

.07

(50U)

.20
(199)

.07

.07

.lU
(137)
( 238)
.27
(129)

.13

(121)

• 05

.08
(229)
.21
(179)
•30
(59)
.15
U67)

.11
(531)
.20

(718)
.26
(327)

.06

(1576)

•05
.06
•05
.05
.06
.06
.01*

.05

299

«es o

co
U

LA

(U Pm
u Ci
-p 0)
■H Oh

CA

CM

CVJ

ca

rH

cA
H

©

•

co
CA
•

O

p-

la

la

Ov
CA
•

pCA
•

PVO

LA

vO

la

VO

vO

CM
-d
•

CO

P-

-d

-d

CA

vo

o\
vO

-d
la

VO
_d

CO d
-p o

a. CO
%

d Pm
d
•H 0
•P )
Si Ph

vO

o

P-

rH

CO

CA

CVJ

LA

VO

vO

ao

o

CD

EuD

cd

so

O

•

CA
O
•
CM

-d
CO
•
1
—1

o

H

Os
•
iH

CO
•
CM

Os
OS
•
rH

CM
<A
•
CM

CO
CM
•
CM

CA
LA
•
CM

Os
rH
•
CA

CO
_d
•
CM

vO
rH
•
CM

GO
P~
«
H

PLA
•
CM

rH
O
•
CA

H
CM
•
CA

Os
CA
•
<A

CA
P»
CA

la

CM
•
CA

CA
VO
•
CA

CO
LA
•
CA

O
rH
•
-d

CA
O
•
_d

-d
CA
•
CA

LA

CM

OS

CM

cd
LA
CO
vO

ca

£

to
«H CD
O "H
rH

• «H
s§ §
Em

CM

1A

CA
CO
CM

LA
O
CM

PvO
H

PcA
rH

-d
CO
CM

CM
vO

Os
CA

Os
Os
CJs

Os
OS
-d

Os
Os
Os

Os
Os
-d

OS
Os
Os

OS
Os

Os
OS
Os

Os

ID

<D

Os

o

CM

CM

CA

ca

-d

d
CO

H

Os
Os
Os
*k
VO

1

1

1

1

1

CO

rH

d

°4) CitD

g i»
O

q ^
d ^

O

o
o

•k

1

fH
CD

d

d>

8

o•k
rH

«*

O

•k

•>

O

n

O
o

o
o•k

LA

o
o•k

LA

CM

CM

CA

CA

8

*k

•k

•k

o
o
o•k
-d

•k

-d

Os

cd

la

«k

_d

o O
o
O
o•k O
U\

Wi

u

Os

1

o
o

>

O

o
o•k
o
rH

CD

variables was available

CM

to mentioned

P-

information with regard

M P*4
S d
<D CD
Cd
4

number where

©

■P

4)

rH

a*
o
o

Total

17U.

CA

rH

&&
w •H

W
03-^

TABLE

VO

d

FRUIT

JUICE: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY FAMILY

INCOME

CLASS

CO CD

cd

300

o
Ov
O

XA
r*!

ca

CVJ

«

P-

o

p—

XA

o

o♦

CM
xa

£

•rJ
'

9

c5
h

cA
CM
•

CA
•

XA

o

XA
XA

- '—

CA
O

s

P~
•

XA
- I?
•

oo

CA

-d

J CM

A-

i— J

O
rH

-=t

CM

CA

Os
CVJ

•

CD
(X|

rH

vO

XA
<A

XA

O

Ov
P^

AvO

-Zt

vO
•

CM

CO

vO -=f
• •

<A

CA

VO

XA

CVJ

vO

CA
CVJ

XA

O•
i— 1

CO
XA

•

H

CVJ

o•
CVJ

XA

rH
rH

CM

CA

•

•'

P—

co
*
CM

A-

CA

•

CM

O*

•
XA

CM

•

•

Ov

ap-

©
N
•rJ ^*3
K> H
•H
o) a
fcO TO
CO fe

cvi

« 'H

XA

CA

vO

os

co

OO
•
O

«

CA

H

oo
(0
<M ©
O *H
rH
• »rl

o a
a 8
fh

so
XA
-=fr
rH

XA
XA

XA

3

VO
-s f
CA

vO
os

i— 1

CM

Os

O
rH

CA

P—
rH

XA

A-

vO
CO

<D
u
o
s

<D
to
£
CO
JXi

o

+3
rH
&
o

CD

CVJ

CA

XA

vO

co

Os

rH

o

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

TABLE.175.

FRUIT

JUICE* YffiEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY;

A-

d
o
w
o
a*
u
0^

CD

TABLE 176.

FRUIT JUICES "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19$)

FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE.

301

*&> o
(O
J
0H
CU

CM
pH

H

NO

H

pH

u

0
PM
&H
•
fs
t*

-d
01

id

s*

8

VO

CA
On
•
H

VA
pH
•
rH

O
pH
•
CM

CM
Ov

vO
CM

CM

On

On
VA

■CM

NO

,~ d
IS ­

ON

va

NO
CO
•
pH

CO
CM
•
CM

C—
CA
•
CM

CN
pH
•
CM

UN
1—1
•
CA

VA
ON
•
CA

-d
CO
•
CA

"UN
Ov

va

VA

_=j

S

3

-d
♦

U
0

-CO
CA

A.

ft*

co

_d

0

CSJ

■H
CO H
0

^

u> ca

0 &

u

,

•

•

CM

CM

CA

CM

»

CA

0 ‘H
t> O

to
'H 0)
O -H
rH
0• a
3 J3

«S
°?
Q) 0)
>C
<W
jj
3O
o
w

CM
CM

O
ca

NO "!d
-d VC OA
H

U
0

(-*

l

1

T-P,
CM

VA
CA

1A
-d

"LA
VA

VA
NO

1

1

1

1

vO
CM

NO
CA

VO
_d

vO
VA

%cs
vO
VO

a
I
0
•p
(V
HI

g<
o
o

302

TABLE 177.

FRUIT JUICE: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

OF HOUSEWIFE

r - '* CS
*>— - o<0

(0 fe
© (X,
Jh
CJ Ch
©
P
(L
$
CS
©
&
><! H
W *ri
© 8
taoP*H
at
c« Jh
© ©
£ CL,
« jJ

Os

CVJ

O

CM

H

_=r

tso
~=t -cf

XA

1A

Pf

"LTV

* a)

rH
.O
ctf
r-t
•H

al
>
©

a
o

ca

<0
u
©

-=f
VO

u
4)
rXt

•H
© .
hDfj*

CO

ft ©
pH

CM
CA
•
H

rH
O
•
CM

vO

Ov
•
rH

O
CM
•
CM

rH

CM

CO

co

XA
•
CM

Os
CA
•
CM

-zt
VO

CM
rH
•
CM

£
£
ta
«>
rH
P
TO
CC
>
na>
CS
o
3*
§
e
o
p

•o
c.
nJ
t©
AOS
.
CM

XA
rH
•
CA

Os
CM
•
CA

XA
•
CA

CO
H
•
CA

CM
CA
•
(A

O
CA
»
CA

5
Is
CS

o

•rt
-P

CO

rH
CM

rH

CM
Os
CM

SO
O

VO
Os
sO

CM
CM
CM

-Zf
O
rH

u
©
>
o
rH

xa

rH

rH
CO

o

I
Os

CM

I
CA

TcSB
vO

at
rH
-d'
CO

©
bO

o
CS

•H
©
&
SH

©

<LI
P

©

I
O

CO

p
o
E-«

A-

XA

XA

rH

•

XA

CM

XA

-=t

QS

XA

vO

XA
sC
•
CM

%•

f-

CO

XA
H

•

CM
rH

XA
CM

XA

H

\S

xa

sO

A-P•
CM

CA
O
•
CM

CM
rH
•
CM

CO
OO
•
rH

CM
.
CM

AXA
•
CA

CM
c—
•
CM

-P
rH
«
CA

OS
CA
•
CA

Os
xO
•
CA

•■

•

•

f'-

H

a

-

a

CM

CM
rH

i—I

XA

OS
CM

XA
CM

&

CO
CO

•

CA

•

r-H

*

XA

ucj

CA
CA

co

CO

sO

XA

sO
rH
•
H

O
H

<A
_P
*
H

_P
rH
•
H

XA

O
•
CM

O
CA

3

rH
sC
»
CA

O
XA
*
CA

CO
SO
CM
CA
•■
•
CM
CM

CM
rH
«
CM

r—
-P
♦
CA

Os
CM
»
CA

XA

Os
rH

XA

a-

.
CM

sO

CM

OS

_

«

C~-

co

'd
o>
C!
O

•rl

•cos
Pi
o
s

■cds
•d
o

•rl

©

ftI
<D
$
O
rH

I
33
rc<
p
CO
01
<1>

rH
cd

CO

information

i—I

CM

Os

where

rH

©
o
£
U
0)
co

ti
<s>
rH
iH
CO

%
r^
33
n
I
©

CO

•d

®
3
!d
(0
t§

&
o

rH

<L>
5

0
>
bO

TJ
©
•H

•d

o

•H
•d

0)

•H
-P

£

CO

10

cd
rH

O

a

•P

o
a
p

§
•
o
o

number

CM

CO

£

Total

CA

with

regard

P-

XA
rH

was available

rH

s

FRUIT JUICE: WEEK'S
TABLE 178.

CO

variables

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BX OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£>

8
10
u
J
a?
.
u
JP

to mentioned

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

303

cd

(0
w b

-d

NO

O
CM

rH

CM
C—

ipj
g
09 CO
a

09 Ph

rH

-d

rH

CA

ca

QD
NO

rH

CM

H

I

Ph

<0
B*
w •H
09
bO

«!

CA

OO

CA

XA

NO

NO
P-

ON
NO

^o

rH
O

CO

XA

rH

rH

O
-d
•

XA
On
•-

CA

NO

NO
-d

&
£ pH
■Si
•
ca

G

-p o

f a ca

09

C Ph
O
£
fa

•

*

NO

C'-

NO

XA

xa

XA

XA

NO

G
09
fa

ca
G 5^
o rH

o

M (i-i

•

A*

CO

CM

On

o.
CA

O

3.

o

XA

CM

CM

CA

NO
CM
*
CA

XA
O
•
-d

rH

rH

XA
XA
•
CM

t—
•
-d

CM
*
XA

NO
«
XA

CA
CA
«
CA

OO

O

CM

O
OO

On

NO

CM

a
58

-d

NO
CA
-d

-d

•

•

!h

CA

CM

h
©
09
> fa

<<

0>
•H j> s
CO rH

rl
0) •S
boa
W Ph
u

09

>

<aj

rH

p-

H

o

CO

<H 09
O »rl

rH

NO

• *H

rH

rH

rH

CA

rH

NO

ft

^ I
fa
■o8■
Ph*^
*—-•
m
“ rH
A09! rHl
,«9 m
is

rH

0
t9
U)
c
a

J
h
<19

1
•<a
0
XA

O

XA
CA

rH

XA
rH

O
CM

XA
CM

O
CA

I

I

1

1

1

1

NO
H

rH
CM

NO
CM

H
CA

NO

3

O
Tj*
;
a
NO
CA

<19

■P

H
1'
O

variables was available

JUICE: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRENG, 19$0
FRUIT

ca

u
d)

fn

TABLE 179.

rH

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK*S FOOD BILL

30i|

a

TABLE 180.

FR U I T JUICE:

! E E K * S CONS UMP TIO N OF A N D EXPEND ITU RES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMIL Y FI THIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (pts.) With Family Dollar Income of:
Below 3,000

3,000 -■ l*,l*99 U,500 or more

Complete range

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Income ofj
Below 3,000

3,000 - 1*,1*99 1*,500 or more

Complete range

Size of
Family

Per
Family

Per
Per
Per
Person Family Person

1 -2

1.35
(276)

.83

1.56
(179)

.80

1.73
(1U0)

.87

i.5o
(595)

.83

.27
(276)

.17

.32
.16
079)

.1*3
(11*0)

♦22

♦32
(595)

.18

3 - h

2.37
(168)

.70

2.18
(330)

.63

2*36
(2U9)

.68

2.28
(7U7)

•66

.1*7
(168)

.11*

.1*5
.13
(330)

.55
(21*9)

.16

.1*9
(71*7)

.11*

2.U5
(61,)

•1*2

2.63
(ll*6)

.1*6

3.72
(133)

.67

3.C2
(31*3)

•5U

.1*9
(61*)

.08

.61
.11
(11*6)

.73
(133)

.13

.61*
(31*3)

.11

1.82
(508)

♦66

2.10
(655)

.59

2.5U
(522)

.71

2.16
(1685)

.65

•36
(508)

.13

.1*5
.13 '
(655)

.56
(522)

.16

.1*6
.ll*
(1685)

5 or more

All

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged*)

Per
Per
Family Person

Per
Per
Family Person

131.

vn

-oii£^oije

_

> under

FRUIT JUICE:

Size of
Family

1.13
(i+i j

.62

3 - U

2 .2 6

.65

A ll
1 -2
3 - U

(?o)
1.58
(25)
1 .S6
(156)
1.53
(77)
2.29
(52^

.65

2 .2 1

.61-

(363'

.55

2.2U
(315)

.60

(57)
2.35
( 18 U)

.63

1.61
(77)
2.33
(122)
2.55
(66)

. 8 I4

.93
.69

2 .1 7

.6?
•U5
.61

(265)

1.31
(156;
2.55
(25)

.83

6.27

.98

(7)
1.65
(188)

.86

.78

1 -2

1.3U
(27U)

.82

3 - U

2.30
(167)
2 .U5

.68

(6U)
1.50
(505)

.75

.59

. 6)4

All.

1.U5
( 132 )

3.20

A ll

5 or more

.63

.69

.J48

J 4O

A ll

2.17

1.38
(Uo)
2. 2U
( 07 )

2.7 1
( 78 )

(32)
1.93
( l6 l)

3 or more

.89

•U3
.66

1.22
(50;
1.U5
1>22)
2.65
(2)
1.33
(7U)
1.5U
(178)
2.18
(330)
2.63
(D 46)
2.11
(65U)

.62
.1*6
.I48
.55

2 .1 0

(76)
2.U3 '
( iljl)
I1. I 6
( 7 l)
2.7?
(266 )
1.22
(22'
2.2ii
(20;
A. 13
(U)
1 .9 2

.63
.I46
.60

1.75
(138;
2.35
( 2 )48 )
3 *7U
(132)
2.5U
(518)

2 .71
(1 60)
2.16

•U3
- u,’Q

1 .0 7

.70
.TA
.77
.61
• 6U
•59
.62
.88
.68
.68
.69

l . 7U
( 230 )
2.3?
(315)
3.18
(169)
2.36
(? lu i

.95

1.2c
(226)
2.06
(6?)
5 .-5
( 13 )
1.61
(308)

.75

1 • cu
( 590 )
2 .26
(?U5)
3.0 3
(3U2)
2.15
(1677)

.25
(U19
• U7
(90)
• 32
(25'
.39

.lU
.lU
.06

.11

( 156 }

(655 j

(U6)
• 75

*E IT TUI H S I Z E OH F A H E Y Y 1 T H I N SIZE OF ING0i3B

Average Expenditures ($) V/ith Family Dollar Income soft
V-.lth Family Dollar Incomes of:
U>5QQ op more Complete Range
below 3j 00Q 3jOOO'-~~U7U~99~ h f j OO or more CompleteI&nge
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Pe r
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person

, ‘ 27

2.30

1 -2

1.76
(51)
( 186 )

5 or more

3- h

Complete
rgnre

Average Consumption (pts.)
Below 3,QQQ 3,O O O - U 9U99
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Pei son

1- 2

5 or more

over

"EX’S C ONSUMPTION OF AND E X P END ITU RES SOR, B Y AGE OF H O U S E
IAKSIKC, SPRING, 1950

Ha
«£)y
.65
.67

.63
.78

• 7U
,85
. 00
.5U
.68

arentheses indicate :number of famili es from which t e n data .were avei

.19

.E l
(52)
• hh
(329
.37
(l6 l>

'.12

oc
(156)
.12
(25)
1.3U
(7)
.31
( 168 )

.16

.)

.20

•hi

.13

.13
.10

.08
,12

.13
.21
.16

.17
.13
.09
.13

.39
(Uo)
•59
(87)
.6U
(57)
.56

.20
.17
.12
.15

(18U)

(315)

• 32
(77)

.27
(27M
•UU
( 167 )
•U9.
(6U)
.36
(5055

.39
( 5 i;
•I46
(166)
.55
(78)

.32
(77)
.8.6
( 122 )
.70
(66)
•U8
(265)

.17

•U8
(76)

.13

.53
.15
(1U1 )
.80
.lU
(71 )
.16
.59

.2)4

.12

(50)
.29
(22)
•UU
(2)
.26
(7U)
.32
( 178 )
•U5
(330J
.61
( 1 U6 )
•U3
(65U)

.12
.13

.2U

(288)

.09
.08
.11

.29
(22'
•h9~
(20)
.93
(U)
•U3

.15
.lU

.13
.15

(U6)
.16

•U2
(138)

.22

.13

• 55
(2U6 )

.16

.11

.73
(132'
.56
(518)

.13

.13

.15

.35
(132)
•U9
(363)
.55
(160)
.U8
(655)

*18

.37
(230)

.20

•U9

•lU

(315)
.69
(169)
.50
(71U)
.25
(228)
.Uo
(6?)
1.0?
(13)
.52
(308)

.lU
.10
.13

.12
.lU
.15

.12
.17
.15

.18
.32
(590)
.IU
.U8
1
(7U5).
.11
•6U
(3U2)
•1*6
.lU
(1677 )

307

■aRLE 182.

Vduca^ion
louse,wife
.ess than
huh t-ohool

11 yrs.)

FRUIT JUICE: YELK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE AITKIN SIZE OF FAMILY YTTHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 195Q

Average Consumption (pts.) V.Ith Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditures (,$) V#ith Family Dollar Incomes off
Ii,'pO'T or more" Complete Range
Below 576^07^ 7 6 0(1 -~U7~U99 j, 5^0 or more Complete jfenge/
Size of
Per
■ Per
Per- Per ” Per
er
i'er
er
Per ^ P e r
Per
per
Per
Per
. Per
Per
Family_____Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

1 -2
3 -U
or more
A ll

Nigh School
(12 yrs*)

1 -2
3 - h

1 .7 6

.57
• U9
.62

.93
.6U

.25
.60

(±36)
-ore than

li-’
h School
,13 or more
- •• ^

1 -2
,3 - U

|

or more
A ll
vO'ilJ±GT,e

1.78

(3U>
U. 16
(26)
2.6U
(7)
2.79
(67)

1 -2

1.37

3 - U

(268)
‘l - • j
° ,7J

ran re

o r more
A ll

i.QU
1 .2 7

•h i
1 .0 3

1.33
(86)
2.1U
(132)
2.5U
(6U)
1.99
(282)
1.66
(52)
2.16
(157)

.68
.62
.UU
.56
.86
.63

2.76

.

A ll

1 *U3
(6 0 )
2.21
(59)
1.U5
(19)

.75

00

or ..ore

1.2 6'
(17U)
1.92
(82 J
2.9U
(37)
1.66
(293)

(61)
2.20
(270)

.60

1.95
(38)
2.39
(U l)
2.55
( 21 )

1.0 3

2.2 6

.70

.69
.58

(100)
. 8 I4.
.70

(167)
2.U6
. Ur
(6 3 }
1.8U
.67
(U98)1

1 .5 6
( 176 )

.80

2.18
.63
(335
2.67
.U7
(L-U)
2.12 • .60
(652)

1.6?
(U2)
2.30
(75)
3.52
(U3)
2.U6
( 160 )
1.56
(65)
2.19
(96)
3.72
(68)
2. U6
(230)

•8U
.67

.57

.75

.62
.U9

.65

1 .9 6
( 735 )

.OU

.79

1.5U
(178)

•65

. 6U

2*16

• 63

.65
.67

2.17 1.09
(32;
2.71
.77
(75)
.76
I1.09
( 22 )
.8 1
2.81
(129)
1.73
(1U0)
2.38
( 2U6 )
3.72
(133)
2.55
(519)

1.3U
(302;
2.12
(289)
0
C. # O
yK
;.x
( ii)

•

0!

.69
.63
.69

(312 >
3.03
(IU'8 )
2 * 20
(038)

.62
.

1.96 1.05
( 10 U)
O c0
1- * L- L'
.83
(Hi. 2;
3-2Li

.to

(50)

Cr
y
C-• 'O
£

r'-

.61

(?96)

.25
(17U)

.15

.36

.11

(82)
.57
(37)
♦32
(293)

.10
.12

.21
(60)
.U7
(59)
.39
(19)
.28
(136;

.20

.35
(3U)

.20

.80
( 26 )

• 2(4.

.57
(7)

.10

L*>

V

* ,-'U

.iu
.06
.13

.20

(67)

1.51

.33

(58U)
2.25*

.07

(7 u 3)
3.02
.52
(3U2)
2.1?
. 65
(1669;

.25

(86)
.U5
(132)
.65
(6U)
•UU
(282)
•3U
(52)
.U3
(157)
.60
( 61 )
•U5
( 270 )

.13
.13
.11
.12
.18
.13
.11
.12

.U6
(38)
•U9
(Ul)
.56
( 21 ;
•U9
(100)

.2U

• 32
(176)
.U5
(330)

.16

. iu
.

i1

.15

.27 _
(2 6b j
J lJ
( 16 7 )
t”' •’'V
«H\
J
(63)

.16

.09

.62

.10

.37
(U98)

.13

duu)
•U5
(652)

.13

3vi gores in parentheses indicate number of families from which known dat a w ere aver a ged..

.lU

.13

.37

(U2)
.U9
(75)
.71
CU3)
.52
(160)

.19
.iu
.12
.lU

.27
( 302 )
•UU
(289)
.65
(1UU)
•Ul
(735)

.15

•3U
(178)
•U7
1 (312)
.61
(1U8)
•U7
(638)

.19

.13
.11
.13

.37
(65)
.5U
(96)
.70
(68)
•5U
(230)

.19

.60

.30

•U7 .
(lOU)

.25

.18

.63

.18

(32)
.65
(75)
.86
- (22)
.67
(129)
•U3
( 1U0 )
.56
(2U6)
.73
(133)
•U5
(519)

.16

.12
.15

.16
.19
.22

.16
.12
.15

(1U2)
.69
(50)
.58
(296)
.33
(58U)
•U9
(7U3)
•6U
(3U2)
•U6
( 1669 )

.1 h

.10
.13

.13
.18
.18
. lli
.11
.H i

in'-t,

eek’z Family
rO'jF Fi-il [j]
If F under

F"1
-iTT o UICE: A’lA F f3 COPBlll'TljFi OF AKD FXrrFFliTJili.-5 FFH, ,r'i
fd
t.:_ra1d F-JLA- A ILL ATTrllP SIZE OF FAMILY71 IKIN SlZn CS' INCOME,
LAP 51 NOj, FrttiFG, 1>5G

Size of
Familv

1 - 2

Below 3,0uG 3,010 -- 5,699
o
-T
le r
Fer
rer
Per
Family■ Person Family
t
, Person

J

.76

(•- -7)
3 -

h

2.A 6

.77

3 or more
All

u

1 - 2
3-1
3 or more
All

:?l

ov er

1 - 2

1.50
(2;
l.n'O,

.23

.75

3 - 6

5 or more
A ll

1-2

3 - 6

.65

1 .5 0

*30

2.55
(5)
1*71

1.99

.62

1.86
(n;
2.55

.83

2,.66

•59

(661]

.59

2.13
( 181 )

(121;
2.56
(256)

1.6"6

.93

.51

2.66

2.57

.6 ?

2.71
ll8 j

.51

2.53

(2 ;

(121./

2.98
(Us}

1.37

(75)

(52;

.66

_.70

(122;

.63
.72
.83

(11-)
All

.61

2.25
(39/

(15a )
3 or more

1.95
(87)

1.85

(262)

r&nce

.60

2.1? 1.17
(21)
.71
2.51
(19)
.26
i.5o
,1r
*.\
Vly 4
2.21
.65
( 100 )

(85)
Amq .lei-

1.96

(195)

A.12 ■ 1.56

.68

iR
°•I
.A

• 77

i2 >t)

(6)

1.62

1.59
(115)
(79)

'-7J

iith Family Dollar Incomes of
8,500 <z r more Comple*te Fan 2:e
Per
Per
Per
Fer
Family Person Family Person

.86
.56

1.57
( 168 )

.81

2.20
(322)
2.66
(165)
2 .15
(638)

.68*
.57

*60

1.72
(126.)

.69

.12 1.06
(33 i
2.01
•59
(79)
,2.25
.83
(18/
.83
2.07
(126 )
1.77
(20)
2*60

(119)
j .98
(116)

1.37
(617)
2 .Hi
(193)

.77

.26

.15

(227)
.27

1 .7 8
(9)

*31

1,61
(019)

.71

—'«w-'i l.ilt
VIJh)
.61
L .10
f’ i
H
L~Z^ j
.60
2.13
(51)
2 •09 _ .66
'JUT)

.89

1.69

.76:

2.62
(280/
s .26
9277)

.73

2.87
(596/

.03

*9 u

(37)
.67

he low 3 , 000 3,000 -- 67W
*e r
Per
Per
Per
f a t l y Person Fam ily Person

•56

3*25
(255)

.71

1.77
( 128 )
2.38
(255;
3-75
( 132 )

.69

1.52

.86

*A"9

(556)
F.31
(725)

.6 7

.66

j •05

2.58
(SOS)

.69

.66
(67)
.23
(2 ;
.67
(29 6,/
■ *66
(29)
.56

.16
.06

.25;

.16

.15

.38

.19

.16

(75)
.37
(67)

.12

.7 0

.13

.1 6

.03

.16

(2)
•37
(126)

•15

.36
(19 9 )

.61
(6.2)
.38

.21
.11

d a ;

■(15)
.0 6

•69 •• .09
(16)

.68
(100)

.16

.6 0

.56
(6 )
•39

.27

.37
(11)

.21

.11

.56
(122/

.15

.66

.11

*31
(1 9 )

.12

V39i
.ml
(60)

.1 0

.5 1

.11

- (121)
.56
(256)

.13

.33
( 166 )

.17

.1 6

.66
(322)

.13

•50

.09

.62

.11

.16

(166/
.66

.13

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

( 636/

.16

•07

•15

.69;
(20/
.65
( 119)
.79

.25

•19
.13

.7 2

.16

(255)

.16

(6&D

.68

.28

( 116 )

.27
(262 /
.LIO
(±56;

(61)
.37

.55
(33)
•67
(79)
.37
(18)
(126)

(181)

(85)

•53
(337)
2,19
.c5
)lo2 o )

.30
VI.15/
.66
(79)
(5)

.15

8,500 or more
Per
Per
Fam ily Person

•66
( 128 )
.56
(265)
•73
(132;
•57
(505)

.22

.16
.12

.15

Complete Jfeng
fer
Per
Family Perse
.28
(617)
•63 s
(193)
.68
(9)
•33
(619)

.16

•67
(106)
•66
(252)
•39
(51)
•66
(617)

.26

.13
.08
.15

.13

.07
.13

.66
(37)
•59
(280)
•70
(277)
•63
(596)

.26

•33
(558)
.50
(725)
.66
(337)
•67
(1620)

.19

.16
.12

.16

.15
.11

.16

309

Si ze ox
Family

Prv/.i 6ssx o iia i,
. anagerisl D
O ffic ia l

~i
1
— ^^

3 - U
3 or more

A ll
1-2
3 - )-i
5 or more

A ll
Opr* c:
3 - U
nm.ce^
esxrloyed
Retired

l3 or more
A ll

)lete
"0

Average Consumption ( p ts .) E ith 'Fam ily Do l l a r . 'I ncomes of
Below- BTuOO 3,00Q ~z r h ? [ i W ~ Ix,50G o r more Complete 'Range
Per”
iPer
Fer
Per
Per"”
Per
Per
Per
Fam ily Person Family Person Fam ily Person Fam ily Person
1.78
(26)
2.91
(29)
3.77
(11)
2.61
(66)

.95

.87
.67

3 - 1*2

.83

r 'r '
x.OO
-I

.76

1.U3

.56

(82)
1.99

J.•I4.O
(lU6)
2.53
(5D
2.51
(19)
i *80
(216>

.93

•8U

2.UQ

.69

.62
.77

(10U)
4.08
(59)
2•63
(216)

.33

2.83

.1*2

2.23
(1*6)
2.33
(89)
3-. ho

.53

1.97
(3U5)

.58

2 .6 7

1.81

.93

.7U
.58

(177)

•i1ni
• U3

.0

1.93
(76)
2.86
2.00

>UU

2 .3 2

.68

5 or more

(1 5 0
2.U7
(56;
..6?

.70
1 .12'

.68

.68

.57

1.65

.85

2JUI
(5U)

.70

2 .08

.Uo

-56

(5)
2.09
X1 0 u J

*'Ey

1 .7 6

.88

.63

(13?)
2»38

.69

(158)
1.55
(1 7 0 )
2.17
(326;
2.60
( 1U2 ;
2.10
( 6 36 )

.70

(199)

(33>
.76

3 - U

( UUo)

.72

(135>

1.1*5
(51*)
1.95
(?U
1.91*
(28;
1.78
(156)

1 .9 1

1.UU
(53)

V23)

.89

A ll

.7 6

(73>

1.50
( 22 c)

1 -2

I . [48
(39)
2.85

0

Occupation of
«ead ox House

Skilled,
semi-skilled
■unskilled

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES 10R, 3Y OCCUPATION OF' HEAD OF ROUSE YflTHIN SIZE OF' FAMILY .YTHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
IE RSI MG, SPRING, 1950
• .■.

h’KuIT JUICE:

Co

iLb l&U*

(21x7/
• U6
.59

3 * 66
(131)
2.5U
(515)

.62
ho
*O
'./

1.53 . , 8o
( 118 )
2.63
.77
( 206 )
3.6 6 1 9OV
'(9 3 )- "
2.6 0
97)|
(Ul?)
1 . 6U
( 182 )

. 8U

2.07
(3U0)
2.73
‘(178)
2.13
( 700 )

. 60

1*9 6
(235)
2 . 2U
(iBl)
2.U2
(oO)
1.93
(U76)

.91

1.58
(535)
0 *27
(727 )

.36

3 .0 0
(3310

.32

a £~ly
( 1593 )

90 U
-

«27
*c0

/s
%OO
•-43
.6?

* OO

Av e ra g e Expenditures (3) P ith Family D o lla r Incomes o f:
~ ^ elow 3 ,'OQO 3pQQQ - U,lx99 U^50Q or more Complete Range
Per" ~FeF
rer
Per
~Per
Fer
Per
Per
Family Per son ■Family Person Fam ily Person Family Person

.33
( 26 )

•5U
(29)
-. 6 ?
(11 )
•51.
( 60 ;
.31

(5U)
.36
(?U)
a00
'y
(26)
’j<
* Tr'?
i.lecy
..cC
c

.18

.31'
(39)
..16 ' .58
(73)
.15
.77
.16
.16

•9
*-y0
(223;
*DU
1150
. 51
(58)
.37
(UUo)

(Figures in parentheses in d i cat e number o f fa m ilie s from which known data were average*i . )

.17
.lU

(23)
•5U
(135)

.16

.28

.lU

.11
.07
>11

.18

.15
.06

.Uo
(177)
.U9
( 86 )
• Uo
(3 1*5)
.39
(U9)
.U2
(76)
.83

.12
.08

.11

.IU
.17

•U5
(U6)

.23

.U8
(89)
.65
( 6U)

.lU

.53"

.13

.11

•hi
( 38 )

.2U

.12

• .52.

.15

.15

oO
•(358)

.15

.17

•32 .
(170)
■•U5
(326;
.61
(1U2)
.1x5
(638)

.1 6

.13

.18

.20

(33)

.09

.63

.20

(199)

*15

.13

.39
(53)
.6U
(10U)
•8U
(59)
( 216 )

( 82 )

( jM j -

*U6
(51'
t
•i
—■
(ip; '
•00
(2x8)

.16

(5U)
•U&
(8)
.50
( 100 )

.35
(118)
.61
(206)
.83
(93)
.58
(la 7)

.18

.33

.17

.18
.llx
•16

(182)
.12
.U2
(3U0)
.53
.09
(178)
.12
.1*3
(700)
•3U
(235)
•U6
(181)

.20

.09

.67

.12

.17

(60 )
.U3
(U?6)

.15

.22

.13

•U3
(137)
.56

.1 1

(21x7)
.73

.12

.13

,(131)
•57 ^
(515)

.15-

.16

•3U
(535)
•U8

.13

.1 8

•111

(727)
•6U
(331)
.U7

(1593)

.11
•llx

310

INCOME

O
c
v» ■S

On
"UN

XA
CM

rH
CA

CO

CA

CM

XA
_rt
•

On
C•

-d
7h
•
rH

CO
c•

XA
XA

o
oa

rH
CM

a

CM

<A

CA

CO
CM
H

XA

H

o

oo

O

rH

rH

XA

s

CM
SO

VO

O
CA

CM

CM

<A

o
CM

rH
Oa
rH

C"-

CM
rH
a
H

H
t—
«

O

-d
Aa
A

VO

r-

XA

CM

O

CM
sO

XA

rH
CA

CM

CM
<A

Ov
CM

rH
rH
a
rH

CM
a
rH

CM

MO
On
a

VO

o

o

-d
A

_=r

~=t

A

o
-=t

cd
NO

vO

lev

rH

O

T

BY FAMILY
OF AND ^EXPENDITURESK)R,

CM
rH
«

X-X
«
10 d
£> o
rH w
d

d

o

LANSING, SPRING, 1950

CONSUMPTION
POULTRY: WEEK'S
185.
BIBLE

O
CM
•

tt)
a,

•rH SH
■P 0)
CL.
(0
d >?>
o rH
O ■rj
0) TO
to a.
cd
d

d

0) 0)
> PL.
«*}

C*•-

Aa

rH

0)
tSJ
!»*,
CO H
0)

a
m

cd P*.

CO
a
rH

a

a
CA

A

a

VOa

A

A

cvO

CA

rH

rH

XA
a
A

rH

a

rH
a

a

9) c h
O

l>

<d

XA
QO

rH
rH

rH

co
CM

rH

o
CM

O-

-d
co
CM

c•*

VO

rH

m
cd ■

a) c3
a Q3
o
o l>»
M v-r

On

O
o
o

On
On
*\
rH

I
0)

I

8
o«
rH

On
On

CM

On
On
On
*\
CM

I

i

Os

s

8
o*N
CM

O
o

XA

•N
CM

Os

On
Os

On
On

_d

CA

CA

-=t

I

i

1

o
O
o
O
o•» X A
CA

CA

o
o
o•*
-d

On
CN
On

•N

-d
1
o
o

XA
n
_d

ON

!H
o

On
On
On

ON

>

•k
VO

«N
ON

o

<U
to

T)

<3

1

1

cd

8
o*k

o
o
o•»

XA

r-

On

c

O

O
o•N
o
rH

o
■p

rH
Q,

%
O

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

vO
rH
•

CLASS

rH
H
•

311

t
Os
O

ie§:

v -*

pH
•

cm

*

co
pH

■UN
rH

O
rH

O
pH

3

o
r—
vQ

<u
W)

<0 &4
Sh
©
ON

UN

UN

•UN

O
vO

UN

P-

OO
UN

CM

r»

rH
UN

ON
CM

o
UN

AND
OF
CONSUMPTION

H n

b
cm
o
Jh

-UN
Sf

NO
CM

On
CM

rH

rH

CM

rH
CM

rH

O

UN
CM

NO

CM

CM
CM

-p J?
& (X|

§
o
<»

bOP«4

<0

CM

NO
CO

UN
O

-rf

O
O•

On

UN

CM

.fi

«aj

CO

U-

«
•S >>
CO rH
•H
4) £

bO S

rt

UN
CO
CM

UN

UN

NO

CO

ON

3

CO
CM
•

UN

> MO
On

NO
r-x

Mi
U \

.CM
NO

UN
-= r
UN

CM
On

rH

H
O

rH

UN

O
-= t

186.
TABLE

ON
UN

<1>IrP
>|( N

P O U L TR Y :

"WEEK'S

On

£ S'
LANSING, -SPRING, 19$0

E X P E N D ITU R E S

FO R ,

BY

SIZE

*

OF

:k
w

P-

'O
UN
CO
«*
H

©

V

o

a

u
& xi

s

•rl H

U jj
© ©
II

u
o
CM

UN

UN

'O

CO

ON

o
H

b£)

d)
+3

Q)

rH

S3 W
O

variables was available

F A M IL Y

-P I
On .
E!
TO
G

regard to mentioned

CL,

Total number where information with

s

312

a
0

ca
k
w ©
© Ph

CM

FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE

§ U
■p ©
Ph

OO

e'­
en

©
■a Hh*
w
a P=!
cd
k. (H
© ©
Ph

OS
PA

CM

•

LANSING, SPRING, 1950

PQULTRYi WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES

CM
CM

3

CM

TABLE 187.

CA

rH

XA

-if

CM

•

XA
XA

Os
CM

XA
so

CM
-if

CM

PA

XA
CA

•

H
PA

«

rH
XA

Os
CM

•

A

&
co
cd
£
co
©

rH

•8
U
>

O
O-

■yrjf

CM

Os

=f
OO

CO
XA

Os

a
8
'■p

i

-if
rH

7?
Os

so

CA

<A

PA

00

•

sO
CN
•
CM

PA
^ f

CO
CO

Os
CM

CM

rH

CA

*

*

•

'0
&
to
©
u
a
a.
c
o
•H
P

cd

PA
CM
CM

pa

SO
-if

M3
CA
-if

PA

-if
CA

CM
CA
CM

!* - if
rH

CS
CO

&
©
O
©

03

1
acd
XA

CM

XA

PA

£4
©
>
O
is

XA
XA

XA

SO

I

SO
CM

SO
CA

it

sO
XA

a<0
sO

SO

(!)
0)
H
&
8
o

8
o
a
•H
©
©
X!
£
Sh
©
A

•p

cd
-P

o
Eh

313

TABLE 188.

POULTRY: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES POR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

OF HOUSEWIFE

rl

CM

CO

OO

CA

vo

H

£1
VO

VO
v\

CM

-=f

XA

CO
XA

•

CO
CA

«

XA

6)
rH
•8
rH
•H

£
cd

vO
CA

XA

CVJ

.

CO
CM

CM
CA
- •

CA
CM
•

O

CA

w
w
H
A
cd

•rl

CM

p*,

OO

CN

0\
CM

1A

H

O•

H•

CA

CA

H
CM
H

0
On
CM

O
O

C-

3«

. .

•
CA

CA

CA

CA
CA
.
CA

ca

On

H
CM
CM

cA
O
H

*

OO

. On

ON

CM
•

CA

n

<h ®
°'A

O

SB

ca

cCM
CO

Pei

OS / “ ■%

U <D

!>
O

ca «h

Pi
11
o a:
co ^

oo

pi

CM
On

i—I

ca
<a

VO
rH

0
t)
uQ
PS
cd
U
OS

+3
0)
H
I
o
cd

H

CA

XA

CM

rH

-st

XA

Os
XA

rH
XA

CO
CM

s©

XA

CA
CA

CM

CA
CM

co

-S t
CA

Os

rH

-S t
OS

-S t

t—

XA

GO
CA
•
CA

OS
sO
•
CA

sO

CA

sO

CA
CA
•
CM

CM

Os

SO

-S t

CM

-S t

CO

rH

sO
H

sQ

CA

CM
CA

CO
CA

XA

CA

a

CM
CM

O
<A

sO

Os

CA
sQ

C^-

r—

CA

rH

to

M (0
£J
o

UN
CM

sO

-S t
CO

CM

ca

£

XA

c—

-S t

Os

CM

CM

CM

O

&

£& Ph

01
a*
o
0
)l
hf
at
&I
pH
•5}

oo

C-

Os

CM

rH

r—

•
CM

-s t
•
CA

CO
CM
«
CA

Cj-

os atso

a)

«

8>1
at

|j!<H
5°

(0
O *H

rH

-S t
XA
•
CA

CA
r—
•
CM

Xa

-S t.
•
CA

Os

<A
sO

-st

O

»

d

O
CM

CM

rH

•
CA

-•
CA

CA

-s t
•
CA

O

CM
•
CM

CM

XA

d

CK

1

a
o

)
CaH
O
Sh

l

1

at

o

•rl
03
CO

Ph

rH
•rl

■aa
t

at

•rl

If
bflO
C
at O
3

O *h
•H rd
*h C
o -h
H ^4
o

3J
at

01
0)
d

CO

0)

O
■rl

>
U

©
CO

Xt

©

d

■H

CO

■XJ
©
rH
H
•rl
X

01

1

S—

©
CO

ri
o

rH
rH

s©

C
—1

xt
©
1*4
o
rH

©
c
t=>

X3

©
fn
•rl
-P
CCS

XA
flO

•\
iH

*C0
D
C!
O
33
at
a

H

x)
©
•rl
CH
•rl
©
at
rH
O
a
'S3

variables was available

c-

Os
rH

H

Total number where information with regard to mentioned

TABUS 189.

POULTRY: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES BOR, BT OCCUPATION
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

OF HEAD OF HOUSE

31U

TABLE

190.

POULTRY:

WEEK’S CONSUMPTION CF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF WEEK’S FOOD
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

BILL

315

d

o
co
&
ft*

MD

O*

LA

H

■ -*

On

H•

CA
H

NO

CVJ

CA
03

LA

H

H

a?

•rl Ph

■a»
a
3

On

&
a)

O

On
CM

A-

-d

LA
LA

LA

XA

NO

H

CO

r—I
LA

«
©

rH

■s

I—I

•rl

1

£
cd

CQ

m
cd

§
CO

CO
CM

d £
[Ph

■LA

CNI

CA

CA

NO

CM

LA
CM

CO
CM

CA

On
CM

o
£ I?

£
w
(U

I—I

■8

CL Ph

■3
tJ

B
o
o
a)
bo

NO
H•

cd

IA
la
•

ON

OO

xt
0

•

H

a~

0

•
rH

ON
H
«
rH

NO
Xt
«
rH

NO
A.
H

CO
ON
*

$
d
0

•rl

"d

&
4

a
o
p

tP
©
W
•H
CO rH
«
0) a
M cd

G
c
d
hO
0)
G

q
-d

xt
on

cd P*H
G

xt

LA
•
CM

LA
CM
•
CA

a)
t> O

LA
O
•

xt

On
NO
•

Xt

ACM
•
LA

ANO
•
LA

CA
CA
.
CA

■<

X
p

■SS
d
o
•H
P

cd

10
CD
O •H
\—1
• •rl
O g
553 <g

LA

NO

NO

CA

CM

xt

H

O

ACA

rH
H
<A

O
CO
rH

On
A—

v©
NO

&

cd

a-

LA
A~

ch

d
•H

©
0>
.G
£
G

G

a)

a
O
(*«'
=۩'
=

G

CO
~

rH

•M rH

0) -H

a
cd
LA

O
rH

LA
rH

O
CM

LA
ca

O
CA

1

1

1

I

NO

rH
rH

NO
rH

rH
CM

o

1

LA
CA
1

a

NO
CM

rH
CA

no

cd

cd

U
0)

rH

0)

P

p

rH
<A

A

S
o'
o

cd

O

E-*

cd

TABLE 191.

Size of
Family

POULTRY: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) ’
With Family Dollar Incomes of:

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes ofs

Below 3,000 3,000 - h,k99 lt,50Q or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Pot
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Fanily Person

Below 3,000 3,000 - it,U99 it,500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

Lf\
.

.20

.18

.57
(7til)

.17

.56
(133)

•09

.56
(3it0)

.10

•58
(522)

.16

.50
(1676)

.15

.52
(276)

.32

.80
(177)

.111

.96
(1U2)

.M

.71
(595)

.39

.28
(276)

.17

•1*2
(177)

.22

.1*9
(lit2)

3 - It

1.02
(166)

.30

1.05
(328)

.31

1.16
(2U7)

•3U

1.08
(71*1)

.31

.51
(166)

.15

.56
(328)

.16

.63
(21*7)

1.62
(63)

.28

.97
(lUit)

.17

1.10
(133)

.19

l.lit
(3l*o)

.20

.76
(63)

.13

.1*6
(HOt)

.08

.82
(505)

.30

.96
(6it9)

.27

1.09
(522)

.30

.96
(1676)

.29

•la
(5o5)

.15

.50
(6U9)

.lit

5 or more
All

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

CVJ

.37
(595)

1-2

317

TABLE 192.

Age of
Housewife

35 and under

POULTRY:

Size of
Family
1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

36-55

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

56 and over

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

Complete

1-2
3 - 4
5 or more
All

MEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY ACE OF HOUSEWIFE kITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY IE THIN SIZE OF INCOME.
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.)
Below 3,0GQ
3,000 - 4,499
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
.23
(42)
.79
(88)
1.40
(24)
.73
(154)
.93
(78)
1.50
(51)
1.97
(31)
1.32
(160)
.37
(1510
.70
(26)
1.00
(7)
•14*
(18?)
.51
(271*)
.99
(165)
1.61;
(62)
.81
(501)

.13
.23
.25
.22

.56
•45
.31*
.1*1*
.24
.22
.17
.23

.31
.29
.28
.30

.88
(51)
.93
(186)
.91*
(78)
.93
(315)
.60
(71*)
1.25
(121)
1.01*
(61*)
1.01
(259)
1.02
(51)
.97
(21)
.00
(2)
.98
(71*)
.80
(176)
1.05
(328)
.97
(11*1*)
.97
(61*8)

•1*1*
.27
.17
.25
.31
.36
.18
.28
.52
.30
.00
.1*1

.1*1
.31
.17
.27

With Family Dollar Incomes of:
1**500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person
.21*
(1*0)
.77
(86)
1.38
(56)
•81*
(182)
1.1*6
(77)
1.37
(11*0)
.88
(72)
1.27
(289)
.61*
(23)
1.35
(21)
1.01*
(5)
.99
(1*9)
.98
(H*o)
1.16
(21*7)
1.10
(133)
1.09
(520)

.12
.22
.21*
.22

.71*
.39
.15
.31*
.32
.39
.11*
.31
.1*9
.31*
.19
.30

•1*8
(133)
• 86
(360)
1.16
(158)
.86
(651)
1.00
(229)
1.35
(312)
l.ll*
(167)
1.19
(708)
.55
(228)
.99
(68)
.87
(14)
•66
(310)
.71
(590)
1.08
(71*0)
l.ll*
(339)
.96
(1669)

.25
.25
.20
.23
.51*
.39
.19
.34
.32
.17
.11*
.29
.39
.31
.20
.29

Average Expenditures ($) kith Family Dollar Incomes o£
Below 3,000
3,000 - i*,i*99 4,500 or more Complete raige
per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person
.13
(42)
.1*2
(88)
.75
(24)
.39
(154)
.50
(78)
.70
(51)
.81*
(31)
.63
(160)
.19
(154)
.38
(26)
.51
(7)
.23
(187)
.27
(274)
.50
(165)
.77
(62)
.41
(501)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from *&ieh known data were averaged.)

.07
.12
.13
.12
.30
.21
.14
.21
.12
.12
.09
.12

.16
.15
.13
.15

.52
(51)
.55
(186)
•44
(78)
.52
(315)
.32
(74)
.57
(121)
.50
(64)
.48
(259)

.26
.16
.08
.14
.17
.16
.09
.13

.50
(51)
.52
(21)
.00
(2)
.49
(74)

.26

.43
(176)
.56
(328)
.46
(144)
.50
(61*8)

.22

.16
.00
.20

.16
.08
.14

.11
(40)
.39
(86)
.75
(56)
•44
(182)
.75
(77)
.78
(140)
.43
(72)
.68
(289)

.06
.11
.13
.12
.38
.22
.07
.18

.34
(23)
.67
(21)
.37
(5)
.48
(49)

.17

.50
(140)
.63
(247)
.56
(133)
.58
(520)

.25

.19
.05
.15

.18
•10
.16

.27
(133)
.48
(360)
.60
(158)
.47
(651)
.53
(22$)
.69
(312)
.53
(167)
•60
(708)

.14
.14
.11
.13
.29
.20
.09
.17

.28
(228)
.51
(68)
.39
(14)
.33
(310)

.16

.37
(590)
.57
(740)
.56
(339)
.50
(1669)

.20

.16
.06
.15

.17
.10
.15

318

''T:'7-]T?y: VIATFS GCvKSUIvl:-TIO'T OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY El-UCATIOY OF BOCSaiPE BITHIY SIZE 'OF FAL1ILY BY THIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SBRING, l y £ )

Average Consumption ( lb s . ) P ith F o liIIv -jj .lar Income s of: Average Expenditures (6) vSitil Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3 3 000 ’37000 57500 or more Complete Ifenge
*5j 59r ^ y g O tT o r iaore Complete Pan .re
Per
Fer
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per ~ Per
Per
Per
Per
P'er
Per
Per .
Samity Persor _Fami]^ r ers on Family Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Fam ily Ferso'r
3 e lo w ~ J 5 ()< T ~ - 3 7 m - -

-I T‘e
'V.— h“_ ■---- - •

Size of
Fcirdiv

. -- ......

--------------- - . - -------- -

s£ t £an

1 -2

!i School

- 11 ;7T£ »)

3 - 5
3 or more
All

.59
(173>
l.lo
(62)
1.63
(36)
F-iO

• 3h
.33
.2?
.33

( 291 )
S School

1 -2

VT£ «)

3 - U
S or more
All

1 -2
3 - 5
or more
Ail

1 -2
3 - 5
or more
All

. 3?
(59/
1.10
(57)
1.56
(19)
.35
(135)

.23

.55
(35)
.37
( 26 )
1.93
(7)rJr
•po
(68)

.26

.52
(267)
i.0 2
(165)
1.6U
(62)
.83
(595)

.32
.2?
* OO
s
—

.11
• 35
.21

——

.63
(85)
1.25
(130)
•Ss'
(63 A
1.05
(2?8)

..T„l„, - —

.52
.36
.16

.30
.57

1 .0 1

.29

.62
(38)
.60
(U2)
.98
(20)
.68
( 100 )

.17
.27
.33
.17

.15
.a

.32

.81
d?5)

.5h

• 30

1 .0 5
( 327 )
.97

.29

.28
.30

(355)
.97
(655)

,

1,56
CU3)
1,25
(?6)
.61
(55>
1.19

• 75
^

»-7

.13
.31

.12

.35

.37

.78
( 32 )
1.25
(73)
1.13
(22)
1.17
(127)

.39

(1U2)
1.18
(255)
1.10
(133)
1.10
(519)

79

!i)i

.36

1.02,

»06

.81

(i?3)
.56

.19

.1C

.72

.17

.36

.12
.16

.19,

.12

.60

.17

l)o5
(307;

,30

.21

1.19

.21

.90
(19)

.16

.27

(n ? /
.97
(=>31)

.27

,56
(135;

,16

.26

.15

-36

(57;

.33

e •.; 7

.26

r.

(l6l)

(35)
.16
u26)
.67

• u5

.21

1.15

.22

• 35

(59;
.65
(296;

.26

.56

.71

.39

.17

* 35

(583)
1.09
(736)

.28
(267)

.32

.51

.3-5

.19

1.15

.20

.29

(339)
.29
.97
(1656)

.12

(7)

,26

.10

( 08)

(165)

•77.
(62)
.52
(595)

(,Fi g. r e s in parentheses indicate number of famili es f r o m w h i c h k n o w n data w e r e averaged.)

.19

.58

.08

.55

.15

•13
.15

.53
(51'
•53 ..
(i55)
.56
(61 )
,51
(267)

.27
.15
.08
.15

.38
(38)

.20

.32

.09

(52)
.52
(2j)
•36
(100)

.08
.11

.53
(17U)
.56
(327)
•56
(lUU)

.29

•So

.15

C6U5)

.72
(U3)
• Si
(76)
•36
(UU)
.57

.36
.18
.06
.15

(163 /

(276)

.31

.61
(105;

.67

(63 )

•53
(291)
(59)

(177)

.20

(130)

136;

.81

.39

(85)

(82)

(782;

.78
(5?)
1.06
(95;
1.27
(67)
1.02
( 229 )

.96

•

(301)
1.23
/r*. 'S C
V■- C' •1
1.08

053 j

(1639

.92
(51)
(155)
.99
(61)
.99
(267)

~

.13
,06

.36

.18

(57)
.58
(95)
.61
(67 )
.52
(22°)

.10

•U5
(32)

.23

.76

.22

(73/
.81
(22)
.69
(127)
•U9
(1U2)
•6U
(2UU)
.56
(133)
.58
(519)

.17

.15

.15
.20
.25
.18
.10
.15

.39
(301 )
.62
(288)
.50
(1U3)
.51
(732)
•35
(177)
.56
(307)
.59
(lU7)
.51
(631)

.22
.18
.08
.16

.19
.16
.10
.11*

•36
(105)
•52
(151)
.63
(59)
.58
(295)

•19

.38
(583)
.58
(736)
.56 .
(339)
•50
(1658)

.21

•15
.12
.15

•17
.10
.15

319

OuLTRY: Vjm:Af6 Go ASUMPTICE 0? AK'J LXi'RIQJTURFS FUR, BY SIZE OF ErRE'S
.LANSING, SrPING, 1950

.^Fk’s Family
DnAiALRi.
IF ■■■■ wider

Size o f
yamily

With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of?
Below 3,000 3,000 -- UU99 "'"U75oo <ar more Ooiuplete Range
Below 3 ,0 0 0
U,5CKJ o r more Complete Jfeng
Per
Per
I56r~
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
(Per
Family Person Fam ily Person Family Person Family Person
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Per so

1 -2

.UU
e2 26 )

.27

3 - h

.62

.2 0

(65;
5 or more
A ll
1

1 -2

3 -5
5 or more
A ll

r.l :• over

1 -2
3 - 5

3 .0 0

(20
.50
(293V
.va
(30;
1 .0 5

( p i;
1.U5
(19)
1.08
aoo)
2 .Uo

(6j
1.70

eU6
.25
.59
.30
.2?
.32
.70
.59

(h o )

5 or more

A ll
Gaio-leto

1 - 2

V •C

3 - U
.5 or more
A ll

iLL WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY VITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,

1.66
(39)
1.66
(65)
.52
( 262 )
1 . 0U
(156)
1.6U
( 60)
.83

(U78)

.26
.37
.32
.31
.28
.30

. 6U
(113)
.63
■ (77.)
2.25
(U)
.75
(l?Uv

.33

.69
(7 5'

.U5

.26

1 .2 0
(U6 )

*38

.39
• 30

1.3a
0 .2 ;
1.10
(122;

.0?

•h i

.09

(17)
1.10
(161)

•U3
(11)
1.17
(122)
1.01
(121)
1.07
(25U)
.6 0
(166;
1 .0 6

(321)
ae
( iiD
.98
(629)

.30

• 35
.25

.00
( 2)
.99
(163)
.6 0

.00
.Uo
•Uo

(33;
1.01
(79;
.00
(lU ;
.6U
V1 2 6 ;

.0 0

1 .U0

FA

.30

.26

.32

.33.

.18

1 .2 6

.21

.23

V116)
1.2U
(25U)

.2?

.31
.1?
.26

.95
(12c)
1.13
(2U3)
1.11
(132)
1.08
(a 03 j

00c* .J

1.05
( 1•0y5 )

• 5.U

(252)
• 71
(50;
1 .0 1

.2?
. 33
.30

.3 1
.13

.31

(UO?)

iio v
1.19
( J.ld )

J4I

.57
(UlUi
.65
(188)
1.86(6)
• 1A
J(C
j
( A10)

l.ll
(3?;
1.2c
0280)
1.21
‘ 276;
1.22

08
*35
.2 1
*27

(563;

.86
.38
.19
.29

.70
V5.9c)
I .06
(7 2o V
1.15
(33b)

.35

y•

* m

*

oi
.20
V

( lO lj;

rentheses in d ic a te number o f families from, ro ic h known d etc. : ere

;c. p, p v 'p g c

. 2U
( 226)
.80
(65;
I . I 4O
(9;
.26
(293)
.56
i 30;
. aC
(5iv
.72
115V
«5O1
aoo)

.79
v6;
.82
(50;
.76
(39)
.79
(80;
.25
(2 <02)
.53
(1 3 6 ;
• ~rn
i1
f oOJ
. 5-2
15.7 8 )
A.)

.15
.09
.22

.32
(113)
.50
(77)
1.52

.1 6

.15
. 26

w

.13
.2 6

.16
.13
.17
•Uo
.23
.13

.18
.17
.16
.13
.15

.12
(19U)

.17

.77
(U l)
.56
(122V
.17
(I? )
.57
(161)

.39

.22
(11)
.61
7122 J
.5-8
(1211
.53
■(25U)
J-3 _^
VI j o )
.5?
( 32U
.5?
(Hi2)
A1
(629 V

.lu
(76)
.56
(U6)
.00
( 2;
•h i

.22
.18
.0 0

.19

( 123)

.17

.i«o
^33)
.53
(79)

.20

.16

.00

.00

.18

(lU i
•UU
(126;

.lU

.17
.08
.12

,72.
v2O0
• 70'
(118)
.6U
U.16)
.67

.3 6
.19

.ii
.1 5

• 17
.08
•lk

• 57
(128;

• 2h

.62

.18

( 25.3 J
.57
(132)
.57
(503)

(8)
•35

•lU
.19
.15

•57
(105)
•55
(252)
.33
(5o)
.53
(Uo?)
• 58

(37)
.68
(280)
.59
( 2 78 )
.6 3

•2 9

.16
.06
.1 6

.30
.19
•
.10
.Ik

(593)

(251*)
00
<u

1 .1 1

.17

(6100

.03

.13

.30
(U lil)
•U5
(188)

.10
.1 5

.37
(556)
.57
( 720 )
.56
( 33U)
.50
(1610)

.20'
.17
.10
.15

320

I 'I '
..LL
i i.i -

jo/a/cp/iaca r -? aiaj e s f ^ k d it i^ s f o r ,

.ITHIS ?3IZr'

flilLYATTHIE size of i n c o m e ,

SPAI fo 5 19b 0

i nation of
.-cvf of reuse
/rotesstored }
. ana peri cl Jffici of

Size of
_, ... itonily
1-2
3 -

k

or more
All

/ :Ci11VUj
.mof -stilled
Vr//illod

1-2
3 -

h

if or more
All

/I, "Acor.

1-2

A A rr t Lein' '7 A *
'cr-'ie7 *

3 - k

..iu;,c Aoyed
■
-Ac tired

£
J or more

All

Oooipl. ate
rare?

1-2
3 - k
5 or more
All

>11or ~:.s
cf
Average Consumption (lbs.; Aith /AmiIp
0 or more Complete i.urigf
Per"" rev
Per
For
rer
Per
I;er
i'e-r
CvA '■•Arni.lv fercan
family Person yfmrlly Person family j'7-"
. 0'J
(2b;
1.3.6
(22)
.50
(il)
r- A'
• !0
( 36)
1.02
(52)
*96
(?k)
1.29
(27;
1.15
U53;

• 0c- 0
(166)
1.23

.26
.35
•09
.25

.55
.26
.32
•3k

•U8
(228;
1.09
(152;
1*78
(57>
.86
0+37)

.-3
(82)
1.20
(176)
.92
(83)
i.o u
(3:7)

.2 9

*25
.21
.2k

.6.3
•35
.16
*28

1.18
(55)
A.<il'
J
(x03;
i.ko
(59)
1.28
(2/ 7)
j..11
(86)
1,3k
(89)
.90
(6k)
1.15
(199)

.16

1.00
(67;

.52

.38

• 9li
(79;

.27

• I4O

.93
(32)
.96
(l5k)

.17

,5k
(36;
• ol
(52)
.69

.28

(3)
.61

(k9>
2*38
(i9j
.69
(216;

.56
(39)
•63
(73>
1.15
(22/
r *.
.cu
(13k)

• 2A
.26
.32
.30
.30

.61
(168)
1.06
(32k)
•96
(1U0 )

.97
( 632 )

• r>V
06
.2k
.3k
r

.39
.15

<*O
A./0

.if/'
*r
7•n
J..Cl
.13

.31
*1?

.27

.96
(135)
1.16
( 2k-k)
1.11.
(131>
.1.10
(51k)

* A6
(2c;

.11

. '9

.50

.13

,21

(25 ;
,21
>11;

*ok

. 3u

06

.1 2

AC

(5 )
\ rv:

A
(160;
1.15
.( ip/ )
1. no
/ l 77;
l.lu
(696)
C;6
(233;
_' P
(175)
1 .3 6

• 3k
,18

,20

.7 6

.22

, na. (
.2k
,2?

(U66;
•k?
•3k
.19
.30

i,Fieyres in oarentheses indicate number of families from v.iiich kno wn

* cf o■
(52)
♦rC0
(7k)

.31

.56

-17

( 27;
9arc>
(153)

(59;

(96)
.kb

* c■2
f 1!?2J
i.0'9
(205;
i „ pp
(°
i.o k 1
( k l':b

Average Expenditures (1) 1 th Family hollar incomes of:
..■elcoT 3 ,Ulu 37"
T 7 53T or more CompleteRange
:'er
te r
r'er
-It
For ” l e r
^er
Per"
•&m Ily Person ftir-.ily Person family Person Family Person

*72
,39
(535;
O'f
1,10
( 7 20 )
'■
1.16
* 'h,
Cw
(326;
,9c
.29
(1563)

.15

,18

,30
(39)
• 39
(78)
*5k
(22;
• cc
(15 k)

.15

•k3
(82)
.63
(l? 6 )
• 53
(86)
'f
• .rC
jj

.82

.10
.12

.18
.07

.1k

( tk k i

,11
.17
(Ik b ; '
.00
.16
( kk ; •
.9 9
.17
(19;
,1k
,3k
(216;

•5k
(k7)
.56
(75)
• I4 6 .
(72;
.5 k
115 k)

.25
(228;
,5 k
(155;
,8k
(5?)
*kk
(k37)

.1+3
(168;
.56
(32k)
•55 .
(ikO )
..50
( 632)

Lata. •were averaged*)

.12

.17
.16
• lk
.16

.67
(55)
.75
(103;
.7k
v59;
.73
(217)

•3k

• 58
(122)

.2 3

.21

.5 9
( 2 05 )

.17

.13

.63
(92.)
.56
( 519 )

.11

. 5'f
(6,6)
,66
(89)
.55
(65)
.56
(199)

.25

.19

.19
.0?
.15

.26

.2 6
(36)

.1 3

.16

.36
(52/
.32
(8;

-.19

.08
.16

.3 2

.06
'

.11

(98)
,22

.50

.25

(139)
,16
,08
.lk

.63

(2kk;
.5?
(131)
•58
(5xk)

,18
.10
.16

.59
(180)
.61
(339)
.52
(177)
.56
(696)
.26
(233)
.51
(176)
.62
(59)
.50
(568)
.38
(535)
5 .58

.16

.25
.18
.09

.15
.15
.15

.11
.15

.2EL
.17

(720)
.57
( 328)

.10

.5 1

.15

(1583)

321

cvO

u\

VO

CO

CM

CM
CM

rA
CJ

Os

00

C—

vO

o

o
r—

XA

•
CM

-a
CM
•
CM

H

CVJ
CM

CM

CM

rH

fA

)A

CO

1—I
CM

<*\

H
CM

<A
CM

CM
CM

VN
CO

V \
G\

4
P*-

XA

o
f*

CM
C—

•

•

•

•

•

•

c—

co

00

vO

vO

OvO

CA
XA
•
CM

CO
vO
«
CM

co
fA
•
CM

00
-d
•
CM

rfA
•
CM

MO
•
CM

XA
CO
«
CM

O
-d
•
CM

O
CM

On

CM
A-

rH
XA

CA

vO

O
rH

rH

0

<A

fA

(A

fA

fA

-d
CA
•

fA

CA
-d

O
CA

rH

XA
XA
rH

_d
CO
CM

C'»
O
CM

ON
vO

H

H

Ov
Ov

ON
On
-d

&
Ov

Ov

Ov
On
On
*»

rH

CM

CM

Os
Ov
-d
«
-d

1

1

1

O
O
XA
•»

O
O
O

O
o
u\•v

I
o

I
O
o

CM

CA

fA

CO

CO

H
XA
•
1
—1

CM
CM
•
CM

O

CD
r•

XA

O
O

rH

CM

vO
CO

C~•

e

•

CA
• -

CM

•

♦

•

vO

MO

vO
•

XA

•
CA

•
_d

co­
ca

c—
CO
CM

CM
VO

On

On
On
O n
•N
On

•
-d

*

fA

CQ

CM 0)
°n
* *H
§
tL

01
0,2

0) cd

rH

&
c!
:=>

Ov
•t

0 0 0 *1

I
S.
O P
»
o

O

1—I

•»

ft

Ov
•*
CA

Ov

Ov
*»
(A
i

On

OV
*>
vO
I
o

XA

XA

(0

Q)
>
O
VJ

0
&J3
a
(4
u
93
-P
V

rH
«v
O
rH

1
O

to mentioned variables was available

_ rf

OJ

number where information with regard

01
a
o
o
<
tD
iO[
c0
&
•5

CO

jst

Total

to
§
3 ui
U>
Q
c IPh
o
U
•
•H
P 0>

CM

2 ,0 0 0

TABLE 196.

EGGS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

INCOME

CLASS

f-

CM

SQ
O
CO
W 0?
0) CM
u M
+S (1)
CM

CO
rt

(SCM
•

vO
CVI

os
CM

CM
CM

O

CM

o
CM

-d
CM

CO
r-t

§
ft

w

OS
CM

CM
CM

2
&

"of
M X|
flj
U
& CD
> a
V

/—<./ —x

■r-s.*—%

0CM
•

US

CO

VO

r-

co

CO
Os
•

o
CM

CO
CM

CM

rH

rH

rH

•

•

vO
rH

rH
•

•
CM

OS
Us
•
CM

CM
•

vO
«Q
&

a PM
o
•
HS
+>
CMcm

_d
CO

•

OS
CO

os

•

H

C-

us

\Q

US
vO

•

Os
US

•

VO

O
Us

CM

CO

•
oo
C--

1
o
&
oS
J
»M
jjj

OO
•

vO
vO
•

rH

OS

rH

*
CM

-d

oo•
CM

vO

CM
•
OS

C—

oo•
OS

CM

rH

•
-d

Os
Os
•
OS

o

o-

•
r-

oo

OS
•

us
OS
•
CM

co

c—

CO rH

CO
CM

os

us

vO

c—

CO

(S

O

CM
•

OS

0)
Os

vO
CQ
Ch 01
O n-t
rH
* *<H
O S

us
_d
rH

us
us
us

os

VO

_d

Ov

-d
OS

vO

OS
rH

CM

as
us

rH

CO

oo

O

a <3
iL
0)
U

i
CM

os

Us

vO

oo

os

u
o
o
I—t

&
§
M
as

-p

a>

H

.
a,
r-*

s
o

Total number where information with regard tc mentioned variables was available

TABLE 197• EGGS: "WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BT SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 19$0

322

TABLE 198.

EGGS: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, ST AGE OF HOUSEWIFE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

.323

c
w ow
05 u
a>
Q> cu
U
•P &
PL.

H
CM

O
CM

CM

C—

CoXD

0\

•

•

CM

vO
CM

VO
CM

CM
CM

xa

CM
vO

O
XA

CM
C—

*

♦

xa

.

«

*a
a)

6£
NO

csS

H
3 (
ffl

r—
4

«
rH
■8
H

> PL.

NO

<a
co

vO

CA
CO

•

CM . CM
CO
CV.

.

*

a*
&
01
S
01
<11

rH

•5
t!

ctt

•a
a

0)

«H

O

o

op
XA
s
rH

vO
CA
•
CM

-=r

CA
Ov
•
rH

Os
CM
•
CA

XA
CA
CM

-=t

OV

3ft
CM
r-

CA
CM
*
CM

vO
.
CM

CA
XA
•
CM

XA
•
CM

o*

.—-j
H
c
CA

XA
Ov
•
<A

_=f
CO
*
CA

vO
Ov
.
CM

vO
CM
CM

CO
vO

XA
_d-

Os
(A

rH

CM

CA

*
CM

rH

co

hi)

C
£

IS

XA
CA

cO

1

XA
CM

vO
CM

XA

XA

LA
vO

vO
CA

vO

vO
XA

-=f

O

vO
VO

§
fH
0)
•p
&
i
o

o

•H
-P

g

3

TABLE 199.

EGGS: WEEK’S CONSUMPTION OF MB EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE
LMSING, SPRING, 1950

32U

CM

OO
CM

CM
CM

8

CM

00

OO

CM
CM

CM
CO

OO
(*■

OO
N

o
e-

OO
p—•

HO
o•

oo

•

«

•

•

«

CM

a>
rH
•s
rH
•rl

m
>
aS
co

to
3

&
o
•
H
ijiD
St

CO
CO

c*~
c—

oo
t*-

'S

_=t
C—•

CM

CM

r—

S

01

0)

rH

JO

a

•H

01

u
>

a
o
o
d
M>i
0)
S>

UN
vO
•
CM

CM
-d
•
CM

Os

oo
•

CM

P—
CM
*
CM

P f
OO
•
CM

POO
♦
CM

T5
vO

oo
•

CM

S
0
1
a}
S
o
P
■E

8«

U>
»

OO

OO

oO

to

o
rH

CO

8

-d
rH

oo

oo
H

*

•

OO

OO
•
oO

OS
CM
•
OO

us

u>

as
sO

CO
rH
•

rH

01

«H 0>
O -H
rH
• -H

O a
Ft,

CM

Os
CM

-d

Os
SO

CM
CM

o

rH

UN
OO

fH ft)
CtJ «H
O -H
>* F
rH £
O CO
Q O
43 O
O 33
CO w

as
>
0—
1

o

CO

3
I
Os

U \

rH

CM

J
OO

rH

o
TJ

G

a>
vO

rH

(h

s
•g
c
o
•
H
-H
as
o
'S
•H

So

01 r - x

<p

g

OS
(0
43
£

«)

«

p0)

rH

&
S

o
o

rH

CO
o
e-c

P

ct

CO

i
H
a-

oo

O

CA
NO

-O-

nO

.p -

co

CM
-G

p-.
CA
•
CM

o
On

CA

_G

H

CM

OO
CA
*
CM

CA
•
CM

CA
p.
CM

m

H
p—

—G

rH
•
CA

On
CA
•
<A

.On
NO
•
CA

CM
NO
•
CA

CA

CO

_G

•

♦

c-'-

CM

CM

co

CM

NO

ca

CM

_G

A

CM

On
rH

rH

CA

NO

_G
c^-

CA
CO

MD
*

CM
QO
•
CM

NO
r-

CM
CA

rH

CA
CA
•
i
—1

p~G
•
CA

CO
CA
.
CM

PCM
•
CM

CA

CA

O

CA

CO

-G
CM

OO

CM
CM

CM

g

CO 0
01

f
Q
rl g
«
fu
O
3 u0
o*a.

o

Os

O

CM

On

P•

CM
p~

(0
G
O&
o

0
d1
ax«_
(tf

G

01

I

•

CM

•

O»

.

.

H

-G
P-

fA

«
CM

e
CM

P~
-G
«
CA

oo
CM
V
CA

■A

1A

O

<n

CA

•
CM

Cm
rH

V\
NO

NO

CM

rH
rH

CM

rH
rH

On

nO
CM

CM

_G
-G

H

rH

CM
rH

a

CM

ON

H
§*
O
o

o

CA
CO

*<

rH

Ed

•H

a!

CO

i t

O

On

rH

S
o

•H
(0
«
0)

Vi

o

*8

'd
g
0}

I

^
*H dCO

fca»OH
0
M-rl
to V

IB
08 TJ
H 0
« G
o 'Q

G Vi
oJ

,'<a

vtriables was available

_G
NO CA
P-

*

CA

■vaitJc regarti to »entioned

H
NO

CM

information

-=r
c-

•

where

CM

•

O

H
o

■O
a>

♦H

H

rH

t
0
(0

<D
H
«S

CO

T3

I
—i
s

CO

*H
M
U1
I

e!
a>
co

xi

T3
0)

rH
rH
•r-t

I/i
g

a>
*»»

o

rH

i
Q;*
G

d'
■H
V

■X3

•rl

U.

«5
O
G
CO

®

•H

-P
pd

n

03

&
ClC
c
cs
V
V
p
o

H

B
o

number

OF HEAD
BY OCCUPATION
CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

cm
«

200.

EGGS: WEEK'S

In

CM

r—

G

TABLE

a

CM

vO

♦

c"»

CM

CM
CM

Total

OF HOUSE

32;

! ftf

3?c

OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE. OF WEEK'S
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOOD

BILL

m--

Ut
U

CO CD
0) EL
t,
d
&
CD
p
•H (L
T)
d
0)
O j >N
w rH
w
•g

O

CD ca
W) EL
ca
d
d
0) CD
> Oh
<«S

CO

r-~

CM

pt

ra a
0
5 ca
L
<d
d o*
o
•H 1
P
cd
a EL

CM

pt
CM

ON

CM

On

"UN

CM

On

nO

o
CM

rN

CM

ON

0\

f»\

CM

CM

CM

«
ON

On

NO

a

CO
CM

i
—l
o
ca
i
—i
•J3
S
M

ca
rH
NO

u \

NO
CO
•

!>-■
Pt
a
i— 1

ON

(N-

NO

Pt

o\

r~

NO

CO
On
•
CM

UN
CM
•
CO

UN

NO

CM

UN
Pt
a
ON

CO
CM
•
pa

o
pj
a
CM

NO

r-

r—

to

c
o £
o ■H
<1)
tcQIL
ctS
U
L
a> 0)
Ok
S

w
ai
rH
O
ca
•H
u
ca
>
T5
CD
d
o

NO
ON
»
C— I

NO
CM
•
CM

■H
P

fi
0)
«
o

p

o
f-c
ca
JaO

©
csi
•H

CONSUMPTION

d
o

a>

l>s

CO i
—I

•H
® S
W) ts

co f l

u
0) P

Jh
o
Pt
•
I— 1

NO
O n
a
rH

NO
UN
a
CM

NO
CM
a
ON

UN
O
a
Pt

o
r•
pt

c*CM
•
UN

ON
NO
a
UN

ON
ON
«
ON

> o

■=3}

O
P

•ri

£
c
o

•H

P

TABLE. 201*

EGGS:

WEEK'S

CO

n

o

<H
c

to

CH 0)
O *H

O
S3

un
NO

CM
CM
CM

Pt

H

Pt

O
Pt
Pt

ON

rH
ON

CM

CO

On
0-

c—

NO

H

o =€S>

CD

<D
i>

EL < w '
CO i— l
•" i—!

<d to

iS
d
'd
d
ca
UN

o

o
rH

UN
H

O
CM

UN
CM

o
ON

UN
ON

1

1

1

1

1

1

NO

rH
rH

NO
rH

rH
CM

nO

CM

rH
ON

tca
NO

oo

•rl

IN-

0)
d
0
x!

CD

d
d>
•§
H

EL

no

<D

CM

oo

tuj
d
ca
fcj
CD

i—i

ca

p
o

a
s
o

E-<

327

TABLE 202«

EGOS:

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY S IZE OF FAMILY INCOME WITHIN S IZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

A ve ra g e C o n sum p tio n ( l b s . ) W ith F a m ily D o l l a r I ncomes ox
B e lo w 3 ,0 0 0

3 ,0 0 0 - L ,U 99

U ,5 0 0 o r more

C om plete range

Per
Per
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n Family P e rs o n

Per
Per
F a m ily P e rso n

Per
Per
F a m ily Person

%

A ve ra g e E x p e n d itu r e ($ ) W ith F a m ily D o l l a r Incomes of:
Belo w 3 , 000

3 ,0 0 0 - U,U99

U,50Q o r more

Complete range

Per
P er
Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily P e rs o n

Per
Per
F a m ily P e rs o n

F a m ily Person

Per

Per

I - 2

1.1*3
(280)

.87

1.65
(180)

.85

1.61
(11*2)

.81

1.53
(602)

.85

»1«.U
(230)

.27

.51
(ISO)

.26

.50
(11*2)

r*

*kd
(602)

.27

2 - (j

.77
2.59
(170)

2.51
(3.3U-*

.73

2.1*0
(250)

.69

2.1*9
(751*)

.73

70
&70)

*23

.77
C33U)

.22

.76
(250)

.22

.77
(751*)

.22

.72

3.69
(11*6)

.65

3.50
(13U)

.59

3.71
(3U!*)

.66

.20

1.06
(13'd)

.18

1.13
(3UU)

.20

2.51*
(660)

.72

2.1*7
(526)

.67

•22

.77
(526)

.21

5 or more

All

l».17
(6U)

.73
7.15
(Sill)

2.1*0
.73
(1700)

X.2L.

.2 1

1.1)4

(D46)

(6 k )
•2U

(5lh)

frirore-s in parantheses indicate number of fa.Talies fro.i which known data rere av■er&gaci. )

.73
(660)

.22
•7U
(1700)

328

^■RUL 203.

EGOS s

WEEK *3 CONSUMPTION

‘-F ti.NI; EX?!iiw)ITltRES FOR* BY AGE J? FOISEWIFE WITAIN SIZE C>F FAMILY WITPIN SIZE OF INCOME,

LANSING, SPRING, 1350.

Average Consiimption (lb s * ) W ith Family Dollar- Incomes of j
<ge of
-oooooifB
V] and

Size of
Family
1 -2

under
3 - 6

Below 3*000 3,000 *• 6,699
Par
Per
Per
Per
Fam ily Person Family Person
i. ji?
(1,2)
2. k 9

*78
*?2

(9 1 )

5 or more

36 - 30

A ll

3.3 5
CPU)
?.3H
(157)

*69

n
r->
,U m a'

1.52

*92

(7 9 )

3 - h
5 or f'ir?r*e
■AM

2.6?
(52)
U.30
(32)
?,b j

.80

.76
.81

(163)
36 .and
,:;n-

1 -2
3 — Is
.5’
. or more

A ll

1.38
(15?)
2.71
(36)
6*63

(?)
1 .7 6

.88

1 - 2

3 - 6
5 ov more
A ll

l.>i3
(278)
2.53
(169)
i;.20
(63)
2.15
(510)

1*70
(77)
2.66
(1210
3.81
(66)
2.6?
( 26 ?)
1.1; 8

.89
.70
.63

,69
*89
.77
*66
*75
.76

(81)

.86
1.03
.89

(190)
6a m to tn
O 'i■
');: Q

1.76
(51)
2.62
(188)
3.58
(78)
2.60
(317)

8*65
(22)
6.05
(2)
1.83
(78)

. 7?

• 76
.76

1.65
(179)

*85

.76

2 .5 1
( 33 U)
3 .6 9

*73

.76
.79

(Di6)
2.56
(659)

6,5oo <
o r more
Per
Per
Fam ily Person

Gamplet>h range
Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3.000 3,000 -• 5,699
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

1*38
OtO)
2.38
(37)
3.28
(57)
2 * 66
(18U)

1*55
0-83)
2,63
066)
3.66
(159)
2.59
(6 0 8 )

• 55
(62)
.75
(81)
1.01
(25)
.71
(157)

*25

,56
(78)
*81
(52)
1.30
02)
.7li
(163)

*28

1*68
(77)
2*37
(H u )
3*56
(72)
? ,68
(290)
-1.75
(23)
2*71
(21)
5. lit
(5)
2 *5 1

*69
.69
*58
*65

. do
,68
*59
*07

*65
.72

1*61
( jJi O)
2* tO
(?69)
3.50
(13U)
2.5?
(523)

1»0 1
(733)
2,53
(317)
3.80
(170)
2 ,5k

.79
.70
.61
• 68
*69
*78
.65
.73

(720)

, 86
*78

.71

■r;

1.66
(331)

03

(69)
5.73

.51

*79

1.89

• 3?
*6q

(813)
*81
*69

.63

1.5U
(597)
2*89
(782)
t?Aenr-''\A
-

*85
9

7■
;'?

,o i

<V> <)

*69

2*50
(169?)

.53
(157)
.85

.22

.73

.19

*21

.21

,25
.22
*25
,2?
*27

.66
(278)

*27

(5io)

^Figures in ;;sarentheses indicate number of families from wh ich kno»>?p data were a v e r a g e d . )

.21

(78)
• 79
(317)

.28

(169)
1.25
(63)
*66

.28

1 *0 6

1,82
(?)
•*65
(190)

*->C
«i U

*55
(51)
*75
(188)

.18

(26)

(15)

(69)

.87

Average Expenditure (A) With Family Dollar Income of:

.2?

.23
,22
*2 is.

♦5?
(77)
.81
(125)
1.22
(6 0 )
.83
(26?)
.55
(51)
*75
(22)
1.30
(2)
•56
(75)
.51
(179)
.7?
(335)
1.15
(156)
*78
(659)

*27
.23
.21
*23
*23
,2k
.25
*23
.26
.22
.20
,22

5,500 o r more
Per
Per
Fam ily Person
.63
(6.0 )
.76
( 8?)
.99
(57)
.76
(186)
.5?
(77)
.75
(151)
1.08
(72)
.77
(290)
.56
(23)
.86
(21)
1*66
(5)
.79
(UP)
.50
(1 6 0 )
.76
(259)
1.06
(135)
.77
(523)

.22
.22
.18

.20

.27
.22
.18
.21

.26
.25

.23
.25
.25
.22
,19

.21

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Ferson
.68

(133)
.75
(366)
I .03
(159)
.76
(658)

.25
.22

.18
.21

.50
(233)
.78
(317)
1*18
(170)
.78
(720)

.27

.65
(231)
.82
(69)
1.69
(1 6 )
.59
(316)

.26

.68
(597)
.77
(752)
1.13
(363)
.76
(1692)

.23
.20

.22

.25
.26
.26
.27
.22
.20
.22

/if ?0|,. EGGS: Y.EM«S COKSJKPTIOW OS A1\D IYXI’EKUITOReS FOR, 3Y FDUCATIUH OS ludaA.IFh uiTHJh SIZE OF FAfe.IIYT ifJTHIW SIZE OP XSCG1J5,
LEI'JSIIIfj,

.F ix a tio n o f
h o u s e w ife

Tees than.
JF/h School
(0 - 11 yrs.)

Size o f
Family
1 -2
3 - k
f or more
All

Ai/h School
(12 yrs •)

1 -2
3 - U
3 o r more
All

..ore than
yi/h School
(13 or more
yrs«j

1 -2
3 - 1;

1.30
^173)
2.9U
C6|>
P.66
(37)
2.33
(296;

.90
.67
.82

.67

1.20
(60)
2.3a
(39>

.76

3 .1 3
(19)
1 . 9 I4
(138)

.33

1.96
(36)
2.18

All

I

C\J

1—1

3 -1
5 or more
All

3.99
(7)
2.00
(69)

.67

.66
.91
.6?
.61
.7ii

l.h U
(271)

.87

2 .6 0
(169)

.7?

9.20
(63)
2.18

.7)4

(S03J

‘.'-'i/ares in parentheses indicate

1 . 6U

.83

037)

(2 Q

5 oi’ more

''"v.lcte
ran ee

e 0°nsi:!JIS!l ^ on (lo s ♦)
Eelov.' ,000 3 , 000 " - U I 4.9P
"Per
Per
Per"’
Per
Person
Family
Person
Family

.80

2 .7 6

(133)
3.69
( 6 U)
2.67
( 28 U)

.80
.67

.76
.78

2.3 2

.67

(138)
3.61
(61)
2.U3.
( 271 ;
1 .0 6

(38)
2.U6
(h2J
3.32
(21)
2 .)|1
(101)
1.65
(177)
2.51
r 333)
3.69
(1U6)
2 . 5)4
(656)

A ver age E xpend! ta r- rs ($) M i b Paaily 0011®" XnftMe oft
y>lth Fam ly F Far 1ncome s of ;
Selow"'3 ,0 0 0 3)500 ■H [t7555 4,500 o r m ore Qam&Me "B in g #
)!,P0C or more [ -Oiuplet e tan ge
*0 :*
Per
Per
Per"'
Per
1 er
Per
Pif
Ptr
* 5 -- - Per
Ftei Fam ily Per so n Fami l y Person
fa m ily Person Family P erson Family Person F a iid ly P e ra o tt

1.69
(1*3)
2.38
(76)
3-73
(W
2 .3 6

.«5
.69

.63
.67

.98
.71
.63
.7li

.85
.73
.65
• 72

1 . 1*6

17)
2.33
(96)
3.39
(68)
2.39
(231)

• OO

J4.09

.66

2 .51

J'i6

.67

.79

.86

.26

.69

(8Li)
1 »1|2
(37)

.2h

.77

(71*3)
.75
.66
.57
.6k
.88

1 .6 1

.61

.73
.63 •

.73

.70
. 63,
.6 9

.28

(175>

(H*5>

1.76
V32 )
2.56
(75)
310
(221
2.51
(129)

(1*2;
2.1*1
(21*71
3.50
(131*)
2.1*7
(523)

1.56
( 305 )
2.71

(29

ii6 })

i.3 l
(32;

SHtL AG, 1 / 0 J

.37,
(60')

,2i|.

Ml

.2k

.21

(524
.71

.21

,66

.71 .

.60

(59;
.97
119)

.17

.60

.20

(136)
.93

.U6
(36)

.28
.21

.71

.66

.63

(26 J1
1 ,0 ?*
(7i

.19

2.36
(299)

.75

.62

.23

1.5k
(5:903

.65

2.50
(769)
3.71
(353.)

.73

916624

*t v 1

.2:7

.23

.36

mber of families from w h i c h k n o w n da a v e re a v e ra g e d * )

,21

.30

.lk

.21

1.02
(21)
.73
(101)
.51

.19
.22

.26

.77

•22

(3 3 3 i
*22

^"fnj;>J’

.56

.20

il? 7 i

Co?/
.73

056)
1.15
(61)
.76
(271)

(42:)

(69)

.65
(2714
.79
(16?)

.23

(38)

(H j3)
3.39
(50)

2.51

.20

(281)

2 » j2
(313)
3.85
(ll*3)

1.73
(106)
2*46

•2k

.26

.76

.66

.26

.70
(296)

1.39
(179)

2.32
(6 h0 )

.51
(67)
.fill
(133)
1 .1 6
(6M
•hi

1.14
(1.k6)
.76..
(656)

.33
.2:2

*51
(43)
*lk
(76)
1.12
<w
*73
(163)

.2:6

M6
(67)
.73
(96)
I.03
(68)
.lk
(231)

.23

*Sl

(32)
.:3
(75)
1.05
(22)
.60
(129")
.50
(lh2)
.76
(21ifj
1.06
(13'ii)
*77
(3 83',!

.21
.18
.21

.IS
(305)
.83
(293)
1.2L
(m)
.76

.27
.2%

•2D
.23

( 71*3)

.21
.17
.20

M3
(179)
.12
(3L3)
1.07
Oiie)
.72
(6ko)

.21:
.If

*29
•2 9

*29
.2h

•2b

(106)
.77

•22

(343)
.15

l.Cfe
C5to)

.23

.73
. (299)

•23

.!#

•26

.25
.22
.19

C5Vj )
.22
.77
1415}
•2D
1*13
1313}

.22

.21
(iiaij

330

07 AUD EXTE-OOITJI?

? i'ami ly
ill (1)

unaer

Size of

F m ily
1 -2
3 - a
or more
A ll

Aver age Consumption Ilo s.)
Below 33 000 3> 000 - h7h99
Per
Per
^er
Per
i'a m ily Per 5 on Family Person
x.I.o
(230)
2 *53
( 68)
h.05
( 2)
1 .6 8

0s
♦(J
<
■
J*

1.55

♦80

.80

(116)
2 .1 2

.65

.6 2

. 8)4

(300)

.6 3

.71

SIB
LANS!

1.51
(75)
1.77
(If3)

.77

2 .? 0
( 2)
1 .6 3

. 5)4

• 35

.65

(125)
• 0C.

1 .6 3

2 .3 8

.70

(33)
2.31
(79)

.66

1.69
(6)

.83

3 —h

2 .9 6

.85

or more

U.i-0)
h*56

A ll

(ho*
^0
j0 «O
x.

n il
1 -2

.78

.80

(86)
1 -2
3 - h
or

A ll

more

1.U6
(266)
2.61
' (160)

.58
.77

U.07

.71

(61)
2.1?
(he?)

.79

(123)
.59

2 .7 6

»pl

(1-8)
2.30
(183)

.71

( lh )
2.18
(1 26)

.67

^.30
(11)
2.93
(12U)
3.78
(123.)
3.30
(256)

1.33

2.16

1.08

1 .6U
(169)
2.52
(326)
3.69
(lh h )
2.55
(639)

.85

{2 0 J

.66
.73

.73
.65
.72

2.7.h
(119;
3.63
(117)
3.10
(256)
I . 6 I4
(128)
2. h i
( 2I46 )
3.52
(133)
2.51
(507)

1.75

(105)

3.12

.80

1,56
(h ilV
2.13
(195)
' S .lh
(?)
’7
0
i£

A?
'■P
»'J.-

.6 1
.75

(62b)

.56

or more

THIS SIZE OF INCOME,

'Oith Family j;ollar incomes of; Average Expenditure (3) 11th Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3jdOG 3>000 - h/hi? 1I75QO or "more Complete P&nge
U7s 00 "or norP
Per
Per
Per
J?er
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family }1:V son
x ciiii_L-If/ Person j am ily Person Fam ily Person Fam ily Peri

1.72
U;2)

3 - h

OF

’COL BILL
-930

Z

1.92 1.03
(30)
2.R2
.68
(52)
0
c +op
y0
.55
(19)
.70
2.37
(101)

1 -2

over

(79)
3.50
(5)
1.52
( 2 00 )

bor?

.76
.61
.68

.83
.70
.63
.69

2 .3 6

(25ho
2.97
(51 >
2.28
(h io )

*hh
(2 30)
.77
( 68 )
.1.♦
(2)
• ^' {-( 3 00 )

*89

4o

.69

2,12
(27)
O
Pyfl")
d. *v
( 2S3 )
3.63.
( 2( 0J
3*2o
.(598)

1.10

1.56
(563)
2.50
(7324
3 . 69
(338'
2.U2
(1633)

.86

.79

.6 5
.7 1

.73 '
»-f't.
jj
. 70
fc

.1 6

• 26

.3 1

30)
.75

.21

.5 2

(6)
* A)^
(50)
1.37
(k OJ
4.09
(86)
•ho
( 2 66 )
.79
(160)
1.21
(61)
.66
( U8 7)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged.)

* 2h

.36
(52'
.90
(19)
• 73
(101)

,>6

.2?

.17
.21
.26
.25
.23
»2k

.28
.2 3

.21
.2 h

•he
(116)
.65
(79)
1.16

(5)
.56
( 2 00 )

.25
.2 0

.70

.51
(169)
.77 .
(326)
1.13

(lh h )
.78
( 639)

• 2h
.1 6

.2 1

.66
(2)

.13

.22

•U9

.20

(125)

•27
• 5h
(h2)
.21
.71
(1 '3 )
.16
.6?
(18)
.21
.69
*
(183)
(ID
.91
(I2 h)
1.17
(121)
1.02
(256)'

•h7
(75)
• 52
(h 8 )

J 4O
.25
.20
.22

.51

.26

(33)
.75

.22

(79)
.81
( lh )
.69
(126)
.66
(20>
.87
(119)
1.11

(117)
.96
(256)

.15

.21
.33
.2h
.19
.21

.26

.51
(128)

.26

.22

.76

.22

.20

(2k6>
1.07

.19

.22

(133)
.78

.21

(507)

.1*5
(1*21)
.66
(195)
1.02
(9)
•53
(625)
.51*
(105)
.73
(251*)
.37
(51)
•70 /
(1*10)
.65
(37)
.89
(283)
1.17
(278)
1.01
(598)
.1*8
(563)
.77
(732)
1.12
(*38)

.25
.21
.18
.23

.28
.21
.16
.21

•3h
•25
.20
.22

.26
.22
.20

; 7? x .22
(1633)

331

:ABJ£ 206.

‘essio nal,
,'-'tiri a1 A
c ia l

Size o f
Family

Average Consumption (lbs.) kith Family Dollar inn me s of
Belov/
3,000 "- h , U 9 9 T £ 5 0 b ,o r more Com;,ole-be Range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Fam ily Person .Family Person Family Person Fam ily Person
o
o
o*1

O

L-!
o

•H
.
p

l o f House

EGGS: T.EEK1S CONSUMPTION' OF AND EXrEKDTTIJRES FOR, BY OCCUPATION 0? A AD OF 'HOUSE NITHIN SIZE- OF FAMILY LITHIN SIZE OF INCOME.
LANSING, SPRING, 1950
*

1 - 2

1.61

3 - 5

( 28 )
2.23
(29)
2.65

5 or more

♦85

.led,
- s M lle d
isk ille d .

1 -2
3 - 5
5 or more
A ll

.67

.57

5 or .more
A ll

Yete
■e

1 - 2
3 - 5
5 or more
A ll

3.29
(23)

•60

2.25

.68

.73
.6 0
.69

1.95
(55)
2.90
(75)
5.09
(28)
2.?8

1.02

1.69
(83;

.87

1.65
(56)

.82

.83

2.76

.80

2.37
(89)

.69

.6 7

3.59

.59

.7 6

(65)
2.60
(200)

.66

JL•

.78

(136)

(179)

.70
.82

1.33
(150)
2.55
152)
5.79
(19)
1.98
1221)
l.5 i
(232)
2.63
(156)
5.37
(58)

.89

2.27

(556)

3.85
(80)
2.77
(358)

.

3 - 5

.65

(55)
2.55
(105)
3.59
(59)
2.58
(3 .8 )

.85

.65

CO

1 -2

>.15
(75)

1.67

2.05
(68)

(157)

•le a l,
;s
kin»
i
1<
5
Ic e ,
,cloyed A
reel

.93

(39)

(11)

A ll

1.82

1.50

.72

(38)

(59)
.6?

2.25
(SU)

.03

3 .>56
(33'
2.31
(139)

.66

2.83
(6 )
2.02

• 5.5

1.65
(171)
2.52

.55

.75

2 .3 2

.97

(77)
.85

.77
.77
.81

(330)
3.71
(152.;
2 * 15
( A 3)

.6?

.67

(100)

1.62

.81

(139)

.73

2. I l l

.7 0

(2li.7)
.65

3.50

.63

(132)

.72

2.58
(518)

.69

1.71
(122)
2. 36
(20?)
3.35
(93^
O0
£• y-j
(522)
1.75
Q 8V
2.69
(353)
3.79^
(179)
2.73
(705)

.87
*
.58
.68
.90
.78
eJaJ.
.75

1.58

(lo07

.26

.56

.69
(29>
,86
.63

.57
(55>
.8?
(75)
1 .2 3

( O0/
p\
'A
.03
(15?)
.53

.21

.69
(75>

.20

.15

.98

.18

.20

(23)
.70

.21

(136)
• 3o

.25
.21
.25

rng-'
* iS

*76.
1,65

,2 7

.23
.27

.61
(221^

.26

.0 3

.1*7

.28

.73

K2<2i
,c0

,25

1 .2 9
.69

(556)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from whicn known o.ats. v!er 6 a vera.geci..)

.25
(179)
I.I6
,.20
(86)
.83 . .23

•53,

.2 3
.25

.8 1

.23

(105)
1.09
(59)
.82
(218)

.19

.22

-.57
(56)
.75
(89)

.25

I .0 6

.18

.22

.22

.58
( 38 ;

.25

.21

.69
(55)
.91

.20

.22

.75

.22

.77
(330)
1.15
(152;
.78
(653)

.27

.20

.73
(77)
1 .23,
( 33)

.50

.55
(55)

(65)
.79
(200)

.17

(8)
.63

.21

( 100)
.50
(139)

.25

.22

.76

.22

.20

(>5?y
1.06

.19

.26

(171)

(58)
.73

.82

*

(159)

(156;
.6?

.27

(59)

(19>

.73

.52
(83)

(358)

(150)

. 69

.29

(39)

(68)

.81

2 .5 5

.59
(28;

1.38
(237)
2 .35
(183;
1 O^
( AO *
2.10
AA0

(552;
2.51
(733)
3.75
(332>

Below 3 ,0 0 6 3 , "odd -- 5,599" 5,500 or more
r er
Per
Per
Per
Per
“Ter ~
Family Person Fam ily rerson Family Person

.22

(132)
.77 .
(518)

.21

Complete Ifense
Per
Per
Family Person
.55
(122)
.75
(20?)
1.03
(93)
.75
(522)

.28

.52
(183)
.81
(353)
1.13
(179)
.82
(705)

.27

•55
(237)
.73
(183)
1.32
(60)
.66
(1*80)

.26

•li9
(51*2)
.77
(733)

.26

l.ll*

.22 '
.18
.21

.23
.19
.22

.21
.23
.23

.22
.20

(332)
*75 . ,22
(.1607)
'

332

.8

Pi

O
On

CM

Pt
CM

CA
fA

O

XA

CO

o

On
O

co

CM
<A

rH

CO

XA

CO

rH

CA
rH

-=t

CM
NO

OO
p f

NO

XA

o

ON
CO

CM
XA
•
fA

O
vO
•
fA

NO
XA
•
CA

C•
pt

O

•
Pt

P t

CA

rH
CO
CM

ON
XA

O
Pt

CO

O

o

OO
o

rH

o

On

CM
CA

CA
Pt

CA

O

&

-P

♦rH P-i

■a
4)

I

•rl

4)

-

PO

P
i
©
ton

H

•

•

MD
CM

fA

On
ca

oo
CM

CO

CA

CO

a
d

CA

o

rH

CM

<a
CM

XA

XA
r~
•

rH

C«XA
•
CM

XA

fA

®

3

CM

•

XA

H

•

H

•

CM

CM

CM

£

Q.I

d
O
0
0
)
M[
cd

CM

%

2

CM
O
■
CA

ON
H
•
CA

On
fA
•
CA

rH

CO
CM

CA
XA

rH

On
IN—
CM

XA
O
CM

rH

ON
ON
Pt

ON
On
ON

On
On
Pt

On
On
On

On
On
Pt

On
On
On

On
On
On

On
On
On

o

CM

CM

fA

fA

Pt

Pt

NO

On

tH

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

<d

O

o
o
o•k
o

XA.

l>-

XA

Pi

1

[>•
CA

rH

rH

CA
fA
•
CA

to

«H 0>

°s

(0

to
cd

TABLE 207.

C*O

S

H r2?
O

Pi

•*
t— 1
1

cd

<u <d
§ *
o

d

o
o
o

On
On
On

Pi

O

nO

8

©

•d5

rH

rH

•t

o
o
o•k
CM

•k

a

•»

o
o

O
O

.O

o■N

XA

CM

CA

CA

XA

o

•V

«k

•V

O
o
o
o
o•» XA*
Pt

Pt

■k

o
o
o*k
XA

•k

o
o•k
r-

Cd
fA

f-O

U
>

r*
X
h

rH

<D
P

CD
rH

ft

£
o

o

Total number where information with regard to mentioned variables was available

FISH AND SEAFOOD: WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY FAMILY INCOME CLASS
LANSING, SPRING, 19$Q

8
CQ

cd

333

r —» 0

3

o

m
o CU
h

OS

l>-

us

rH

OS

O

Os

Os
CSJ

US

O.

Os

o

GO

o

us

o

us

Os

CD

C-~

co

•«

rH
U\

o

•

rrH

CO
O

o

o

CO

H

o

o

1 §J
CU
3
a
0

’d

-St

os

-st

OS

was available

cd

IX,

r-.»
«
ra

OS

Cd
PJ (X,

o
•H U
-P CD
| CU

os
rH

OS

vO

CSJ

■1

C— -St
rH

«

rH

CD

o

O
H

•
rH

CO

c
o H
o *d
0) 3
IX,

cd

U u

r-

os
i-H

rH

US.

US
m3
•

-d
oo•

us
CO
•

— »'— ■—-^
-d
o
us• oo us
•
«
H

0

os

OO

•

us
us
•

pH

oo

OS

rH

CM

us

os

so

oo

os

oo

CM

o

os

H

with

d>

*4

•

variables

o

«
P o
rH 09
s -r U

Os

so

_=t
3

SO

-=t

us

us
SO
-5 -

H
-J j
os

Os

CO

Os

rH

cd

us

J-

rH

US
OO

FISH

AM) SEAFOOD: 'WEEK!S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0-

FOR,

<4

u
e
u
o

208.
TABLE

to mentioned

00

os

regard

0

CSJ

o
CSJ

OS

US

so

CO

Os

o

rH

O

bfi
d
cd
JH

o

-p

rH
i'
O

o

information

U U

o*

where

0) cb
M CU
cd

number

&

w

BY SIZE

C"o

Total

OF FAMILY

w
u
©

cd

33k

CO

oo

sO

CA

CSJ

o

H

H

CA

Os

Os

Os

O

Os

CO
CSJ

CM

fA

H

pH

o

o

O

co
©

BY AGE

OF HOUSEWIFE

o

pH

-s
©
a)
CD
r-H

xt
rH

Os

CO

rH

OO

l>rH

H

(0
£
co

©

■8
§
CO

sO
Xa

CSJ

ca

XA

xt

(A
CA

XA
XA

Xi

©

S3
O
g£3
©
g
-3

1©M
fA
pH
•
CA

fA
Os
•
fA

NO
OO
•
fA

■LA
Os
•
csj

CA
Xt
•
csj

CA
CN
•
pH

CO
CSJ
•
CA

©

XI
-P

£
c
o

•H

8

xj

CSJ
CSJ

sO
3

XA
CA
-=r

Q
xf
CA

XA
CA
CSJ

On
xr
rH

FISH
209.
TABLE

c-

rH

AND

SEAFOOD: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR,

©
>

On
CA
CO
«N
rH

V
■g

TJ
c
©

xa

CSJ

>

g
P
©
f-t

sO

©
©
rH
gO
o

©
XA
CA

XA
Xt

XA
XA

XA
NO

1

1

I

I

NO

NO
fA

NO
xt

NO
XA

CSJ

o

-P

so

o

■a
•pH
©
iH
©
?H

©

rH

©
O

-P

E-i

OF HOUSEWIFE

335

oo

BY EDUCATION

o

OS

CM

Os

Os

C—

CO

o

CM

o

CM

OS
OS

Os

o

Pt
I—I

O

■OS

os

o

rH

OS

a>

H

•8

rH

1

FOR,

at

CO
at

SEAFOOD: WEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURE
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

H

co

UN

rH

210.
TABLE

-it
CM

0-

1—I

S

01

a>
,Q

rH

aj
S
h
cri

•H

>

Tt
OS

Pt

os

us

CM
UA

Os
U\

OS

pt

CO

r-

us
UN

%
fl
O
•H
P

C

<11

S3
o

p

co
CT\
.
CM

OS
rH
•
OS

ao
CM
•
os

MD
os
•
os

C^rH
•
os

rH
OS
.
os

us
CM
•
os

o
8
t*D
©
C.
X!
P

£
C
o

•H

10
CM ©
°3

CM

* -H

H

Os

CM

rH
O
Pt

so
OO
sO

rH
CM
CM

US

o

rH

5§ §

cd
US
CM
OO
»»
rH

frr

FISH

AND

so

_ rf

us

H

i—
I

I
O

co

I
Os

rH
CM

rH

OS
rH

U
O
!>
o
cl

of
vO
iH

a)

g
P
cC

a
!h
O
%

•H

a)
U
©
*
u

0)

H

at

S

rH

rH
at
P

O

f

o

at

*0= G

M/ O
ta

G
© ft
£ u
to ©

ft

3

o

CO

o

CM
rH

CO

OO
o

O

On

co

o

CM
rH

vO
CA

CM
CM

CO
CA

r-

H

CM

CM

On
CM

PCM

On

O

CM

CM

MD

(A

NO

NO
ftt

CM
•
CA

P_c+
•
CA

CA
•
CM

<A
CA

H
XA

rH

o

ca

o

O

o

n

© §

HO ft
cd
u G

p-

<A

CA

CA

ftfr
CM

o

P—

rH

ca

was available

B*
K Hh
f t •d

© ©
> ft

O
| ft©
so h

oO
rH

XA

H

CM

ftt
rH

o

NO

-3-

O
(A

OO

H

XA
XA

P—
CM
•
CM

CM
rH
•
CM

On
CM
•
CA

PCVJ
•
CA

CA
rH
rH

P-

variables

•
w G
.Q O
rH CO
s--• G
©
G ft
•rl G

On

ca

p—

ca

vO

XA
XA
•
<A

CA
P«
CM

P•
CA

On
CA
«
CA

<3
CM

On

co

co

XA

O

On

XA

CM
_rf
•
(A

rH
rH

XA

vO

G

© JS>
!> f t
«a*

©
n

.

•H i^s
CO r-t
•rl

HO«

cd f t

G

P

ft

rH

XA
vO
•
CA

NO

<A

t> O

CQ

°3

• -rl

o s
351

OJ

H

H

_g

XA
CM

ftt

<0
XA

ON

CO

xvhere

ft Q>

•O
©
X3

O
ft
cd
ft
3
O
o

1O

•rl
CO

W

©
ft

O

£

H
©
•rl
G
©

©

a

G
©
rH
cd

•H
O

HO •H
cd ft
G ft
cd O
'
■=11
F--

cd

r-j
CO
O
•H

G
©
rH
O

Xt
©

d

"8

H

rH
•rl

Xt

at
ct>

rH

cd

CO

-with regard

g

On

ca

vO

information

HO f t

ca

©

Xt

t

rH

o

©

CO

•H
ft

CO

ft
ra
t
©

CO

Xt
©

rH
rH

d©
£

xt
O

rH
ft
a

©
G

G>

cd
G

•H
ft

©

r “»

OjO
G

xt
©
X!
©
G
•rl
©
ft

•rl

©
©
cd
H
O

G
to

o
G

©
ft
©
rH
ft
a
o
o

number

© 3

to mentioned

rH

o •H

Total

3H.

CO

G
©

c

TABLE

O

©
ft

EISH

AND

SEAFOODS lEEK'S

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

FOR, BY OCCUPATION

OF HEAD

OF HOUSE

336

<d

c
’
•w' o
ca
(0 &
o
e.Pm

o

CN

O

co

O

CO

O

ON

O

On

On

Pt

r-

On

r-

cm

CVI

c-

XA

XA

<A
XA

CA

CM

NO
H

NO
I— I

oo

NO

XA

ca

O

rH

O

O

u
-p 03
§

hi

a

03

V-.
ca
■R
rH

'—/

a

o
ca

vU
c Ph

o

NO
o

XA

OO

o

o
CA

P t

XA

XA

O
pt

•

NO
ON
«

rH

XA
CM
•
CA

Pt
oa
Pt

NO
•

rH

Pt
XA
•
CM

XA

O
CM
CM

C—

CM
CA

CO

c-

Pt

Pt

CA

rH

rH

rH

CA

ON
CO

NO
XA

O
CA
a
XA

XA
NO
a

CM
CA
a
CA

c~o-

NO
NO

rH

•H t-l
•P 0)
| PH

*

CO
S3

OH
•g
J
—4

o

0) cd
tuOP»4
cd
M in

CNJ

OO

NO

IS-

On

P 93
> PL.
■5)

SEAFOOD: lEEK'S

o

o

pt

p-

XA

CM
XA
r—

a>
to

o

O<-'»

u

0
3

>

<b PQ

■a

cd

XA

XA
rH

O
CM

XA
CM

o
CA

XA
CA

1

1

r

1

1

1
H
CA

NO

21

(U -H

O
rH

16

M

rH
H

26

CO

11

TABLE

212.

FISH

where

AND

NO

OO

O

X)
NO
CA

e
cd
P.

<D

-P

0)
04
so

rH

o

number

CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES
LANSING, SPRING, 19^0

FOR,

<t

variables

was available

cd
fn
0) 0)
> h<

to mentioned

CA

regard

H

with

o

information

a HrX>
W •d
93 r
a
ba

Total

BX SIZE

OF WEEK'S

FOOD

BILL,

337

cd

TABLE 213.

FISH AND SEA FOOD;

WEEK'S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BI SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of;

Size of
Family

1-2

3 -

h

5 or more

Below 3*000
Per
Per
Family Person

.39
(278)

.21*

.57
(167)
.92

.52
(509)

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person

Below 3*000 3*000 - l*,i*99 U.500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Family Person Family Person

.21

•la
(59U)

.23

..18
(278)

.11

.25
(177)

.13

.25 - .13
(139)

.22
(59M

.12

.63
(21*5)

.19

.59
(71*3)

.18

.28
(167)

.08

.32
(331)

.09

.37
(21*5)

.11

.33
(71*3)

.1b

..15

.71
(130)

.12

.80
(336)

.11*

•US
■(61*)'

.08

.1*9
(11*2)

.09

.1*2
(130)

.07

.1*5
(336)

•08

.17

.59
(51U)

.16

.57
(1673)

.17

.25
(509)

.09

.31*
(650)

.10

•35
(5iM

.10

.31
(1673)

•09

.1*3
(177)

.22

.17

.57
(331)

.17

.16

.83
(1*42)

.19

.59
(650)

m

All

3*000 - U,i*99 ’1**500 o r more
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of:

.k 2

(13 9)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which Known data were averaged.)

TABLE 2H+.

FISH AMD SEA FOODs

WEEK*S CONSUMPTION OF AND EXPENDITURES FOR, BY AGE OF HOUSEWIFE WITHIN SIZE OF FAMILY WITHIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LADING, SPRING, 1950

Average Consumption (lbs.) With Family Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3*000
Age of
Size of
Per
Per
Housewife______Fanily______Family Person
f
.26
1-2
.1*8
35 and under
0*2)
.11*
.1*9
3 - k
(89)
5 or more
.83
.15
(21*)
.16
•5U
All
(155)
36 - 55

1 -2
3 -

k

5 or more
All

56 and over

1 -2
3 -

k

5 or more
All

Complete
range

1-2
3 -

k

5 or more
All

.53
(77)
.72
(51)
.92
(32)
.67
(160)
.29
(157)
.55
(26)
1.37
(7)
.37
(190)
.38
(276)
.57
(166)
.91*
(63)
.52
(505)

.32
.23
.16
.22

.18
.17
.21
.19

.23
.17
.16
.19

3>000 - k>k99
Per
Per
Family Person
.53
(51)
.1*1*
(186)
.61*
(76)
.50
(313)

.27

.1*9
(71*)
.77
(123)
1.01*
(61*)
.75
(261)

.26

.26
(51)
.52
(22)
i.5o
(2)
.37
(75)
.1*3
(176)
.57
(331)
.83
(H*2)
.59
(61*9)

.13
.11
.13

.22
.18
.21

.13
.16
.27
.15

.22
.17
.15
.17

k>500 or more
Per
Per
Family Person
.32
(39)
.67
(86)
.67
(51*)
.59
(179)

.16
.20
.12
.16

.1*7
(75)
.62
(138)
.78
(71)
.62
(281*)

.21*

.1*7
(23)
.1*9
(21)
.11*
(5)
.1*1*

.21*

.18
.13
.17

.11*
.02

Complete range
Per
Per
Family Person
.1*5
(132)
.50
(361)
.68
(151*)
.53
(61*7)

.23

.50
(226)
. 70
(312)
.90
(167)
.68
(705)

.27

.30
(231)
.52
( 69)
.95

.15
.12
.11*

.20
.15
.19

.18
.16
.11*

(H*)

m

.11*

.38
(311*)

.17

.1*3
(137)
.63
(21*5)
.71
(130)
.59
(512)

.22

.la

.23

.18
.12
.16

(589)
.59
.17
(71*2)
.80
.11*
(335)
. 57
.17
(1666)

Average Expenditures ($) With Family Dollar Incomes of t
Below 3,OCX)
3>000 - k,k99 k>500 or more Complete range
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Family Person Family Person Faaily Person Family Person
.27
(1*2)
.21*
(89)
.58
(21*)
.28
(155)

.15

.17
(77)
.31*
(51)
.1*1*
(32)
.28
(160)

.10

.16
(157)
.27
(26)
.59
(7)
.19
(190)

.10

.18
(276)
.28
(166)
.1*5
(63)
.25
(505)

(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from ■which known data were averaged.)

.07
.18
.08

.11
.08
.09

.09
.09
.10

.10
.08
.08
.09

.29
(51)
.26
(186)
.1*0
(76)
.30
(313)

.15

.29
(71*)
.1*1
(123)
.59
(61*)
.1*2
(261)

.15

.15
(51)
.32
(22)
.1*9
(2)
.21
(75)

.08

.25
(176)
.32
(331)
.1*9
(11*2)
.31*
(61*9)

.08
.07
.08

.12
.10
.12

.10
.09
.09

.13
.09
.09
.10

.16
(39)
.39
(86)
.35
(51*)
.33
(179)

.08

.29
(75)
.37
(138)
.U9
(71)
.38
(281*)

.15

.31
(23)
.29
(2L)
.08
(5)
.28
(1*9)

.16

.26
(137)
.37
(21*5)
.1*2
(130)
.35
(512)

.11
.06
.09

.11
♦08
.10

.08
.01
.09

.13
.11
.07
.10

.25
(132)
.29
(361)
.39
(15k)
.30
(61*7)

.13

.25
(226)
.38
(312)
.52
(^7)
.37
(705)

•lk

•18
(231)
.29
(69)
.39
(lk)
.21
(31k)

.11

.22

•08
.07
•08

•11
.09
.11

.09
•06
.09

.12
(589)
•ID
.33
(7k2)
.06
•k5
(335)
•10
.32
(1666)

21.5.

)AAA; A'A, 771 7-XjJ: 7777fS oaAAAAXIAA A) llu iAAJTA-!yfiAX
AAA, -A'
A AAA:
, 4r

Average Sons m xtion Albs .) :1th Ami jv bell: r Accem-c:: or! •
Bt 10^ 3,000 3,oo-. - y l c ? ' T ^ r n r r s r < '
Aer
Ver
ror
Per
Per
her '
7*7r " Per

71 oe of
r a c ily
1 -

7

i‘ ami l y

P e rs o n

• _v>3
-1•

.1 ?

u 76;
3 - 5

or

a e re

A ll

J -

2

3 -

or

m ore

A ll

1

r>

3 - 5
o r m ore

'

.5 6
(3 2 ;

.1 ?

.7 5
( -:1)
.6 3
( 2- )

.1 3

.5'?
(6 0 ;
.6 2
(5 3 ;
1 .2 1
115;
.6 3
(1 3 7 )

.3 7

.5 0
(3 6 )
.5 5
(2 6 )
1 .1 ?

.1 6

.1 6

1 -

2

3 - A
o r m ore

A ll

.6 ?
(3 7 )
.7 0
vI p i /
.7 7
( 60)
.6 5
(2 7 7 )
* 2y
(5 0 )
•a

l o r eon

y
. 20
.1 3
.15

.1 5
.1 6

.16

• 55
(2 6 9 )

.1 5

.2 9

.Li?

.26

.1 7

'3 f t ;
.5 7
( 62;

.16

.2 3

.7 1

.79
21;
.53

*22

* TO
,
(2 ? 0 )
•3o
(1 6 6 )

.2 5

.1 5
.1 7

(1 0 1 )

.13

.2 2

.1 6

.57
5330}
.63

.1 7
.1 6

(1 6 2 )

.1?'

69
(6 6 6 )
•

C":5aOv7

. T7
65;

%J.

.60

.3 ?

( ?5;
.6-3
(6-5;
.5 9
u . 60)
O• 50
(6 3 )
.6 7
1555
.6 0
( 6!l i
.6 7
(2 2 6 )
.29
/ rs \
\;e /
#0 2

.07
. 13

l.o l
(2 2 ,
.6 0
(1 5 ? )
.6 ?

.1 7

. 65
(262.)
.7 1
(130J
.60
$11)

F a m ily ; '4 7 4 ,
1

6050
»"■- b
*' : 5 ;
,- -—
■15 5 ;
e '-!

.1
i *.»■j
7j 1

.2 6
.2 0
.1 6
«. L

.1 5
* j.*,.
.1 ?
.1 7

] (7
(1 i 5)
.9 7
43 10)
*9 J
* i-5 5 ;
* 1!--0
( 6/ 2? i
•6 3
■'10c.';
05.5
(1 5 U
*C
.•. 4I1(
(6 0 ;
*4

F ib

04

.1 0
.1 2

.ill
( i:- ■ .)
.4
',73' -ji
.5 5

.1 7
.1 6

(560'
,7 6
(IS ' i
.3 1
(1 3 7 ;

.1 6

•_

>

, j. (;

A {
a 6:57;

.2 0
(3 c ;
0 u7

.1 0
.,6
,73

,06
.16
. 35
.1 ?

.? ?
136)
. 36

.1 5

.5 3
t, ) j )

,06

.3 7
9 277 J1

51

.7 6
(5 0 )
,26
(1 3 7 ;
.3 1

.0 8

.2 1
(3 3 2 )
.3 6
(287 )

.12

.06

.06

.3 7
( 161)
.2 9
(7 3 0 )

. 29?
1,6s)

.1 5

.23

.1 3

■•37
(953i

.il

.21

•0 9

,0 9

•U9

.0 8

(3 1 0 )
♦5-2

.0 9

.0 8

(.66)
•36
(2 2 6 ;

.1 1

.31

. 06

(2 6 6 )
* <40
.0 0

.1 7

.69

.1 2

.15

(7 )
.31

.1 1

(6?)
.5 3
5 7
.1 5

.17

.12

.1?
ip 7 0 ;
‘ClI
O'
* •5
'.I o n /
.5 7

*06

( 59.)
.1 5
(5 9 ? )

.0?

ares in parentheses indicate member of families from Tdii ch known data v ere avarc ped,)

, 06

.1 3

.26

.06

.1 0

,30
( 160;

(ca;
.1 1

.2 6
(>4-2 /
• 35
(7 6 )
(5 6 ;

.1 0

.OS

.1 0

•61
’~3)

.1 2

.1.6
6 2.11
.3 5
(1 1 1 )

.0 9

.p i
(2 2 )

.09*

.1 1

.37

.1 1

.5 ?
(1 )6 ;

.2 5

.32

.0 9

(656 J

( 12? ;
.1 3
.1 1

12.52,
.0 9
.1 0

.6 2
(1 3 0 ;
.35"
(5X13

.3 6

.1 0

(629)

..16
(3 2 ;

13 3 0 ;
.6 ?
illl )
.3 5

,0 9

( lh h )

.1 6

.25
( 13? ;
.37

.1 0

(1 7 5 )

-.n
• j—
(3 c ;
.3 3

[/5'1 J

' 337 ;
.1 6

.1 6
<.1 7 5 ;
rr
* AA-'
(3 5 /
. ;5

,2 1
(6 u ;
.2 9 -

v2 7 ;
.2 1

Aver' -c :xbendiiures ( '') '"it 7 lamily ’
>ollar Inoowes of:
: L ^ A 7 ? 5 A ' -1 7 3 7 3 I 7 l l " 7 ? 2 r or more Complete ftenge
r~lr
pf_r
7c f ’
ier
Per
’ Per ' Per
Per
A m i Ip P e r cc n 'vaiii.i lo r 2e re o n ■ r'a m ily P e rs o n F a m ily Perse

(3 7 )
. 21
(:-A i5

iY?C;i

113? )

(1 7 3 )
.1 7

4Aca l l y

(730

(

.5 ?
(6 9 )

-A .
(6 3 )
.5 ?
(6 9 ? )

fa m ily

* ;/5v o lj

.2 1

(7)
A ll.

;T'X ,,ITF1‘,' 3177 07 FAmlLY WITHIN SIZE OF i!JC:01%

.0 7
.1 0

.2 6
( 106)
.3 6 .
(1 6 1 ;
.5 1
• 15 0 )
♦35
(2 9 7 )
,2 9
{5 6 3 j
.3 3
(7 3 8 )
.6 5
’
(3 3 5 ;

.32
(1 :6 5 6 )

.lk
.10
.09
.11

.16
.3 0
.0 8

.10

3ia

0? "X IILY VITKIN SIZF OF INCOME,

:i ‘ :i i - j

5A 1960

lz e o i
1

-

2

3 - h

•.ly O o lla r Irccm esof:
Average Consumption (lb s • ) 7=1th
Average Expenditures (•;>) Kith Family Dollar incomes of;
,on ’■■c
Belov; 3*000
,G0o - U>6£9 5 (4 0 0 or more Oonpif?1
Aeltyw 3 >000 3,000 - 'T T ) T\SV 6>500 or more Complete Bangc
Per
er
Per”
er
Per
Per
Per
Per
* er
P&r
A"er*
Per
Per
Per
er
er
’s m ilv Person Fam ily
Person
Fam ily
Person
lFam
a n ilily
v Persor
Person Fam ily Per so n Family Person Family
*36
(229)

• ££

45

«

in

l,oc)
or i110re

(2)
.Ho
( 2 99 )

All

1

-

2 .3 0

£

3 - u

*78
(29)
.17

,36
.20

All

nr 2

~

1

2

J?

.

6s

45

.18
• 23

. U )

.52 '

*16

( in )
* O
O
(1 2 4

(??)

( 162/

.17
1

0

.70

(1 t i l /
.6?
(119)
.77

.31
.

Is

.19

(2.511

(1 5 7 )

.3 6
( 323)

.93

P!
*'
*Jl)

(610

(160)
• 00

-:ill

*r;
(6s2

f629)

1.01,
(19)
. oc
(119/
. C O

.15
•

,

15

5:

.70
( 251)

47

.17

»Oj)
(2>4i>

• 71
(129/

.17

«

oO

0 x9V

• 21

O "7
4
f
(h l7 )
*

r-.

J'
\J_y 4 )
•

0X

1*6,6
\ /
43
(o l7 ;

v£O

*I..LV
(10; y
®0 1
(2 99.
*76.
(50/

• 26

* S

9 .1.6

.19

5

.
e . A y

,4 .

• 4

j. «xy
(2)
'6''
• l
i.
(29/0
.15
(29/
.23
(50/
«_■/o’j
(19)
fj 1
* P. U

«

4 .6

O

*

,j j ;
;

1
’ '7 :■

*

\

e i.

f

'.
7s

J 5

(39)
49
(60/
,66
(65)
.19

*91
4 5 :)

.1 7

.17

• 26

.06

.31
(79)

.10

,18

.15

•03

• iv.^

(6/
• 27
(196)

. J.1

.06
,0r\r(■
-3

.06
.

u/

*1 0 7 !

.26
(1+2)
,28
(123)
• 36
(17)
.29
(1 8 2)
• 30

,12
*09

.08 •

.08

*35
(77)

.10

.0?

42

.08

.09

(1 6 )
*31

.10

(126)

.17

•39
(121)

.il

*53

.09

45

.10

( 251 /

.11

•

(166)

.27

3
•"
404

(13 7)

(323)
■JO't

\

.16
(33)

(119)
.10

!,O

» U 7

.18
•09
(75)
•35 ' .11
(65)
1.62
•32
(2)
.11
.27
(122)

.16

(11)

( 26U >

■1

.12

(113)

\CJ

(27-)
*6'/
I 9 '7 O

* - 1 0

.12

5 >' ^ ' ;

'‘•8

,11

ft £ 0
(229)
.19

(605/

V j o y

(12 7)

(1::6)

.16

O^

(1 1 3 )
*17

,0
*4

.19

.16

•4

.23

0’w A )

r' r'
• 4 9

.12

*9 U
( ll)

* .10

.1H

(123)
.75
(17)

.15

.16

.2?
(33)

.51

.10

*15

(65)
3 * 660
(s')
48
(1 2 2 )

.13

(2 0 )
or nofi

,03

(1+2)

1 - 2

3 - I;

.15

(75)
Sr-"
*os

=
1*

lo

.'10

.67
(19)

•36

*39

.11

(119)
4.0
(113)
42
(2/1)
.25
(127)
•37

*07
.09

.13
.li

.09

42

.07

(129)
»06
(c2?v

.10

.35

{h9l)

.21
(106)
•29
(250)
•36
(50)
.28
(1+06.)
47
(36)
40
(279)
•67
(272)
43
(587)

• 1 2

.09
•13
.10

.11
.08
.0?
.09

.26
.11

,09

.22
(537)

.12

•33

.10

(721)

(2U1)

OL>

.21
(617)
.28 .
(192)
•76
(8)
.23
(617)

0

All

• 30
(6)
.62
(397
1.01
vi|G )
*67
(63;

# s

C O

or 1core

65 '
(19)
.60
(96)
*

45

.2s

(1 96 )

(50)

07** ..ore

•63
(113)
•H9
(79)
.20
(6)

.1+6

.08

(330)

.10

•09
(1608)

362

V*

c ;e lP A l'F n Iu n A - I- - 1 A-1:1 u l r " T T F IF a g y OP A i.y L Y P IT H I’ I S IZ E O FU C O ItE,

tc7 ■■;■■■

A v e r a r e C o n s u m p tio n ( l b s . ) V .'ith F a m ily

Below
aevurF:,i on o f
31 ze of
e-nlor j o u s e
_____ ? n e l l y
' ■') i' ■'£7;' s i o n a l ,
re - f i n i ::
..''A1a i nil

- 2

.3 ?

3 - 6.

(96)
. (P

1

I

o r n o re
A ll

A. ill . V
■ A~s si 11 ui
m u : 3l i e d

i. ™
3 -

2
h

5 o r m ore
A ll

U ric a l ,
ielee i k in WU j
a t r v i c e' i
y n n A . oynd
n e t ! r cd

Per
F a m ily

1 -3
3 - 6
3 o r m ore

2

3 ~ .6

or score
All

.7 9
(9 3 ;
.6 1
( 72)
.9 6
(2 5)
.7 6
(193;
.3 6
(169.)
.3 3
(3 3 )

1.17
11 9 ;
. 66
(2 2 0 )

A ll

:

(1 9 )
.7 6
(11.)
.3 0
(P i A

*66
(2 30;
.61
(153'
*99
(58;
•57
(6 6 1 )

3 1 000 " TJCOtT’- ~676r:~ ITTp-jO'oFTigA
Per
Per
Per Per
Per
P e rs o n P 's m lly Person Family i'm
.1 6

.62

.19

(3 9 )
.6 0
(? 3 ;

.1 6

.13

.63

.1 1

.1 6

(2 3 )
r*p
r;'
«p

.2 -?

.1 6

(13.9;
.61
.1 9
.1 6
« y

O
•O
£_A
_

.5 3
(6 2 ;
.9 6
(1 7 7 )
.7 3
( 63;
.6 0
(3 6 2 )
.2 9

. 2?
.16

.1 3
.1 5

.1 5

(67)
.1 7
.2 0
.1 9

.9 6
(7 7 )
1 .0 2
(3 2 )
.5 7

.1 6
.1 6
.1 ?

(156)
*26
.18

• 17
,20

■*66

( 166 )
• 57
(327)
*79
( 138 ;
*56
( 633)

*23
.17
.1 6

.16

*69
(5 6 )

• 32
(6 6 ,
.6 1
(5 6 )
.3 7 .
(6 2 J
o3 .
L lp e y
,6 t
(3 5 )
•5 3
(5 2 )
.6 3
(6 )
.5 2
(9 6 )

ncomcny of:
cyanic i:o Aon r
*c

pot

a'
*]

(III )
(u
{20 a )
.1 5

0
r- r ... •
*

(53;
.1 9

r

'
’ ;

3;

s ■ . ■i

rr

.1 6
.16:
. .09

Bicly
*u
VJ35- *
•» ; A
A 0 -” 7
K- f- P *

•13

(n ip ;
.2.5

*

0A
0 ,
u
.

ye

.12

.1 7

*2 8

,6 3

.15
*12

*

uii)
I,u2
(5a ,•
ii
;, 1'— 70
1- Ui
.Ini. ^
\136;
.6c
f nr\r\\
♦VC ; (
-\
J

I

r- p

11?

c Q

(W )

O
# m

7
t

.10

&33
.30

.12

.17

.63
(28;
•33

*dp
,v /
.09

6 - 0 .)

*17

s1,u&
Y

(169)
.29

«lc

(53,
» 00
.22

*10

.Op

.17

.20
V230)
. 30

*16

(153,
*67

.06

.10

.11

*27
(661)

i/iy-nres in parentheses indicate number of f ami lie s from -which known d a te mere a v e r a g e d .)

*07
.09

.15

.10

.08

.06

.09

( 62 )
*32

.08

,20

.10

(196/

*09

.10
.11

.25
(166)
*32
(32?)
*67
(138)
*36
( 633 )

.13

.13

*09

(50)
*36

.06

(8)
.29
(96)

.10

.26

*13

.09

*37

.11

.08

(262)
*62

*07

(129)
*35

(507)

.27

.08
.10

.16

.31
(335)
*63
(173)
.33
(689)
*19
(232)
.33
(181)'
.52
(59)
.28
(672)
•23

.09
.07
,09

.11
.10
.09
.10

.12

(536)

(136)

.10

*65
(93)
•36
(620)

( 181)

*35
(83)
*33
(362)

*58

.10

.11

.10

.26
(36)
*30

.26
.13
(121)
.37 ' .11

( 206 )
.08

*35

(.32,
*37
(156)

,08

.19

.12

(66)
*37

♦06

,09

*62 .
( 106 )
.68
(59)
.61
( 217)

.08

.11

.12

.16-

(66)

• 36
(77)

,09

*31
(56)

.10

(67)

(56)

,17

.12

(177)

(220;
,26

(73)
*37
(23)
• 31
(135)
(52)
. 29

(ip;
* 0. n

.33

.15

( 163 ;
f

—J
01

• ••?

(39)

(72;

OPl)

.16

.16
(251
-i
•
'.j
(29;
.61
(11)

053,

r

.1,5

A v e ra g e Kx p e n d i t o r e s ( ,) P i t h f a m i l y D o l l a r Incomes: of :
Belo v ; 3,000 3,000
6 >699 17,300 o r mo r e Complete Bangs
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
P'er
Fer
-1
-'an 1 ] y P er s o n P e ril I :y P e rs o n F a m ily P e r so n F amily Person

t5.-Cj

’U'F • ,

*63
(136)
(262)
*71
(129)
.60
U07J

. •oilnr

* or'

.70

il0 6 )
.66
(5 9 )
.7 0
(2 1 ? ;

1C Or

.09

.33
(122)
.65
(325)
.32

(1581)

.10
.08
.09

i

u
CM
x a

J
«h

M o

<w>

H
H

m §
« O

•H O

O

cw

•8
.
0 n »iii)

XA
A

«
00

Q

00

CO

VO
CO

0
$

r-»

♦

CO
A

A
0
CM
A

XA

vq

0
CM
A

H

0

0

A

vO

A
0
INCM

f-

co
0
A
CM

A
CM
»
rH

CM

XA

rH

A

rH
•

O

A

rH

CM
rH

P“*
CM

0

♦

CLASS

CU <1 Cl

VO
H
vO

vO
vO

0

0

XA

XA

XA

•U\

XA

OV

rH
0
vO

CO

CA

CO
0

XA

CA
•
vO

XA
— Cj

•

vO

H

vO

ov
«

(4
©
£

XA

INCOME

© ©

CO

*d
&
ctf
u
g
cl

n»

Ifl

»0

CU Cx,

O ps ps
C H rl

0-s

/"%
XA
r— v
.— v
»— v
rH
r— ■ 1 A
CM
vO
CO
vOXAXA_=JCM C M f A H v O c O i H O C M v O C M
C M C O X A H I C O H W V P C V I CM C A CM C A rH X A

®?53> ©

XPiv^-J-w H
.

'^'O O

ft
CM

»
CM

r>
,0— *
Ht
Ov
0->
r-v
vO
C A C A A - C O X A C A O OO \ 0
iH CM CM rH X A H C A X A H

Hv/vOw'r|v<’^vyV\v/Ov-'Ov>t— —'

A
CA

A '
0
-3"
CA

ft
_=t

A
XA

0
CO

0
CM

0
CA

<H
©
©

©
d
3
0
Tl
XS

•H

rH

a
•

•**
^
0
"3 ri g
O ?0
§ o
f V ss
© ©
<1 fl
S
o c
o
*“ ©

1
•H >»

W

rH

© *e!
W <1
« rn

CO

t-

£s*»
\A
« "
CM

8

0'

CA

8

*

OV

A
A

A

CM

♦ ■

A

&

vO

$

A

A

H

0

A

A

9

A

0

A

© «M

> o
*4

-P

+3

©

©

n

k

a

c
o

o

vO
CO

A

_d‘

o
A

rH

XA

XA
H

-zt

co
CM

C—
o
CM

ov

vO
rH

f-

C*“
A

co

rH

CM

CM
vO

s

m
o
o
rft
rH

w
©O’

AS

o

0 Si
o

ft

W'—'

Ov
Ov
OV
•v
H

g
u

©
■8
s

0

0
00
rH

ov
Ov

Ov
Ov
Ov

0

0

CM

CM

1
O
O
O

I
Q

«v .
<0
CM
CM

Ov
-3
•> ■
A
8
O
01

OV

5

*1
C^V

ON

Ov
Ov
0

Hj

Ov
OV

Ov
0
VO

o

xi

o
o
o

ch

u

s
o

©
©

'O
©
W
cl
m

Pr

o

rH

C3

•H

I
—I

XA

c
o

6
O
o

rH

©p

co a»
nj o

rH *H

OT)

© »H

O (0
©
3
©
G H £
43
o

•H •H
■P

&0
c«
c
-p

o
&

©

•p -p

!
,o

H

i

8
O

8
A

Ov
Ov
Ov
ft
A

tn

3
©

218.
TABLE

O
5
43
O
•H

04

ALL

FOODS:

WEEK'S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY
LANSING, SPRING, 1?£0

FAMILY

T5

vO
XAr-'slAr-'kCQ/'-s Ov-'-'»vO^->,JCi'r-NlA/'~NXAr,
“> X A
,4j
X A CA
C\
Ov vO CM v£) X A v O vQ co O Q f- rH A X A X A v O - q - r - v C ' - r - s p - A
• Ov • CA • CM *.A f »r'« vO » C A 0 b — » CO • oO 0VO
O N A r l ' O H N r l O v W r l N r l H H r l W N s O X A N A A r l
H v—' rH v y rH r”rH v p rH v p CM v»r CM "
— 'CM v ^
CM v > CM v p H

o

© p
EO £

o ©
§
£{
U •5
r» ^
O
<H
C © £
*H -a-H
3 9G ©©
o
TO rH 3
© cl W
CO +3 *H
(?
cq o cu

CM

)Uh

H

«

r-j ©

*H o

(X) u

bO

« c*
A* G
©

'S'
o w

fsi ctf

On
XA
•
h~
CM

XA
O
•
CM
CM

XA
On
•
Pt
CM

rH
•I
r^l
9
CO
CM

rt
r•
rH
ca

Pt
On
•
ACA

f»C—
«
CO
CA

o

ACO

On

«

o~
UN

«■
CM

if

fA

-3

cH

f—

Cd

>

d
<D

XA
fA

CM

/*

to

<0

G

&

P
»H
d

£
O
CO
*4 G
(1) CD

04 04

p
CO
co,
P
t
9

CO

rH
CA
•
Is-

XA
CM
«
M3

vO
vO
«
XA

O
CA
•
XA

vO

On
« ■
Pt

if

CA

VO
CM
•
-3

G

CA
•
Pt

CA

CM
«
Pt

CO

CD
G

On

•
■LA

I
CO

Ki
—
• l"~

0)

1o

CA vO

xt

CAw
®
SO
m

CO P t CM C M - 3 Cx-LAr^ rH''“''-3 <-“n c o

vO

O

J W V O H f-3'O 01Xt<M f - g O ' A O f ^ O

g

ca

.cO

H

O

CM

5

vO oo

« rH • X A • P T • - 3 » On » O
• On 4 A- e r—N *r~\ «
C O ^ J w c O v C M CA vO rl A H rl A -3 H On X A X A v © On H
rH
i—I
CM
CM v—<*CM v—<*C A w * C A w » A v ^ 3 n / HI >— 4

I

•s

4H

•$£
6
o
G

•

©

«?

E— vO
CO r"'»CO r~>XA/-'NNO r-** f— r-svO
ON
tNO
f—
XAvO
On C A P t X A O C A - 3 X A P t P t C'-/-«*vO o'-.Ptr-s MO
rH
X A i—j-3 tA- On CM rH rH CACO O A H A A A CM <~n CA'-n A- vQ
sni
— j <*Pt *»Pj *»CA
rH «»CO «ncA •* rH »%XA *»NO
rH
rH v—*cAv— ' fA^-<'Ptv^ ’Pt'-^’P t w < ’pfv—•<’A v > On v—f r— *— * CA*— '

CD
G

W

rH
rH

r1

O

XS

xi
©

CO

g

O

ca

co
CM

On
rH
CM

XA

CA

vO

CO

On

3

CO

CM

«
fA

13
T¥
©
G
O

XA

XA
XA

ON

%

Pt
CA

vO

A!

rH

H

ON

oo
CO

£h
<D
G

I

u

o

CM

CA

XA

vQ

GO

ON
H

cm

rH
rH G

O

d

©

o

O

•H
OJ XS
© c
G G -H
o 0 ©
p P ©
G
as
©

XA

XA

*

G cm
O

© 3
G fl
©
*P P P
so 10 CB
© © o

c
XA

©

e«

©

bfl

G

CO
G

©
©

p

rH

o

to
G ©
O *G

•H *H
P P C
ca ©
a a G
G G ca
O O CL

«p

G G G
*H •H •H

c
50
o 5 ©
■d d
© © tj)
w m •H
CO &4
A

O
O

G

m

rH CNI

©

3i+5

fU [X,

CO
U\

tsOn

vO

U\

UN

XA

vO

•

vO

CM

on

CO
CO

•
vO
CM

-3'
VO

o-i

CM
Pf

CM
ON

CM

On
<X>

c—
On

U\

UN

«

•

0

t—

•

known

r-I.>•“>»vO o ON''""'<<3b/~nnO
VO <'-*■»_CT O
CM O O -Ct Os O ' O C\vO CO caOnvO O• CM 0 U N .CM • CVI * pH . C M 0 O-

«

rH

rH

O
T)
XS

CD

©
IS!
•H

-a

CO

ffl S
U9 cd
flJ Ph
H
ffl
^ O

ut
H

UN
ON
*■
«■
CO
ON

CO
0ON

vO
On
«
CM

ON
:
0
CM

—

ON
A
0
H

On
CM
0
ON

, 03
O -H
r— |

• -H
& §

CD
g

o

0
G
rt
rH
H
O
■o
CD
G
O

1
CO
E?
£
<D

£
-P ©
CO CO
Q> G
U 0
ro rG
©
G =H
g
0
o O
©
-p
P
bD
cd
G
G
o O
•H 0)
u
-P P
eg ©
<
a
a s3
U js
o O
g
©
p
r|
c c 3
o 0 G
p

co
0)
u
0)

^CM
P.
CM

03
-o

UN

3

On

UN

CO

CM

pj

ON

CO
CM
On
r
-31 CO
H

r*i
u

*4

*1
CH -H
O ^
r

CD

CO l»

bD £
«a{ o
tc

f

0

1
UN
CM

UN
ON
1
NO
CM

UN
pt
I
NO
ON

1

UN
UN

UN
NO

TJ
H

9

9

§

NO
Pt

NO
UN

NO
NO

©
txO
a
3
©
+3
©
r-H

O
o

number

CO

Sh

indicate

H -Xt CN .-U On r-9 r- U N CM CO CM OO CM UN

In parentheses

r|/->lAo CM^CM^->.CK^-xUN/<^. J- nO

f ^ H O J P N C N O O Q O O ® Ht^'O
<*fcf-f •v r—j
ONv—
<■
CO

of families

from

which

BY AGE

f>- CM CM -=fr CM _=t on ON U N (M H rl O s H
’CM" 'CM '
■9v^ H v—*H ^ H '—*

EXPENDITURES FOR,
SPRING,
19$)
220.
TABLE

averaged

vO
ON

3

*
C^»
CM

ALL

FOODS s WEEK'S
LANSING,

UN
r~?

0
ao
CM

were

OF HOUSEWIFE

# O H

ON
Pt

data

m

0
.
t***
CM

•n rH
0) © cd
CO P ■H
cfl cs o

t3
CO

0
H

H

(Vi

r-

TO

CM
tO
UN tH £
X O O
S3
rH c? H
rH ©
•H © ©
m u tXQ
© ©
*tj Ph
©
o
o
►

CO
rH

&

&

rH
CA

oo
CM

o
•

VO
On
•

«

8
vO

CM

ca

rH
*

~=t

rH
CM

[*•»

O
•
NO

CO

cv.

CM

CM

3

averaged.)

fX)

HI
UN
*

CM

I

C
o
w
fa
&
© ©

CO

'O PH P.

UN

CA

CO

•

UN

CM

o
«
vO

On
•

UN

data

UN

o•
vO

were

W
0)

5
©
00
at
6 © I
ph ^
5

|h
O
C L

it
1

at a>
^ !>i
©

known

r! ^ CM
N
— n H ^ ' r—i
-ST i—i
-Sf t*- CM Os-d- H r l N C M H
A C VO
« rH * CO • Os ' • vn • (H « CO •> t*n h oo w ov «n oO vO O \ C M O O n O \ H
H v -r H w H v -* CM
'CM

Total number where education of housewife was known
(Figures is parenthesesind ieat e nvmbei of families from which

ALL

FOODS: WEEK5S EXPENDITURES FOR, BY EDUCATION
LANSING, SPRING, l & O

OF HOUSEWIFE

<tfe

©
ft,

U N /— >•CM .— ••H s
~~*\T\r-»CO r->.00
C O O
O O U N CM C A O N C"- C A o -S' t
— CM ^-n nC U N
o i H v O U W O ONCACM 0 \ O O O O N \ 0
*>rH
*>CM «»CA «*vO
«*rH *t0O *t H

»<n*

CM

'OV

•a} v->>

•H
©
e© ra

at
©
s °

o
o
•

-a
7h
•

CA
CM

UN
CN
CM

CA

CA

On
CM

UN
-a

CO
rH

rH
CA

On
CM

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

Un
CM
CM

UN

3

CO
On
vO

•

•

•

*

*H ©

221.
TABLE

rH

* 1fit
(Qr-s
&.S
r*f ©

§ §

■Sto ^£

•

eS

s

NO

UN
CO

©

&
I
o

co

<3

Os

1

CM
CA
rH

NO

©

rH

O
O

H I CM

«t

1
CM

©

<n a
o o
o
p
d
rH d m
rH ©
•H o ©
cd Ih 50
© c0
xa

fx» ^

)
to 9
>

o
&H

•

fA

CM

O

vO

«
CM

XA

CM

OJ

•
XA
CM

On

r-J

•

Os
CM

CA
CO
•
v£>
CM

'O
o
e
o
CA

t—
<3v
•
CA
CM

XA
On
•
’•O
d

rH
NO
*
CO
fA

H
d

•
XA
fA

\C
INCM'

d
rH
»
rCM

co A}

P
R
5,
0

CM
r— v
<9-

v-'
©
u
3

a
o
. 0
1

p
^ J-t
•H © ©
P
PH PH

CO
CM
«
MD

CM
rH
•
vO

On
Al
e
vO

~d
On
e
XA

-d
-d
•
XA

ON
ON
•
XA

rH
a
XA

(A
On
•
~d

ON
d
•
vO

rH
*

vO

£
nS

On

O

CO

xa

ia

UN

M3

CM

On
*

d

ctt
cJ

©

PH
©
50

rH

OJ

•H

r*9

U
P
>

^
©

5
3
PH i-’H

f ^ C N C ArA.XAr - 2 d ^ X A
r-J •— •
CM
U\
c-_r~,NO
vO
rH CM
- d X A o - v O O d v G ® J ' A H rH O CN rHr-N.dr-»ao rH O
- >vO co
• On •d
•XA • O
*d
* NO • CM • O
•d
* O
* f A * r-- • f—
r-J r-H rH CM C*— r J C O rl CO O n CM CM H M j N l A l I N d A r l W c O K J H O s r H

C \ l v ^ ( M N > r l ' ^ H ' - ' H - w < C M ' - ^ ( M N - ' r J k- ' H N ^ r l N - * H v - ' r l ' - /

0

ia

v3

d
o
*H
-W

u
o~

!>»

o. "V rH
« r^» *1-1
HH —i a
U <0
© <o fL
50 R
CO fA 3H
d rv. ®

(j

u i/— >tii^, u k ■«!"»

co d O Q
NOCO O n
«»rH n
d v— •d '

IA/“N O

O

oo

H

fA

P-vO

O— - d CO NO cr\cO r-NCO A- d ON P-r-v C M r ^ vVO
O r-N, r— r-N.
OO ./■— *1 A v O
1.00
H d d C O O
<M CM CM d NO Q O n - d ON rH CO fA d vQ <A CM r— vO
CM t\ ,—f ^ rH
•> On »nCXI W _ d « - d *N-d •> C7n *i t~— rr-1 *»,—I
— 'C A w
A ' - ' d N / A ' - ' CM
' H — H v—•*H *•—'»o"\w
<A'~r A n -«

«
«
d

*d

rH

P
©

©
N

•H h»
CO — 1

i

H
o
p

©

Q)
C3 Ce*

3»

d

CA

50 <0

rH

XA
XA
•
CA

d
rH
• '
tA

C—
«
CM

On
fA
•

On
vC
•

«A

<A

CM
vO
•
«A

C~-d
»

<A

CO
fA
«
CM

P—

CM
•
CM

CM

rH

•
CM

P
O

I"—
d

•
fA

OO
CM

•

<A

<<

d
o

XA

vO

vO

CM

CM

rH

H

CA

rH

H

CO
On

d

CM

CM

3

vO

XA

OA
•1A

rH

r—J

ON

On
rH

XA
0 3

CO

&4

©

p

’
•n tt! 0?

© © o
P
i*
©
o

CM

o
,i j

p

03
©

•H
rH

©

•rl
_i
,

tO

rH

O
TO

P'
CjJ

r.i co
P

«>
CO

d ©
o o 1
•H •A ■H
-»3 o
A.5 fO ©
H d
d tfl
d

©
u
C!
O

TABLE

eo

rH

CO

222.

ALL

FOODSs

WEEK'S

EXPENDITURES

FOR, BY OCCUPATION
SPRING, 19 £0

OF HEAD

OF HOUSE,

-LANSING.

'S

i

•rJ

P
CO
&
d

o
o

o

rH

(0
s
■H
CO
CO

1

as
- .H

d
it

CO H

JH •rH

(0

P
©
rH
H

•rJ

■d.

ctj

’O
*d CJ
©

t> O O d

Ctf

©
o

50 >H ♦rl 'O t
o
«H

o
IH

Oh

- d
W «H

C <H «

XC
sO
r

O H

r>

?n

©

rH

■ a;

rH

P

rH

©

CO

•H

d

CO

"to
j

©

'0

X3

P
41
rH

!d
to
d
d>

P
&
3
i
©
d

©

*H
'H

P
©
u

•ri

P

©

•rH

to
to
d

H

O

d

—i

S

o

d
CO
Ccj
©
-A
©

rH
C
X
.
i
s
A

©
d h
t uo
in
tU
A

•*~x

co ,

®

X

o

Ifi1” s
Sw/

o

-P

•rl O

O

c

©

w u ap

•
CM
rH

ts

o

TO
IX. d
© ©
0. P.

Aoo
•
CM

rH

CM

In
O/N
©
M «-?
1
© <3 Pr

XA
XA
•
-St

XA
-St
•
XA

CO
CD

«
CO

*
a

©V
NO
•

NO
aV

XA

O
CA

CM

%

r*~
r-:
•

CD
CD
•

CA

UN

CA

CA

On
nC

OO

s

f...

ce

e

CM

CM
CO
•
XA

On
•
XA

Ov

ON

»
vO

vO

ft

no
d
8
8

Ov
CO
«
XA

CD
Ox
«

C—

C—
o.
«
oo
rH

rH
•
-st
CM

oo
o
•
Ov
CM

CM
CM
•
-st
CA

o

O

©
+3
©

H CM
V© CO
• AOv rH
H -—

n

0

3

TS

O
ia
JK
c
s*

CO
rH r— .A- ^-x O '— 'N0 ^ O V r - x Q
CO
vO Q
O O r - > H P * “ CO A*-St CM CM CvXA-StN© r . f ^ r v ' f l O
NO NO n© CO CAN© CO O H CO X A n O O v X A C— Q A-'©
•»XA
*»fA *»_£(• «tCnj «m—# *nC— *\\o *nrH
H — 'CM '-'CA'— CAw.it^-'.ifw.jJ w t A ' - ' CA'-'

O

TO

s
i

w
&
© ^ P.

•8

3<H
“rl 0
©
rJ ®
o ©

©

Cm 9

.

%

©

0)
TOP,
© V)
©
•a;

«H ©
°d

O
-st
•
rH

vO
Ov
»
H

NO
XA
•
CM

NO
CM
•
CA

XA
O
•
-St

o

A«
-St

ACM
•
XA

CA
NO
e
XA

XA
VO

CA
H
CA

CVI
CM
CVI

CM
CD
H

On

C“-

P-

NO

TABLE

£ S

O

TO iH
^ -H

©

CM

CO

r-»
**

©

1

o

a. r-1

Tt
H

O
rH

XA
rH

O
CM

XA
CM

CA

© CO

§

I

1

t

I

1

XA

NO

vO
rH

rH
CM

NO
CM

05
©
©

XA
CA

1
rH
CA

CD

6
O

o

O

g

c

TO
I; -S’
TO TO © ©
© © © ©
£ fe
© © eH C
c c o -n

o

o

+3

o

$

o

O

43

33

go

1

©
N

•H

a
o
•d T3
.
© ©
c
©

TO
©

•H TO
TO ©
TO 5
c
© ©

u

1*

u
d

&

cx

©

c
•r*
'S
3 10
e CD
rH

£

+3 »H
£ O P.
m 6m v ...

rH

NO

c

43

©
W)

U
ft, — -

CA
CA
*
CA

c

-p

11

EXPENDITURES FOR, SI SIZE
LANSING, SPRING, 1 9 $ Q

FOODSi WEEK'S
ALL

Cm .

•
rH
CM

S

o

223.

NO
IS•

CVI

OF WEEK'S

FOOD BILL

■s* &
£ 8 $

$

ft

CM

}h9

ft

s
u

4)

fl
o
03
P
a
M
0) 43

CM

LA
o\

XA

_3
On

vO

-ct

XA

Ov""'*

XA CO
A- CO

a>

CO

«

Pa P-*

4^

OF INCOME

4)
rH

CO r-N

-Cj-CM

•rl

O

o % I
P« fL

com
H

o <0
o
CM w

XAOO

* CO

C O CO

CM w

• vQ
O n rH
rH v.^

TJ
4)
to
ca
c3

fl

o

0)
Pa

i

01

f-l Pi
CD 0)
Phi Pa

&
o
&

XA
—{
•
OO

On
CO
•
VO

CM
CM
•
XA

CO
rH
•
vO

~Cfr~x

rH •— >

CM — «.

vO

f— c o

® CM

v£> r-f

rH'— '

rH VO
•
CM CM
CM

Os co
• co

O H

fO'~^

TABLE

CD
Pa

I
<a
ca
•d

O A~
cox?.
CMs^r

I
■a
•H

fl

o

01

U Pa

0> CD
Pa Pa

CM
t«
IN-

CO
On

9

r—

CO
*

XA

O
•ft

r—1
CO
9
XA

to

0)

<X)rN

Ox O n

vO O n

s CO

* vO
HO r—I

§

0

01

Pa

vO

f-i

8 Pa(D P0-a>

vO

O

CO
CO

•
XA

~=t
~=t

vO

CO
XT v

«

XA

tn
1

£
*<1
(D ca
Pa P=4

O
o OVO

XAr-v
COr-v na­
ve r-s rH t—
O Q
• CO
» vo
• rH
XAHj
CO r—I XA-O
H-— ' CM-— • rH-v-r

CM

nt
I
CO

• CM
rH CM
H v-r

22k*

ALL

FOODS: 1EEK»S

EXPENDITURES FOR, BY SIZE OF FAMILY
LANSING, SPRING, 1 9 $ )

WITHIN

SIZE

p.

!>

O r*»
i
—1
4) •d
a
•H ca
CO Pa

45

1
H

Pa

i
&
XA

350

TiiRLfi

CC

RBWIFR 00.0010
¥S.:.K*S EXPEKIDITURES FOR# BY aOF OF
LA.OBI NO ^ LPRiHCr^ jRBS)

ALL FOODS:

O-BILY WITHIN SIZE 0? INCOME,

1
Average Expenditures i (6) W ith f& irdly D o lla r ,.iocomes o f I
Age o f
Housewife

and under

Below 3,000
Per
Per
Fam ily
Pe i won

1 - 2

12.37
(ta )
18,3/'
(86)

3 - h
5 or more

■-o
r--*
■-£>

\h

SIse o f
Fam ily

5.22
It. 15

(63)

r .ll

17.1(3

5.17

(152)
36 - 55

1 -2

1?,??
(76)

3 - h
5 o r more

7.56
5.82

( i.i)
26.06

U*b.h

(31)

17.1(6

A ll

5.76

(151)

56 snd over

1 -2
3 - U
5 or more
,ai

Complete ranpe

1 -2
3 -

h

9.65

6*05?

(16?)
1 5 . 11>

5.01

(25)
31.00
(6)
11.17
10. ?6
(26U)
Ir.OL;

5*31
5.78
6*61?
5.3U

(15?)
5 or more
All

25.6-j
(60)
15.11
(UQ3)

3,000 .Ver
Per
K&ir l,i;f
Bel wen
: ©f;6
(63}
15?*75
(IB ?)
2o«?0
(7?)
BO,!'-1'")
D i- ;
I5*6R
(73)
RUR,
0650
o2.•
r' e7v
,.
(65)
71* dr
(26?)
11*77
(67;
I?w R
(SO)
31.00
52}
Id *13
15 *On
(163)
20,66

7*31

5.5U

27.o«
(1U:! )
20.67
(638)

Per
Person

Complete range
Per
Per
Family
Person

lii.lt?

7.2?

13.77

(37)

5.76
■U.73
; dd
.6
JK'OO
^
A>r,
5.01
5*0?
'5*55
y »5 6
9®rd»

21* pi.!
(86)
29*52
(56)
22.70
(1?9)
17.1*9
(69)
22*61
(136)
31*90
(??)
23 *TI­
CS79)
19.00
(20)
19*56
(21)
3U.60
(5)

6,50
5.38
5*9?
8,88
6,50
5.29

29.61

6. 2 k
6.31
5.Olt

9,50

11.61
(216)
17.58
(66)
32.J8
(13)
13.6?

6.61*

5.71
5,81

6.50

5.38
5.13
6.11,
7.1*6

6.U0

13.51
(558)
20.59
(730)

5.22

23.60

lt.93

6*16

(337)
19.78
(16?5)

5.87

(2l?5)

7- Based on information to nearest one dollar*
(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data, were; averaged*}

5.55

6.12

16,62
(1261
2 2 .ll!

5,dl

it.80

21.6?
(66?)

■V/o

30', 92
(135)
23.13
(505}

5.77

6.31

6,51

<*o i

7.10

(168)

21,09

ri93

0.26)
19.91
(361)
27.19
(156)
20. It?
(653)
15.25
(216)
21.63
(303)

C"*c<6

fyr—
?■!*'
--,f5

8 *63

6 ,6 0 0 or more

Per
Family

5.96

351

TABLE 226*

An, FOODS:

WEEK'S Ea PENDITBHES FOR, BY EDuC.srjOE 2- H0PSEWIF5 W T V I N SIZE
I-A'MSING,
1950

FAI2ILY '/ITHLN SIZE OF INCOME,

Average Expenditures (S)^ with Family .Dollar Incomes of:
Below 3 3.000
Education of
Housewife
L ss h than
High School
(0-11 yrs.)

Hirh School
(1? ..rs.)

Size of
Family

Per
Family

Per
Person

3>ooo_-■
9
Par
pe r
family
r e - son

1-2

10*98
(167)
13.16
(81)

6.50

18 *8 0

3 -

k

21.11
(131)

0 *1 5

U.ol

2 7 .9 5

1 *5 1

(63)
21.15
(273;

5,39

B or more

2 0 .9 2

All

(36)
15*05
(281*)

5.59

10.-.2

6.76

1 -

2

(57)
3 -

h

18.1*9

5.1*1

(55)
5 or more
All

More than
High School
"13 or more; yrs*)

1 - 2

5 or more
All

1-2
3 - 14

5 or more
A ll

1

13,05
(51)

■'-•7b

2 0 ,3 6

5*90

2S«u?

5.la.

(60)
20,79
(265)

12.63

7.25

15.85
(36)

0,61

h .9 9

18*15

5*31

iuOO
5.55

11.05
(259)
ie.03
(159)
25.6i
(61)
15.23
0i?9)

(5.0)
2 1 *7 6
52i )
1 8 ,8 7

U99
r..-

i

5.3U
u«uu

lh

,9s

( 16c )
2 0 ,3 6
(3 2 5 )
2 7 ,6 9
(1150
2 0 *6 5

6*81

31.93

5*17

on)

23.61*
05?)

6 ,2 2

19.7?

7*95

2 ? . OS

(95)
29.85
(6?)
22.73
(221)
15.83
(295
22.63
(?3)

6«u 3
5*21|

13.08
(167)
20.55
(301*)
28.60

5.98
I*.83

5.90
7.21
5.98
U.93

1U.73
(ICO)
20.36
(136)
27.62
(50)
19.66

7.88

6, 50

6 *1 7

5.85
5.13
6.05

(266)

(125)
7*72

16.71*
(123)

a.bu

3® 93

22,12

6,38

Based on information to nearest one-dollar.
(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from which known data were averaged#)

7.1*3

7 *9 1

22.71

(685)

13.1a
(286)
20, liu
(287)
28.92
(11*3)
19.33
(716)

5.75

5*7 5

5*80

Per
Person

20.1:2
(616)

5*92

0 1o f

Per
Family

6 ,0 9

32.05
(22)

(2U3)
30.92
033)
23.08
(50!*)

Complete range

(11*5)

i / -h
UV'.-O

A
v;7'i
-/
6*6h

9*56

(59)

Li. 2:6

(65)
Ooiaol&te range

3‘eCC
.
.9 *

2k. 29
(18)
15.72
030)

m>i8
(23)
22.2?
(?)
15.03

16,88
(Uo)
21.72

(75)

(15U)

(35)
3 - U

o,05

(79)

b,500 or more
Per
Per
Family
Person

5*22
6 .2 2

13.55
(553)
20.1*7
(727)
28.59
(338)
19.80
(1618)

7.1*5
5.95
L*.9t*
5.88

352

TABLE 227®

AIL FCdDSs

V©EK *S EXPEMDITl~&;s FOR, BY OCCUPATION OF rlBAD OP HI USB VTf.HXN SIZE OF FAMILY NITRIN SIZE OF INCOME,
LANS; NO, SPRING, 1950

Average Expenditures

Occupation o f
Head o f
House
?rofessIona1,
s u u a y e ria l, and
o ff ic ia l

Si»e o f

Fam ily

1 -2
3 - l-i
3 or more
A ll

S k ille d , Semi6k ille d , and Un­
s k ille d

1 -2
3 * h
S or mo es

,-ul
C ie ri? a l,
Sale .*3 and K indw .j
Service, Uneaplo. -ed
and l e t i r e d

1 -2
l-i?
5 or mors
.111

Complete range

Below 3,000
Per
Per
Person
Fam ily

3,000 - U*U9S
Per
Pe r
Fam ily
ferau

13*69
(26)
16. UO
( :>3)
26J.5
(1 1 )
17.05
(62)

15*78
(3d)
ip *hl
66?'
?6.77
(2?)
19,33
a i? )

7®13
iu9'.i
q*cB
5®Ul

13.26
(53)
19.82
(73)
2U.!}1
07)
13.39
053)

6®Qy

10.35
(0 5 }
17.20
('-6')
27.212
(1 8 )
13.35
(2 1 2 )

6 „fl6

5*65

5*86
U.71
U.7.3

O* nr.
;■
_I®"...-0

5*77
•rs
;
:: . A'-.:

(5 l)
70*15
r\-u;
\ ?-r..
;/

U *l?
5 •U6

?*Q?

5 .°1
6.53

15.61
(109)
21.02
(197)
29.97
(91)
21.58
(397)

(«?)
27.21
(103)
33.02
(58)
25.33

(206)

i?.U7
(55)
21.5%
(38)
30.69

6.63
5.45
6.37

6 .7 k

6.33

5,0?
5.99

5.95

19.15
(9k)

6.20

16.93
(1?5)
22.lit
(SUit)
30.95
(131)
23.XS
(Soo)

3 - h

5.U2

20.US

u.vi.1

(3 80
87*68
(ib.o)
80*69
(623)

6.87
5.81

based on infowation to nearest one-dollar.
(Figures in parentheses indicate number of families from whiuh knows) data Mere averaged.)

7.96
6.11
5.19
6,0lj

7.87
5.98
U.87

21.32

5.73

(6?u)
12.00
(222)
20.01
(173)
26.75
(59)
17.00
(U59)

6.98

4.51

13.92
(510)

7.52

6.38

20.62

5.98

7.95

(33)
20. UO
(53)
25.25

15.26
(179)
20j?0
a??)
23.61

Per
Person

(177)

5.91

li.,61

(5)

7.75

(h ? .7 )

3.65

to \?

15.03
(161)

5 *57

1 7 ,3 0

2 i. 5 i
(76)
26,35
03;
2 0 *?L>
(0-3)

6 *6 9

.a ll

Per
Family

F, ot­

6 . 6:1

Complete range

Fe •Person

1 6 .(7
(6U )

(2?U)
18.37
(167)

UJaU

v&ore

Per
Family

23.60
(136)

1 : «Wt

25.71
(56)
15.70

U#500 or

fA .:.'

(68)
21.16
(5635

1 -2

5 o r m o rv

5

($:,a
)“ With. Fam ily D o lla r Incomes o f:

5.23
6.19

(713)
28.65
(327)
20.11
(l55o)

5.85
U.79
5.90

U.9U

5.88

353

228. FOOD CATEGORIES] NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ALL FAMILIES USING SOME OF EACH, BY SIZE OF FAMILY,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Number in
Household

Families

All Meats
Nunber Percent

HunibS

Bpef
Uunfeer Percent

Pork
Number Percent

Lamb and Mutton
Umber Percent

Beef Steak
Humber Percent

1

145

iia

97.2

128

88.3

97

66.9

93

64.1

4

2.8-

41

28.3

2

555

548

98.7

531

95.7

466

84.0

441

79.5

30

5.4

241

43.4

3

469

464

98.9

456

97.2

431

91.9

406

86.6

13

2.8

231

j

J

uround Beef
Percent

All Dairy Products
Number Percent

Bottle Milk
Percent

128

88.3

85

58.6

132

91.7

106

73.1

46

31.7

58

4o.o

125

86.2

24

16.6

97.3

429

77.2

536

96.4

442

79.6

169

30.4

372

67.0

326

58.7

139

25.0

520

93.7

188

33.9

87.4

460

98.1

66.7

137

29.2

446

49.3

317

67.6

464

98.9

463

98.7

410

364

77.6

180

38.3

355

75.7

313

95.1

194

41.2

74.5

356

99.1

345

98.9

302

86.5

344

98.6

256

73.4

161

46.1

287

82.0

259

74.2

101

28.3

34o

97.4

173

49.6

99.5

179

91.3

195

99.5

146

74.5

100

51.0

159

81.1

152

77.6

47

24.0

196

100.0

102

52.0

100,0

90

88.2

102

101

99.0

100.0)

37)

92.5 j

97.1

323

92.6

315

90.3

16

4.6

149

42.7

5

194

99.0

190

96.9

183

93.4

9

4.6

96

49*0

164

83.6

195

99.5

195

6-

102

102

100.0

102

100.0

95

93.1

99

97.1

4

3.9

47

46.1

85

83.3

102

100.0

102

100.0)

38)

9.':.o)

40)
)

100.0)

2)

5.0)

16)

45.0)

30)

75.0)

9
10 or more
Complete Benge

7)
1,885

7)
1,867

100.0)
99.0

7)
1,819

100.0)
96.5

7)
1,667

)98.6
)6
5) 100.0)

100.0)

V

8f.ii

1,605

100.0)
85.2

)2
0)
78

)2.9
0.0)
0.0)
4.1

)3C
)43.5 ,■
4o.o)
2)
)
4)
57.D
835

Fish and Saafbod
Runber
Percent

Eggs
Number Percent

540

339

>65
>94.2
4)
80.0)

9.0

94.5

99.4

)6
)100.0
5) 100.0)

13

98.6

100.0

)69
)100 0
5) 100.0)

43.4

547

347

) 69
5)

63

Poultry
Nunber Percent

137

196

40)

NuMber Percent

34.5

196

100.0)

Oils
Busbar Percent

46.3

349

40)

Margarine
Number Percent

50

4

4o)
)

Butter
Nunber Percent

Number Percent

257

260

7

Number Percent

44.3

'•

12 j 70.5)
)5l , )73.
3)
60.0)
6)
1,184

85.7)
62.8

40 ) 100,0 )
17)

7)
1,860

40)

40)

100.0

75

73.5

52

50.2

86

84.3

100.0)

34)

85.0)

17)

42.5)

3$

90.0)

17)

100.0)

14)

62.3)

100.0 )

5)

100.0 )

5)

100.0 )

5)

loo.of

100.0)

7)

100.0)

7)

100.0)

7)

100.0)

100.0)

98.7

1,842

97.7

1,558

82.6

17)

1,838

100.0)

97.5

1.0

41.2)
7)
, KL A )73.
80,0)
4)
6)
i,44o

85.7)
76.4

14)
):
2)
2)
743

82.3)
, >50.7
4o.o)
29.5)
39.4

88.2}
15)
)
3 )60 6O.O)BZ0
6

85.7)

1,377

73.1
------ A

66

64.7

26

25.5

53

52.0

21)

52.5 )

H)

27.5 )

40 ) 100.0 )

19)

47.5)

11)

64.7 )

3)

7)

ki.2)

5)

100.0 )

k{*

60.01 W -3

5)

71.4 )

3,221

64.8

17.6 j

16)

94.1 j

1 ) 20.0 )

5)

100.0 )

42.9 )

7-

100.0 )

3)
481

25.5

1,796

95.3

6

k)
766

57.1 J
Il0.7

) CATEGORIES: NUMBER A

Income Class
($ yearly)
Under 1,000

66.6

1(0.7

1.000 - 1,999

62.9

59.U

2.000 - 2,1(99
2,500 - 2,999

99.U

36.8

99.3
3,500 - 3,999

99.5

10.9
U5.1

il.OOO - k,U99

UU.3

li*500 - k,999

1(1.6
30.6

U5.U
1(6.2
17.5

1(6.7

7l(.6

27.9

1(6.1

77.U

38.7

53.2

30.0

5o.o

Itf.b

355

TABLE 230. FOOD CATEGORIES: HUMBER AND i
ALL FAMILIES USING SOME OF EACH, BY AGE C
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

Bottled Milk

Oils

Number Percent

95.6

25 and under

97.9

26 - 35
36 - 1*5

99.3

U6 -55

99.1*

97.5

91.9

97.1*

87.1*

87.2

H.9

90.0

1*9.6
1*7.9

Number Percent

Number Percent

Ntnfoer Percent

65.9
93.7

7l*.l

97.8

71.9

70.7
36.6

78.0

69.7

9U.2

36.7

97.9

1*7.0

96.6

50.1

W*.7

61.0

99.1

98.3

36.6

70.5

61.3

56-65

9l*.5

77.9

37.1*

1*6.3

97.1*

96.3

76.1

77.1*

35.7

57.9

56.6

23.0

92.8

27.7

66 and over

92.6

79.9

29.5

29.5

98.0

95.3

67.7

71.1

1*1*.2

1*9.0

1*5.6

18.6

91.3

25.5

Complete Range

96.6

1*1*.3

63.0

39.5

73.2

25.5

95.1*

1*0.9

a Total number where age of housewife was known.

97.8

9l*.6

39.0

m
TABLE 231. FOOD CATEGORIES: NUMBER AND PEECHflT OF ALL FAMILIES USING SOME OF EACH, BY EDUCATION OF HOUSEWIFE.
IAKSINC-, SPRING, 1950

Education of
Housewife

All

All Meats
Number Percent

Familie

Numbl?T b —

.

Pork
Number Percent

Lamb and Mutton
Nunber Percent

Ground Beef
Number pereent

All Dairy Products
Number Pereent

Bottled Milk
Number Percent

Percent

All Fate
Number Percent

Nunber Percent

Margarine
Nunber Percent

Pile
Number Percent

Number Percent

Poultry
Nunber Percent

Beee
Number Pereent

Fiah and seafood
lumber rercent

0-7

123

123

100.00

116

9U.3

9li

76.lt

91:

76.1:

6.5

39

31.7

uu

35.7

123

100.0

m

98.U

83

67.U

121

98.it

100

81.3

U5

36.5

65*0

50

1*0.7

36

29.3

111*

92.7

39

8

295

291

98.6

28U

96.3

2l*2

82.0

21*5

83.1

7

2.1:

111:

36.6

168

56.9

291

98.6

288

97.3

232

78.6

290

98.3

210

71.2

120

Uo.6

191

61u7

175

59.3

83

28.1

275

93.2

102

9-n

1*10

1|02

98.0

393

95.9

358

87.3

351*

86.3

20

I*.9

176

1*2.9

260

63.lt

U02

98.0

U02

96.0

337

82.3

UOii

98.5

316

77.1

159

38.7

285

69.5

251

62.0

88

21.5

393

95.9

158

38.5

12

698

691

99.0

680

97.11

638

91.1f

617

88.U

21

3.0

325

1*6-6

U73

67.7

685

96.1

680

97.U

590

81*.S

6?it

96.6

531

76.lt

275

39.3

539

77.2

1*76

68.2

182

26.1

672

96.3

302

1*3.3

13-15

225

22l|

99.6

221

98.2

217

96.U

193

65.8

10

l*.l*

109

U8.lt

163

72.lt

22U

99.6

98.2

177

79.1

93

Ul.O

166

82.7

170

75.6

65

28*9

216

96.0

lOll

1*6.2

16 and over

io5

101*

99.0

100

95.2

98

93.3

82

78.1

10

9.5

61:

61.0

67

63.8

103

98.1

100

95.2

9U

89.5

102

97.1

80

76.2

U2

Uo.O

61

77.1

78

7l*.3

23

21.9

101

96.2

57

51t.3

1,856

1,839

99.1

1,791*

96.7

1,61:7

88.7

1,585

85.1i

76

U.1

827

UU.6

1,175

63.3

1,830

98.7

1,815

97.9

1,538

82.8

1,812

97.6

1,U17

76.2

73U

39.5

1,362

73.lt

1,203

6U.8

1*77

25.7

1,771

95.1*

762

1*1.1

Complete Range

Total nunber where education of housewife was 1310*0.

J

Beef Steak
Rusher Petrcent

22U

99.6

202

69.7

221

60

31.7
3i*.6

357

Keh and Seafood

97.7

161

75.9

90

1*2.b

173

fli.6

156

73.6

US

21.2

20$

96.7

103

2*8.6

97.7

221*

8b.5

85

32.0

199

75.1

20b

77.0

81

30.6

252

95.1

12b

b6.8

98.8

119

73.9

6$

1*0.3

111

68.9

H3

70.2

i*2

26,1

153

95.0

59

36.6

100.0

88

1*2

37.1

82.3

80

70,8

27

23.9

109

96.1*

53

1*6,9

93

69

70.U

37

37.8

97.3

213

80.7

35.6

216

82.1

177

67.0

6b

2b.2

250

9b.7

112

l*2.b

98.9

327

7b.0

183

bl.b

3bo

76.9

26?

6o.b

133

30.1

1*31

97.5

189

1*2,8

39

76.5

19

37.2

3b

66.7

27

52.9

15

29.b

50

98.0

13

25.5

1*8

96.0

39

36.0

25

50.0

31

9

18.0

bb

88.0

13

26.0

9b.9

Thenplcgrcd

77.9

72.0

1*7
9b

1*7.9

61*

65.3

58

59.2

62.0

23

23.5

92

93.9

8b

7b.3

50

l*b.2

53.1

5b

b7.8

21

18.6

106

95.6

35

31.0

83«7

63

6b.9

1*2

1*3.2

51

52.6

bb

l*5.b

17

17.5

83

85.6

25

25.8

9b.l

13

8

1*2.1

11

57.9

10

52.6

b

21.0

19

100.0

5

26.3

97.5

l*bbo

39J*

1,337

73.1

1,221

1*81

25.5

1,796

95.3

97.3

68.b
76,b

7b3

60

6b.8

768

1*0.7

I

1 I E s ! E !E

359

TABLE 23he

SI BE OF WEEK’ S PAirXLl FGul BILL

K E Laliil TO SELECTED TT/ERiLGES,

LMSIl'j'G, JFRTHO, 1910

.Vr on!; s j ooct
.B ill id )

F a m ilie s

9 arid ondcT

65

Average Sis©
o f Fam ily

liiO

6 ~ 10

222

1*96

9.1 - 19

itlU

2®>6

9.6 - 2d

Uho

3,26

21. •=* :-.0’

313

6*05

26 - 30

132

U.73

79

;0 - 36

Co..!.: ' : o . ■s.nl o

•L

5*27

6?

36 on 3 "A-nr

10792

J «>
a

on iv rfcn rra rio n to
Based

Average Age
ox Housewife

-

00
J0*&J

Average E ducation
o f K ouoenile \ yus . )

56.11
(6 ii)
51.C9
016)
U3.2?
(U10)
r.to
(U38)
36.36
(.312)
35.07
(161)
39.20
c?o
61*30
11)
no *o. ?
(l? ? 0 )

n e a re s t one«hpidred

i.s.r* t.n
(66)
ln .3 ;,
(216;
10* 36
f o il)
11.02
C u ll
■j-i-: «ji,
n >

,

11 a b
(176)
U .2 3

A'V&.:.'dl - 16
(6 yesr-Xi A ! " 0

1^6oc
(6 1
6,2311
16?)
3,3b?
(36?)
3,966
(102)
-.i n/
2 , ■''A
.->5
0 **
9--61/

Average Sigfe o f Week’ s Food Bill
Per
Per
Fam ily
Person
U.'Js

2,6?

12.38

9,y2

U.55

17.76

13*96

5.U5

21. U3

1 6 ,9 7

5.82

25.69

26.17

5*97

30.U6

29,00

6.19

33.17

3U.22

6.U9

35.86

in,, 90

7*96

Uo.69

19,61

5*09

27.08

19 ..'9)
■
: 1■'■->i

ij..--. * .• ■
,
■
;
.
;
V.• ' J
-•- ?-.1
3- J■ 5
■ '

!'»■■-■■
'0
'-■
ills
Boro.)

d o lla r 's ,

on in fo rs a n tio n to ^ ra r e s t one d o lla r®

To i n i number usa:a size
of week’ s food b i l l
was known®
(F ln nrso in parentheses in d ic a te
o f f& rJL lie s iro n Av a A: soao ':. :u rA worn sY er:*r£d.)

Food Bill
(x52) as
Percent of
Income

2.7

2.6

.9
.9

1.7
3.1

2.3
2.6

1.3

.9

69

I

I

22.6

LLLLI iU I U

.5
.8
1.0

361
TABLE 236. FOOD CA'lEOORIESs AVERAGE FA101T EXPENDITURES AND PERCENTAGE OF WEEK'S FOOD
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

(11*3)
.05
(130)
.01*
(155)
.05
(281,)
(207)
(169)
.07
(137)
(287)

(1143)
1.75
(130)
l.fi?
(153)
2.16
(281i)
2.19
(20?)
2.39
(169)
2.53
(137)
2.2l*
(267)

(169)
.63
(337)
.63
(287)

^ 51-e OF INCOME,

(11*3)
.1*9
(130)
.53
(151*)
.55
(28U)
.65
(205)
,61*
(169)
.71
(13?)
.75
(267)

TABLE 237. FOOD CATEGORIES: AVERAGE FA1GU EXFEHHITORKS ASD PERCENTAGE OF 'vtEF'S FOOD BILL FOR, 3T AGE 0“ HOL'SSWIFE,
LANSING, SPRING, 1950

ESEESESSSSSSS

QUESTIONNAIRE

SAMPLE CENSUS I

Date: l>/2O/pO
A < Address
A2, Next address
Date and time of day of calls
(to be filled in just before
approaching house— each time)

B.

Identification number

C.

Card code

CS.

D.

Enumerator Number

D6 .

D7.
E.

Number of call backs

3.
E8.
k.

F. 17ard

F?.
5.

ur.

r%

Precinct

G10,

H.

Day of completed interview

flll.

1. Monday
2. Tuesday
3-^ Wednesday
I4.. Thursday

5, Friday
6, Saturday
7. Sun day

Time of day of completed interview
1.
2.
3.
h.
5.

1.
2.

112.

Morning before 10:30
Morning after
10:30
Afternoon before 2:30
Afternoon after 2:30
Evening

J . Diary number

Signature of Enumerator

3.
k.

J13.

Good Morning:
I'm
(name)
, from Michigan State College. We're beginning work on a
survey about people's food consumption and some related factors which will be con­
ducted all over the city of Lansing.
First of all, I would like to tell you a little bit about the project. The Agri­
cultural Economics Department at the college is conducting a survey in which we will
study the relationship between- people fs food consumption and some of their family
characteristics such as size of family and income. We have taken a random sample of
the City of Lansing and your address has been chosen.
In case you might wonder who will be interested in this information, we are try­
ing to find out how people can spend their money more efficiently. It is expected
that this information will make possible a more common sense approach to the problem
of family finances and will help people budget their money more wisely. The informa­
tion will also give producers and distributors a better understanding of their market
making it possible for them to better supply the needs of the consumers.
First of all, we need to know some things about you and your household whbfn
Will allow us .to identify it.

I.

How many are there in your household.? That is how many eat their
meals with you regularly? _______________

L.

About how old are you (homemaker)?

M.

About what are the ages of the other members of the household and
how are they related to you?
age

_________

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o homemaker

N.

What was the last grade or year you (homemaker) completed in
school? _________

0.

Where were you born — • in what state —

or country (if outside U.S.)

P.

What country were your parents born in?

Father___________________
Mother ___________________

Q.

(Don’t ask this question, but by observation) What race is the
respondent'; 1. White
2, Negro
3. Other

R.

Did you or your husband ever live on a farm?
2. Husband
3. Both
U. Neither

S.

What is the present occupation of thehead ofthe household (the
major wage earner and contributor to family support)? _____________

1.

Homemaker

(If retired or unemployed, skip T and ask U.)
T.

Who

does he work for? __________________________

U.

How

often is he paid? _________________________

7,

Are
time?

any other membersofthehouseholdemployed, either full or part
Yes _____
N o ____ (If yes) Who, as related to homemaker?

W.

Page 3

INTRODUCTION TC INCOME QUESTIONS:

We would like to have some information about your family income. But
first I would like to explain why this information is needed. We wish
to study the relationship between family income and food consumption.
In fact, this is one of the most important parts of .the study.
This information will be kept strictly confidential. It will never
be associated with your name but will be put on cards which will be
identified only by a number.
What we are trying to get is the total net income for all members of
the household last year. By net income we mean the salary or wages
earned by the members of your household plus any other income they
may receive, such as interest, dividends, profits, from real estate
rentals, retirement pay, government allowances to vets, etc.
If the members of your household are self-employed, net income would
mean the profit from the business (receipts minus expenses) and any
income from other sources.
Wl. About what was thetotal net income of all members of thehousehold
last year, January 1, 19U9 to January 1, 1930?
.

VO 8
W39

WitO
W2. Prom what sources did members of your household receive income last
year, and what was the amount received from each source?
AMOUNT
___________

Wgij-l

ITEM
Wages,Salary
Profits from business or professional services
Profits from Real Estate Rentals
Interest, stocks, bonds
Pensions, allowances, retirement compensation
Social Security
Unemployment Compensation

Relief Payments
Government Pensions
Other
W3. Was the total income figure you gave me for before or after income tax
deductions?
Before ___
After_____ i
Wit. If before— can you tell me what your household's income was after income
___________
tax deductions?
WJ?• Did any member of the household receive any other income not included
above?
Yes ______
No____
W6. If yes— how much?

Page

k

Now we need to know the same information about your income last month.
XI. Keeping in mind all these possible sources of income what would you
estimate was the total net income of all members of the household
last month?
X2. Nas this before or after income tax deductions?

Before

After___

Xh2
XU3
Xlil;

xl£ I Z

X3• If before— can you tell me what your household's incomewas after
income tax deductions? _____ ________
XU- Did any memberof the household__receive any ether incomenot- in­
cluded above?
Yes ____
No
15. If yes— how much?

______________

II. CONSUMPTION:
Now we would .like some information concerning the food consumption of
your household.
A.

Are any of the members of your household on a special diet which
makes them eat more of some foods and less of others, etc.?
Yes _______
No_____ _____
a.

If yes— how many members are on special diets?

b.

If yes— what foods does the special diet call for?
1. More of:

B.

C.

AU&___

A>,U7
A^U8

2. Less of:

Bh9

Are there any members of your family who do not drink milk?
No
(If yes) Who?
Yes ____
About how much was your food bill last week, including milk?________
Interviewer's note: (last week is last 7 days ending with yesterday.)

D.

Did you use any fbed last week that you canned yourself?
Yes ____
No______

D.

If no— did you do any home canning last year?

S.

Did you have a home vegetable garden last year?

?.

How many meals did each member of your household eat away from home
last week?
(A meal is either a breakfast, a lunch,
or a dinner eaten by~orTe~person.)

F.

How many meals did you serve to guests last week?
________ (A
guest is anyone who does not eat with you regularlyT)

G.

Do you have a frozen food locker or freezer?

H.

ihat is the name of the store where you buy most of your groceries?

Yes ____
Yes ______

Yes _______

C0O
C$1

D52

No_____
No___ _

No

E53

F55

g £6

l-j£7

Page 5
Now I have some questions about specific foods you used last week.
DAIRY PRO DUCTS— MILK— CREAM— CHESS E--ICE CREAM:
A.

what kind or kinds of milk .did you use last week?
MILK:

1100 Kind of milk:

.No... of cits. Price per q t .

Where bought?
1. Delivered
2. Grocery
3. Cash & Carry
Dairy Store__

1110 Homogenized V. D.
1120 Homogenized Plain
1130 Regular Pasteurized
llliO Jersey or Guernsey
1150 Buttermilk
1160 Chocolate
1170 Skim milk
Al. Did you use any canned milk last week?
Canned Milk:

JNo. Qf...cans...T.o.tal...amt

Siz:.e....of...can,

1180 Evaporated-unsweetened.
1190 Condensed-sweatened

B. Did you use any cream last week?

(If yes) what kind

CREAM: 1200 Kind of cream
1210 Co ff ee Cream'
1221 Whipping Cream-bottle

No. of § pts.

or kinds did you use?
Total amt. pd.

-........ ..................
..................

„....

1222 Ready Whipping Cream-can ........... .... ... ....... .
1230 Sour Cream.............. ...........................

C.

Did you use any dried milk last week?

(if yes) what kind or kinds did you use?

DRIED
MILK:

No. of lbs.

1300 Kind of dried milk
1310 Powdered skim
1320 Powdered whole

Total amt. pd.
-...... .

.— ........... ...»...............

Page 6
D. Did you use any cheese last week?

(If yes) what kind or kinds did you use?

CHEESE: 11*00 Kind of cheese
11*10 Cottage c

h

e

No. of lbs.
e

s

e

Total amt. pd.

_______________________________

11*20 Cream cheese_____________ _______________________________
11*31 American P r o c e s s e d _______________________________
11*32 Bleu____________________ _______________________________
11*33 Grated__________________ _______________________________
1U3U Swiss

______________________________

11*35 All Other

.
________

E. Did you use any ice cream last week?
ICE
CREAM

1500 Kind of Ice Cream

(If yes) what kind or kinds did you use?

No. of pts.

Total amt. yd.

1510 Brick Ice. Cream
1320 Bulk Ice Cream

F. Did you use any margarine-/-butter, lard, or vegetable shortening?
FATS:

2100 Kind of fats

No. of lbs.

Total amt. pd.

2110 Butter
2120 Oleo-Margarine
..

2130 Lard
21 Ip Vegetable shortening
2130

___

Gr. Did you use any oils last week?

OTTnS:

2?™i

n f oil

(If y e s ) vhat kind or kinds did you use?
No. of pts, or
ozs. (Indicate
Total amt. pd.
which)

2210 Cooking oil
2220 M a yo nn a ise
2230 Salad Dressing
2210

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

Page 7
Did you use any fruit juices last week? (If yes) what kind or kinds did you use?
No. of pts. or
FRUIT
Fluid 00s . (In­ Total amt. pd. Canned Frozen
JUICES 3700 Kind of juices
dicate unit)
3711 Apple juice
3712 Apple cider
3720 Berry
3730 Cherry
3 7 hO Fig

3750 Grape
3761 Grapefruit
3762 Lemon
3763 Lime
376U Orange
3765 Citrus-mixed
3771 Pineapple
3772 Prune
3780 Tomato
3790 Other fruit juices

-

MEAT— POULTRY— EGGS— FISH
Did you use any beef last week?

(If yes) what kind or cuts did you use?
t

BEEF:

IilOO Kind of cut of beef

(If they

a j u jl

Bone
No. of lbs. Total amt. pd.. •in Boned

iillO Roast
U120 Steak
U130 Ground
'S ’
ULitO Stewing, boiling, soup
Ul50 Corned or Chipped beef
lfl60 Liver

*-

■-e-

•*
>

-...— >.,

PrePkg'd.

©on11 .

No. of lbs.

Total amt.
paid

Bone
in

Page 8
Fre
Boned, Pkg’d.

U170 Other organ parts as
heart, tongue, etc,
JLjlSO Carned beef
.ijl^O All other beef

J,

Did you use any lamb or mutton last week? (If yes) what cuts did you use?
LAMB &
Total amt. Bone
MUTTON U200 Kind of cut
No. of 3bs.
paid
in
Boned

PrePkg'd.

U210 Chops-steak
L220 Roast
i£30 Stewing-Soup, etc,
b2k0

Ground or grinding

U2!?0 Heart, Liver & other
organ parts
L260 Canned
L270 Other

(If yes) itiat cuts did you use?
Total amt. Bone
in
li300 Kind of cuts of pork
No. of lbs.
paid

. Did you use any pork last week?
PORK:

ii311 Chops-steak
L..312 Roast
L321 Ham
)|3?2 Picnic ham. shoulder.
bu tts.
)|323 Bacon
h32h Canadian Bacon
L331 Sausage
l3iil Liver
Ii3).i2 Spareribs

. . ._

.. _ ,

Boned
*

Pre­
Pkg*d.

Page 9

Total amt. Bone
No. of. lbs.____ paid
in Boned

PORKj con't.

PrePkg»d.

tongue, other
organ parts
U35>1 Canned pork
h31*3 Heart,

1*360 Other Pork

L.

Did you use any Veal last week?
VEAL:

(If yes) what kinds of cuts clid you use?
Pre­
Total amt. Bone
I4I4OO Kind of cuts of veal
No. of lbs.
paid
in Boned Pkg'd.

iihlO Roast
Iiit-20 Cutlets, chops, & steaks •
IiU30 Stewing-soups
i4.i4.24O Ground
1*1*51 Liver
UU52 Heart, tongue, other
organ parts
i4.i4.
6l Canned veal
LL*70 Veal loaf
I4I48O Other Veal

1

M.

Did you use any other meats last week such as cold cuts, weiners, bologna, etc.?
(if yes) what kinds did you use)?
OTHER MEATS:
VARIETY
MEATS: k$00 Kind of variety & luncheon
No. of lbs. Total amt. pd.
meats
l£ll Wieners & Frarics, etc.________ ______________ ____________
lt£l2 Bologna, salami, e
U520

Cold cuts, e

t

t
c

c

.
.

________________________
__________________

1*530 Rabbit, turtle, & other_______ _________________________
game-like meat
I4.
5UO Other Meat
.
__________

_

Page 10

POULTRY:
J46OO Kind of poultry

No. of lbs.
& ozs.
charged
for

Eh

+5
©
dW
<*o !=4 If!
•H
©.<H
Total
Amount
Paid

© ©•ri>84
CS 0
U© u0
1-3 P i s ftq

Frozen

A

Selected Parts

Did you use any poultry last week? (If yes) what kind or kinds did you use?
(’was it purchased on the basis of live weight, dressed feather weight, drawnready-to-cook weight, boned weight, selected parts, frozen, canned-boned, or
canned-bone in?)
r*
1
d
O 0
•rH
Boned Weight

N.

<D
d
0

©
d
0

©
©

3
©
d
d
©

d

§

0

4610 Chicken
..

—

.. .

..

—

ip12 Roasters
4613 Stewing
4620 Turkey
U630 Duck
jU6U0

0.

Other poultry

How many eggs did you use last week?

—

—

No. of doz. Total amt. pd.
i.... .
J....................

—

Size

..

Grade.

...

EGGS:

P.

U700 Eggs

Did you use any fish or other sea food last week?

Check. One

x) U

cd ©

FISH & SEA
FOODS: 4800 Kinds of sea food
4810 Fish
4820 Shell fish as:
4821 Oysters
4822 Scallops
4823 Shrimp
4824 Other shell fish

No. of lbs.

Total amt.
paid

>h

o3

rpq

..

Page 11

Q.

Has anyone in your family purchased any flowers or potted plants during
the'past month?. Yes
N o _____
a. (If yes)— for what-purposes or on what occasions?

________________

ft.. "Does anyone, in your household- keep any accounts or records of your food R38
purchases?
Yes
No_____

INTRODUCTION.i'C DIARY:
As X'told .you-before we are making- a detailed-study of the relationship ’betweenpeople’s food consumption and other family characteristics... We therefore ..need more
detailed .information’about your 'family1s..food., purchases for a-week’s time. I have
here a-diary 'in which’we--would like you to-record, your .food purchases for-one week,.
After it has-been -completed you-can return it in this self-addressed, stamped envel­
ope.,.., Soma .instructions accompany the diary 'which mil. help you. to fill it out in
the-least possible time. (Then explain how to fill.out the diary.)

3. 'v Did they accept- the diary?

Yes.

'Mo .

T.. INCOME -QUESTIONNAJRE: '
1-. Left the 'questionnaire and returned blank
2 * Left the --questionnaire.and returned completed

S39 ____
'T60_____

If no one is at home, go to the house next doer and get the following
information about the family.
1,

Number in family?

_______

2, Occupation of head of household?_____________________________
3, Does the wife work?
h,

_________

jfnan would we be likely to find someone at homo?

______________