Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - IV. Economics - 16. Income, Consumption and Housing - 3. The Family Budget
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Chapter i6. Income, Consumption and Housing 369
it is possible that these income groups include a great number of Negro
families whose general economic ability surpasses their actual earnings.^*^
Of course, there is always a possibility of a bias in the sample. Yet it is
hard to see how such a bias could so consistently affect the Negro group
differently from the white group. At any rate, it seems to have been ascer-
tained that the general notions about Negro improvidence are greatly
exaggerated. The Negro population includes a substantial number of
families who know how to balance their family budgets better than the
average white family of corresponding means.
TABLE 2
Per Cent Distribution of Total Family Consumption Items, for Normal Nonrelief
Families in Selected Community and Income Groups,* by Race: 1935-1936
Community and
Income Race Total Food
Hous-
ing
Household
Operation
and
Furnishings
Clothing
and
Personal
Care Other
New York
|l,000-
1,499 Negro 100.0 35.3 28.2 11.4 10.3 14.8
White 1 00.0 39.4 25.7 1 1.4 8.4 15.1
Atlanta
#500-999 Negro 100.0 36.7 17.8 14.2 12.I 19.2
White 1 00.0 39-9 16.5 17.2 10.5 15.8
^1,000-1,499 Negro 1 00.0 31.0 16.6 14.6 14.3 23-5
White lOO.O 33.0 16.8 17.0 12.0 21.1
14 Southern Villages
#500-999 Negro 100.0 41.2 13^ 14.2 19.2
White
Georgia and Mississippi farm
owners and tenants, except
100.0 38.0 * 3.J 16.6 13.7 18.3
croppers
Under I500 Negro 100.0 63.0 5.4 10.5 9.8 11.3
White 100.0 59.7 7.3 10.3 10.5 12.2
Sources: Adapted from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Study of Consumer Pur^
chases. Urban Sertes, Family Expenditure in New York City. 1935-36. Bulletin No. 643, Vol. 2. Family Ex-
penditure (19^) Tabular Summary, Tables 2, 3, and 4; Family Income and Expenditure in Selected
Southeastern Cities. 1^5-36. Bulletin No. 647, Vol. 2. Family Expenditure (1940), Tabular Summary, Tables
2,3, and 4; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Home Economics, Study of Consumer Purchases,
Urban and Villa^ Series, Family Income and Expenditure. Five Regions, Miscellaneous Publication No. 396,
Part 2, Family Expenditure (1940), particularly Table 40; Farm Series. Family Income and Expenditure, Five
Regions. Miscellaneous Publication No. 465, Part 2, Family ExpendUure (1941), particularly Table 35.
* Where there were too few white families in the sample for income groups most typical for Negro families,
it was necessary to select higher income groups. Most other income groups in these communities show about
the same race differentials. Data for Columbia, South Carolina, and Mobile, Alabama, indicate about the
same race differentials as those for Atlanta, Georgia.
There are many details in the data on family budgets which indicate how
Negroes have been taught by their tradition of poverty to economize even
Wore than do white families of similar economic status. To a greater extent
than these comparable white families they do their laundry at home rather
than send it to a commercial laundry; rarely do they hire any household
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
