xt73xs5jdh68 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73xs5jdh68/data/mets.xml Stecker, Margaret Loomis, 1885- United States. Works Progress Administration. Division of Social Research Works Progress Administration Administrative Publications Stecker, Margaret Loomis, 1885- United States. Works Progress Administration. Division of Social Research 1936 9 pages 25 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call Number: Y 3.W 89/2:13/1-20 books English Washington: Works Progress Administration, Division of Social Research This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Works Progress Administration Administrative Publications Cost and standard of living -- United States Urban economics Cities and towns -- Research -- United States Inter-City Differences in the Cost of Living, 1936 text Inter-City Differences in the Cost of Living, 1936 1936 1936 2021 true xt73xs5jdh68 section xt73xs5jdh68 inIiiiiliiiiigiilflliiiliiii
DHES
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATiON
Division of Social Research
iNTER-CITY DIFFERENCES iN THE COST
OF LIVING
Univ. of Ky. Libraries
Series I Number”, 20
wo‘RKs PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator
Corrington GiII, Assistant Administrator
Howard B. Myers, Director
Division of SociaI Research
RE SE AFICIi’ BU LL ET IN
INTER-CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF LIVING
Prepared by
Margaret Loomis Stacker
under the sUpervision of
Henry 8. Arthur, Assistant Director
Division of Social Research
Washington
May
|936
Preface
The present bulletin provides a preliminary summary of
the most important findings of the survey of living
costs conducted in 1935 in 59 cities. It is contem-
plated that a full report on the study will be released
later in the year presenting both the detailed budget
upon which the survey was based) the summarized price
data) and the aggregate costs resulting. The widespread
demand for information on inter—city differences in
living costs made the preliminary release of the data
in this bulletin seem advisable. The aggregate costs
in terms of dollars are not to be issued prior to the
publication of the final report since they cannot be
properly interpreted without a detailed statement upon
the underlying analysis.
INTER—CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF LIVING
Preliminary figures showing the relative cost of liv—
ing in 59 cities in the United States are presented in
this bulletin. These costs are expressed as percent—
ages of the cost in Washington, D. C. They relate to
the requirements of the four—person family of an indus—
trial) service or other manual worker of small means,
based on the maintenance of a specified standard of
living. Thus, the study is an analysis of the cost of
a fixed list of goods and services required at this
standard} rather than an investigation of family con—
sumption and expenditures.
In order that all costs might be as nearly as pos—
sible on a Comparable basis) an itemized budget of fam—
ily needs was constructed and priced in each of the 59
cities. Certain adjustments were made in the fuel, ice
and transportation lists) to take account of climatic
and other purely local conditions) but except for these
and a few differences in standards which could not be
eliminated through use of specifications for the com—
modities and services priced) the resulting cost rela—
tives are based on reasonably comparable qualities and
quantities of the necessities in each City.
The standard family whose cost of living is por—
trayed consists of a moderately active man and woman)
a boy age 13, and a girl age 8.1 The man wears over—
alls at his work; no household assistance of any kind
is employed; social opportunities are simple. This
family's food is an adequate diet at minimum Cost.
They live in a house or apartment with water and sewer
1 Goods and services were priced for children or both sexes be-
tween the ages of 23nd 15, inclusive; these prices will be worked
up later to provide cost estimates for families or any size and
composition within the ages specified.
LEGEND
.Over 500,000 Population
0250,000 Io 500,000
0I00,000 to 250,000
025,000 ro I00,000
SIZE AND LOCATION OF 59 CITIES
INCLUDED IN COST OF LIVING STUDY
wgukee
Detrun
.Peonu
\ndionGDOIISO _ f: 0
CmCmnu
Kansas City .
Q .
SI LOUIS .LOU‘SV‘IIe
.Wichito
0 Oklahoma CIIy
OAIbuquerque
ODullus
oMoblIe
ONEw Orleansm
Housion .1, ' “I
y
Division of Secuol Research
ND. AF-I488
INTER—CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF LIVING
connections, private indoor bath and toilet, in at
least a fair state of repair. They have gas and elec—
tricity, a small radio but no automobile,- they may read
a daily paper, go to the movies once a week and pay
for their own medical care. Carfare, life insurance,
necessary taxes and numerous incidental expenses are
provided for. This is the so-called maintenance stand—
ard. Another list of necessities was constructed and
priced for the purpose of ascertaining how much might
be saved through eliminating all goods and services
which could be temporarily dispensed with under emer—
gency conditions. With this budget, the family of the
same size and composition has more cereals and less
milk, fruit and vegetables in its diet,- clothes must
be worn longer and household equipment is not replaced
so frequently; housing is less desirable; recreation,
insurance and other incidentals are much reduced, though
few are eliminated entirely.
The field work was done in cooperation with the Bu—
reau of Labor Statistics, the Government's regular price
collecting agency, but the information assembled, ex—
cept that relating to food, has been worked up exclu—
sively by the Works Progress Administration. Quotations
were seCured as of March 1935, but according to the Bu—
reau, there have been no significant price changes since
that time. A total of 93,000 schedules was taken (in—
cluding food price reports collected by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics), on which were recorded more than
1,430,000 price quotations and pertinent consumption
data. Abroad base for the study is thus apparent.
At the maintenance standard,1 the most expensive
city in which to live among the 59 studied was Washing—
ton, and the least expensive was Mobile. In Mobile,
the cost of all the essentials of life was relatively
low, while in Washington, rents and the cost of food
and miscellaneous items accounted for the high total
cost.
1 At. the emergency standard a few shifts in rank occur. as can
be seen by reference to Table II. These are not important. how-
ever, in most, instances.
TOTAL FOOD CLOTHING HOUSING HOUSEHOLD OPERATION MISCELLANEOUS
Pucull Hum
40 so no so
mm. Pun-n! PIrK-nl amm
so no loo men to so so so um :20 M00 20 40 so loo an
ac
.r. ,
msnnolan, n c
Sun Franclsca, Cam
Mlnneupolls, an
Nuw Yolk, N v
cnicaao, m
Milwaukee, wls
Buslon, Mass‘
Clavalund, onla
Sl Lou‘s, Mo
nonou, Mlch
Las Angeles, Galil
Cinclnnnli, oalo
Scronlon, Pa
Pullsawqh, Pa
anaveoon, Conn
Albuquerque, N M
Buliimare, Md
Phllodulphlu, Pa
Nawurk, N J
Racneslev, N v
Sloul Falls, 5 D
Tucson, ml;
Bulle, Mon!
Porllana, Ms
Penna, lll
Allanlo, Ga
Richmond, a
Fall mm, Mass
Omaha, Neb
Bullalo_ N v
Nollolk, va
Spokane, Wash
Mancasslsv, N H
Danver, Colo
Kansas Clly, Ma
Wovmsnza, R l
Sall Lake Clly, ulan
emanomlon, N v
Seallle, Wash
Parllund, On
New Orleans, La
Mempms, Tenn
wlaslan—Salam, N 0
Oklahoma cny, Okla,
Jocksnnvllle, Fla
Luulsvllle, Ky
Hauslan, Tums
Indlanap 5,1nd
Columblo, s 0
Dallas, Texas
Clarksbuvg, w Va
Cadav Ruplds, Iowa
Columbus, Ohio
Elllmingham, Ala
Knaxwlle, Tenn
El Paso, Texas
Lillla Rock, Ark
wlcmla, Kansas
Mablla, Ala
20 u: no mo ‘20
:0 so
so a «a so so
Peuen' rum: pmam Ducerl
COST OF LIVING IN 59 CITIES, 1835, EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES ohm“ 51 Scam sum-a»,
NOYE n: called m. ”mu m m. Inn . OF THE COST OF LIVING IN WASHINGTON, D. Q swag-s
m man... u 5‘ {ml m m." :r m. my in (MAlNTENANCE STANDARD)
INTER—CITY DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF LIVING 5
As a matter of fact, only in rents was Washington
at the top of the list. Food costs were highest in
Bridgeport; clothing costs, in Butte; household oper—
ation costs, in Sioux Falls; and miscellaneous costs,
in Cleveland. Rents were lowest in Portland, Ore.,
food costs, in Cedar Rapids; clothing costs, in Dallas;
household operation costs, in Houston; and miscellane—
ous costs in Sioux Falls.
The figures indicate that, with a content of living
held reasonably constant, inter—city differences in
the cost of a balanced list of goods and services are
not great. Ainong the 59 cities studied, the lowest-
cost city was only a little more than 20 percent below
the highest. A sales or similar consumer's tax was
levied in 19 of the 59 cities. This varied from 3 per—-
cent on a large part of the budget, including certain
services, in Louisville, to 1 cent on motion picture
admissions in New Orleans. Elimination of the sales
tax, making the comparison exclusively ona price basis,
would change the rank of the cities only slightly.
Lowest food costs averaged about 14 percent less than
highest food_costs, and the difference in clothing
costs was only 24 percent. The difference between the
highest and lowest rents, on the other hand, was ap—
proximately 54 percent,- costs of household operation,
44 percent and miscellaneous costs, 39 percent.
The most important causal factors in this spread of
living costs, therefore, are seen to be connected with
the purely local circumstances affecting housing, house—
hold operation and miscellaneous needs. These dif—
ferences, in turn, are least susceptible of accurate
quantitative measurement. The type of house in which
people live at comparable standards is by no means
identical from city to city,- the kind of fuel available
and the quantity required for home heating in various
sections differ widely. The difficulty of standard—
izing medical services and of allowing fora variety of
transportation needs complicates the problem. Never-
theless, the relatives show better than any hitherto
collected information inter—city differences in the
cost of maintaining the standard of living described.
TABLE I
COST OF LIVING IN 59 CITIES,
EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE COST OF LIVING
IN WASHINGTON, 0.6.a
MAINTENANCE STANDARD
|935,
Preliminary
MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE
CIty , b _ .3 Household Miscel—
Total Food Clothing Housmg , e
7 operation laneous
‘7. TL % 57: Z %
Washington, D. C. !00.0 I00.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 |O0.0 100.0
San Francisco, Calif.a 98.0 96.3 !I6.4 78.9 ”8.3 lO|.6
Minneapolis, Minn. 97.8 9!.6 I!O.7 77.2 I34.| l05.9
New York, N.Y.a 97.0 l00.l 96.8 87.7 IO?.6 |O0.0
Chicago, III."1 95.6 97.! l07.9 70.2 l09.0 I09.6
Milwaukee, Wis. 95.6 90.2 !I5.0 78.9 ll6.2 lOI.7
Boston, Mass. 95.3 98.3 |05.5 77.2 I08.l 98.8
Cleveland, Ohiod 95.! 93.3 !!7.7 68.4 93.9 |!7.5
St. Louis, Mo. 94.3 94.! !OO.2 78.9 83.8 |!6.3
Detroit, Mich.a 92.8 93.2 l09.! 64.9 IO6.0 l09.2
Los Angeles, Calif.a 92.5 92.8 l!5.l 57.9 |O3.6 l!4.8
Cincinnati, Ohiod 92.4 94.2 |O3.4 75.! 9|.4 |04.3
Scranton, Pa. 92.! 94.0 lO5.2 80.7 93.9 93.6
Pittsburg, Pa. 92.0 93.9 !02.8 7I.9 8!.0 “3.3
Bridgeport, Conn. 9l.7 l02.3 l0l.? 68.4 IO4.0 89.3
Albuquerque, N.M.a 9|.6 IOI.8 lO7.5 57.9 !!3.4 80.9
Baltimore, Md. 9|.6 94.9 95.0 66.7 94.! l|3.5
Philadelphia, Pa. 9I.4 93.9 98.0 70.2 9l.0 l09.6
Newark, N.J. 9|.2 99.5 94.9 75.4 l02.3 87.7
Rochester, N.Y. 90.6 92.8 IO!.O 65.8 |l9.2 95.4
Sioux Falls, 5.0. 90.6 88.7 I06.4 79.3 l36.5 7l.8
Tucson, Ariz.a 90.5 97.2 I05.4 64.9 !I8.3 86.0
Butte, Mont. 90.4 94.0 ll9.7 6|.4 |22.3 83.6
Portland, We. 90.3 94.5 l!2.7 59.6 |2|.8 89.!
Peoria, Ill.a 89.7 94.2 l05.6 80.2 86.! 85.5
Atlanta, Ga. 89.4 97.| 94.5 7!.9 9l.0 93.7
Richmond, Va. 89.3 93.8 l06.6 69.0 |0!.6 88.7
Fall River, Mass. 89.2 95.3 |06.8 64.9 ”5.! 82.9
Omaha, Neb. 88.9 93.! |02.9 69.6 99.4 90.9
Buffalo, N.Y. 88.9 92.7 IO3.2 6|.4 99.8 l0I.4
Norfolk, Va. 88.6 95.7 97.9 69.6 98.6 88.4
Spokane, Wash. 88.! 89.7 !!5.5 50.9 I32.7 88.9
Manchester, N.H. 87.9 97.3 |Ol.4 54.4 ll8.5 87.9
Denver, Colo.a
|04.8
A.
TABLE I lContinuedl
MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE
City . b , c Household Miscel—
Total Food Clothlng Hou5lng , , d e
operatlon Ianeous
% i Z % Z %
Kansas City, Mo. 87.7 94.| l0l.0 57.9 87.0 l05.8
Providence, R.l. 87.6 96.5 95.3 63.2 III.2 84.8
Salt Lake City, Utaha 87.6 90.7 lll.4 57.0 108.8 92.9
Binghamton, N.Y. 87.2 93.9 IOO.6 66.7 l02.o 84.3
Seattle, Wash. 86.9 92.8 l07.8 49.l l08.6 98.4
Portland, Ore. 86.6 9|.4 |l3.7 46.3 |I4.5 95.8
New Orleans, La.a 86.6 90.7 96.4 57.9 86.7 l09.4
Memphis, Tenn. 86.0 90.8 96.8 64.9 86.9 96.5
Winston-Salem, N.C.a 86.0 95.5 IO0.0 6l.| IO7.4 79.3
Olkahoma City, Okla.8 85.9 '93.l l02.2 60.0 95.8 89.9
Jacksonville, Fla. 85.6 96.| 96.5 57.9 |0|.3 86.5
Louisville, Ky.a 85.5 93.| 99.8 6I.3 87.7 92.l
Houston, Texas 84.8 90.7 |Ol.l 6|.4 77.0 97.6
Indianapolis, ind. 84.4 88.| 99.0 58.8 92.2 96.l
Columbia, S.C. 83.9 i00.7 93.l 57.9 99.9 72.4
Dallas, Texas 83.8 95.0 90.4 63.0 83.5 86.5
Clarksburg, w. Va.a 83.7 97.4 |O3.l 56.| 83.3 82.2
Cedar Rapids, lowaa 83.5 87.7 104.9 58.9 IO9.9 78.2
Columbus, Ohloa 83.0 93.2 l03.8 56.I 84.4 84.4
Birmingham, Ala. 82.2 93.6 95.3 48.8 84.4 94.7
Knoxville, Tenn. 82.l 88.7 95.8 60.2 90.9 84.3
El Paso, Texas 8i.0 92.5 93.6 56.l |02.8 7|.9
Little Rock, Ark. BO.| 93.0 96.3 50.9 82.5 82.6
Wichita, Kansas 79.6 89.6 97.3 48.2 96.5 80.8
Mobile, Ala. 79.4 90.8 9|.8 47.8 93.6 83.5
a Sales or similar consumer's tax included where levied.
b Includes clothing, clothing upkeep and personal care.
c Includes rent and water.
d Includes coal or wood, gas, electricity, ice, household supplies, etc.,
refuse disposal, furniture, furnishings and equipment. In those cities
where water is a direct charge on the tenant, tnis cost has been added
to the rent.
e Includes medical care, transportation, recreation, school attendance,
church and other contributions,
life
insurance and personal taxes.
COST OF LIVING
TABLE II
IN 59 CITIES,
I935,
EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE COST OF LIVING
IN WASHINGTON,
D.c.a
EMERGENCY STANDARD
Preliminary
MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE
C't” h' b . c Household Miscel-
_ATotal Food Clot ing Housmg Operationd laneouse
fl. % % % % %
Washington, 0. C. l00.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 |O0.0 I00.0 IO0.0
Minneapolis, Minn. 99.7 95.8 I|2.3 76.7 I39.0 ”0.3
San Francisco, Calif.a 98.5 98.7 ”6.5 79.1 ll8.7 98.7
New York, N.V.a 96.5 IOO.6 96.8 86.0 |02.9 99.2
Milwaukee, Wis. 95.6 9|.0 II5.9 79.I |l7.7 IOI.7
Chicago, Ill.a 95.5 97.8 I08.0 69.8 I09.8 lll.7
Clgveland, Ohioa 94.8 94.6 II6.7 68.6 92.8 I22.5
Boston, Mass. 94.I 97.9 IO5.7 76.7 lO7.6 94.6
St. Louis, Mo. 93.9 94.7 IOO.3 79.I 82.! |20.2
Albuquerque, N.M.d 95.3 |05.6 I08.6 70.2 ll4.| 75.2
Detroit, Mich.a 92.7 93.0 I09.2 65.| |07.4 l|2.8
Los Angeles, Calif.3 92.3 94.2 ll4.7 57.0 I03.5 I|9.8
Sioux Falls, 8.0. 92.| 92.3 l07.3 79.5 l40.6 63.2
Cincinnati, Ohioa 9I.8 95.| |03.4 75.I 89.8 I04.I
Butte, Mont. 91.6 97.2 |2I.3 64.0 |22.8 77.0
Portland, Me. 9l.2 96.2 II4.0 60.5 l25.2 86.I
Scranton, Pa. 9I.| 95.7 l03.9 80.2 9|.2 88.7
Pittsburgh, Pa. 9|.O 94.3 I‘02.8 70.9 79.0 ”5.9
Baltimore, Md. 9|.O 95.5 94.4 67.4 92.4 II5.4
Bridgeport, Conn. 90.9 |0|.8 IOI.0 67.4 I04.6 86.6
Rochester, N.Y. 90.8 95.2 I02.2 65.| l22.0 94.4
Philadelphia, Pa. 90.8 95.5 98.0 69.8 89.5 IO9.5
Tucson, Ariz.a 90.3 IO0.0 |05.6 64.0 |I7.4 79.0
Newark, N.J. 89.9 99.8 95.0 74.4 IOI.2 80.2
Spokane, Wash. 89.8 93.8 ”5.5 5|.2 I36.| 88.3
Omaha, Neb. 89.7 95.2 |04.0 70.2 99.8 89.9
Peoria, Ill.a 89.7 95.8 I06.2 80.7 83.7 82.0
Atlanta, Ga. 89.6 97.3 93.9 73.3 9|.0 94.3
Richmond, Va. 89.4 94.7 IO6.2 70.5 IOI.2 86.0
Buffalo, N.Y. 88.6 93.3 I03.B 60.5 98.9 I03.8
Kansas City, Mo. 88.3 94.9 IOI,0 58.I 85.4 ”4.9
Fall River, Mass. 88.2 94.5 I06.| 65.I Il3.9 78.0
Norfolk, Va. 88.2 95.8 98.3 69.0 99.0 86.|
Salt Lake City, Utah21 87.5 93.0 I|3.5 55.8 I07.l 9|.2
TABLE
(Continued)
MAJOR ITEMS OF FAMILY EXPENDITURE
C”! , D . c Household Miscel—
Total Food Clothing HouSIng Operation laneouse
% 7 % Z % %
Manchester, N.H. 87.3 97.6 l02.8 53.6 ||9.3 82.9
Seattle, Wash. 87.? 95.? IO7.6 48.8 IO9.6 98.5
Portland, Ore. 87.2 93.8 ll5.5 46.3 ||2.5 97.!
Denver, Colo? 87.0 92.7 l02.7 58.l 91.9 I05.o
Providence, R.I. 86.8 95.8 94.7 62.8 ll|.7 8|.4
New Orleans, La.a 86.7 92.8 95.9 57.0 85.4 ll4.o
Binghamton, N.Y. 86.? 9A.| IOO.5 66.3 l03.0 77.0
Memphis, Tenn. 86.| 93.? 95.9 65.l 85.9 96.9
Oklahoma City, Okla.a 86.! 95.7 lo2.8 60.9 96.| 84.6
Winston—Salem, N.C.d 88.7 95.8 l00.0 6|.P l08.5 74.3
Jacnsonville, Fla. 85.3 96.6 97.2 R8.! l0l.8 8|.9
Louisville, Ky.a 86.0 94.7 99.7 62.7 85.6 87.7
Houston, Texas 84.8 92.| l0l.6 6l.6 76.0 99.9
Indianapolis, Ind. 84.3 89.5 98.9 60.5 90.7 95.5
Clarksburg, w. Va.d 84.0 99.6 l02.8 58.l 79.9 79.5
Dallas, Texas 83.9 96.l 9|.l 63.7 82.8 84.2
Cedar Rapids, lowa“ 83.4 89.2 l05.2 59.5 no.3 7l.5
Columbia, 5.6. 82.9 l00.9 92.| 58.I 99.5 63.
Knoxville, Tenn. 87.9 9|.5 96.l 6|.2 9l.9 8|.5
Columbus, oniaa 87.5 95.6 ”37.9 55.8 8l.4 8i.7
Birmingham, Ala. 8?.l 94.4 95.7 49.6 84.0 94.8
El Paso, Texas 8|.4 95.3 94.6 58.| l02.3 6?.0
Little ROCK, Arr. 80.5 95.3 96.8 52.3 8|.5 79.4
Mobile, Ala. 80.0 92.6 9|.2 49.4 94.1 82.0
Wichita, Kansas 79.4 90.6 98.6 47.7 96.7 78.0
a Sales or similar consumer's tax included where levied.
h lncludes clothing, clothing up—keep and personal care.
c Includes rent and water.
d includes coal or wood, gas, electricity, ice, household supplies, etc”
refuse disposal, furniture, furnishings and equipment. In those cities
where water is a direct charge on the tenant, this cost has ueen added
to the rent.
9 includes medical care, tranSportation, recreation, school
church and other contributions,
attendance,
life insurance and personal taxes.