Farm family living in Custer county, Montana, 1935-6
by Bertha C Olsen
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Committee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Bertha C Olsen (1937)
Abstract:
no abstract found in this volume %
SBBSBWL SL <8888?"
' A
Submitted to th e S$aduate Qoamlttee #
g&et&al 3B&3333BK%* ^
' #e«W W
# e g ^ re$
6f
# $ # # 3 ^ h o a # # s%
Ziontana. S ta te 'College
-Q
J u n e , 1 9 3 7 ..
/ / 37?
O
I ^
cok‘ 2-
2
-
Ag 2 5 ’37
TABLE OF COBTZHTS
Page
L is t o f T ables. , ................................
U
L is t of I l lu s tr a ti o n s . ...............................
7
In tro d u ctio n . ..................................................
s
The Area o f Study . . . . . .
....................
9
The Santple * .............................................
9
D escription of the Sacple as a Whole
11
Income o f Faxm F a m ilie e ................................
13
Gross Incom e............................................
13
Faxm Family Incom e.................................
22
Het Incom e................ ...............................
33
Farm Family L iv i n g .............................
39
Value o f Goods Used ............................
39
Goods Used fo r Family Living . . . .
62
Food . ............................................
62
C lo th in g ................................ .... .
67
Housing .............................................
Sg
A dvanceaent............................. . .
77
Personal and H e a l t h ....................
84
The Auto f o r Family Use . . . .
87
Summary . . . . . . . .
................................
gg
Conclusion ........................................
SO
AcknovLedg meats .............................................
Glossary of T erm s.........................
91
92
B ib lio g ra p h y .....................................................
94
e
57199
->
Page
Appendix A . . . ............................
.................................
Methods of C o llecting D a t a ..........................................................
Montana i'arra P s a llle e Compared With Other S t a t e s ..............
Appendix B ............................................................................................
95
95
L is t o f Tables
Table I
page
Source and Average Value of Gross Income I b r Ouster
County Fann Fam ilies C la s sifie d by Two Incone Level Groups.. 15
Table I I
Average Farm Family Incone fo r Ouster Co.Faxa Fam ilies
C la s sifie d by Amounts From Cash and Furnished Sources............ l6
Table I I I The Average Unearned Inccsne o f C uster Co Farm Fam ilies
C la s sifie d %• Source fo r Two Income Level Groups . . . . . . . 19
Table IV The Average Faro Ibm ily Income of C uster Go.Families
C la s sifie d Iy Source and Two Income Level Groups . . . . . .
26
Tatde V
Boployment o f Farm Family Members Outside the Farm . . . . .
31
Table TI
D istrib u tio n of Average Gross Incm e fo r C uster Co.Farm
F a n llle s ................................................................................................
3*+
Table VII D istrib u tio n o f Average Gross Income f o r Custer Co.farm
Fam ilies C la s sifie d by Ib u r Income Level Groups . . . . . .
3&
Table T ill Percentage D istrib u tio n o f "Balance" of Average Net
Income f o r C aster Co.Farm Fam ilies C la ssifie d by
Four Income Level Groups ............................................ ....
37
Table IX Average Talue and Scarce of Goods Used For Fmaily Living
by 50 Custer County Farm F a m i l i e s ..........................................
Table X
^3
Average Talue and D istrib u tio n of Goods Used fo r Family
Living by Custer Co.Farm Fam ilies C la s sifie d by
Income Groups ....................................................................................
Table K
^5
Average Talue, Source and D istrib u tio n of Goods Used fo r F
F m ily Living by Family Type I o f Two Income Levels . . .
50
-5 -
Pa^<e
Table XII Average Value, Source and D istrib u tio n of Goods Used fo r
Family Living By Family Type IV o f Two Income Levels . * 53
Table XIII Actual and Percentage D istrib u tio n of Average Set
Income Ibr Ouster Co. Farm Families C la s sifie d by
Family Type -In e sp activ e o f Income L e v e l .................... * .
56
Table XIV Average Value and Source of Goods Used fo r Family
Living by Type o f F am ily............................................................ 57
Table XV Average Value and D istrib u tio n of Goods Used For
Family Living by Family Types ................................................
Table XVI Age of Household Head in Bel&tiax to Value of Living . .
53
60
Table XVII The E elatio n of Schooling of Operator and Hcmeimaker
To Average Cost of L in i n g .................... ...................................
&1
Table XVIII Value of Food Used. Dy Custer Co.Farm Fam ilies
C la s s ifie d by Two I nCome Level Groups..............................
64
Table XIX Kind and Amount of Furnished Food Used Per Person
65
P er Week ................................................ ....
Table XX Cost of Clothing Per Person For Five Family Types . .
63
Table XXI Conveniences and F a c ilitie s Used in The Homes of
the Guater Co.Farm Faiailiea C la s sifie d by Income Groups.. Tl
TablsXCII D istrib u tio n of Household Operation Coats C la s sifie d
For T otal Group and Two Income Level G ro in s ......................
73
T ableXXIII Humber and Educational S tatu s o f Children in School . .
79
Table XXIV Husaber and Education of the O ldest Son or Daughter
over l 6 !e a rs of Age of Custer Co.Farm Fam ilies . . . .
80
Table XX? D ivisions o f EeCreation and Beading and Costs fo r Each fo r
Bie Five Fanily T y p es........................ ............................................. 81
a6-
Table XXYl Health Sspenditures C lassified by Ifeuaily Type and
Income Crotp ............................................ . . . . . . . .
85
Table XXVII Tobacco Expenditure of Family Types I and IT
Within Two Income Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
TABLES LISTED IH APPENDIX "3*
Table I
Average Value and D istribution of Goods Used for
Family Living o f Groups C la ssified by Income Level . .
Table II
100
Percentage D istribution of Value of Goods Used for
Family Living of Grotps C la ssified by Income Level . .
101
Table III Average Value and D istribution o f Goods Used For
Family Living C la ssified by Family T yp es........................
102
Table IV Total Enumeration o f Farms V isited in Caster County
1935-36 and Basis for Elimination * ................ ....
Table V
A Coeparieon of Costs of Bural Living Per Family
Per T e a r ....................................................................................
10%
- 7LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Kap -
Approximate Location o f Farm Fam ilies Contacted f o r
Consmer Purchase Study, Custer C ounty....................................
F ig . I
12
Farm Fam ilies Crouped by Amount of Farm Family Income,
C uster County, 1935-3^ .................................... . . . . . . . .
21
FLg. 2 D istrib u tio n o f Cross Income o f 50 C uster County Farmers
C la s sifie d By Two Income Croupe 1 9 3 5 -3 6 ........................ ....
24
F ig. 3 D istrib u tio n o f Source o f Average Farm Family Income
For T otal CrottP o f 50 C uster Co.Fam ilies 1935-36..................
H g .4
D istrib u tio n o f Source o f Average Fam Feaaily IncomeCrorup I (25 farms ), Less than $1900 Incom e..........................
Fig. 5
IfiL
D istrib u tio n of Average Living Expenditures For 25 Farm
Fam ilies in Lower Income C rotp1Custer Co. 1935-36 ..............
H g. 8
29
D istrib u tio n o f Average Living Expenditures f o r T otal
Group o f 50 Ouster County Fam ilies 1 9 3 5 -3 6 ............................
H g. 7
28
D istrib u tio n of Source o f Average Farm Family Income
Crotp I I (25 farms) more than $1900 Incom e............................
H g. 6
27
46
D istrib u tio n o f Average Living Expenditures fo r 25 Farm
Fam ilies in Higher Income Group,Cixster Co.19 3 5 -3 6 ..............
47
INTaOIXJCTION
The subJ b c t o f farm f a a ily liv in g is one o f v i t a l in te r e s t in Montana
and in the n atio n as a whole today.
There can be no extensive planning with
resp ect to best land use. r e h a b ilita tin g farm fa m ilie s, o r balancing a
ru ral-u rb an p o pulation without ensou a te rin g questions o f the follow ing
n a tu re ;
1) What i s the amount of income of a ty p ic a l farm fam ily, in periods
of p ro sp e rity and priods of depression?
2) What proportion of the fans fam ily income i s derived d ire c tly from
the fanning e n te rp ris e as cash and furnished Income, and what pro­
p o rtio n i s derived from o th er than farming sources?
3) How i s the t o ta l gross income divided between the farm operating
cost and f a a ily liv in g ?
4) How i s the p ro p o rtio n o f farm fam ily income going to liv in g d is­
tr ib u te d as to amounts going to food, c lo th in g , housing, h ealth
and o th er advancement items?
5) In a d d itio n to t o t a l income, what oth er fa c to rs such as type of
farm ing,size of household,age of houahold members,size of farm,
and education o f th e heads of the houahold are asso c iated with th e
p a r tic u la r income and expenditure re la tio n sh ip s found among farm
fa m ilie s.
In order to a s s i s t in answering th ese and sim ila r questions tab u la­
tio n o f p e rtin e n t data f o r @0 Custer County farm fam ilies was undertaken.
( I ) The sdiedulee were c o lle c te d fo r the Bureau o f Home Economics of the
Department of A griculture a t Wash.D.C. ,in a recent house-to-house sur­
vey c a rrie d on as a W .P.A.proJect. D uplicates were reta in e d a t the
Montana S ta te College by the Department c f Economics and Sociology.
-9 -
THE AHSA OF STUUT
The SaeroXe
The data for th is study are taken from the Income and expenditure
schedules of 50 Ouster County farm fa m ilies.
Ouster County was selected ,
not typical o f Montana, but typical o f a liv e sto c k area. (2)
Further,
the data represent d istressed agricultural conditions follow ing a series
o f drought years and years o f low farm p r ice s.
Included in the year o f survey.
The crop year 1936 was
This proved to be the most serious drought
year in the history of the area, follow ing the drought of 1934.
grasshopper and Mormon crick et damage was considerable.
In addition,
These conditions
are undoubtedly r eflec ted In the liv in g expenditures and to ta l income of
the farm fa m ilies.
The 50 Custer County farm fam ilies represent a s e le c t group in that
fam ilies included had to meet the follow ing sp e c ific requirementsi ( 3)
1) One or more years o f residence on the present farm.
2) Satlve American bom , both in the case of the operator and the
homemaker.
3) Sot on r e l i e f during the year o f study.
4) Married family households with both parents in the household.
5) People o f *#iite* extraction.
(2) F itted in with sample counties representative o f other types o f farming
area for the Sation as a vhols, the Bureau o f Home Economics expected
to get a representative sample o f farm family liv in g in the United
S ta tes. The year of survey included some 12 consecutive months period
prior to July or August o f 1936.
(3) See Appendix for d e ta ils .
-1 0 -
6) LiTing on * farm o f not le s s than ten a c re s.
7) Huet meet one o f the follow ing c la s s if ic a tio n s in respect to
fam ily type;
a) fam ily Type I - Husband and wife only
b) fam ily Type II - Husband and wife and one c h ild under l6
years of age.
c) fam ily Type I I I - Husband and wife and two ch ild ren under l 6
d) fam ily Type J J - Husband and wife and one person l 6 o r over
and one o r no o th er persons
e) fam ily Type ? - Husband and wife and one c h ild under l 6;
one person l 6 or over; one o r two o th er persons regardless
o f age.
Although, from av aila b le records th e re were 829 estim ated farms in
C uster County in 193^-35,* ith the b g sls o f elim ination s ta te d above, in
a d d itio n to a reduced number of fam ilies re s u ltin g from m igration out of
the country due to unfavorable a g ric u ltu ra l conditions, a l l but 50 farm
fam ilie s were excluded from t h is study.
The q u a lific a tio n th a t fam ilies
must be n a tiv e boro $61 tea and not on r e l i e f in o rd er to be Included in
the study cut down the sample to be stu d ied very d r a s tic a lly .
Number o f
persons in th e fam ily and fam ily composition, by way o f m eeting the
fam ily type c r i t e r i a , also reduced the sample to be stu d ie d considerably.
Howeger, o f th e households th a t were e lig ib le to be stu d ied , f u l l coverage
o r p r a c tic a lly 100 p erc en t, to a l l in te n ts and purposes, were included.
Hence, I t must be remembered th a t the sam ple,rather than being &
ty p ic a l c ro ss-se c tio n o f the farms in the a re a, covered only n a tiv e boro
and those ab le to remain o f f r e l i e f .
In a d d itio n , unmarried farm fam ily
-1 1 -
houeeholde, those in which one or the other or both
renter were not
liv in g in the family or were dead, and households having more than six
members were not included.
This Implies a se le c tiv e sample.
Tor fa m fam ilies coming within the confines of the sampling c r ite r ia
and liv in g in Ouster or adjacent counties in A it ii liv e sto c k farming is
important, the resu lts o f th is study are thought to be representative and
d escrip tive.
The 50 farm fam ilies studied were dispersed throughout the entire
county and the density of the sanrole tends to coincide with the density
o f the farming population. (See map)
There were two pronounced exceptions,
namely, in the northeastern comer of the county and in the v ic in ity about
H iles City.
In the former instance, the southeastern comer is populated
heavily by foreign born, who were excluded from the study.
The same
reason plus need for r e l ie f due to small in e ffic ie n t sized farms, accounted
fo r a proportionately lower representation about Miles City.
Pescrlotion o f the Smmnle as a Whole
In addition to the above description o f the $0 Custer County fam
fa m ilie s, i t was found that a l l but two <med a ll or part o f the fazm
they operated.
Tiie average siz e of farms in Ouster County, as reported
by the Montana Agricultural Census in 1930, was 1900 acres.
The average
s iz e o f the farms for the group included here was 3,000 acres, ranging
from 10 acres in one instance to 18,000 acres in another Instance.
On the b asis of type of farm, i t was found that the liv e sto c k farm
predominated, accounting for 2J out o f the 50 studied.
were c la s s ifie d ns A e a t farms.
Geneial farms. 6 ;
Another 12 farms
The remainder were distributed as follow s:
dairy farms, 5 -
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FARM FAMILIES CONTACTED
FOR CONSUMER PURCHASE STUDY, CUSTER COUNTY
JULY AND AUGUST, 1936
LEGEND
FARMS VISITED, NOT INCLUDED IN STUDY
- crARMS VISITED, INCLUDED IN STUDY
13
There was a to ta l o f l6 6 fam ily persons in the 50 fam ilies,av erag in g
3 .3 members p e r fam ily.
O thers, than th e immediate fam ily members liv in g
in the households brought the number o f persons p e r household up to 3. 6.
The average age o f the heads of the household was k j y e ars, though the
range was from 26 to
y e ars.
Prom the standpoint of fam ily-type, the households were d is trib u te d
as follow s:
15 Type I - Psm ilies c o n sistin g o f has Md and wife only
6 Type IZ -P sm ilies c o n sistin g of husband and wife and one c h ild
under l 6 years o f age
5 Type III - Pam iliee c o n sistin g o f husband and wife and two children
under l 6 years o f age
19 Type IT - P sstllies c o n sistin g o f husband and wife and one person
l 6 years o r over and one o r no o th er persons
5 Type T ■* PSmllies c o n sistin g of husband and wife and one c h ild
under l 6 years,one person l 6 years o r over,and one o r two
o th er persons regardless o f age.
INCOME OP PABi PiUiILIES
Gross Income
I t i s a well e sta b lish e d premise th a t t o ta l Income of a fam ily o r
household i s one fa c to r determ ining,in p a r t,th e d is trib u tio n o f the
income fo r d iffe re n t uses.
In an economy th a t places emphasis upon
production as d is tin c t from consumption,and the purchase of an in creas­
in g ly la r g e r p ro portion o f consumer goods,such a re la tio n sh ip i s more
pronounced than in a s e lf - s u f f ic ie n t economy, th a t was the value o f the
g ross income to these farm fam ilies fo r th e y ear stu d ied and what were
i t s sourcew? ( 3)
The average gross farm fan I Iy income fo r the 5° Ouster County farm
fam ilies was $3107.77 (Table I ) .
About 72 percent o f th is was farm-
family income consistin g o f income to the family from the farm as well
as earned income from sources other than the farm.
earned income.
This represents actual
Bat many fam ilies had to resort to other than current income,
ch iefly savings, loans in the form o f mortgages and notes, and some credit
in the form o f uqpaid b i l l s .
Some or a l l of th is cred it, savings, and loan
Income may have gone to farm operation expense only, while In other cases,
some or a l l may have been used to purchase fa a ily liv in g .
Tor that reason,
such items must be included In the gross income to the farm fam ily.
In
fa c t, 28 per cent of the average gross income o f the 50 Caster County
farm fam ilies came ftem such sources.
She current farm income o f $2225 cane from the following sources:
$ l4 l4 came d ir e c tly from farm cash sa les and $160 from non-farm sources
such as labor, pensions and other outside sources;
$609 o f the remaining
$651 came from the farm as furnished farm income.
Sfoe balance o f furnished
income came from sources outside the farm (Table XI).
From data availab le,
i t i s evident that with the exception o f seven fam ilies o f the to ta l f i f t y ,
farm family income was not su ffic ie n t to meet to ta l farm expense and family
liv in g c o sts.
In fa c t, for the average fem ily .le ss than 3/4 o f the expenses
were met from th is source alone.
Of the liv in g co sts, 42 percent was furn­
ished d ir ec tly by the farm.
(3) Gross income includes farm-family in c o m e ,a s s e ts ,lia b ilitie s , and credit
used. Farm Family income includes cash from the farm,plus fam ished l i v ­
ing from the farm,employment away from the farm,pensions,and other sources.
- 15 -
TABIJE I
SOUBCE AHD AVERAGE VALUE OF GROSS INCOME (I) IOH CUSTSS
COUHTT IAJM FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BT THO INCOME LEVEL GROUPS
Type and Source
o f Income
A ll Farms
Inctxne Group
I
(25 farms)
T otal Gross Income
$3,107.77
$2,043.69
$4,171.86
2.225.03
1.227.93
3 , 222.13
Other Sources
882.7%
SI5.76
949.73
Percentage
p .c t .
p .c t .
p -Ct.
Total Gross Income
100
100
100
Farm-Family Income (2)
Farm-Family Income
Other Sources
(2)
Incm e Group
II
(25 farms)
71.6
60.0
77.2
28.4
40.0
22.8
(I)
Total Gross Income available refers to income from the f a te (cash and
furnished and employment) and additional income from lo a n s, credit
and increased l i a b i l i t i e s .
(2 )
Jhte-Faiaily income Includes farm and non-farm (cash and
furnished), non-farm cash including employment earnings and
other cash returns.
TABLE II
ATBBAGE IASJ-FAMILT IHCOEE FOB CUSfEH COUHTT FABM
FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BI AMOUNTS FBCM CASH AND FUBSISHED SOURCES
Income C la ssifica tio n s
Farm-Family Income
Cash
Furnished
A ll Fanas
Income Ghroop
I
(25 fam e)
Income Group
II
(25 farms)
$2, 225.03
$1,227.93
$3, 222.13
1,573*84
704.67
2,443.01
651.19
523.26
779.12
Percentage
p .c t ,
Farm-Family Income
100.
p .c t .
100.
P • c t.
100 .
Cash
70.8
57-4
75-8
Furnished
29.2
42.6
24.2
-1 7 -
The 50 farm fa m ilie s were c la s s if ie d Into two income groups fo r
comparative purposes.
This c la s s if ic a tio n was made, not on th e b a sis of
gross farm income, but farm fam ily Income.
The l a t t e r c o n sists o f current
in ta k e o r cash re c e ip ts , including evalu atio n o f goods furnished d ire c tly
from the farm but excludes savings, c re d it, o r unpaid b i l l s f o r goods used
as well as money borrowed to pay cu rren t farm operating o r liv in g expense.
This c la s s if ic a tio n i s used throughout the study and always re fe rs to such
c u rre n t Incom e,rather than gross income.
C redit f o r unpaid b i l l s , use of
p a s t savings, and borrowed money does not rep resen t Income, but use of
p a s t and fu tu re Income in o rd er to s a tis f y p resen t needs.
C lassify in g the 50 farm fam ilie s on the b a sis o f two groups, those
receiv in g le s s than $1900 o f farm fam ily income and those receiv in g more
them th a t amount, the follow ing s trik in g d ifferen c e s appear (Table I) (4 ).
Group I averaged a gross income of $2043.69 ! ° r the 25 fam ilies In clu d ed .
Group II,in c lu d in g th e remaining 25 fa m ilie s, averaged $4171.86 by way of
gross Income.
However, In Group I fa m ilie s, 60 p e r cent of the to ta l
gross income was farm fam ily income as compared to 77 Pe r cent fo r Group I I .
In s h o rt, f o r the lower income group th e use o f savings, borrowed money and
c re d it by way o f unpaid b i l l s , had a much g re a te r re la tiv e value to to ta l
income than was evident f o r fam ilies o f th e hig h er Income group.
T his, of
course, was due to th e lim ite d income re a liz e d by Grotqp I .
Since unearned Income such as c re d it f o r unpaid b i l l s , borrowed money
(4) Those receiv in g le e s than $1900 o f farm fam ily income are designated as
Grotqp I Income Level Group; those receiving more, as Group I I Income
Level Grotqp.
and UBe o f savings I s such a la rg e item in supplementing cu rren t income to
meet the farm and liv in g expense, i t i s necessary to analyse th is item in
some d e ta il a t th is p o in t.
On th e average, considering the t o ta l group,$882.7 ^
was used from t h is source.
Over 50 p e r cent came from e x is tin g a ss e ts ,in c lu d ­
in g savings and cash on hand,
forty-tw o p e r cent consisted o f l i a b i l i t i e s
in th e fo ra o f loans secured by notes and mcalgages.
th e balance, over
7 p e r cent was made a v a ila b le in th e fo ra o f c re d it, e tc h M unpaid b i l l s ,
charge accounts, and in stallm e n t toying ( Table I I I ) .
Separating the fam ilie s in to income groups again, as p rev io u sly , i t was
found th a t, on the average, those in Income Sroup I tended to depend upon
l i a b i l i t i e s to a g re a te r e x te n t, th a t i s loans, secured by notes and mort­
gages, while those of Income Sroup I I depended more o n a sse ts o r cash
resources on hand.
The l a t t e r also had b e tte r access to c re d it in the fo ra
o f charge accounts aM in stallm e n t buying than did the former.
I t i s evident th a t fa m ilie s in the h ig h er income group, having more
a v a ila b le cash on hand accumulated from previous y ears, have not su ffered
the e ffe c ts o f previous drought to the same extent as the lower income
group.
This may be due to the fa c t th a t lan d resources were so much
g re a te r fo r Group I I than f o r Group I .
Faras ranged in e lse from 93 to
18,000 acres fo r th e former as compared with 10 to 9,700 acres fo r the
la tte r.
The previous d iscu ssio n with resp ect to the excessive use of oth er
than actu al farm fam ily income to meet operating and liv in g expense does
not M an th a t fa m ilie s did not la y a sid e money fo r investment o r savings,
th e need o f which i s o fte n determined by previous investm ent.
For example.
- 19 -
TABL£ I I I
THE ATEMSS UKSAKIiEO INCOME OF CUSTER COUNTY FASi FAMILIES
CLASSIFIED 3Y SOURCE - FOB TWO INCOME ISTEL GROUPS
Income Group
I
(25 farms)
Income Group
II
(25 farms )
$882.74
$815.76
$949.73
I . Assets (I)
444.75
347.93
541-57
2. L ia b ilitie s (2)
372.34
424.80
319.88
65.65
43.03
88.28
Source
T otal Other Sources
3. C redit ( 3)
All Farms
Percent o f T otal
P .c t
P .c t
P .c t.
T otal Other Sources
100.
100.
100.
I . Assets ( I )
*0.4
42.6
57.0
2 . L ia b il i t ie s (2)
42.2
52.0
33*7
7.4
5.3
9-3
3. C red it (3)
(1) Assets - Use o f previous savings or checking accounts.
(2) L ia b ilitie s - Outri^it loans, by note o r mortgage.
(3) Credit - Unpaid b i l l s (charge accounts and installm ent buying)
— 20 ■*
l i f e in su ran ce, once in fo rc e , i s a c o stly investm ent to drop even when
cash f o r fam ily liv in g i s lim ite d .
I t may he wise, under such circum stances,
to continue such investm ents and re s o rt to borrowing and use of c re d it to
meet fam ily liv in g c o sts.
I t i s apparent th a t most fam ilies had reserved
cash f o r investm ents o r re ta in e d i t as checking accounts.
Txom. fig u re I which shows the d is tr ib u tio n of gross income f o r a l l
fa m ilie s, i t can be seen th a t the t o ta l gross income was apportioned fo r
most fam ilie s between f a m expense, investment and cash, and fam ily liv in g .
The amount o f gross income apportioned to fam ily liv in g tends to increase
with an in crease in income.
However, th is i s a lso tru e of the amount of
such g ro ss Income going to farm expense, which in tu rn makes av aila b le
more gross income and hence more fo r liv in g .
The proportion reserved fo r
investm ent and cash savings. Increases with an in cre ase in income.with
a concentration in those fam ilie s receiving a gross income o f from $3900
to $7500.
A tten tio n should be c a lle d to the apparent discrepancy between class­
ify in g , on th e one hand, fam ilies in to Oroup I and I I using as th e div isio n
lin e the fan s f a a ily Income of $1900, and ,on the other hand, the fa c t th a t
nine o f the 25 Orowi I fa m ilie s had gross income of over $1900, even as h i #
as $8800. This Is the r e s u l t of including In gross income the use of c re d it
and a s s e ts p rev io u sly mentioned.
income.
The la tte r,h o w e v e r,a re not current
In the case of both income le v e l a , fam ilies with the exceptionally
high gross income were those who had borrowed considerable money to
purchase liv e s to c k .
Al th o u # th e average gross income f o r Group I fam ilie s was $2043,i t i s
-2 1 dollars
I #
#
#
*
" "
$ 6943
$ 7380
$ 12,080
$ 8807
---------F I G .* OISTRIBUtL
------------ GROUP H
OF GROSS INCOME ^ ^ O ^ U S T E R MUNTY FARMERS
1935—1936
-2 2 -
neoeeaary to p o in t out th a t the range was from only $911 to $880J with th e
median a t $1663.
to $12,080.
In group I I the average was $4172, with a range from $1955-
In th is case th e median was $3403»
2he farm fam ily income showed
no such extreme range.
In the case o f farm fam ilies, furnished liv in g from the fauna must a l­
ways be considered in the to ta l income pictu re.
The average Ouster County
farm family received 21 per cent o f i t s gross income and over 29 per cent
o f i t s farm family income from such sources ( 5) .
Table II shows that the
proportion o f furnished incane from the farm decreased as cash income in ­
creased.
However, actual money value o f such furnished income from the
farm Increased.
The im plication o f th is i s that when fam ilies have money
available they purchase a greater proportion o f th eir liv in g though they
may also furnish more.
Hence the to ta l income available for family liv in g
Ie considerably greater fo r the h ig ie r le v e l incase groups than the lower
le v e l income groups, as w ill be apparent la te r .
farm family Inccane
farm family income 1» here defined as the actual money value of a l l
goods and services earned and received by the family during the current
year, whether from farm sa le s or an assigned value for farm goods consumed
at home, or whether from non-farm sources such as payments for labor or
pensions (6) .
The average farm family income to a ll Ouster County fam ilies
(5) furnished farm liv in g was computed as follow s: rental value of house for
the year confuted by percentage value o f house, fuel,and food values de­
termined by the price paid for the same on the lo c a l market.(See appendix
fo r d e t a ils ).
(6) Such earnings or receipts were for a 12-month period prior to but not
necessarily Inclusive o f July and August,1936.
-2 3 -
was $2,225.03.
Over JO p e r cent of th is waa cash, and th e remaining 30 p er
cent was fu rnished (Table I I ) .
There was, however, c o n s id e ra te d ifferen c e
between lncmae groups.
Fam ilies In Income Group I averaged only $1227.93 from farm fam ily In­
come with a range from le e s than $500 to $1900 (fig u re 2 ).
This I s to be
compared with $3222.13 o r a range from $1900 to over $4900 fo r Income
GroiQ) I I .
F u rth er, In the case of the f i r s t group 43 p e r cent was furnished
while in the second group only 24 p e r cent was so furnished, in s p ite of the
f a c t th a t the a c tu a l value o f furnished goods In the l a t t e r group was la r g e r
by about $150.
In the lower Income group th e cash value o f farm family
income was le e s than 1/3 as la rg e as in the higher income group.
Here
again, a previous conclusion a p p lie s, namely th a t fam ilies tend to have a
la r g e r p o rtio n o f t h e i r Income c o n sistin g o f cash income as the income le v e l
i t s e l f r a is e s , but the furnished Income also in creases.
This i s in e v ita b ly
the r e s u l t in an economy as h ig h ly commercialized as th a t found in America.
I t should be remembered th a t the drought may have reduced the to ta l
cash farm fam ily income and a t the same time the amount o f farm furnished
income f o r a l l fa m ilie s.
H ence,other fa c to rs than drought might explain
the p ro p o rtio n a te ly lower incomes, both cash and furnished, fo r the Group I
fa m ilie s .
Such fa c to rs may IndLude the follow ing:
1) Sm aller farms, as was previously Indicated,w hich means le s s land
a v a ila b le f o r t i l l a g e o r g ra z in g ,re s u ltin g in a lower t o ta l retu rn
2) Leee e f f o r t devoted to ra is in g products fo r home use because of
time spent away from home on o th e r than farm work
3) An a sso c ia te d fa c to r
might be the need o f m arketing a l l p o ssib le
24
INCOME
DOLLARS
4900-0V E R
4700 -4 9 0 0
4500-4700
4 3 0 0 -4 5 0 0
410 0 -4 3 0 0
3 9 00-4100
GROUP n -------------------------------- 4< ----------- GROUP I
3 700-3900
3 5 0 0 -3 7 0 0
3 3 0 0 -3500
3 1 00-3300
29 0 0 -3 1 0 0
2 7 0 0 -2 9 0 0
2500-2 7 0 0
2 3 0 0 -2 5 0 0
2100-2300
1900-2100
1700-1900
1 5 0 0 -1700
1300-1500
1 1 0 0 -1 3 0 0
9 0 0 -1100
7 0 0 -9 0 0
5 0 0 -7 0 0
0 -5 0 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
NUMBER OF FAMILIES
FIG. CD FARM FAMILIES GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF FARM
FAMILY INCOME, CUSTER COUNTY
1 9 3 5 -1 9 3 6
8
25
products in o rd er to "buy th e necessary purchased commodities and serv ice s,
even a t the expense o f r e s t r i c t i n g th e amount of goods produced but con­
sumed a t home.
The actu al and re la tiv e amounts o f farm fam ily income by sources and
income le v e ls are shown by fig u re s 3»
and 5 (also Table I ? ) .
Cash income
from farm fam ily sources ranged from as low as $85 to as high as $6000, with
an average o f $1573*84 fb r a l l farm fa m ilie s,
!e a rly 90 p e r cent of th ie
cash re tu rn f o r farm fam ily income was from s#l# of liv e sto c k , g rain and
hay, d a iry products and b e n e fits obtained through p a rtic ip a tio n in the
A. A.A. program.
However, only eig h t farmers of the t o t a l 50 received
cadi retu rn s from th e l a t t e r source and amounts ranged from $90 to #>00.
The e ff e c ts o f drouth on the farms included in group I are more f u lly
r e a lis e d when cash re c e ip ts from the s a le o f farm products are compared to
Group I I .
The former received only $437 from such sources as compared
with $2256 f o r th e l a t t e r group.
Sven when the govenmamt b e n e fits paid to
a few fam ilie s and o th e r farm cash re c e ip ts such as earnings fo r threshing
o r combining the neighbors' crops are included, th is t o t a l average cash
Income from the farm fo r Group I was only $484 while f o r Groin) I I the t o ta l
average cash re c e ip ts from the farm was $2,344.35 ( Table IT ).
As p rev io u sly s ta te d , cash income from the farm fo r most fa m ilie s , was
supplemented by the use o f cash on hand o r savings, and c re d it as well as
cash from loans and mortgagee.
However, the use of th ese funds were kept
to a minimum where income from o th er so u rc es, such as employment outside
the farm was p o ss ib le .
Thie adjustment was more evident f o r fam ilies having
an extremely low cash income from the sa le o f farm p ro d u cts, as cm be seen
26
TABLE I V
THE AVERAGE FARM FAMILY IMCOKE O F CUSTER COUHTY F A M IL IE S
C L A S S IF IE D BY SOURCE
Income C la s sific a tio n s
Cash Income
Farm
Non-Farm
Furnished Income
Farm
Non-Farm ( l )
Farm Cash
Sales
B enefits
Other Faunn
Non-Fam Cash
Employment (2)
Other Money ( 3)
Percentage D istrib u tio n
Cash Income
Farm
Non-Fam
Furnished Income
Farm
Non-Fam (I)
Farm Cash
Sales
B enefits
Other Farm
Non-Farm Cash
Employment (2)
Other Money ( 3)
AND
TSO IK C C SE LEVEL GROUPS
Income Group
I
(25 farms)
A ll Fams
$1,573.84
1,414.32
159.53
651.19
608.80
42.39
1,414.32
1,346.63
47.08
20.60
159.53
96.56
62.97
P .c t.
100.
89.8
10.2
100.
93.5
6.5
100.
95.2
3.3
1.5
100.
60.5
39.5
$
704.67
484.28
220.39
523.30
496.56
26.74
484.28
437-41
28.87
18.00
220.39
133.51
86.88
P .c t.
100.
63.7
31.3
100.
9 4 .9
5.1
100.
90.3
6.0
3 .7
100.
60.6
39.4
Income Grcup
II
(25 farms)
$2,443.01
2,344.35
9 8 .6 6
779-12
721.07
58.05
2,3# .3 5
2. 255.85
65.30
23.20
93.66
59.60
39.06
P .c t.
100.
95.9
4.1
100.
92.5
7.5
100.
96.2
2.8
1.0
100.
60.4
39-6
(1) Non-Feurm Fam ished Income c o n sists o f fu e l and ic e from outside sources.
Coal is found fre e ly in surface s o il in Custer County. Ice was from
r iv e r sources. Value of these are determined "by p ric e p a id fo r such.
(2) B^ployment - work o u tsid e of farm (comprised of retu rn s fo r s k ille d
end u n sk ille d work).
(3) Other Money - c o n sists of retu rn s from in te r e s t, p r o f i ts , re n ts , pensions,
and g i f t s .
iflO D N I HSVO
27
FARM SALES
$ 1,347
FARM FURNISHED
$ 609
FIG. ( 3 ) DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE OF AVERAGE FARM FAMILY
INCOME FOR TOTAL GROUP OF 5 0 CUSTER COUNTY FAMILIES
1935-1936
22
iNCOME
CASH INCOME.
FIG. (4) DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE OF AVERAGE FARM FAMILY
INCOME-GROUP I (2 5 FA R M S)-L E S S THAN $ 1 9 0 0 INCOME
CUSTER COUNTY, 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 3 6
29
farm
sales
$ 2 ,2 2 6
-^THEfMONEY
EMPLOYMENT $ 6 0
FARM FURNISHED
$ 721
30
from th e follow ing examples.
One fam ily received Snly $23 in cash from
farm products so ld but the op erato r earned $755*
Another fam ily reported
$75 as th e t o t a l amount received as cash from the sa le o f farm products,but
$1200 was earned.
The employment av aila b le to these farm fam ilie s consisted
o f road work, cooking f o r road crews and in one in stan ce school teaching.
Where th e la r g e r amounts were earned in the two cases c ite d previously,one
was employed as a baker and th e o th er as an o f f i c i a l government a s s is ta n t
fo r th e
A .A .A .
p ro je c t then in fo rce.
To have borrowed o r used o th e r cash sources to the extent necessary in
such cases to meet a l l expenses without a d d itio n a l income from la b o r away
from the farm ,slight have increased indebtedness to a degree th a t would
have n e c e ssita te d help from o u tsid e sources,such as government a id .
The examples c ite d were, o f course, rep re se n ta tiv e of farms where
drought e ffe c ts were most d r a s tic , o r where the fan s was s e t up to produce
only p a rt o f the t o t a l income and o u tsid e employment was a planned and lik e ly
m ajor source o f Income.
Fbr o th er farms th a t had farm cash income c u rta ile d ,
amounts earned through employment outside the farm v a rie d from as low as
$7.50 to as high as $71K), and time spent by the member earning outside the
farm v aried from th ree days to twelve months.
Figures 4 and 5 show these
average earnings from employment to be $1)4 fo r Group I and $97 fo r Group I I ,
in d ic a tiv e o f the g re a te r need fo r such earnings by fam ilie s receiving low
cash incomes from th e farm.
A few fam ilie s were fo rtu n a te in receiv in g pensions and cash retu rn s on
some previous investm ent.
a d d itio n a l income.
T hirteen fam ilie s of the t o ta l f i f t y received such
Amounts were le s s than $100 f o r s ix o f these fa m ilie s,
while seven fam ilie s received more, one fam ily receiving as much as $1200.
31
Such returns were greater to the lower Income group,but average amounts for
both groups were very minor.
Over JL per cent of to ta l f ana-family cash
for Group I was from employment outside the farm, pension and other money
Just referred to , while fo r Group II only 4 per cent o f farm family cash
WaS from these sources (Table IT).
I t ie o f in terest and !importance to compare the number o f fam ilies
having members employed outside the farm, earning to supplement cash in­
come from the farm.
Irreo Table T i t is evident that nSteurly h a lf of the
farm fam ilies o f the lower income group had a member so employed.
In
Income Group II le s s than one third of the fam ilies had s member employed.
Sot only i s the difference In number so employed a factor in explaining
the greater non-farm earnings for the lower Income group, but such employed
individuals were the head o f the household or the homemaker in the case of
the lower income group, as a ru le.
In the higher income group the greater
number of those employed outside the farm were eons or daughters.
TABLE T BiPLOTMENT OI FABi FAMILY MEMBEBS
OUTSIDE THE FABM
Total Group
Total Families
Total Families with
member working
Operator
Hometoaker
Son
Daughter
Group I
Group II
50
25
25
IS
S
2
5
3
U
7
2
2
0
7
l
0
3
3
3?
In the case o f the nine fam ilies in Group I having o p erato r o r
homemaker employed o u tsid e th e fann, th e income derived from t h is work
was importmit not only to provide e s s e n tia l items fo r fam ily liv in g ,tu t
to reduce th e p o s s ib i l i ti e s o f lo sin g th e i r farm.
In the case ofthe
Income Group I I , while co n trib u tio n s made by the son o r daughter m y have
been ju s t as im portant in meeting farm fam ily needs, i t Ie doubtful i f
the se c u rity o f the home would have been so re a d ily threatened.
The
o p erato r remaining a t home would in su re b e tte r upkeep o f firm M d home
as well as more time a v a ila b le fo r producing and conserving furnished
goods from th e farm.
While the t o ta l fu rn ish ed Income to Group I was about one Ih lrd
le s s than f o r Group I I , o r $523 as compared with $779» i t i s evideat
th a t th e marked d ifferen c e in t o ta l income between the two groups i s more
a r e s u lt o f cash Income (Table IV).
Increased cash income in most cases
was asso ciated with in creased furnished income, but not in the same pro­
p o rtio n .
B ental values o f the house ex p lain , in p a r t, th e h ig h er f u r ­
nished income f o r Group I I as such values ranged from $22 to $900 fo r
th is group with an average o f $174.
Bental values fo r Group I ranged
from $18 to $450 with an a v e r s e of $83.
When th is fa c to r i s considered,
th e re i s a much sm aller d iffe re n c e in o th e r furnished income between the
two Income groups.
In general the hig h er re n ta l values would imply b e tte r
housing fo r Groxqi I I .
This ml^tit in tu rn r e f le c t o ld e r e stab lish ed
residence and b e tte r resources fo r th e h ig h er income group.
Poorer housing,
on th e o th e r hand, fo r fam ilie s receiving le e s may have been a re s u lt of
previous investm ents in the fan s in hope of fu tu re retu rn s th a t would
33
Pe m it b e tte r housing ev en tu ally .
I h is l a t t e r would be ty p ic a l of f a n
fa m ilie s not so well e sta b lish e d .
Net
Income
Having presen ted a p ic tu re o f t o ta l gross income and i t s component
p a r ts , c o n sistin g o f fans fam ily income and prev io u sly accumulated a s s e ts ,
and extended c re d it and lo an s, i t i s now necessary to consider n et income
f o r th ese farm fa m ilie s.
Such net income i s th e balance remaining a f t e r
farm operating expenses have been deducted from the gross income.
A ll o r
only p a rt o f th is net income may be consumed f o r fam ily liv in g , depending
upon fam ily need.
fo r the t o ta l group o f 50 Custer County fam ilies net income v aried &
g reat d e al.
Amounts ranged from as low as $756 to as high as $hlQ0 with
an average o f $1SU0.53-
Concentration o f the low net income in Croup
I
i s evident as they average only $1357«59 as compared to $5,323.46 fo r
Croup
II
(Table TI).
In th e case of Inom e Croup I net income represented 66 p e r cent of
g ro ss
income and in th e case o f Income
income was a v a ila b le as net income.
C ro u p
E i i s 1 o f course, was due to the
h ig h er costs o f farm o p eratio n in Croup I I .
p a rt-tim e
I I only 56 p e r cent o f gross
farming set-u p reduced these
c o s ts
Drought o r the e stab lish ed
to a minimum f o r
G ro u p
I
fa m ilie s.
The
n et income was used fo r two purposes:
2) f o r savings and Investm ent.
I) fo r fam ily liv in g and
84 p e r cent of the average n et income of
C uster County fam ilies was used fo r fam ily liv in g expenditures.
The
remain­
ing 16 p e r cent went to savings such as insurance and payment o f debts o r
34
TABLE V I
D IS T R IB U T IO N O F AVERAGE GROSS IHCOME
FO R CUSTER COUBTT FARM F A M IL IE S
1935-36
A ll Farms
Income Groxto
I
(25 farms)
Income Group
II
(25 farms)
Total Gross Income
$3,107.77
$2,043.69
$4,171.86
Farm Expense
1 , 267.26
686.10
1,848.40
Net Income
1.840.53
1.357-59
2,323.46
D istrib u tio n
Percentage
Total Gross Income
P .c t .
P .c t.
100.
100.
P .c t .
100.
Farm Expense
4 o .s
33*6
44.3
Net Income
59.2
66.4
55.7
35
w as r e t a i n e d
as
c a s h o n h a n d ( T a h le V I I ) .
o f H o rth D a k o ta , h a s p o i n t e d
above n e c e ssa ry
(fa rm
farm
in v e s tm e n ts ,
re d u c tio n
w ith l e s s
it
th a n
on th e b a s is
of fara
o f th e
f a m i l y in c o m e ,
in c o m e f o r f a m i l y l i v i n g
h a v in g
f a m i l y in c o m e o f m o re t h a n
o r cash on hand
c o n s titu te d
re s p e c tiv e ly .
H o w ev er,
c o m p e te w ith
c la s s ific a tio n
show ed t h a t
o f fa m ilie s
th o s e
o f th e
fa m ily
n e t in c o m e .
e v id e n t th a t
fa m ilie s
th e
(7 )
fa m ilie s
p er cent of th e ir to ta l
T he b a la n c e u se d
as
p e r c e n t o f th e a v e ra g e n e t
o f th e f a c t
o f th e
(T a b le s
an d in v e s tm e n ts
fa m ilie s
w ith
In c o m e o f $ 1 0 4 5 .3 7
due to
re s tric t
11
e x p e n d itu re s
re s o rtin g
fa m ily
to
per
$1000 farm
b y w ay o f l i v i n g
s u c h a lo w am ount t i t
a re­
s till
a m o u n tin g t o
th a n
d id
V IIa n d V IT )f
o f $115»$$ f o r in v e s tm e n ts a n d s a v in g s .
s p e n d in g
in c o m e ,
s a v in g s
$1000
th a n
le s s
$929. 8!
th a t
s a v in g s
n e t in c o m e s i n c e
in c o m e o f l e s s
consum ed o n ly
liv in g
little
to
c o s ts
It
is
over a
m o re th a n
o f s a v in g s a n d th e u s e o f m oney f o r
a p p e a r q u e s tio n a b le
lo w e s t s u b s is te n c e
in c o m e h a d b e e n
19
fa m ily
B ut th e p re se n c e
in v e s tm e n ts , m akes i t
as p re v io u s ly
in c lu d in g
90
f o u r in c o m e g r o u p s
s h o rt,
o f a y e a r m ust s e v e r e ly
n e c e s s itie s .
rea ch ed
In
tw o i n c o m e g r o u p s ,
$1900.
fo r a p art
f o r s a v in g s
fa c ilitie s ,
an d m a in ta in e d a b a la n c e
b are
in to
*nd b e t t e r l i v i n g . (
co m p ared w ith 81 p e r c e n t f o r th o s e
w as e v id e n c e
in c o m e b u t a n a v e r a g e n e t
c r e d it and lo a n
p e rio d
and
c o s ts
w ith a fa rm
a v e ra g e d a b a la n c e u se d
c e it
10
th e re
fa m ily l i v i n g
s a v in g s )
spent
in c o m e
b e tw e e n I n v e s tm e n ts ,
t h e l o w e r in c o m e g r o u p
a v e ra g e n e t
farm
c o n n e c t i o n , B .A .W ils o n ,
ex p en ses i s
o f in d e b te d n e s s ,a n d
w as f o u n d t h a t
$1900
th is
c o m p e titio n f o r a n y s p e n d a b le
an d fa m ily l i v i n g
C o m p a rin g f a m i l i e s
c la s s ifie d ,
o u t th a t
In
le v e l.
as
to
w h e th e r th e e f a m i l i e s h a d
In asm u c h a s a m a rg in o f th e
re s e rv e d f o r o th e r th a n l i v i n g
net
e x p e n s e s , c o n s id e r a tio n s h o u ld
W ils o n .E .A .I n c o m e s & C o s t o f L i v i n g o f F a n a F a a i l i e s
H.D.Agr. Exp.S t a . B u l . 271,J u n e , 1933»
in
N .D . 1 9 2 3 - 3 1 »
7)
TABUS m
B IS T H B O T IO H O T ATSSAGffi GBOSS IHCOMS TOB CUSTER COUHTT T A M
F A M IL IE S C L A S S IF IE D
B T IO U B INCOME USTEL GBDUPS ( l )
Income
D istrib u tio n
Gross Inccaae
A ll
Fam ilies
Average Income
of le s s than
$1000
Grorp I
Average Income
from $1000 to
$1900
Grorp II
Average Income Average Income
from $1900 to
from $2800 and
$2800
over
Grorp I I I
Grorp IT
$3107-77
$1428.63
$2611.50
$2820.75
$5635.57
Farm Expense
1267.24
383.76
965.70
1014.27
2752.04
Het Income
1840.53
1045.37
1645.80
1806.48
2883.53
1549.43
929. SI
1482.67
1547.7%
2243.21
291.10
115.56
163.23
258.74
640.32
p .c t .
p .c t.
p .c t .
p .c t.
Family Living
Balance (2)
Percentage
Gross Income
P .c t .
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
Farm Expense
43.8
26.8
36.9
36.
1(8.8
Het Incase
59.2
73-2
63. I
64.
51.2
Het Income
100.
100.
100.
lo o .
100.
Family Living
84.2
89.0
90.0
85.6
77.3
Balance (2)
15.3
11.0
10.0
14.4
22.2
(1) There were twelve fam ilies in Group I , th irte e n In Grorp I I , th irte e n in Group III,a n d twelve
in Grorp IT. The same fam ilies were Included i n th e Grotp I and I I designated here as were
included in th e o rig in a l Grorp I r e f e r r e d to in the d isc u ssio n .GroupsIII and IT designated in
. x th is ta b le are included in the O riginal Group I I .
(2) See Table T il l - K r D istrib u tio n o f Balance.
TABLE H I !
PEBCEMTAfiE DISTBIBUTIOH OP "BALAHCB" OP AVEBAfiE MET IHCOME POB COSTEB COUHTY
PABM FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BY POUB IHCOlflS LEVEL G-BDOPS
X
AU
Rsunas
Average Income
o f le s s than
$1000
Croup I
Average Income
from $1000 to
$1909
Croup II
Average Income Average Inccaae
from $1900 to from $2800 and
$2800
$ over
Croup I I I
Croup IT
Average Balance
♦291.10
Checking Account#
3 5 .8
1 8 .3
5 7 .4
1 6 .2
1.6
0
10.2
0
Saving*
$115.08
Investment#
13-7
3 7 .8
Improvement#
6.6
5-9
U .8
1.8
Insurance
Loans
$163.23
0
$258.74
$640.82
42.2
0
3 0 .2
4 .5
2.1
0
11.3
1 4 .4
11.0
1 3.8
3 .5
0
0
0 .7
6 .8
73-0
6 3 .0
84.1
58.1
78.6
Back Tax and Bent
4 .3
7 .8
3.5
0
5 .9
B ills Paid
1 .5
0
2 .9
4 .4
0
Mortgage and Leans
a .2
29-5
9 .5
37 .5
1 5 .5
Total Decreased
L ia b ilitie s
2 7 .0
3 7 .0
15.9
41 .9
21.4
T otal Increased Assets
b e fiiv e n to
Ite
d is trib u tio n ,
s a v in g s , paym ent o f d e b ts
d is trib u te d
in
th is
T h is b a la n c e
a lo n e
can n o t be
f o r fu tu re
com e l e f t
o f th is
k in d ,
on p a s t lo a n s ,
b e n e fits .
ea rs
in
73
w h ile
I m p ro v e m e n ts ,
s a v in g s
th o u g h t o f a s
ta x e s ,
g o in g
per
to
d u rin g
cent o r
$212
w as u s e d
in c lu d e d liv e s to c k
in s u ra n c e ,
a n d lo a n s m ade to
th e y e a r .
In
th e b an k .
(T a b le i l l
s a v in g s
and re n ts
am ount
).
o r in v e s tm e n ts
can h a rd ly be c a lle d
O n ly 27 p e r c e n t o f t h e b a l a n c e o f n e t
an d s a v in g s
life
f o r in v e s tm e n ts ,
H ie a v e r a g e
t o t a l g ro u p
o v e r o r a n a v e r a g e o f $ 7 3 .6 0 p e r f a m ily
S u ch in v e s tm e n ts
chased
w as u s e d
an d s im ila r e x p e n d itu re s .
m a n n e r w as $291 f o r t h e
s i n c e p a y m e n ts
s a v in g s
w h ic h f o r m o s t p a r t
o n ly
w as a p p l i e d
in ­
i n p a y m e n ts
f o r in v e s tm e n t a n d s a v in g s .
an d la n d p u rc h a s e s ,
o th e rs .
one in s ta n c e
hom e
Two f a m i l i e s p u r ­
w as s a v in g s
re p o rte d
H o w e v e r, m any h a d s m a ll c h e c k in g a c c o u n ts ® r
as
fu tu re
s p e n d in g .
C o m p e titio n f o r s p e n d a b le
in v e s tm e n ts
in c lu d in g
farm
p er cent
or
36
to ta l
H o w ev er,
p e r c e n t w as r e t a i n e d
C o m p a rin g t h e
T H , i t
liv in g
is
fa n ilie s
tw ic e
fa m ilie s
th e
fo rm e r a s
fa m ilie s
w as b e tw e e n
in s u ra n c e
on th e
O v er 25
co m p ared t o
o f th e
21
to ta l
$291
f o r c h e c k in g a c c o u n t p u r p o s e s .
h a v in g le s s
In c lu d e d in
f ro m n e t in c o m e ,
th a n
th e
$1000 farm
fa m ily
to ,
in
T a b le
a f t e r fa m ily
fa m ily
fa m ily
in c o m e i n ­
in c o m e s a v e d
fro m
$1000
to
$1900
n e x t ra n g e o f
$1900
to
$2800 sa v e d
ra n g in g
O v e r $ 6 4 0 w as r e a l i s e d
o v e r $2800 o f farm
re fe rre d
in c re a s e d a s farm
f a m i l y in c o m e s
a s m uch o r $ 2 5 5 .
h a v in g
th e
a g r e a te r p ro p o rtio n
t h a t a m o u n ts a v a i l a b l e
h a v in g fa rm
c o s ts
o th e r h an d .
f o u r in c o m e l e v e l g r o u p s p r e v i o u s l y
T hose f a m ilie s
$1 6 3 , w h i l e
a lm o s t
w ent to
e x p e n d itu r e s h a d b e e n d e d u c te d ,
cre ase d .
$ 115 ,
e v id e n t
in d e b te d n e s s o n th e
am ount a v a i l a b l e
f o r th e l a t t e r .
fa m ily
a n d hom e im p r o v e m e n ts a n d l i f e
o n e h a n d an d d e c r e a s e o f farm
p er cent of
in c o m e b e y o n d f a r m
in c o m e .
as
sav ed
s a v in g s b y th o s e
W h ile t h e s e
d iffe re n c e s
seem a p p a r e n tly
re la te d
to
farm
fa m ily
c lu d e s m oney fro m o t h e r s o u r c e s
am ount a v a ila b le
as
in c o m e l e v e l .
b u te d
in to
to
The f a c t
keep
fa rm ,
fu n d s d o es n o t
th a t
so m any c h a n n e ls
b e in g m ade to
th a n th e
is
th e
d e te rm in in g f a c t o r in
s a v in g s .
C o n c e n tra tio n o f th e s e
to
in c o m e , h i g h e r n e t in c o m e , w i i c l i i n ­
in
fo rc e
red u c e in d e b te d n e s s ,
th e
seem to
s p e n d a b l e in c o m e a v a i l a b l e
in d ic a te s
th a t
in m ost c a se s
im p ro v e m e n ts , i n s u r a n c e ,
such
h av e any d e f in ite
e x p e n d itu re s
re la tio n
w as d i s t r i ­
w h ile a tte m p ts
are
a n d o th e r s a v in g s an d
w e re v e r y l i m i t e d .
FABM FAMILY L IV IH C
Y a lh e o f O o o d s U se d
The le v e l
o f liv in g
te rm s o f th e p r o p o r ti o n
n eeds:
i.e .
th o u g h t to
a
fa m ily
liv e
o f a fa m ily o r g ro u p
of net
th a t usee
c lo s e r to
o v e r and above th e s e
th e
a ll
w as $ 1 5 4 9 .4 3 ,
s e rie s
fa m ilie s
liv e d
fa m ily
n e t In c o m e f o r l i v i n g p u r p o s e s
le v e l
is
th a n o n e t h a t h a s a b a la n c e
g o o d s u s e d b y t h e $ 0 C u s t e r C o u n ty f a r m
d u rin g
at
t h e y e a r o f 1 9 3 5 -3 6 «
about
d u r i n g t h e y e a r , s h o w in g
50
in
a g ric u ltu re .
per
T h is v a lu e o f g o o d s u s e d ,
n e t in c o m e a v a i l a b l e
a s u b s is te n c e le v e l
o f u n fa v o ra b le y e a r s
g o o d s u s e d w as o n ly
of its
s a tis fy
c o s ts .
r e p r e s e n te d 8 4 .2 p e r c e n t o f th e
not a ll
c a n b e m e asu red i n
in c o m e u s e d d u r i n g a y e a r t o
s u b s is te n c e
The a v e ra g e v a lu e o f a l l
fa m ilie s
o f fa m ilie s
in
s p ite
w h ic h i n d i c a t e s
o f th e
F u rth e r,th is
d ro u g h t an d a
a v e ra g e v a lu e o f
c e n t o f t o t a l g r o s s in c o m e t o
t h a t farm o p e r a tin g
th a t
th e f a m ilie s
e x p e n se a n d in v e s tm e n t c o n tin u e d
a ls o .
O ver one h a l f ,
o r 58 p e r c e n t o f th e
p u r c h a s e d w h i l e o v e r tw o
fifth s ,
to ta l
liv in g
e x p e n d itu re s
w as
o r 4 2 p e r c e n t w ere f u r n is h e d fro m
th e
farm
4o
and o th e r s o u rc e s .
d u rin g
th e y e a r s
cent o f th e ir
then,
t o ta l
fo r
fo u rth o f
of
the
o f goods used
(9 )
fo r
$96,
e n d A u to
f o r fa m ily
v a lu e
o f fo o d m a te r ia ls
o f fa m ily l i v i n g ,
p u rp o ses
in d ic a te d ,
h o u s in g
fa m ilie s
fu rn is h e d
fa m ily l i v i n g
$353.
s in c e
4 3 .3 p e r
use $45
le s s than
c lo th in g
Clothing
w as d i s t r i b u t e d
as
A d v ancem ent G oods $ 1 0 2 ,
6) .
(fig u re
c o n s titu te d
in c lu d in g
t o t a l v a lu e o f liv in g .
to ta l
n o t a b n o rm a lly h ig h
(S ).
$ 1 1 8 , H o u s in g
th e
is
s e l e c t e d M o n ta n a f a r m
C lo th in g
v a lu e
o th er
v a lu e
fu rn is h e d
F o o d ,$ 8 3 5 ,
P e r s o n a l ite m s
in g
1 9 2 9 -3 0
fa m ily l i v i n g
The t o t a l
fo llo w s :
E h is p r o p o r tio n
Boughly
o v er one h a lf o f
one fo u rth ,
cam e t o
c o n s titu te d
and a l l
le s s
le s s
than
speak­
th e
goods
one
than one tw e lfth
e x p e n d ltu re s (lO ).
Bichardson, J e ssie E . , Quality o f Living in Montana Fana H o m e s . M o n t . A g r .
E x p .S t a . B x il-2 6 0 ,1 9 3 2 .
F o r t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f t h e r e a d e r w ho m i g h t b e
i n t e r e s t e d i n how t h e C u s t e r C o u n ty f a m i l i e s I n c lu d e d i n t h i s s tu d y
c o n p a r e t o o t h e r f a r m f a n i l i e s a s t o in c o m e a n d e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r f a m i l y
l i v i n g , s e t T a b le
V
a n d d i s c u s s i o n i n A p p e n d ix B (9 ) T he v a lu e o f a l l g o o d s u s e d f o r f a m ily l i v i n g p u r p o s e s w as d e te rm in e d a s
f o l l o w s : q u a n t i t i e s o f f u r n i s h e d fo o d s a n d f u e l u s e d f o r t h e y e a r w ere
e s t i m a t e d by t h e h o m e m a k e r a n d a p r i c e v a l u e w a s f i x e d b y t h e f i e l d w o r k e r
c o m p a ra tiv e to th e c u r r e n t p r i c e s at th e l o c a l m a r k e ts .
The v a lu e s o f a l l
p u r c h a s e d i t e m s w e r e e s t i m a t e d b y t h e h o m e m a k e r o r o p e r a t o r o r w e r e ob­
ta in ed f r o m f a m i l y e x p e n d i t u r e r e c o r d s . B e n t f o r h o m e s w a s determined
b y a n a r b i t r a r y p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e h o u s e ; 11 p e r c e n t f o r
r e n t e r s end 9 p e r c e n t f o r o w n e rs.
C o s ts f o r o p e r a tin g th e a u to m o b ile
w ere d e te r m in e d b y a n e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e g a s o l i n e u s e d a s w e ll a s th e
m i l e a g e r e c o r d a n d f r o m 25 t o 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e s e t o t a l c o s t s f o r o p ­
e r a tin g th e c a r f o r o n e y e a r w ere a s s ig n e d to f a m ily l i v i n g e x p e n d itu r e s
d e p e n d in g o n th e u s e o f th e c a r f o r f a m ily p l e a s u r e , o r fa rm b u s in e s s .
( 1 0 ) T he C l a s s i f i c a t i o n u s e d f o r t h i s s tu d y w hen p r e s e n t e d i n d e t a i l i n c l u d e s :
I ) F o o d , 2 ) C l o th in g , 3 ) H o u s in g , u n d e r m ilc h h a s b e e n c l a s s i f i e d r e n t ,
h o u s e h o ld f u r n is h in g s a n d r e p a i r , f u e l , l i g h t s a n d o t h e r o p e r a tin g e x p e n s e s ,
4) A dvancem ent g o o d s, in c lu s iv e o f r e a d in g , r e c r e a tio n , e d u c a tio n , g i f t s
an d w e lfa re d o n a tio n s ,5 ) P e rs o n a l ite m s , su ch a s c o s m e tic s ,h a ir c u ts ,
t o b a c c o a n d h e a l t h e x p e n d i t u r e s , a n d 6) A u to f o r f a m i l y u s e .
T lie C l a s s ­
i f i c a t i o n a d o p te d , w h ile n o t i d e n t i c a l w ith s u g g e s te d d iv is io n s o f th e
in c o m e s u c h a s f o u n d i n E l l e n H . B i e h a r d s " I d e a l B u d g e t " , i s f r o m t h e
s ta n d p o in t o f e a s e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h i s s tu d y .( f o r
re feren c e see
S u c c e s s f u l F a m ily L i v i n g o n T h e M o d e r a te In c o m e b y M a ry
H in m a n A b e l , L i p p l n c o t t , P h i l a d e p h i a , 1 9 2 1 , p.155* )
(8 )
4i
P UR CH AS ED FOOD
$ 385
FURNISHED FOOD
$ 450
TOTAL F O Q P
FIG. (6 ) DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE LIVING EXPENDITURES
FOR TOTAL GROUP OF 5 0 CUSTER COUNTY FAMILIES
1 9 3 5 -1 9 3 6
42
In d iv idual fam ilie s showed a wide range in the value o f goods used,
going from as low as $575 in one case, to as high as $3700 In another case.
T h is
d is tr ib u tio n would c e rta in ly in d ic a te an approach to the subsistence
le v e l on the one hand and liv in g on a comfort le v e l on th e o th er hand.
The follow ing sta te a e n t made by B. B. Andrews and found in many fam ily
liv in g stu d ie s i s well supported Iqt comparisons of fam ilies ty income le v e ls
made in t h i s study.
He s ta te s th a t "amount o f income ,more thn-n any other
sin g le fa c to r a ffe c ts spending.
That i s to say, the r e la tiv e d is trib u tio n
o f the income between th e d iffe re n t item s o f the budget w ill obviously
vary according to the e ls e o f the Incmaen( U ) .
Although average siz e of
fam ily and average man weeks (12) spent in the home by each fam ily member
a re very s im ila r fo r the d iffe re n t income groups (Table IX) ,y e t fam ilies
TTith an annual income o f le s s than $1900 from farm -fam ily sources, used,on
th e average, only $1217.29 fo r liv in g
expenses
$1900 farm fam ily income used $1881. 56.
and fam ilies with more than
In o th er words, the l a t t e r used
over $670 more fo r fam ily liv in g than th e former.
The p ro portion o f furnished income used was sim ila r fo r the two income
groups, o r 43 p e r cent fo r Oroup
I
and 4l p e r cent fo r Group
II.
However,
the a ctu al amount o f furnished goods used was g re a te r f o r the higher in ­
come group, namely, $523 and $779» re sp e c tiv e ly .
Again, the purchased
liv in g fo r th e hig h er income group exceeded th a t of the lower income group
by over $400.
Actual amount spent by the former was $1102.44 as compared
to $694 f o r the l a t t e r .
(11) Andrews, B. H .,Econm ice o f the Household, M acHillaalHew York,1935,p.l29
(12) Average man weeks re fe rs to the amount o f time spent in the home by
each member o f the fam ily ,measured In periods of weeks. (See glossary
o f terms f o r fu rth e r ex p lan atio n ).
43
TABLE I X
ATEBAGE VALUE AND SOUBCE O F GOODS USED FOB FAMILY L IV IN G
BY 5 0
CUSTBB COUNTY F A m F A M IL IE S
All Farms
C L A S S IF IC A T IO N S
A v erag e
Size o f Family
A v e r a g e M an W eeks
in Home
Value o f Goode Used
Income Grovp
I
(25 farms)
In c o m e G ro u p
II
(25 farms)
3*3
3.1
3*5
43.7
49.4
48.1
$1549.43
$1217.29
$1881.56
P ro p o rtio n P u rc h a se d
393.25
694.09
1102.44
P ro p o rtio n
F u rn is h e d
651. 1s
523.20
779.12
P e rc e n ta g e
D istrib u tio n
p .c t .
p .c t.
p .c t.
100.
100.
100.
A v erag e
Value of Goods Used
P roportion Purchased
57-9
57.0
58.6
P roportion Furnished
42.1
43.0
4 i.4
T h is h a s
n u m e ro u s I m p l i c a t i o n s , o n e o f w h ic h I s
h ig h e r an d th e
h ig h
th a t
lo w e r In co m e g r o u p s ,
an in c re a s e
o f goods o f
th a t
th e
su m ed a n d u s i n g
c o n s u m in g t h e
th e
s e llin g
o f a
th e m oney to
to
ite m s
and
o f th e
fo o d ,
th e
c lo th in g ,
a u to
d ec rease,
in c o m e i n c r e a s e s .
p are d
$ 8 .5 p e r
le v e l g ro u p s,
s iz e
th a t
cent o f to ta l
and r e p a ir ,
C ro x p I u t i l i z e d
c o c p a re d w ith
is ,
7*9
H o u s in g
o f in c o m e ,
T hat is ,
c e rta in
c o m m e rc ia liz e d
in te rp re ta tio n s .
am ount I s
is
con­
p re fe ra b le
to
fo o d ,
to ta l
c o s ts
th e
in c lu d in g
in c re a s e d p ro p o rtio n a te ly
1 8 .4 p e r c e n t o f th e
tre n d s
fo r
th e
I
in
p ro p o rtio n a l
te n d to
f o r fa m ily liv i n g
C lo th in g
as
in
as
co m ­
e x p e n d itu re s
b o th
in c o m e
co m p ared w ith
7 .5
r e n t, h o u se o p e ra tio n ,
as
as
l o w e r in c o m e g r o u p
e x p e n d itu re s
p e r c e n t f o r C ro ip
c la s s ifie d
fo o d e x p e n d itu re s
e x p e n d itu re s
to
is
a d v a n c e m e n t, p e r s o n a l a n d
h i g h e r in c o m e g r o u p .
s im ila r re la tio n s h ip
c e n t f o r C ro u p I I .
in g s
to
h o u s in g ,
f o r fa m ily u s e ,
w ith 5 0 .9 p e r c e n t f o r th e
m a in ta in e d a
a fte r a
goods u s e d f o r fa m ily l i v i n g
v a r y a c c o rd in g
re p re s e n te d
a h ig h ly
p u r c h a s e o t h e r c o m m o d itie s
re la tio n s h ip
as
r a t h e r th a n p ro d u c tio n
c o u ld be e x p e c te d i n
dozen eg g s,
so
dozen eggs.
am ount g o in g
m is c e lla n e o u s
T h is
th e
fu rn is h e d i s
th e m o re l o g i c a l o f a n u m b e r o f p o s s i b l e
W hen d i s t r i b u t i o n
to
th e p ro p o rtio n o f liv i n g
c o n s u m p tio n m e an s p u r c h a s e
c o m m o d itie s .
econom y a n d a p p e a r s
I t m eans
in
t h a t , f o r b o th
in c o m e I n c r e a s e d .
per
fu rn is h ­
In co m e
to ta l
e x p e n d itu re s
fo r th is
2 5 * 6 p e r c e n t u s e d b y C ro u p I I
(T a b le ! ,a n d
F ig u re s
p u rp o se
7
and
8) .
Expenditures f o r advancement goods also increased r e la tiv e ly as income
increased sin ce $.8 p e r cent and 7 p a r cent o f a l l expenditures were so
used by the resp ectiv e groups.
Personal items including h e a lth Investeaent,
t o i l e t a r t i c l e s , h a ir cu ts,an d tobacco remained about the same in t h e ir
as
45
I
TABLE
L IT IN G
AfBBAGE T A L U I AND D IS T R IB U T IO N O P GOODS USED P O S PAM ILT
BT
C lB T E H COUHTT PAIW F A M IL IE S ,C L A S S IF IE D B T INCOME GBOUPS
In co m e G ro u p s
C la s s ific a tio n
A ll
I
F aras
_____ _______________________________ (25 farms)
In c o m e G ro u p s
II
(25 fa ra s)
$1549.43
$1217.29
$1831.56
Food
835.27
7 1 2 .3 s
958.15
C lo th in g
113.30
9 6 .3 4
140.30
H o Lising
353.46
225.09
481.81
A dvancem ent
101.57
71.01
132.12
P e r s o n a l,e tc .
95.61
74.29
116.92
A u to
45.22
38.17
52.23
p .c t.
p .c t.
p .c t.
53.9
58.5
50.9
7-6
7.9
7 .5
22.8
13.4
25.6
A dvancem ent
6.7
5.8
7.0
P e r s o n a l,e tc .
6.2
6.1
6.2
A u to
2.9
3.1
2.8
A v erag e T a lu e o f G oods U sed
(F a m ily )
P e rc e n ta g e
D is trib u tio n
Food
C lo th in g
H o u s in g
(F a m ily )
46
FURNISHED FOOD
$ 450
P UR CH ASED FOOD
$ 336
FIG. C7 ) DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE LIVING EXPENDITURES
FOR 25 FARM FAMILIES—IN LOWER INCOME GROUP
CUSTER COUNTY, 1935-1936
47
P U RC H A S E D
$ 433
FOOD
^ ^ ^ X QTal
FURNISHED FOOD
$ 525
fooo3
-^ ^ ^
FIG. ( 8 ) DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE LIVING EXPENDITURES
FOR 25 FARM FAMILIES—IN HIGHER INCOME GROUP
CUSTER COUNTY, 1935-1936
4s
re la tio n s h ip
a s s ig n e d
It
to
to
to ta l
th e
fa m ily
a p p e ars,
b e in g " ,a s
s ta te d
th a t
a u to
if
be
fo r
th e
d e c reased
as
"fo o d can b e
b y H a z e l K y rk
com e g r o u p w o u ld
p e n d itu re s ,
e x p e n d itu re
liv in g
c o n s titu tin g
(1 3 ),
n e a r th e
a num ber o f f a m ilie s
s u b s is te n c e le v e l.
o th e r needs re q u ire
c u rta ile d
s a tis fa c tio n
H e n c e .fo o d c o n s m p t i o n i s
based
on th e
fac t
th a t
JO p e r c e n t o f t o t a l
f e r re d .,
th e
s u b s is te n c e
M is s K y rk
ite m s
as
and re p a ir,
s tu d y .
p in g
an d a u to
(1 3 )
s ta te s
th a t
c lo th in g ,
tra d itio n a lly
re s p e c tiv e ly ,
th a t
th e
th e
ite m s
re s tric te d .
fo o d ex ­
o f goods
fo r
n eed s.
o th e r
B ut th e s e
c o m p e te w i t h f o o d .
S h is
c o n c lu s io n i s
lo w e r in c o m e g r o u p u s e
p er cent of
w hen 2 5 p e r
and,
over
a s p re v io u s ly
to ta l
b u d g et to
c la s s ifie d ,
d iic h
c e n t o r m o re i s
in ­
fo o d s
a v a ila b le f o r
a n d s h e l t e r , m o d e ra te c o m fo rt i s
b u t n o t h o u se o p e ra tio n
(in c lu s iv e
th e
90
in c lu d e s r e n t
c o s ts
H o w e v e r, m a k in g d u e a l lo w a n c e
and I I ,
o f t o t a l v a lu e
f o r fo o d a lo n e ,
th a n
Ih at is ,
o th e r p re s s in g
a ls o
in
th e lo w e r i n ­
le v e l.
f o r h o u se o p e ra tio n
goods
in
a ls o
o th e r th a n fo o d ,
S h e lte r,
I
som e f a m i l i e s
o f m o re
so
lik e ly ,
e x p e n d itu re s
an a llo c a tio n
in d ic a te s
v ery
in
n e e d s , b u t e x p e n d itu re
due to
a ls o ,
c o s ts
a s a n in d e x o f e c o n o m ic w e ll
su c h a h ig h p e r c e n ta g e
be
w h ile
In c o m e i n c r e a s e d .
ta k e n
u s e d , m ay b e a d e q u a te f o r n o rm a l l i v i n g
t h a n n e c e s s i t i e s w o u ld
tw o i n c o m e g r o u p s
is
8
fo r
as
is
and h o u se
in c lu d e d h e re
th e p ro p o rtio n o f
p o s s ib le .
fu rn is h in g s
under th is
e x p e n d itu re s
p e r c e n t a n d 1 0 . 5 p e r c e n t f o r G ro u p
th e p ro p o rtio n
o f av e rag e
e x p e n d itu re s
fo r
th e s e
o f h o u s e o p e r a tio n ,a d v a n c e m e n t, p e r s o n a l a n d h e a l t h ,
f o r fa m ily u s e )
in d ic a te s
l o w e r in c o m e g r o u p .
o n ly
a m in im u m c o m f o r t l e v e l
O n ly 2 3 p e r c e n t o f t o t a l
fo r fa m ilie s
e x p e n d itu re s
on th e
K y x fc , H a s e l , E c o n o m i c P r o b l e r o s o f T h e F a m i l y , H a r p e r s 1H ew Y o r k , 1 9 3 3 ,
P P -3 3 6 -3 8 .
49
p a rt o f the lower income group went to t h i s use as compared with 26.5 p e r
cent fo r th e h l ^ i e r income group.
I f Miss Ejrrk1s statem ents previously
p resen ted can be used as a b a sis fo r evaluating th e adequacy o f fam ily l iv ­
ing expenditures in m eeting t o t a l needs, i t would appear th a t d e sp ite the
e f f o r ts o f some o f the fa m ilie s in th e lower income group to increase th e
t o ta l income from th e farm by supplementary earn in g s, such Income was not
enough to much more than provide the n e c e s s itie s fo r decent liv in g ,a n d
m aintain some investm ents and savings f o r fu tu re w elfare.
On th e o th e r hand, fa m ilie s in th e higher income group with apparently
b e tte r reso u rces, had, in s p ite o f higher farm c o sts, also more a v ailab le
n et income f o r f a s I ly liv in g and a g re a te r proportion o f th a t net income
was used fo r Investment than was used by the lower income group.
While
th e amount used f o r fam ily liv in g was also much g re a te r in th is group of
fa m ilie s, the p ro p o rtio n ate d is tr ib u tio n o f th is amount among the goods
used f o r fam ily liv in g would not in d ic a te much more than a comfort le v e l.
In o th e r words, investm ents, improvements and o th e r savings fo r fu tu re
w elfare was o f more importance to the farm fam ilies w ith le s s r e s tric te d
Income, than was the consumption o f goods beyond normal fam ily requirement*.
When ap p lied to th is study,
i t would appear th a t composition of
fa m ilie s, th a t i s , number, sex and age o f fam ily members, i s not as an
im portant a f a c to r in influencing the tren d and d is trib u tio n o f the ex­
p en d itu res f o r fam ily liv in g as is the amount of income a v a ila b le .
When
the d is tr ib u tio n of goods used by type I fam ilie s (fa b le XI) consisting
o f husband and wife only, having a farm fam ily income o f le s s than $1900
is
compared with d is tr ib u tio n o f goods f o r the same type o f fan Ily having
50
T A B IS H
A H R A S E TA LU S,SO URCE ASD D IS T H B U T IO H O F GOODS USED IO R
FAMILY L I T I S G BY FAMILY TY PE I O F TTO ISC O K E LETELS
F a m ily
C la s s ific a tio n
Type
I
____________ F a m i l y T y p e I
Income Group
I
Income Group
II
$L519.00
$1010.47
$2115.17
1282.10
931.52
1807.87
Goods Purtiiased
729.56
525.52
1037.04
Goods Furnished
552.54
ho6.oo
770.83
643.92
565.50
761.55
Clothing
76.50
64.03
100.09
Housing
331.67
165.55
530.96
Advancement
93.78
45.62
166.02
H ealth - Personal
84.78
53.70
131. 3s
Aato
49.45
37.12
67.87
p .c t
p .c t
Met Income
Talxie of Goods Used
D istrib u tio n
Food
Percentage D istrib u tio n :
p .c t
50.2
60.7
42.1
Clothing
6.1
6.9
5.5
Housing
25.6
17.8
32.1
Advanceseent
7.3
4.9
9.1
Health - Personal
6.6
5.7
7.3
Auto
9.9
4.0
3.8
Goods Purchased
56.9
56.4
57.4
Goods Fbm iahed
43.1
43.6
42.6
Fbod
51
more than $1900 farm -fam ily income, the former statem ent i s confirmed.
That
i s , the r e la tiv e d is tr ib u tio n o f the Income between d iffe re n t item s of the
budget i s a ffe c te d more by amount of income than any o th e r sin g le fa c to r.
In f a c t, fam ilie s composed o f husband and wife only, in the lower In CCHae group used over 60 p e r cent of t o ta l erpendiiures f o r food alone,w hile
the same type o f f a a lly in the higher income group used but 42 p e r cent fo r
food.
In money value, cost of food f o r th e l a t t e r a c tu a lly exceeded th a t
o f the former by $200, o r, $565 as compared to $%6l , although actu al needs
would be s im ila r.
These trends in expend!tu re a re , o f course, d e fin ite ly
a r e s u lt o f n et income a v a ila b le fo r fam ily liv in g ,
fa m ilie s in Oroup I I
have p r a c tic a lly twice as much income a v a ila b le f o r fam ily liv in g , o r
$2115.17 as compared to $1010.47 fo r the same type o f fam ily in Group I .
Actual amounts spent f o r liv in g purposes fo r the former was also double the
amount spent by the l a t t e r o r $1807.87 as compared with $931.
A sim ila r re la tio n sh ip i s evident between expenditures fo r the
various items o th e r than food.
f o r these types of fam ilies i
Housing co sts show th e g re a te s t d ifferen ce
Type I fam ily in Income Group I expended
$165 o r 17.8 p e r cent o f the t o ta l value o f goods used, fo r housing, as
coopered with $580 o r 32 p e r cent by the same type o f fam ily in Income
Group I I .
Incremeed use of goods f o r these Type I fam ilies are more a re s u lt
o f cash on hand ra th e r than a g re a te r supply o f furnished goods.since
cash expended by Grcrtp I I fam ilies was a c tu a lly double th a t fo r Group I
fa m ilie s and use of fu rn ish ed goods, i f re n ta l values a re not considered
tended toward a sim ila r p a tte r n (Table XI).
52
from th e comparison o f Type I fam ilies in the two income groups, i t was
evident th a t Type I fam ilie s in Group I were a c tu a lly liv in g on a minimum
much lower than was ty p ic a l of a l l fa m ilie s in the same income group. Kxis
i s shorn "by the f a c t
I ) th a t p r a c tic a lly a l l o f the income was used fo r
fam ily liv in g , and th a t 2) over 60 p e r cent o f liv in g exp end! fa re s were
f o r food.
Data a v a ila b le show th a t most of th e Type I fa m ilie s in the lower
income group are o ld e r fa m ilie s ; many o f them having ra is e d t h e i r c h il­
dren.
In view o f these f a c ts , the p ro fp ects of in cre asin g t h e i r resources
when income i s so lim ite d . I s doubtful.
Another drought year would pro­
bably ru in a l l hopes f o r some o f them and p u b lic a ssista n c e would be the
only so lu tio n f o r t h e i r r e h a b ilita tio n .
Type I fam ilie s in the higher income group a re probably ty p ic a l o f the
well e sta b lish e d farm er, w ith good farm reso u rces, and a comfortable house.
In f a c t, housing and advancement expenditures as well as food, would
in d ic a te more than the comfort le v e l f o r t h i s group.
F u rth er d e ta ile d evidence along th is lin e would be superfluous, but
a tte n tio n should be c a lle d to income and expenditures f o r Type IT fam ilies
c la s s if ie d in the two income groups (Table X II).
These fam ilie s are more
ty p ic a l o f a normal fam ily than Type I , having one c h ild l6 o r over and
one o r no o th e r c h ild w ith an average o f 3.6 members p e r fam ily.
Although
incomes fo r these Type IT fa m ilie s d i f f e r markedly in th e two income groups,
th e p ro p o rtio n going fo r food i s sim ila r, th a t i s , $1171 covered th e cost
o f a l l goods used f o r Type IT fam ilie s in Groxp I and 53*9 p e r cent of
t h is amount went f o r food w h ile $2173 was used by the Type IT fam ilies in
53
TABLE XIl
AVERAGE VALUE,SOURCE AHD DISTRIBUTIOH Of GOODS USED VDE
FAMILY LIVING - BI FAMILY TIPS IV Of TVD INCOME LEVELS
C la s s ific a tio n
Family
Type
IV
Family Tyne IV
Income Group
Income Groun
I
II
Net Income
$2131.42
H372.93
$2683.05
1751.49
1171.40
2173.37
Goods Purchased
IO66.76
754.50
1382.07
floods Furnished
684.73
4X6.90
791.30
Food
908.16
631.21
1109. 5s
Clothing
137.71
91.18
171.55
Housing
4o4.47
205.20
549.41
Advancement
139.92
119.84
154.50
Health-Personal
119.69
81.49
147.46
41.54
42.48
40.87
p .c t .
p .c t.
p .c t .
51.9
53.9
51.0
Clothing
7.9
7.8
7-9
Housing
23-2
17.5
25.2
Advancement
8.0
10.3
7.1
Health-Personal
6.8
6.9
6.8
Auto
2.4
3.6
1.9
Goods Purchased
60.9
64.4
63.6
Goods Furnished
39.1
35.6
36.4
Value o f Goods Used
D istrib u tio n :
Auto
Percentage D istribution:
Food
54
Grcnzp I I and over h a lf o f t h is amount, o r 51 percent was used f o r food alone.
A ctually the type IV fam ilies in the h ig h er income groxtp consumed $400 more
food than the same type fa m ilie s in Group I even though needs would have
been s im ila r.
I t i s evident too th a t the Type IV fam ilie s in the lower
income group were not liv in g a s near the subsistence le v e l as was tru e o f
the Type I fam ilies having a lower income.
A la rg e r pro p o rtio n of the
n et income was used fo r o th e r purposes than fam ily liv in g and the proportion
o f t o ta l expenditures, used fo r food was le s s than fo r th e Type I fam ilies
(Tahie X I).
Another s tr ik in g d ifferen c e in liv in g expenditures between the Type IV
fam ilies in th e two income groups was the proportion going to housing and
advancement goods.
Less emphasis was placed on housing and more on advance­
ment goods by the fam ilie s in Group I , and more emphasis on housing and le s s
on advancement goods by fa m ilie s in the h ig h er income group.
These tren d s,
o f course, show the e ffe c t o f personal values and needs as well as Income.
The Type IV fa m ilie s i n th e lower lncaae group are w illin g to forego comforts
th a t might be a tta in e d through b e tt e r housing conditions and spend more f o r
advancement goods such as education, reading and re e re a tio n .
Type IV fam ilies
in the h i ^ i e r income group having more income a v a ila b le f o r spending, placed
considerable emphasis on housing expenditures which probably insures g re a te r
home comforts.
However, the a ctu al amount spent fo r advancement goods by
these Type IV fam ilies exceeds the amount spent by the same type fam ilies
i n th e lower income groups although th e r e la tiv e pro p o rtio n to t o ta l ex­
pen d itu res was le a s .
That i s , $154 was spent fo r advancement goods by these
fatal l i e s in Group I I or 7 percent o f t o ta l expenditures and $119.84 was
55
•pent by the same type fam ilie s In Group I , being 10.3 percent of to ta l
expenditures (Tab le X II).
I t Ie evident th a t considerable s a c rific e to
o th e r needs was experienced by the fa m ilie s in the lower income groups in
o rd er to provide the advancement goods they d esired .
I t might be said th a t
where income p e n a its , needs and d e sire s sure met without undue pressu re and
personal values tend to be a fa c to r in determ ining the tren d of expenditure.
However, when Income Is lim ite d , some phase of liv in g moat be c u rta ile d to
provide advancement goods e sp e c ia lly necessary to growing ch ild ren .
I t i s apparent th a t income le v e l i s th e most im portant fa c to r influenc­
ing value of goods used fo r fam ily liv in g .
Also the e ffe c t o f type of
fam ily or household composition on fam ily liv in g expenditures has been i n ­
d ica te d .
then a l l fam ilies included in th e study are c la s s if ie d by family
type (Tables X III and XI7) f u rth e r comparisons can be made.
I t was found
th a t fam ily Type I I c o n sistin g of husband and wife and one c h ild under l6
years of age spends le a s f o r family liv in g than any o th e r fam ily ty p e ,in ­
cluding Type I c o n sistin g o f husband and wife only.
In th e ease o f fam ily
Type II fa m ilie s, 90 p ercen t of the net income was used fo r fam ily liv in g .
The balance went to savings and investm ent, but the actu al value of such
savings and investment was lower than fo r any o th er fam ily type.
B iis
In d icates th a t the group liv e d c lo ser to the subsistence le v e l than any
o th er group.
fam ily Type V, co n sistin g of husband and wife and one c h ild over
16 with a second c h ild under l6 years and one o r no o th e r persons (in eluding a c h ild or o th e r a d u lts ) , has th e h ig h est average net income
a v a ila b le and spends more fo r fam ily liv in g than any o th e r fam ily type.
56
TABUS X III
ACTUAL AHD PEHCRNTAGE BI STEIBUTION 0? AHSAGE HET IHCOMB
IDB CUSTEB COUHTT FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BT FAMILT TYPES
IBSESPECTIYE OF INCOME LEVEL
C la ssifica tio n
T otal
Group
Av. Net Income
$1840.53 *519.00 $1406.95
Family Living
I
Ii
Family Tvces
III
17
V
$1583.35 $2131.42 $2477.19
1549.43
1282.10
1261.73
1320.59
1751.49
2157.65
Pxurchased
898.22
729.56
737.04
610.95
IO66.76
1244.43
Fam ished
651.21
552.54
524.69
709.64
684.73
913.22
Balance
291.10
236190
145.22
262.76
379-93
319.54
Percentage
Net Income
Family LivIng
p .c t.
100.0
p .c t.
100.0
p .c t.
100.0
p .c t.
100.0
p .c t .
100.0
p .c t.
100.0
84.2
84.5
89.7
83.4
82.2
87.1
Balance (*)
15.8
15.5
10.3
16.6
17.8
12.9
Family Living
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Purchased
58.0
56.9
58.4
46.3
60.9
57.7
Furnished
42.0
43.1
4 i.6
53.7
39.1
42.3
(*) Balance re fe rs to money used f o r mortgage and loan payments, o r increased
a sse ts.
57
TABLE I I T
AVERAGE VALUE AHD SOURCE O F GOODS USED FO R FAMILY
L I VIHO BY T Y PE O F FAM ILY (*)
Total
Group
I
50
15
Humber o f Fam ilies
Av. s is e o f Family
"
3.3
age Household Head
* M an
Sieks in Home( *)
49
Family Types
II
ill
V
IV
6
5
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.6
5.6
51.1
46.3
39.6
54.7
43.8
51.1
47.2
51.6
47.0
50.3
19
5
Average Value o f
* 2 8 2 .1 0
$1261.73
$1320.59
Goods Purchased
898.22
729.56
737-04
610.95
1066.76
Goods Furnished
651.21
552.54
524.69
709.64
684.73
p .c t.
p .c t.
p .c t
p .c t
Percentage
p .c t.
913.22
p .c t
Goods Purchased
58.0
56.9
58.4
46.3
60.9
57.7
Goods Furnished
42.0
43.1
4 i.6
53.7
39-1
42.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 00.0
100.0
100.0
T otal
( * ) A v e ra g e m an w e e k s i n hom e r e f e r s t o t h e
i n hom e b y e a c h m em ber o f t h e f a m i l y .
<5
$1751.49 $2157.65
$1549.43
I
Goods Used
a v e ra g e n u m b er o f w eeks s p e n t
58
Money f o r savings and investm ent takes 13 percent o f th e average net income
and has th e second lowest proportion going f o r such purposes.
87 percent o f
the average net income i s used fo r fam ily liv in g .
In the case o f fam ily Types I, III
and
IT th e p ro portion o f the average
n e t income used f o r fam ily liv in g tends to he very much the same,ranging
fro m
85 p ercent to 82 percent hu t the a c tu a l money value o f fam ily liv in g
ranged from about $1282 to $1751*
fam ily Tjrpe IT had more a c tu a l
and investm ent expenditures than any o th e r type o f fam ily, and
la rg e r
s a v in g s
d e v o te d
a
p o rtio n o f i t s average net income to i t than any o th e r fam ily type
(Table X III ) .
These Type IT fa m ilie s, as was previously in d ic a te d , liv e d on a higher
plane than o th e r fam ily types, with the exception o f Type I -(T able XTI).
TABLE XTI AGE Of HOUSEHOLD HEAD IN HELATION TO TALOE Of LITIHG
Average Age
o f H.H.Head
T otal Grorqp
fam ily Type
fam ily Type
fam ily Type
fam ily Type
fam ily Tjrpe
I
II
III
IT
T
47 years
51.1
"
«
39.6
I
54.7
"
43.8
"
Size of
fam ily
3-3
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.6
5.6
Total M ving
Expenditure
H5U9.43
1282.10
1261.73
1320.59
1751.49
2157.65
Average Expend­
itu r e per person
$M69.52
641.05
420.57
330.15
486.52
385.29
The age o f th e household heads in th is group of fa m ilie s was 54.7 y ears, o r
o ld e r than any o th e r fam ily type rep resen ted including Type I , many o f whom
had ra is e d t h e i r fa m ilie s.
The average age f o r these Type IT fam ilie s.
b e iig o ld e r and having more a v aila b le f o r f a a ily liv in g ,p ro b ab ly in d ic a te s
b e t t e r e sta b lis h e d farm and home se t-u p s.
59
She a ctu al value o f furnished liv in g tends to in crease with Increase
in l iv i n g ,shlch i s in tu rn a sso c iated w ith fam ily type and fam ily p ra c tic e s .
Shere i s one exception i n th a t Type I I I fam ily furnished more liv in g , in
terms o f a ctu al v alue, than did type 17 fam ilie s (Table X III).
The l a t t e r
had the g re a te s t savings and hence had the opportunity to purchase more o f
t h e i r liv in g .
then d is tr ib u tio n o f liv in g expenditures among food,clothing,housing,
advancement and personal item s are compared, f o r th e fam ily types (Table XY)
i t can be seen th a t Family Types I I and I I I , both having small children,
l i v e n earer a subsistence le v e l than any o th e r fam ilie s represented.
The
g re a te s t p ro p o rtio n a te amount i s spent fo r food,averaging a# high as 6^.2
p ercen t fo r Type I I I fa m ilie s and 64 p ercen t fo r type I I fa m ilie s. Housing
co sts are p ro p o rtio n a te ly low as well as a l l o th e r item s necessary fo r th e
comfort and w elfare o f fam ily members.
Very o fte n fa m ilie s as young as
type I I and I I I rep re se n t, go through a p erio d of want and s a c rific e in
o rd er to become e sta b lish e d w ith farm equipment and resources.
Home
f a c i l i t i e s , c lo th in g and advancement goods, are kept to a minimum, hence,
th e la r g e r p ro p o rtio n of t o t a l expenditures i s used fo r food.
Ihen funds
are more lim ite d than normal ,expenditures f o r both the farm and fam ily are
g re a tly reduced.
Income has been c ite d as th e major f a c to r in determ ining trend of ex­
p en d itu res f o r fam ily liv in g as well as t o t a l value o f goods used,
type
and composition o f fa m ilie s emphasized needs and resources p e rta in in g to
age le v e ls o f th e members involved.
A th ir d important f a c to r influencing
th e average cost of liv in g i s the education o f th e op erato r and heme-
6o
TABLE XT ATEBAG-B TALUS AND JESTHIBUT I ON OT GOODS USED TOB
FAM ILY L IY IM G B T FAMILY TYPES
T o ta l
_________________________ F a a i I y
T ypes
Group
I
$151+9.43
$1262.10
$1261.73
Food
635.27
643.92
807.31
860.72
5
3
1140.40
Clothing
116.30
78.50
64.18
102.85
137.71
244.51
Housing
353.M
331.67
248.22
214.41
404.47
490.25
Advancement
101.57
93.78
46.17
60.26
139.91
86.87
Personal, e tc .
95.61
64.76
52.05
46.57
119.69
137.93
Auto (IVuidly)
%5.22
49.45
43.80
35.78
41.54
57.69
p .c t .
p .c t .
p .c t .
p .c t .
Talue o f
Goods Used
Percentage D istrib u tio n
Food
p .c t
Il
III
IT
T
$1320.59 $1751.49 $2157.65
p .c t .
53.9
50.2
64.0
65.2
51.9
52.8
Clothing
7.6
6.1
5.1
7.8
7.9
11.3
Housing
22.8
25.8
19.7
16.3
23.2
22.8
Advancement
6.7
7 -3
3.7
4.5
8.0
4.0
P erson al,etc.
5.2
6 .6
4 .2
3.5
6.8
6.5
Auto (Family)
2.9
3.9
3.5
2.7
2.4
2.7
6i
maker (Table
X V II).
A
marked d ifferen ce can be seen in the
a v e rag e
coat
o f liv in g f o r th e fam ily as well as th e individual,w here one o r both the
o p erato r and homemaker have had some colleg e tra in in g , eonpared with a group
o f fa m ilie s having le s s education.
TABLE
XVII
T E E H E LA TION O F SCHOOLING O F OPERATOR AND HOIflStAKEB
TO AVERAGE COST O F L IV IN G (*)
Schooling o f
O perator and
Homemaker
Sise
of
Family
A ll Grades ($)
Both - 8th Grade
o r le s s
One in Grades
One in High School
One in Grades
One in College
Both above Grades
Averags
Cost of
Living
Average
Cost o f Liv­
ing P er Person
3-12
$1546.53
$ 495.98
3.16
1336.63
422.98
3.25
1346.18
414.20
3.14
2.92
2216.12
70S.81
1592.25
545.29
(*) 48 o f 50 fa m ilie s rep o rted , which explains d ifferen ce in averages o f
t o ta l group.
In the group where expenditures are h ig h e st, o r $705.83 p e r person,
th e homemaker o f each fam ily had from I to 4 years of college tra in in g .
I t i s a known f a c t , th a t th e m ajority o f expenditures f o r fam ily liv in g
are made through the homemaker.
These h ig h er expenditures might in d ic a te
th e e ff e c t of education o f the homemaker on cost o f liv in g in these
In sta n ce s,
th e re both household head members have a h ig h er education a
h ig h er expenditure i s noted a ls o , $545 as compared to the average of $495
p e r person.
However, th e amount expended by these fam ilie s i s more lim ite d
than f o r fa m ilie s where only one member has had hig h er education,due to
62
le s s income availab le.
In conclusion, data available shoe a wide variation in the value
o f goods used fo r family liv in g where incomes d iffe r .
Trends in expenditure
are d e fin ite ly affected by siz e and conposition of f easily though not in as
pronounced a fashion as often thought.
Other factors considered in ex­
p laining the trend o f expenditures fo r family liv in g were, education of
operator and homemaker.
However, the underlying current, rea lly the con­
tr o llin g factor in expenditures fo r these fa m ilies, was the amount of in ­
come availab le fo r family liv in g .
comes for a l l fa m ilies.
Brought was a factor a ffectin g farm in­
A f a ir ly large part of the expenditures for farm
and fam ily needs had to be met by incomes earned outside the farm, as well
as use o f c r e d it, loans and available cash on hand.
Despite these adjust­
ments many fam ilies liv e d near a subsistence le v e l bordering on poverty.
further consideration dealing with the v a r ie tie s and quantities of
goods used fo r family liv in g as well as f a c i l i t i e s and serv ices, is
desirdfle.
food
In a study o f fam ily liv in g expenditures, food, analysed for kind,
quality and amount used would give a f a ir index o f family liv in g standards.
However, when amount spent for food Ie p r a c tic a lly the only b asis for
evaluating the adequacy o f such items to to ta l family needs, certain
factors must be kept in mind, namely:
I ) Increased expenditures for food do not insure b etter nutrition
to the family members.
Such additional expenditures may not
indicate additional food but rather a change in the type o f
63
food.
Ihla usually means le s s of cereals and simple protective
foods and more o f the refined foods.
2) Entertaining of guests as well as more members liv in g in, the
households would Increase food costs without actually increasing
the amount spent for food fo r the fam ily.
3) Spoilage and outright waste o f food are other factors that would
increase costs without benefit to the family.
In addition to these p oin ts, though the primary function o f food
i s p h y sio lo gical, i t s so c ia l values, through the family meal are o f im­
portance.
I t i# evident that conclusions on the b asis of value o f food
used would be o f l i t t l e sign ifican ce as a measure of the qu ality of
liv in g .
However, facte and inferences can be presented.
lo r the f i f t y Ouster County farm fa m ilies, the average amount spent
for food ww $835.
to $385«
Less than h a lf of the food was purchased, amounting
Turoished food from the farm was valued at $430, while g if t s
from other people, usually in the fora o f board to children in school,aver­
aged $21 (Table m i l ) .
Total expenditures fo r food were greater in the higher income group
than in the lower, that I s , Group II fam ilies spent $958 as compared with
$712 for Group I fa m ilies.
JUsounts spent for food, however, ranged from
as low as $350 to as high as $1700 fo r Individual fa m ilies.
Data avail­
able show that seven fam ilies in the lower income group spent more for
food than the average in the Io w r group, going as high as $1300.
This
miglit r e fle c t an attitu d e, often found in farm fa m ilies, o f the reluctance
to lim it food consumption, even though other things may need to be given
•26BLE XTIII
TALUX OP POOD USED BI
CU STEE
OOUSTT PABfc FAMILIES
C L A S S IF IE D
BY TSO
INCOME
Lr VEL CfflOWS
Siee o f
At . So . of
Household Man Weeks
i n Home
T o t a l G ro u p
3 .6 5
___
T o ta l
V a lu e
C ash
F arm
F o rn ls h e d
Value of Food Used
G ifts
F e r F a m ily
P e r W eek
P e r P erso n
P e r W eek
$835.27 $354.45
$429.76
$21.05
$17.05
$4.67
G ro u p I
3.2
49.6
712.35
335.52
366.OO
10.56
14.36
4.49
G ro u p I I
Ki
4S.5
958.15
433.07
493.53
31.55
19.75
4.81
65
yP because of la c k o f purchasing power.
Consequently prop o rtio n ate expe n d l-
tu re f o r food i s In e v ita b ly much higher when incomes a re low.
The pro­
p o rtio n o f Income used f o r food consumed i s a f a i r index o f le v e l of l i v ­
in g o f a fam ily o r group o f fam ilie s.
When average food expenditures pgr person ier man week (l4) are con­
sid ered th ere appears to be a s im ila rity in these costs f o r the two income
grotqps.
Households in Group I average $4.49 p er person p e r week fo r food
and households in Group I I average $4.81.
When the range o f food expendi­
tu re s are considered, however, data show th a t seven households spend le s s
than $3'00 p e r week p e r person and one spends over $11 p e r week p e r person.
Further observation of d a ta show th a t food expenditures tend to be le s s p e r
person in th e la rg e r households.
This may be due to le s s waste of food
o r lower p ric e s p a id fo r la r g e r q u a n titie s .
Zimmerman s ta te s th a t "the ru ra l d ie t tends to be one without g reat
extremes of e ith e r under nourishment or over nourishment * ( l 5) . I t appears
from the amount of fu rn ish ed foods used from the farm, th a t th e average
d ie t fo r th ese farm fam ilies would tend to be adequate(Table XIX).
TABLS XIX USD AhD AMCUST OF StilNI SEED FOOD USED PER PEESOS PEE WEEK
Milk Ckeam Eggs P o u ltry Ibrk Other Meat Potatoes
(Qta) (Qts) dos.
So.
lb s
lb s ._____lb s .
Av.Amount Used by:
.4
6.6
Total Group
3-6
1-5 1.04
2.7
5-3
1.09
6.1
3.02
Group I
•5
2.9
1.5
6-3
4.8
6.8
Group I I
1.2 1.0
3.8
2.5
•3
Number of Fam ilies
47
46 47
21
4i
Reporting foods l i s t e d
45
33
(14) Food expenditures p e r person p er week are obtained by d ividing t o ta l
food expenditures by th e average number of weeks spent in the household
by household members, and again by the siz e of the household.In th is
d iv isio n o f ex p en d itu re ,size of household j&ich includes h ire d help
and guests liave been taken in to consideration.
( 15) Zimmerman,C.C. ,Consumption and Standards of Living,D.VanNostrand,
New Tork,1936,p.84.
66
The amount of m ilk need by 4/ o f th e 50 fam ilies would average over
th re e -fo u rth s of a quart p e r day per person.
a lso ev id en t,
A generous use of cream is
fo rty -sev en o f the fifty fam ilies averaged over a dozen eggs
p e r person p e r week.
Many fam ilies rep o rte d the use of chicken as th e only
home fu rn ish ed meat used And i n these in stan ces o ften times as many as 4
and 5 were used p e r week.
Of the fo rty -fiv e fam ilies rep o rtin g , the
average number used was one to th ree chickens p e r week,
le s s than h a lf
o f the farms produced pork f o r home use and about th re e -fo u rth s reported
the use o f o th e r meats from the farm.
Use o f o th e r meats than pork did
not seem to be confined to liv e sto c k raehers as a l l farm types were equally
well rep resented.
Of the twenty-one fa m ilie s using home produced pork, each person
averaged 2.7 lb s . p e r week and d ata show th a t in six te e n o f these homes
pork was supplemented by the use of o th e r home produced m eats.
T h is, of
course, i s very ty p ic a l o f fa ro lumee A e re furnished meats a re p a rt of
the d ie t.
A g re a te r use of eggs and p o u ltry i s evident In homes not having
a furnished meat supply.
p o ta to e s.
Forty-one fa m ilie s rep o rt a generous use of
However, the h i ^ ie r income group fam ilies used le s s p e r person
p e r week or 4.8 pounds as compared to 6.1 pounds p er person p e r week used
by fam ilies in th e lower income group.
The d iffe re n c e s in d ic ate d in use o f furnished food fo r the two
Income le v e ls may show the changes th a t tend to occur in type o f d ie t
used A en income in c re a se s.
The sm aller amount of p o tato es consw e d
might in d ic a te a g re a te r use o f o th e r foods such as f r u i t s and vegetables
and a more generous use o f meats.
67
S lothing
Clothing needs and ta s te s vary widely with d iffe re n t fam ilies as well
as with th e d iffe re n t in d iv id u a ls composing the fam ily.
In a s a tis f a c to ry way on a minimum amount o f cash as
Heeds may be met
o ld garments re ­
novated o r remade Into c h ild re n 's c lo th in g as well as proper care of clo th in g
on hand w ill reduce these co sts considerably.
Again,when young people in
th e ir adolescent years are Involved, no m atter how lim ite d the income may
be, the d e sire fo r s o c ia l approval w ill fo rce clo th in g expenditures beyond
a lim it in keeping with income a v a ila b le .
Very l i t t l e d ata i s a v aila b le on c lo th in g expenditure* fo r these
C uster County farm fam ilies as no record was made o f the number or v a rie ty
o f garments used.
The average fam ily spent $118 fo r c lo th in g (Table X)
f o r the y e ar o r an amount equal to $36 p e r person.
Amounts spent fo r
c lo th in g fo r Individual fam ilies ranged from as low as $l6 In one in stan ce
to as high as $438 in an o th er in stan c e.
Amounts spent fo r c lo th in g increased
somewhat as Income Increased, a* the average Group I fa m ilie s of lower in ­
come, spent but $96 as compared with $lMO spent by Group I I f s a l l i e s , o r
a cost p e r person equal to $31 and $4) re sp e c tiv e ly .
I t appears, from amounts spent fo r clo th in g in the range in d icated ,
th a t some fa m ilie s experienced considerable lim ita tio n as f a r as purchased
garments were concerned.
Garments on hand may be s u f f ic ie n t fo r need,but
such cu rtailm ent o f expenditures fo r c lo th in g would have i t s e ffe c t on
the morale of any fam ily in th e more modem ru ra l areas where is o la tio n
gives way to a f r e e r s o c ia l in te rc o u rse .
Vraa Table XX i t i s evident th a t Type I I and I I I fa m ilie s, both
Ss
having sm aller c h ild ren , spent th e le a s t f o r c lo th in g .
I t w ill he re c a lle d
th at both o f these fam ilie s had the lowest average income and represented
the youngest group o f fa m ilie s.
T heir c lo th in g expenditures would again
in d ic a te the p ressu re f e l t by them in meeting to ta l needs, i n an e ffo rt to
g et e sta b lish e d with b e t t e r resources.
TABLE XX OOST OF CLOTHING, PSH PERSON, JOB FIVE FAMILY TYPES
Fam ilies
C la s sifie d
Total Group
Type I
* II
n III
" IV
"
Y
S lse o f
Family
Av. Amount
Spent p e r
Family
$ llS .iO
78.46
64.18
102.85
137.71
244.51
3-3
2
3
4
3.6
5.6
Av.Cost
P e r Per­
son
$36
39
21
26
38
44
The in creased c o sts f o r c lo th in g , amounting to $38 and $44 p er
person f o r Types IY and Y fa m ilie s, is probably a d ire c t r e s u lt o f the
needs o f the younger people involved.
Bat here again income to these
fam ily types was higher than average, which made p o ssib le such expendi­
tu re s .
Housing ( 16)
In a comparison o f housing co sts fo r the f i f t y Ouster County fa ra
fam ilies some a p p re cia tio n o f the conditions under which these fam ilies
liv e d i s p o ss ib le .
Poor home conditions were evident on the one hand,
(16) Housing includes allowance fo r re n t, house o p e ra tio n ,fu m is h in g s,
and o th e r Item s, S tru c tu ra l ad d itio n s were not considered in annual
co sts of housing. Bent fo r homes were determined by a percentage
value o f house, 9 percent f o r owners and 11 percent f o r re n te rs .
House o p eratio n includes such expenses as fu e l,Ic e ,lig h ts ,h o u se h o ld
h e lp , telephone, and m iscellaneous item s.
OS
w ith apparent la c k of f a c i l i t i e s and conveniences, while on th e o th er
in creased use o f serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s , minor Improvements and purchases
as well as h ig h er re n ta l values, in d ic ate d moderate comfort.
Ehe average cost o f housing fo r th e f i f t y O uster County farm fam ilies
was $353 p e r fam ily.
This value was d is trib u te d as follow s: I ) re n t $129
2) house o p eratio n I l 1IS - which includes fu e l, lig h t s , ic e , household
help and use o f o th e r serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s and 3) $77 f o r home fu rn ish Ings and re p a irs (fig u re 6) .
Here again the e ffe c t o f income on expenditures i s m anifest as the
lower income group used p ro p o rtio n a lly le s s fo r housing, 18 pe rcent o r
$225 as compared to 25 percent or I 1Igl f o r th e h ig h er income group ( lig u re s
7 and S ) .
I t i s evident th a t homes in the h ig h er income group were on an average
su p e rio r, i n a p hysical sense, to homes in the lower income group. Bental
val ues were based on the approximate value of the house.
The average amount
estim ated f o r homes i n th e h ig h er income group was $175 more than double
th e value estim ated in the low er Income group o f only $83*
These values
are apparently well estim ated as house operating costs b ear a sim ila r
re la tio n s h ip to re n ts .
These costs a re covered by $98 f o r fam ilies in
the lower income group as compared to $198 fo r fam ilie s i n th e h ig h er income
group (Figure s 7 and 8) .
I t must be remembered, however, th a t many farm
fam ilie s are not In te re s te d i n b e tte r housing on the farm as they intend
moving to town or some o th e r se c tio n o f th e country when income perm its,
o fte n to provide educational opportunity f o r t h e i r c h ild ren .
These
a ttitu d e s can not be overlooked as a stro n g d e te rre n t in b e tte r fauna home
70
co n d itio n s, and s fa c to r th a t might p o ssib ly be p resen t in the group in ­
cluded here.
F a rth er comparisons o f c o sts, serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s Included under
house o p e ra tio n p resen t some in te r e s tin g d ifferen c e s in th e base liv in g
co nditions o f these farm fa m ilie s.
For Instance, in regard to the water
supply a v a ila b le f o r fam ily u se, only nine hones of the t o ta l f i f t y have
an indoor water sup Iy and e ig h t o f th ese homes are in th e higher Income
group (Table XXI ) .
For a l l o th er fa m ilie s ,d a ta show th a t nine have a
pump system near the house and th irty -tw o c a rry water from a spring or
o th e r source.
Furthermore, only l 6 fam ilie s have a k itc h en sin k In the
home and most of th ese a re found in homes of th e hig h er Income group.
One
immediately re a liz e s the handicaps most o f these farm women work under
in th e p re p a ra tio n of a meal, and the amount o f time and energy involved
in
w hat
otherw ise would be a com paratively simple task .
Only s ix farm homes a re modernized to the extent o f having bath
and indoor t o i l e t and a l l but one are found in homes o f the M g ie r in ­
come group.
To In sta l^ b a th and t o i l e t in most instances would mean
b u ild in g an a d d itio n to the home, p ip in g th e water in to the house as
well as buying th e f ix tu r e s —a ra th e r c o stly procedure and beyond most
farm home incomes under conditions which have ex isted fo r Gie p a st several
y ears.
Heating f a c i l i t i e s f o r these O uster County farm fam ilie s are v aried
and in some cases lim ite d .
Less than 1/6 o r but e l ^ i t of the to ta l f i f t y
have furnaces; about 1/3 o r f if te e n have two heating stoves besides the
k itc h en range, two homes have three h eating s to re s and two have Gie k itchen
71
TABLE m
C C lfV E H E K C E S
AHD FACILITIES USED IN THE BDKES OF THE
CUSTFB COUHW FABI FAMILIES CLASSIFIED BI IHOOMl GBDUPS
Kuffiber in Group
IntoiflB Groxms
Total
Groito
I
H
50
25
25
Average Booms P e r Hcsae
4.8
4.2
5 .4
Average Booms P er Person
1.32
1.3
1.35
9
I
g
16
4
12
Bath
6
I
5
T o ile t (Indoor)
6
I
5
17
4
13
Furnace
8
3
5
P ressure Cooker
9
3
6
Washing Machine
34
l6
18
Sewing Machine
%3
20
23
2
I
I
26
9
17
Badlo
39
17
22
Piano
13
5
8
Phonograph
24
13
11
Conveniences
Kitchen Water Supply
Kitchen Sink
E le c tr ic or Carbide Light
Tacum
B e frlg e ia to r o r Ice
Entertainm ent
72
range as the only source o f h e a t.
The reioainder or twenty th ree homes have
hut one h e a te r le s ld e s the kitchen range.
During th e w inter months, farm fam ily members spend considerable time
in t h e i r homes, and h eatin g f a c i l i t i e s determine to a g reat extent the
p o rtio n o f the hom e used fo r liv in g purposes.
I t i s evident from data
p resen ted th a t over o n e-h alf the fam ilies use but one o r two rooms fo r meal
p rep a ra tio n , e a tin g , reading and general d a ily a c tiv ity .
However, th is
may not be e n tir e ly a r e s u lt of h e atin g f a c i l i t i e s a v a ila b le as in some
in stan ces homes are small and h eat requirements would not warrant other
than one sto ve.
Size of homes vary from one room up to nine rooms with an
average siz e o f 4.8 rooms.
Homes tend to be la rg e r f o r fam ilies in the
h ig h er income group as the average siz e la 5.4 rooms as compared to 4.2
rooms fo r homes in the lower income group.
T his, o f course, accounts f o r
in creased need of h e atin g f a c i l i t i e s , and in tu rn fo r the increased cost
o f f u e l.
The average amount spent fo r fu e l by the lower income group
fam ilies was $75 as compared to $107 f o r the h ig h er income group (Table XHI ) .
Most o f the fu e l used was surface co al, a v a ila b le on th e farm o r nearby
v ic in ity which would p r a c tic a lly in su re aa adequate supply to most fam ilie s.
I t i s su rp risin g to note th a t over 1/3 o f the homes have e le c tr ic ity
o r carbide fo r lig h tin g purposes.
The m ajority of homes having th is con­
vene! ence were in th e h ig h er income group.
The use o f th is convenience i s
m anifest when lig h tin g cost* are considered since an average of $23 a y e a r
i s spent by the h ig h er income group ae compared with le s s than $5 fo r the
lower income group.
This means, of course, th a t the m ajority in the l a t t e r
group used kerosene Iaugps f o r lim itin g purposes.
The p rev a len t use o f
73
'XAbLS XXII
LISrXIiIiiUrXIOM OF HOUSEHOLD OPERATION COSTS CLASSIFIED
FOB TOTAL OBDUP AHL IW INCOME LEVEL GROUPS
Income Grouoa
Total
Grout;
Averatie No. of Bocms
4.8
I
TI
4.2
5.4
197.35
$ 147.75
$ 97.65
90.24
75-41
Cash
20.IS
12.87
28.79
Furnished
70.06
62.54
73.90
13.79
4.49
23.10
Laundry
6.4a
5.30
7.52
Telephone (I)
8.26
3.37
13.10
Ice
2.62
•73
4.50
Cost o f Operation
Fuel
Lights
Household Help (2)
Other Costs
18.60
7.82
O
8.35
•
107.69
37.20
7.32
(1) Five lo c a l telephones were l i s t e d by Group I fam ilie s but no charge
was in d ic a te d .
(2) Household help was used in only s ix fa m ilie s.
74
e l e c t r i c i t y may be a ttr ib u te d to nearness to power lin e s o r i t may be ob­
ta in ed from in d iv id u al p la n ts .
Data do
not in d ic a te I t s source.
Other conveniences used by many of these farm fam ilie s included the
washing machine, sewing machine, r e f r ig e r a to r and telephone.
In a study
o f th e use o f time in farm homes in Hontm a i t was found th a t increased
number o f conveniences did not n e c e ssa rily c re a te le is u re time fo r the
homemaker but did reduce th e p hysical la b o r involved and ra ise d the
general standards of liv in g fo r the fam ily ( I ? ) .
I f t h i s statem ent can
be used a s a c r i t e r i a fo r standards in hemes, i t is evident th a t on an
a v e r # , homes in the h ig h er Income group were su p e rio r.
However, the
m ajo rity of homes had a wishing machine, in most cases motor driven; and
th is i s c e rta in ly an im portant item in r a is in g home standards.
F o rty -th ree
o f th e f i f t y homes had a sewing machine which I s probably a fa c to r explain­
ing in p a rt the p ro p o rtio n a te ly low costs o f c lo th in g .
But such con­
veniences a s a mechanical r e f r ig e r a to r and ic e box, vacuum clean er, and
p ressu re cooker were in the m ajo rity o f cases found in th e h ig h er income
group fa m ilie s.
Only o n e -th ird o f the homes had a telephone, and while
c o sts fo r t h is serv ice were hig h er fo r Group II fam ilie s than fo r Group I
fam ilie s i t can not be used as an index o f the increased use of t h is serv ice
in as much as fiv e fam ilie s in the lower income group had a lo c a l telephone
and d id not re p o rt a charge fo r sace.
Household help was another item of expense under house operation
c o sts.
Only s ix fa m ilie s, a l l o f the h ig h er income group, reported the
use of household h e lp , another fa c to r c o n trib u tin g In p a rt to th e higher
(17) Richardson, J e s s ie E. ,The Use o f Time
Mont .ifcr.Exp .S ta .B u l. 271, 1933.
Rural Homemakers in Montana,
75
c o sts o f housing fo r th is group.
I t i s apparent when considering house
o p eratio n c o sts, conveniences and serv ice s used as well as re n ta l values o f
the homes th a t fatal I Ies in the hig h er income group enjoyed more comforts
and probably a h ig h er standard of liv in g on an average than fam ilies in the
lower Income group.
In view o f th e fa c t th a t sev eral homes in the lower in ­
come group, had as much equipment and conveniences as fam ilies In the h ig h er
income group, the le v e l o f liv in g Indicated fo r these fam ilie s was probably
much reduced in comparison to former y e a rs.
Further mention should be made o f o th e r housing co sts including re­
p a ir s , insurance and household fu rn ish in g s.
A p ro p o rtio n a te ly low amount
was spent in t h is d iv isio n , only 5 percent o f to ta l expenditures or an
average value o f $7?.
For th e lower income group only $44 was spent while
the h ig h er Income group fam ilie s spent $110 (Figures 7 and 8 ) .
Biese
expenditures tended to be d is trib u te d in a d iffe re n t manner fo r fam ilies
in the two income groups.
In th e lower income group room re n t p a id out
f o r ch ild ren In school accounted fo r the major p o rtio n o f th is d iv isio n
o f expenditure.
A few homes had f i r e insurance p ro te c tio n , some bought
a few a r t i c l e s in the way of k itch en equipment and bedding, but a l l pur­
chases were very minor.
In the higher income group over $80 o f the to ta l
$110 used in t h is d iv isio n went f o r house r s p i r alone.
Sixteen fam ilies
o f the tw enty-five spent an average o f $14 f o r insurance p ro te c tio n fo r
t h e i r homes; minor purchases fo r the homes were made including M tdhen
equipment and bedding and e ig h t of these fam ilie s added flo o r covering
to t h e i r M tchens and some bought pieces o f fu rn itu re .
Also, a small
amount was p a id by some fam ilie s fo r room re n t f o r ch ild ren in school.
76
These Item s, of course, represent cash expenditures and In as muck as
cash income was more lim ite d in the lower income group, such expenditures
were made in f a war of the g re a te s t needs.
For these fam ilie s to keep t h e i r
ch ild ren in school was probably d i f f i c u l t in i t s e l f , and n a tu ra lly reduced
the amount of cash th a t could be used fo r o th e r purposes, to a minimum. On
the o th er h and, cash a v a ila b le to Group I I fam ilie s, while not so g re a t,
did provide a g re a te r p ro te c tio n in the way of insurance and improved
housing, and some comforts were p o ssib le .
Lack o f insurance on homes in the lower income group may r e f le c t l i t t l e
o r no a p p reciatio n f o r t h is p ro te c tio n , but in a b ility to meet premiums due
to low cash income i s the more probable answer.
OTHEH DIVISIONS OF EXPENDITURE FOB FAMILY LIVING
The fam ily budget has been tr a d itio n a lly divided in to expenditures
f o r the m a te ria l needs of food, clo th in g , re n t and household operation,
and in a d d itio n a f i f t h item , advancement, which includes allowances fo r
th e personal l i f e of the fam ily group, fo r fam ily progress and also often
fo r sa v in g e (lS ).
As previously in d ic a te d c la s s ific a tio n s o f goods used
f o r fam ily liv in g by the Ouster County farm fa m ilie s, has been regrouped
to provide a basis of in te rp re ta tio n p a rtic u la rly a p p lica b le to these
fam ilie s (Table I , Appendix B ) . The goods, f a c i l i t i e s and sources c la s s if ie d
as 1advancement1 include education, re c re a tio n , reading, d u b dues, enter­
ta in in g , as well as g i f t s and donations to c h a rity and r e lig io u s organ!za(18) Andre we, Benjamin.R. ,Economics of The Household,MacMillan,N.Y.1935.P«517«
(The "Ideal Budget" by E llen H. Hichards was se t up as a suggested
d iv isio n o f a $ 2 , 0 0 0 to $ 4 , 0 0 0 income to cover the needs of a normal
fam ily :re n t 20$ , Fbod 25$ ,running expenses 15$, clo th in g 15$ , re c re a tio n ,
h e a lth ,c h u rc h ,c h a rity ,sa v in g s and insurance 25$. (Abel,Mary Hinman,
Successful Family L ife .L ip p in c o tt.P h lla . ,1921,p .155) •
77
tlo n a .
P ersonal Stems have been considered in a d iv is io n se t apart from
advancement goods, and includes h e a lth , tobacco and personal care expendi­
tu r e s .
Again expenses r e la te d to fam ily use of the c a r has been consider­
ed in d iv id u a lly , Inasmuch as i t might e a s ily be applied to house operating
co sts as well as advancement goods.
Savings has been p reviously considered,
not as a p a rt o f the value o f goods used f o r fam ily liv in g , but as a p a rt
o f the t o ta l expenditures of net income.
ADVANCEMENT
wValuee obtained from the use of the goods included as 'advancement*
items might be accepted as s ig n ific a n t of the refinem ent o r c u ltu re of a
fam ily or group o f fam ilies* (19).
This etsfc ement made by K irkpatrick ap­
p lie d to a wider use of goods fo r advancement and might be even more sig n i­
fic a n t when ap p lied to th ese 50
Custer County farm fa m ilie s inasmuch as
c la s s if ic a tio n includes only th e c u ltu ra l d iv isio n o f goods used.
These
are education, re c re a tio n , read in g , e n te rta in in g , and donations fo r th e
welfare o f o th e rs.
Ihen a l l C uster County fa a d lle s a re considered, the average amount
spent fo r advancement goods was approximately $102 o r only 6.7 p e r cent
o f to ta l expenditures.
Over h a lf o f t h i s amount, or $55 went fo r donations
and g i f t s ; le s s than a th ir d or $31 went f o r re c re a tio n , while amounts
p a id out f o r education and reading were the le a st,a b o u t $7 and $9 respect­
iv e ly .
The most s ig n ific a n t in te rp re ta tio n applied to the tren d o f expendi­
tu re s h ere seems to be In the fa c t th a t, d e sp ite lim ita tio n s o f income ,person­
a l s a tis f a c tio n s in the fo ra of p leasu re seeking was secondary to helping
o th e rs.
(19) K irk p atrick , E.L.,The Farmers Standard of Living,The Century Company,
N. T. 1929, p. I S l .
I t la apparent th a t fam ilies with the loweat incomes make some pro­
v isio n f o r advancement goods.
Comparing Gronp I and I I fam ilie s, the
former, having a lower income, spends $71 as compared with $13? fo r the
l a t t e r , having a h ig h er Income.
Here again the major emphasis fo r both
groups was f o r donations and g i f ts to o th e rs , with re c re a tio n as secondary
in importance.
These expenditures increased as income p erm itted. A s t r i k ­
ing d ifferen c e i s noted between the two income groups when reading and
educational expenditures a re compared.
Educational expenditures increased
from an a v e r # o f $1.76 fo r Group I to $11.75 fo r Group I I ; and reading
co sts in creased from $5.91 f o r Group I to $11.21 fo r Group I I .
This is
p a r t i a l l y explained by the la rg e r number o f young people in th e l a t t g r group,
but i s probably a lso a re fle c tio n of amount of cash a v a ila b le fo r Budi
expenditures or again i t might in d ic a te a d ifferen c e in c u ltu ra l a ttitu d e s ,
fu rth e r an aly sis o f the d iv is io n o f expenditure included under advance­
ment i s d e sira b le .
EDUCATION
In the amounts a ll o t te d fo r educational purposes, th e f a r reaching
e ffe c ts of lim ite d income was e a s ily observed.
Very few of the young people
in these Ouster County fam ilie s p a st the age of six te e n were attending
school during th e y e a r of th is study.
Doubtless many had postponed th e ir
education to co n trib u te toward fam ily income, o r to help a t home.
Data show th a t th e re were a t o ta l o f 62 ch ild ren rep o rted by t h ir t y fiv e o f the f i f t y O uster County fa m ilie s.
Nine of these ch ild ren were
under school age and seven were over tw enty-five years o f age.
Of th e
remaining f o r ty - s ix , twenty-two were under six tee n years o f age and a l l
79
o f th is number were atten d in g school, but o f th e tse n ty -fo u r ranging between
the ages o f six te e n and tw enty-five only eig h t were in school.
Amounts expended p e r fam ily f o r educational purposes ranged from
$1 to $85 and the average amount when a l l familial
$6.y4.
were considered was
The average amount expended f o r education in th e lower income group
was only $1.76 e* compared to $11.75 in the hig h er income group (Table I .
Appendix B ) .
However, Group I fam ilie s reported only ten ch ild ren in school,w hile
Group II fam ilies rep o rted twenty.
For those in Group I , th ree were in the
elementary grades, s ix in h lg i school and one in college (Table m i l ) .
TABLE XXIII NUMBER AND EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN IN SCHOOL
No. in
School
T otal Group
Groip I
Group II
50
10
20
Elemen-
High School
tapy
13
3
10
15
6
9
College
2
I
I
Expenditures reported applied to school supplies fo r these ch ild ren In
the elementary and secondary schools, while the one atten d in g co lleg e, a g i r l
twenty-two years o f age, had earned a sch o larsh ip , which p a id h e r tu itio n
fee and euployment a t school provided income to meet o th e r expenses.
Of the twenty reported in school by Group II fa m ilie s, ten were in
elementary grades, nine in high school and one in c o lleg e.
Minor amounts
were expended f o r school su p p lies fo r c h ild re n in the elementary schools
while tu itio n as well as supplies were included in the amounts spent fo r
c h ild ren in high school.
Only two fam ilies reported expenditures fo r
t u it i o n in high school, which would mean th a t these ch ild ren were a tten d ­
I
go
ing school in a d i s t r i c t o th e r than th e ir own, as d ata shows th a t a l l elem­
entary and secondary schools attended
w ere
fre e p u b lic schools.
The
la rg e s t
amount p a id out was $85 f o r one student atten d in g college which accounts in
p a r t , f o r the la r g e r average expenditure o f th is group.
th e
Table XXivahows
educational s ta tu s o f the o ld est c h ild over six te e n years of age.
This
in p a rt would in d ic a te th a t education fo r the m ajority of the young people
not in school had not been so lim ite d .
TABLE XHV StWBER AND EDUCATION OF
THE
OLDEST SON OH DAUGHTER OVER
16 TEARS OF AOl OF OUSTER COUNTY FABl FAMILIES
Education
Group I
T otal Groxp
Group II
Total
20
8
12
Grades
4
3
I
10
3
7
6
2
4
H l School
College
Of the twenty young people included one-half o r te n o f then had
from one to fo u r yearn o f high school, s ix had from one to fo u r years of
c o lleg e , and fo u r did not go beyond grade school.
Eighteen of these young
people were esqoloyed and c o n trib u tin g toward fam ily income a t the time o f
t h is study.
Eleven of them ranged between th e ages o f six te e n and twenty-
one years o f age and a l l o th ers were o ld e r.
I t is evident then th a t in the
m ajo rity of c a se s, these young people had completed t h e i r education o r had
postponed i t to co n trib u te toward fam ily income in a time of need.
RECREATION AND READING
R ecreation, in c lu siv e of entertainm ent in the home as well as outside
SI
the home, i s g re a tly influenced by the sex and age of the fam ily members.
Young people in t h e i r adolescent years and o ld er develop many in te re s ts
o u tsid e the home, in cre asin g the scope o f entertainm ent.
Older people are
o fte n content w ith neighborhood a c tiv ity and entertainm ent in the home.
That many o f these demands and needs are met by a la r g e r number o f the
farm fam ilie s Included h ere Ie evidenced by the follow ing:
T h irty -n in e of th e f i f t y fam ilies o\m a rad io , th ir te e n own a piano,
and tw enty-four own a phonograph.
Some homes have one of the th ree forms
o f en tertain m ent, oth ers have more, but th e s ig n ific a n t th in g i s th a t a l l
homes have one o r the o th er o f piano, rad io o r phonograph(Table XXI).
Actual amounts spent would not be an in d ic a tio n of the extent o f use as
expenditures u su a lly were fo r re p a irs and b a tte ry set# f o r the rad io ,b u t
th e average spent c o n stitu te d about a th ir d of t o ta l re c re a tio n expendi­
tu r e s .
This would in d ic a te the importance o f these forms o f e n te rta in ­
ment to the e n tire fam ily.
Other main forms of d iv ersio n outside the
home were movies, f a i r s and dances.
As to be expected, th ese costs in ­
crease in fa m ilie s having o ld e r c h ild ren , o r Type IV and V fam ilies
(Table XXV >.
The le a s t i s spent fo r these d iversions by fam ily Type I I ,
as th ese fam ilie s have only one c h ild under l 6.
Tjrpe I fa m ilie s, having
no c h ild ren , spend more than the form er, but th e i r major in te r e s t is in
the radio and o th e r home entertainm ent.
TABLE XXV DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND READING AND COSTS FDR EACH
FDR THE FIVE FAMILY TY PE
Total
T otal R ecreation
Movies
F airs and Dances
Hodio and Music
All o th ers
Reading
%
11:88
12.30
8.56
I
23.26
Js
5.76
7.93
Ii
15.82
1.57
5 :8
8.26
10.13
III
6.80
8.47
IV
V
kI l
p
4.1«
m
21.10
9.07
6.70
82
Whether the radio Is a fa c to r in the small amounts spent fo r reading
m ateria l i s a question.
Many farm papers are r e la tiv e ly inexpensive and
t h i s may ex plain in p a rt these low c o sts.
lack in g in many fa m ilie s.
Again, reading in te r e s ts are o fte n
Whatever the cause, amount spent f o r books,mag­
a zin es, and newspapers combined averaged but $8 .$6.
Only th irty -se v e n
fam ilies reported the use o f a d a ily o r weekly newspaper, th irty -n in e re ­
p o rted one or more magazines, and only fo u r fam ilies bought books.
I t would
appear from amounts expended th a t the rad io and div ersio n s outside the
home had on an average a preference over reading fo r most of these fa m ilie s.
O ther forms o f re c re a tio n included expend!turee fo r sp o rts equipment,
cam era,toys, club dues, and entertainm ent of g u e sts.
Family Type IV*a high
average o f $21.00 as compared to the t o t a l group1s average o f $12.00 is
accounted f o r in club dues and entertainm ent, but only th re e fam ilies are
r e a lly represented In spending fo r th ese item s.
sp o rts equipment by th is fam ily group.
Some i s also spent fo r
They a re the only fam ilie s plying
out fo r club dues of any kind, and only one o th er fam ily in Tyue V group
pays out f o r entertainm ent o f guests which may o r may not be in the home.
The amounts p a id out by fam ily Types I I and I I I o r those having small
ch ild ren were divided between camera u se ,p e ts,a n d to y s.
spent some on sp o rts equipment.
Type I fam ilies
Probably more hunting and fish in g i s done
by the man in t h i s fam ily type, than would be where c h ild re n ’s needs must
be met and week ends and w inter days are taken up by fam ily d u tie s .
Prac­
t i c a l l y a l l v a ria tio n s in d iv ersio n of re c re a tio n fo r fam ilie s stu d ied can
be a ttr ib u te d to d ifferen c e In ages of c h ild ren .
would be lim ite d by fam ily income.
Extent o f use, however,
S3
In conclusion, i t might he said th a t members of these farm homes stu d ied ,
enjoyed a f a i r amount o f d iv ersio n in terms of money expended fo r such
purposes.
Some lim ita tio n seems evident in the fam ilies having small c h il­
dren and more Is spent by fa m ilie s having o ld e r ch ild ren , e sp ec ially in the
entertainm ent outsid e the home.
In most cases entertainm ent outside the
home i s supplemented by the radio ,piano, o r phonograph and reading m a te ria l,
but i f amounts expended were used as an in d ic a tio n of c u ltu ra l advantages
most fam ilie s would not appear very high in the sc a le .
However,this is
in no way a measure o f the b e n e fits received by in d iv id u al members.
WELFAHE DONATIONS AND GIFTS TO OTHERS
The remainder of item s under advancement goods, include personal
g i f t s , community and church donations, amounts p aid toward support of
r e la tiv e s and mis cellaneous expenditures including p o ll tax .
I t w ill be
re c a lle d th a t amounts spent f o r these item s c o n stitu te d the la rg e s t pro­
p o rtio n of t o ta l co sts f o r advancement or $55 of the t o ta l $110.
expenditures also tended to in crease when income perm itted.
These
In fu rth e r
comparisons, i t appears th a t composition of fam ily has a d e fin ite influence
on th e d iv isio n s o f amounts going fo r c h u rc h ,c h a ritie s and community dona­
tio n s .
Type IV fam ilies spent the g re a te s t amount (Table I I I -Appendix B ),
o r $74 ,and the main co n trib u tio n s go to church and community causes and
support of r e la tiv e s .
Type I fam ilies spent an average o f $63 which is
divided between church donations and support of re la tiv e s .
I t has been
p rev io u sly s ta te d th a t th ese two type fa m ilie s represented on an average
o ld er fa m ilie s, and probably b e tte r e stab lish ed in the neighborhood.
tren d o f these expenditures would again confirm th is conclusion.
The
Other
84
fam ily types having sm aller ch ild ren a re not able to co n trib u te extensively
to such purposes due to the more p ressin g needs f o r fam ily liv in g as well
as the more lim ite d income.
A ll item s c la s s if ie d under advancement goods, and represented as p a rt
of the expenditures o f th ese Custer County farm fa m ilie s, r e f le c t a ttitu d e s
and id e a ls , as well as personal developments of in d iv id u a l fam ily members.
Amounts p a id out can not be used as a measure of the b e n e fits re a liz e d to
them but a t le a s t In d ica te s In te re s ts and a c t iv i t ie s of th e group as a
whole.
H e a lth
a n d P e r s o n a l E x p e n d itu re s
Health expenditures f o r ru ra l f a a ilie a u su a lly in d ic a te a co rre ctiv e
measure ap p lied to some member o f the fam ily rath e r than preventive
measures a p p lied to the fam ily as a whole.
Limited funds, distance from
medical se rv ic e s, as well as lac k of knowledge of preventive measures a l l
c o n trib u te toward reducing h e a lth serv ices to a minimum.
The average amount spent fo r h e a lth by the f i f t y Ouster County farm
fam ilies was $60.
Services p aid fo r Included the p h y s lc ia n .d e n tis t,
o c u lis t ,nurse and h o s p ita l,M d icine and appliances and h e a lth insurance.
These se rv ic e s v a rie d between fam ily types and amounts spent increased as
income Increased,
fam ily Type V, having an average of 5 .6 members per
fam ily spent p r a c tic a lly $98, nearly twice as much as th e average fo r the
t o ta l group.
Ae form erly In d icated , amounts paid out do not n e ce ssa rily
in d ic a te a b e tt e r h e a lth standard f o r th e fam ily as a whole as often such
expenditures were applied to one person’s needs, and again not a l l fam ilies
made such expenditures.
This i s evident from th e follow ing comparisons.
85
T h irty of the f i f t y fam ilie s used physicians serv ices and paid out
amounts ranging from $2 to $10%.
Twenty-three of the f i f t y fam ilies received
d en tal care and co sts ranged from $2 to $50 per fam ily.
In th irte e n fam ilies
expenditures were made fo r eye p ro tec tio n ,a v era g in g in cash from $2 to $28.
H ospital care and nursing serv ice exceeded a l l others in cost to the
in d iv id u al fam ily,one fam ily paying out $210.
f o r th is se rv ice was $9*
h o s p ita lis a tio n .
The low est amount paid out
Only eig h t fa m ilie s of the t o ta l f i f t y reported
A ll but twelve fam ilies of the to ta l number used medicine
o r appliances or both and amounts spent v a rie d from $2 to $180, and but
eig h t fa m ilie s c a rrie d h e a lth insurance, amounts ranging from $2 to $4o.
The e ffe c t of income on h e a lth expenditures can be c ite d
in Table
XXVI .
TABLE XXVI
HEALTH EXPEIIDITUHIS CLASSIFIED BY FAMILY TYPE AND
IMCOUE GHOUP
Family Type
I
IV
Total
Income Groups
I
II
$ 55.7**
$ 29.00
$ 95-35
71.03
46.00
89.18
Type I fa m ilie s in th e lower income brackets spent but $29*00 as
compared to $96.00 f o r the same type of f zanily in the upper income b rac k ets.
Type IV fa m ilie s in th e lower income group p aid out $46 as conpared to
$89 fo r the same type of fam ily in the hig h er income group.
R elative inq>ort&nce of heal tit expenditures to to ta l expenditure in ­
creased in both fam ily types as income increased.
Tiiaes might in d ic a te a
tendency toward a b e tt e r h e a lth standard, or i t might in d ic a te a g re a te r
36
need f o r h e a lth meaeurea in those fam ilies having hig h er Incomes.
Groods f o r personal u ses, although of le s s magnitude than o th er groups
o f goods, n ev erth eless are a fa c to r in the expenditure p a tte rn of most
r u ra l fa m ilie s.
Personal item s Included here are c o sm e tic s,to ile t a r tic le s
and h a ir cuts f o r the fam ily members.
Home harbering o ften reduces these
co sts to a minimum and i s e sp e c ia lly evident in fam ilies having small
ch ild ren as costs are g re a tly reduced.
Type IV fam ilies spent $31 as com­
pared to the average of $24 fo r the to ta l group (Table I I I -Appendix B).
Here again o ld e r c h ild ren would account fo r a g re a te r need.
Tobacco, another item of expenditure assumes an Im portant p o sitio n i n
f s n ily liv in g c o sts, o ften competing with food item s.
That i s , fo r most
fam ilies using tobacco, i t i s found on the grocery l i * t as freq u en tly as
necessary and as o ften as th e more sta p le supplies o f food.
However, income
does tend to lim it the amount of tobacco purchased as i s shown by a com­
p ariso n of fam ily types in two income le v e l groups (Table XXVII
TABLE XXVII
).
TOBACGO EXPENDITUBE OF FAMILY TYPES I AND IV WITHIN
two TWO INCOME LEVELS
Income Croups
Tobacco
Total
I
II
A ll Fam ilies
12.06
10.35
13.78
Family Type I
9.02
7.73
10.95
17.65
15.72
19.05
Family Type IV
Family Type I i n the lower Income group spends le s s than the same fam ily
type in the h ig h er income group, and th e same i s true of fam ily Type IV of
the two income groups.
I t is also evident th a t more fam ily members in the
Type IV fam ilies are consuming tobacco as costs a ll p r a c tic a lly double
37
those o f !type I fa m ilie s.
The Auto f o r Family Use
Because of the dual purpose of the farm f a a ily c a r. I t i s d i f f ic u lt
to assign a d e f in ite p ro p o rtio n o f these expenses to fam ily liv in g .
The
t r i p to town f o r fan s purposes i s o fte n combined with home and fam ily
needs.
Again the extent to which the fam ily c ar i s used fo r p leasure
can not be determined.
In view of these fa c ts the p ro p o rtio n of to ta l
co sts fo r o perating the c a r, assigned to fam ily use has been considered
In a d iv is io n o f expenditure s e t aside from o th e r fam ily liv in g c o sts.
The average amount spent fo r the use o f the auto f o r fam ily purposes
was $45.22 o r le s s than 3 percent of t o t a l fsM ly liv in g expenditures
(Table I - Appendix B).
That i t i s considered a v ir tu a l n ecessity is
evidenced in the fa c t th a t fo rty -fiv e of the f i f t y fa m ilie s owned and
operated a c a r.
B ipendituree fo r the use of the c a r fo r fam ily purposes increased
as income in creased , or $38 fo r Group I and $52 fo r Group I I .
However,
the r e la tiv e importance o f theae espendituree to t o ta l liv in g costs
was h ig h er f o r the Group I fa m ilie s.
This would also in d ic a te th a t the
fam ily car Ie considered a n ece ssity even though income h ard ly J u s tif ie s
i t s continued use,
88
SUMMAJCf
From the an aly sis o f farm income and fam ily liv in g expenditures fo r
the f i f t y Custer County f a m fam ilies c e rta in fa c ts are ev id en t:
1) P r a c tic a lly a l l f a m fam ilies concerned su ffered reduced income
e ith e r from farm sources due to drought and grasshoppers or a prolonged
p erio d o f r e la tiv e ly low farm p ric e s or both.
2) With the exception of seven fa m ilie s of the t o ta l fifty ,fa rm -fa m ily
income fo r these C uster County farmers was in s u ffic ie n t to meet th e to ta l
farm expense and fam ily liv in g c o sts. For the average farm fam ily
le s s than th re e -fo u rth s o f these expenses were met from th is source alone.
3) The average gross income fo r a l l fam ilie s fo r the year 1935-36
was $3,107.77-
This average amount was secured as follow s: Farm cash
$ l4 l4 ; cash from employment outside the farm ,pensions and o th e r money
$lS0 ; fu rn ished income from the farm and o th er sources $65; and cash from
loans and savings on hand p lu s c re d it amounting to $882.
4) The average gross income of $3,107-77
d is trib u te d as follow s:
$1267.24 fo r farm expanse, $1549-40 fo r fam ily liv in g and $291 fo r in v e s t­
ments or payments of debts.
5)
For fam ilie s c la s s if ie d in the lower income group,farm -fam ily
Income met only 60 per cent of to ta l c o sts. Returns from employment com­
p rise d a la r g e r p a rt of t o ta l income and a l l fam ilies used savings,loans
and c re d it to meet fa ra and liv in g expenses.
For fam ilie s c la s s if ie d in the h ig h er income group, fa m family income
met 77 par cent of t o ta l c o sts.
Outside employment c o n stitu te d a minor
gg
p o rtio n o f the t o ta l income and most fam ilie s used savings, loans,and
c re d it to meet to ta l farm and liv in g expenses.
6) Ihe average siz e of fam ilie s f o r the to ta l group was 3 .3 and the
average s iz e of households was 3 . 65 .
7) The average net income fo r a l l fam ilies was $18)40. 33.
Of th is
amount $1549.43 was used fo r family liv in g and $291.10 fo r sav in g s,in v est­
ments and payments o f d eb ts.
The low average net incomes fo r fam ilies c la s s if ie d in Group I provided
only minimum needs and comforts and minor investm ents.
The h ig h er n et lnccanes fo r fam ilie s c la s s if ie d in Group II provided
moderate comfort.
There seemed to be a d e fin ite tendency to use the surplus
f o r investm ents and savings r a th e r than fo r family consumption beyond the
normal needs
8) Tlie actu al value of goods used fo r fam ily liv in g ranged from as low
as $575 to as high as $3706.
9) The average value of goods used fo r f su lly liv in g , fo r the to ta l
group was $1549.
Nearly 58 percent or $893 v/as purchased and 42 percent
o r $651 was furnished from th e farm and o th e r sources.
o f th is amount was approxim ately as follow s;
The d is trib u tio n
Food $835. Clothing $118,
Hent $129. Furnishings $77. House O peration $146, Advancement Goods $102,
H ealth and Personal items $96 and Auto f o r Family Use $45.
CONCLVSIOH
I t i s apparent f o r the fans fam ilie s included in th is study th a t
income was the dominant fa c to r in the p a tte rn of expenditure.
The
adjustm ents made to m aintain the income during th is p erio d o f drought
and depression in d ic a te th a t these fam ilie s were re lu c ta n t to reduce t h e i r
le v e l o f liv in g below th a t which they had previously provided.
However, income and expenditure as presented in th is study cover
such a sh o rt period o f time th a t o th er inform ation o f a more extensive
n atu re would be deal rid e in order to note ndmt fu rth e r adjustm ents could
p o ssib ly be made by f a a llie e liv in g under a long period o f economic
s tr e s s .
91
JWHTOWISBGMEHT
fhe author wishes to express h er a p p reciatio n to
Dr. 0. F. Kroenzel, Dr. Gladys Branegan and Dr. J e s s ie
Bichardson f o r t h e i r valuable in s tru c tio n , suggestions
and c ritic ism s throughout the study.
92
GLOSSAJT OF TBBiS
Economic Family - A group o f persons dependent on a common income fo r
fo o d ,clo th in g and s h e lte r,c o n trib u tin g toward th a t income.
Family Type - re fe rs to the composition o f the fam ily.
"
Type I - has band and wife only;
"
Type ZX - husband and wife and one c h ild under l 6 years of age;
"
Type I I I -husband and wife and two ch ild ren under l 6 ;
n
Tyne IV - husband and wife and one person l 6 or over and one or
no o th e r persons;
"
Type V - husband and wife and one c h ild under l 6, one person Io or
over, and one or two oth er persons reg a rd less of age.
Fasra-Faittily Income - Includes cash and furnished income from the farm,
g if ts ,c a s h from employment outside th e farm, and re tu rn s from pensions
and in te r e s t;
Gross Income - I nCludes fan s fan Uy income as well as use o f loans, c re d it
and savings.
Group I
- A ll ftttflilies having & farm-fam ily income of le s s than $1900.
Group I I - A ll fam ilies having a farm -fam ily income of more than $1900.
Household - A ll fam ily members ,h ire d help and o t h e r s ,i .e .a l l persons who
e a t a t the some ta b le .
Level o f Living - The types and amount of" goods a c tu a lly consumed fo r l i v ­
ing purposes.
Man Weeks - The average number of weeks spent In the home by individual
fam ily o r household members, considering each a u n it. This average
was obtained by dividing the to ta l number of weeks spent by a l l
93
members o f the family o r household by the average s iz e o f the family
o r household.
Net Income - Gross income le s s farm expense.
Rent - Tiie a r b i t r a r i l y assigned percentage value of th e house fo r the
p erio d o f a y e ar.
In the case o f owners 9 p e rc en t, in the case of
re n te rs 11 p e r cent.
Subsistence - As used in th is study, a le v e l of liv in g providing the
n e c e s s itie s fo r minimum existence and s a tis f a c tio n .
-9 4 -
BIBLIOCrHAFHT
Abel ,Mary Hinman - Successful Family L ife on the Moderate Income,
J.B .L ip p in c o tt Company,1921
Andrews,Benjamin IL 1Bconomics o f the Household
The Mantiillan Company, 1935
K irk p atrick , I . L .,The Fanners Standard of Living,
The Centniy Company, N. T. 1929
K irk p atrick,E .L . ,McNaUtP .E. ,Cowlea1May L ., Farm Family Living in Wisconsin,
Wisconsin A gr.B zp.S ta.B ulletin l l 4 ,J e n .1933
K irk p a tric k ,E .L ., Bie Farmers Standard of Living
U.S.Dept. o f A gr.Bul.l466, 5 ov.1926
Kyrk1 H azel, Bconomlc Problems o f the Family, Happer and B ro.S.Y .,1933*
Richardson, J e s s ie E ., The Use of Time by Barsl Homemakers in Montana,
M.S.C. Agr.Sxp.Sta.Bul.271. 1933
HichRrdson, J e s s ie B ., The Q uality of Living in Montana Saxm Homes
M.S.C. A gr.B xp.Sta.B ul,260,1929-30
Wilson, I . A.,Incomes and Cost of Living of Fazm Fam ilies in North Dakota,
1923-31, N .D .A gr.Exp.Sta.3ul.271, 1933Zimmerman, Carl C ., Consumption and Standards of Living
D. Van Noatrand Company, N. T ., I 936.
95
—
A P P M D IX
a
—
KetHodE of Ooll^otrng Data
Tlie d ata c o lle c te d f o r this study ,/ere p a rt of n Consumer Parohaae
SuiTrej^ made of selected i*ural and 1urban areas therogbout the United S ta te s.
The survey was conducted by the Bureau of Home Boonomics In cooperation
with the N ational Eesource Committee, Works Progress A dm inistration and
Bureau of Labor S t a ti s t i c s o f the Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.
I t was financed Iy the Works Progress A dm inistration.
A record card irfiich served as the assignment of the address to be
v is ite d by th e f i e l d agent was used to o b tain fa c ts about the fam ily which
determined i t s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r in clu sio n in the stud,v.
farms in the County were obtained.
vacant (Table
If
Record cards of 829
Of th is number of farms, 273 were
Appendix B) and of th e t o ta l remaining, only 175 were
se le c te d fo r fu rth e r study.
S electio n was on the basis of th e follow ing!
I) P an ilies of white extraction
2)
Two or more persons in the family
3) Both husband and wife bom in the United S ta te s
4) Paim operated for the la s t twelve months
5) Pam larger than three acres or the gross income for the previous
year more than $250
6) Kxe economic fam ily includes husband and wife who have been m arried
one y ear or longer.
Prcnx th e 175 fa m ilie s selec te d on the b a sis in d ic a te d fu rth e r inform ation
was obtained through the Pamily Schedule.
The s p e c ific q u a lific a tio n s required
96
f o r f u rth e r study as well as f a ilu r e to cooperate o r no one a t home, reduced
th is sacple to $0 fa m ilie s.
For the fam ilies included In the f in a l study, the economic fam ily had
to conform to one of the follow ing types:
A I) husband and wife only
2) husband, w ife, I c h ild under 16 and no others
3) husband, w ife, 2 ch ild ren under l 6 and no oth ers
4) husband, w ife, I person l 6 or o th er and one o r no o th er p e rs o n s ,e ith e r
under or over 16
5) husband, wife,one c h ild under l 6 , one person l 6 or over, and one o r
two o th e r persons e ith e r under o r over l 6.
Other b a sis fo r in c lu sio n were as follow s:
B The fam ily had kept no more than th e equivalent of one roomer and one
boarder f o r the year
C During the schedule year the fam ily had house guests aggregating fewer
than 26 guest weeks
D The farm must be the main source of income (except in d i s t r i c t s where
p a rt-tim e farming was being studied)
E The fam ily income fo r the schedule year must be lower than $5,000.
F The fam ily during the schedule year had not received r e l i e f in cash,
kind o r work.
Therefore, the 50 fam ilie s included in th is study represented a 100
p e r cent sample, meeting th e sp e c ific a tio n s in d ic ate d .
In addition to
determ ining the e l i g i b i l i t y o f these fam ilie s fo r fu rth e r study, the fam ily
schedules included Inform ation re la tiv e to fam ily composition, liv in g
97
q u art e re .
th e
In c o m e fro m v a r i o u s
so u rce s
a n d o c c u p a tio n o f th e
ea rn ers
In
fa m ily .
fo r
o b ta in
th e s e
fa m ilie s ,
th e b e s t p o s s ib le
th e y e a r .
th e
s e le c te d
T o g e th e r,
rs io u n t en d
th e
sc u rc e e
The s c h e d u le s
e s tim a te
t h a t c o u ld
in c o m e a n d h o w i t
w ere e d i te d b y a g ro u p
on th e
be checked.
fa m ily
b a s is
w as r e v i s i t e d
e d ito r.
T h e in c o m e a n d e x p e n d i t u r e
10 p e rc e n t b e fo re
o f th e m a te ria l
c o v e rin g
th e
of
u n til
,T e re
p re v io u s ly
e s tim a te d .
in d ic a te d
B e g a rd in g
th e
su c h ite m s
C o n s id e ra tio n
p ric e s .
th e
s c h e d u le s
fo r
as g ift
ite m s
e q u iv a le n t
fro m
to
th e
w as c o m p u te d
c h ild re n .
G a s o l i n e u s e d w a s c o m p u te d o n t h e b a s i s
w ith lo c a l
d u rin g
w h o le s a le a n d
w as m ade f o r
c o n s is te n c y
a d u lts ,
th e y e a r
and
r e t a i l p rid e s .
th ro u g h o u t th e
2%
fo r
c o s ts
It
C o lle g e .
f o r th e
th e
fa rm
s c h e d u le s y e a r
su ch a s
fo o d
a m o u n t t h a t w o u ld b e
fie ld
resp ect
w o rk e rs.
to
th e s e
e a c h . A m ount s p e n t
s tu d e n ts
o f th e
w ere f i x e d
can be se en
s tu d y .
s c h e d u le s
w ere o b ta in e d b y th e
w ere m ade i n
f o r m o v ie s
c a r h ad been d riv e n
D u p lic a te
fa m ilie s
to
an d farm h a d to
l o c a l m a rk e t w ere f i x e d b y t h e
3® ^
w as
changes had
th e fa m ily
o r p y w e re c o m p u te d a t 2 0 c e n t s
as
sh o w ed
w ere a c c e p te d b y th e
o f M o n ta n a S t a t e
f o r sum m er a n d w i n t e r s e a s o n s
M e ls
If
th e y w ere a c c e p te d .
fu rn is h e d
p a id
s c h e d u le
The e d itin g
in c o m e s a n d e x p e n d i t u r e s
f o r fa m ily l i v i n g .p r i c e s
on th e
e d ito rs .
C u s t e r C o .f a r m
and fu e l
fo r
of
d u rin g
c h e c k in g f o r c o n s is te n c y b e tw e e n
ite m s
D e p a r t m e n t o f B o o n c x n ic s a n d S o c i o l o g y
As
w as u s e d t o
w as s p e n t .
O m is s io n s w e re c h e e k e d .
th e
w ith in
s c h e d u le
o f m oney s p e n t f o r f a m ily l i v i n g
b e m ade,
b a la n c e
e x p e n d itu re
s c h e d u le a n d e x p e n d itu r e
o f fa m ily
done as p e r in s tru c tio n
ite m s
fa m ily
th e
a n d IO ^ f o r
d is ta n c e
in
th a t
th e
a c co rd an c e
ev e ry e f f o r t
9S
MOKTANA KtJ H A I HOMES C0MP1HED WITH OTHEH STATES
A c o m p a ris o n o f
fa m ilie s
w ith
In te re s t.
th o s e
th e
in c o m e s a n d e x p e n s e s
re p o rte d
H o w ev er,
in
th e
in
o th e r fa n a liv in g
lim ite d
c o n s id e r a tio n h a s b e e n g iv e n to
fa n n in g a r e a s ,
p ric e
a ffe c tin g
an d fa m ily
farm
E v en th o u g h
c o s ts
of
it
in te re s t
to
n o te
th e
o f liv in g
th e
b a s is
at
th a t
s im ila rity
in
th e
i n K ir k p a tr id c 1s
liv in g
th a t o f th e
b y farm
a n d n o t m uch l e s s
th a n
in
c o s ts
p e rio d
o f th e
th a t
t h a n w o u ld , b e
s tu d y a r e
ceded any n o tic e a b le
fa m ilie s
c o n s id e re d .
effe c t
th a t
fa m ilie s ,
h a d w e a th e re d th e
th a t
of
th e
th e
o f th e
c o v e rin g 11
la r g e r av e rag e
1 9 2 9 -3 0 a s
c o n tra s te d
w ith
A m ount
sh o w l e s s
w hen t h e
a ffe c tin g
of
th e
th e
are a,
to ta l
it
is
o f goods u sed by th e
s ta te s
spent
The f i r s t
of th e ir
re s u lts
e a rlie r
s iz e
is
v ery
f o r fa m ily
v e ry s im ila r
in
s tu d y m ade i n
in
th is
re g io n
w h ile
by $370.
T h is
and th e
and th e
It
e s e le c t g ro u p
co st o f liv in g
fa m ily
1 9 2 9 -3 0 p r e ­
re c o rd o f s u c c e s s .
th e
o f fa m ilie s
farm
o f s e le c tio n
o f d ro u g h t and d e p re s s io n
s tu d y
1 9 3 5 -3 6 .
d iffe re n c e
b a s is
d e p re s s io n
C u s t e r C o u n ty fe u H i e s
f o r by th e
fa c to rs
The v a lu e
O u s te r C o u n ty f a m i l i e s ,
In
ty p e
a v e r a g e a m o u n ts s p e n t b y t h e
s tu d y
co m p ared
e x p e c te d
re c a lle d ,
o f se v eral y e a rs.
no
am o u n t s p e n t b y C u s t e r C o u n ty f a m i l i e s .
w ere c h o s e n o n t h e b a s i s
th e
of
and o th e r f a c to rs
W is c o n s in a n d N o r th D a k o ta a r e
T h e tw o M o n t a n a s t u d i e s
liv in g
a re
C u s t e r C o u n ty f a m i l i e s .
fa m ilie s
is
o f fa m ilie s ,
e x p e n d itu re s p e c u lia r to
? ,S S 6
s im ila r to
s tu d ie s ,
tim e o f s tu d y
th e s e
I n TaTSe V , A p p e n d i x 3 .
fa m ilie s
o f s e le c tio n
th e
g ro u p s a* in d ic a te d
farm
cost
c o s ts .
re c o g n iz e d
and d is tr ib u tio n
C u s t e r C o u n ty fa rm
c o m p a ris o n s u c h a s p r e s e n t e d h e r e ,
o f c o m m o d itie s
is
o f th e
w ill b e
o f s u p e rio r
o v e r a p e rio d
o n ly
exceeded
T h is am o u n t c o u ld b e a c c o u n te d
an d th e h ig h e r c o s t le v e ls
a g a in ,
seem s t o
p o in t
to
th e
of
99
fac t
th a t
th e re
a c c u s to m e d l e v e l
is
a d e c id e d
of liv in g
te n d e n c y
of
faru i f a m ilie s
even u n d er a d v e rse
to m a in ta in
c irc u m s ta n c e s .
th e
100
TABLE I
A P P S N B IX B -
AVERAGE VALDB ASD D IS T R IB U T IO N O F GOODS USED FOR FAMILY
L IV IB G O F GROUPS C L A S S IF IE D BY INCOME LSV SL
C la ssifica tio n
Average Value o f floods Used
D istribution;
Food
Income Groups
AU
Farms
I
II
$1549.43
$1217.29
$1881.56
635.27
712.38
958.15
Purchased
364.45
335.82
433.07
Furnished
450.82
376.56
525.08
Clothing
u s . 30
96.34
140.30
Housing
353-46
225.09
481.81
Rent
128.82
83.30
174.34
Operation
147.75
97.65
197.85
76.39
44.14
109.62
101.57
71.01
132.12
Education
6.74
1.76
11.75
Recreation
31.29
19.52
43.03
8.56
5.91
11.21
54.98
43.82
66.13
95.61
74.29
116.92
Health
59.to
45.32
73.47
Tobacco
12.06
10.35
13.78
Personal Care
24.15
18.62
29.67
45.22
38.17
52.28
F urnishings(etc.)
Advancement
Reading
G ifts - welfare
Personal, e tc .
Auto (Family)
101
TABLE I I
PEfiCSNTAGE D IS T R IB U T IO N O F VALUE O P GOODS USED POB PA M ILT
L IV IN G O P GROUPS C L A S S IF IE D BY INCOME LEVEL
A ll
F arm s
C la s s ific a tio n
A v erag e
Value of Goods Used
In co m e
I
100
100
Grouos
il
100
53-9
58.5
50.9
C lo th in g
7-6
7.9
7.5
B ent
8 .3
6.8
9.3
H ouse O p e r a tio n
9.5
8.0
10.5
5.0
3.6
5.8
E d u c a tio n
0 .4
0.1
0.6
B e c re a tlo n
2.1
1.6
2.3
H e a d in g
0.6
0.5
0.6
G ifts -w e lfa re
3-6
3.6
3-5
H e a lth
3-8
3.7
3.9
T obacco
0.3
0.9
0.7
P e r s o n a l C a re
1.6
1.5
1.6
A u to
2.9
3.1
2.8
Pood
H ouse f u r n is h in g ,
e tc .
— 1 0 2
SABLE I I I
—
AVEjiAUE VALUE AND D IS T R IB U T IO N O F GOODS USED FOB FAMILY
L IV IN G C L A S S IF IE D BY FAMILY TYPES
T otal ____________________________F o m l l y
Groups
I
III
II
V a lu e o f
G oods U sed
gypsa
IV
V
1549.43
1282.10
1261.73
1320.59
1751.49
2157.65
835.27
6 4 3 .9 2
807.31
860.72
90s .16
ll4 o .4 o
P u rc d ia s e d
334.45
320.77
4 o 6 .o s
2 8 7 .S 3
415.61
527.63
Furnished
450.82
323.15
401.23
572.84
492.55
612.72
C lo th in g
118.30
7S.50
6 4 .1 8
102.35
137.71
244.51
H o u s in g
353.46
331.67
248.22
214.41
4o4.47
430.24
B ent
123.82
156.83
7 3 .5 4
86.60
116.92
192.60
H o u se O p e ra tio n
147.75
155.03
152.43
74.87
157.15
157.32
F u rn is h in g , e tc .
76.89
19. s i
17.25
5 2 .9 4
130.40
l4o.32
A dvancem aat
101.57
93.78
46.17
60.26
139.91
86.87
E d u c a tio n
6.75
~ -
1 .0 0
l.S O
13.29
13.S0
31.29
23.26
15*32
27.29
43.36
31.99
8 .5 6
7.93
10.13
81*7
9.0?
6.70
54.93
62.59
19122
22.60
74.19
34.38
95.61
84.78
52.05
46.57
119.69
137.93
T obacco
1 2 JD 6
9 .0 2
1.83
s .0 5
17.65
16.32
P e r s o n a l C a re
24.15
20.02
1 7 .3 9
17.22
31.01
24.86
H e a lth
59.4o
55.74
32.33
a . 30
71.03
96.75
45.22
49.45
43.30
3 5 .7 s
41.54
57.69
D istrib u tio n
Food
I
R e c re a tio n
R e a d in g
G ifts -te lfa re
P e r s o n a l,e tc .
A u to
(F a m ily )
103
TABLii- _IV _ TOTAL ENUMERATION O F FARMS H S I T S D I N CUSTER COUNTY
(1935-36)
and
BASIS
FOR E L IM IN A T IO N
-------------------------------
829
F a n a a S e l e c t e d , f o r S t u d y ------------------
--------------------------------
50
T o t a l F a r m s E l i m i n a t e d - -------- ---- -
-------------------------------------
779
T o ta l num ber o f F anua
B a s is
- - - - - -
-
f o r E lim in a tio n :
R e l i e f ------------------------------------------------N a tiv ity
---------- - - - - - - - -
C o lo r
-
N um ber i n
93
107
-
2
F a m ily - - - - - - -
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F a m i l y C o m p o s i t i o n -----------------
-
F a m i l y T y p e — — — —— — — — — —
H a x x ie d l e s s
th a n y e a r -
------ -
W
35
4
S o u r c e o f In c o m e - - - - - - -
I
Operated on Solaiy - - - - - -
11
T y p e o f F a r m ------------ S iz e
-
-
I
—
o f F a n n ---------- ------------
-
I
Snare Cropper -------- - - - - -
1
A m ount o f
I n c o m e ---------- ---- -
-
—
I
No r e c o r d
o f In sm o
-
-
I
N o t w i l l i n g -----------------------------------
20
N o O n e a t H om e -
- -
22
No H o u s e
- - - - - - -
-
-
—
Vacant ---------- ■
Unaccounted fo r
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
48
273
19
TABLE 7
A COKPA2ISON 07 COSTS 07 SOHAl LITINO PBB FAMILY PES YBAB
50
C u s te r C o.
F a r m F am ­
i l i e s 1 9 3 5 -3 6
4o
S e le c te d M ont
F arm F a m i l i e s
1 9 2 9 -3 0
(I)
.
2,886
F arm F e m i l i e s
o f 11 S e le c te d
S ta te s 1 9 2 2 -2 4 (2 )
900
1 9 2 9 -3 0
T o t a l C ro s s In c o m e
F a m C a sh In c o m e
F arm F u r n is h e d In co m e
O th e r In c o m e
$ 3 1 0 7 .7 7
1 5 7 3 .8 4
T o ta l C o st o f L iv in g
P u rc h a s e d L iv in g
$ 1 5 4 9 .4 3
$ 8 9 8 .2 5
$ 6 5 1 .1 8
F u rn is h e d L iv in g
A v e ra g e s i x e o f F a m ily
A v e ra g e s i z e o f H o u s e h o ld
Food
C lo th in g
B ent
F u rn is h in g s
O p e ra tio n
A dvancem ent
H e a lth & P e rs o n a l
A u to
A ll O th e rs
T o ta l
6 5 1 .1 9
8 8 2 .7 4
835.27
$ 1 9 1 9 .2 7
$ 1 0 8 3 .9 5
$ 830.00
4 .0
4 .5
$
945.09
1 1 8 .3 0
1 2 8 .8 2
1 8 9 .3 7
2 2 6 .0 0
7 6 .8 9
1 4 7 -7 5
1 0 1 .5 7
9 5 .6 1
4 5 .2 2
1 1 4 .7 9
1 5 7 .5 4
1 7 4 .9 6
$1549.43
( 3)
F arm F a m i l i e s
in
H.Dak.
1931
(4 )
$ 4 3 3 3 .2 7
3 5 0 3 .2 7
8 3 0 .0 0
3 3
3»65
$
45
F arm F a m i l i e s
in
W is c o n s in
1 1 0 .9 1
—
—
$ 1 9 1 9 .2 7
$ 1 5 9 8 .0 0
$ 9 1 4 .0 0
$ 6 8 4 .0 0
4.4
4 .8
$ 6 5 8 .8 0
2 3 4 .9 0
1 9 9 .6 0
4 0 .2 0
$ 1 4 5 4 .0 0
$ 9 5 7 .0 0
$ 4 9 7 .0 0
4 -3
4 .7
$ 1 3 0 5 .0 0
$ 8 4 2 .0 0
$ ^ 6 3 .0 0
5 -3
1 0 4 .8 0
$ 5 2 0 .0 0
1 9 4 .0 0
2 2 1 .0 0
5 4 .0 0
2 2 1 .0 0
8 0 .0 0
102.60
123.00
$ 4 4 7 .0 0
1 2 1 .0 0
2 2 5 .0 0
2 8 .0 0
2 0 1 .0 0
9 4 .0 0
9 7 .0 0
4i.oo
30.00
213.10
43.50
$ 1598.00
$ 1454.00
$ 1305.00
(1) Hltiiardson,J e s s ie B. ,The Quality of Living in Montana Fftjnn Homes .Mont.Agr.E3cp.Sta.B ul.260, Apr.1932
(2) E irk p a tric k .E .L .,The Farmers Standard of Living, U.S. Dept. Agr.BuJ. lUfco, Nov.1926
( 3) E irk n a tri ck, E .L ., McCall,?.E ., and Cowles ,May I . ,Farm Family Living in Wisconsin. Wis .Agr.Exp.
S ta.B es.B ui.114,J a n .1933.
(4) W ilson,!.A . ,Incomes and Cost of Living of Farm Fam ilies in North Dakota,N.D.Agr.Exp.S ta .B ui.E J l1
June,1933.(Tills study covers the years 1923-1931"The data included in the above ta b le is fo r
1931,o n ly ).
H
^