supplemental measures of material well-being: basic … · home or consumer durables. the economic...

U S C E N S U S B U R E A UHelping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Supplemental Measures of Material Well-Being: Basic Needs, Consumer Durables,Energy, and Poverty, 1981 to 2002

Special Studies

Issued December 2005

CurrentPopulationReports

P23-202

INTRODUCTION Management and Budget’s (OMB)Statistical Policy Directive 14 (1978).

This report continues an effort begun in2003 to explore additional ways of Income-based measures do not alwaysassessing the economic well-being of the provide a completely satisfactory meas-U.S. population. Issued as a companion ure of material well-being. Cash incometo the U.S. Census Bureau’s reports on measures, which are used in mostalternative measures of income and Census Bureau reports, do not includepoverty, this report also attempts to the effect of taxes and noncash benefits,expand our understanding of the popula- nor do they account for the advantagestion in poverty in the United States. of owning long-lived assets such as a

home or consumer durables.The economic well-being of a populationcan be measured in many ways. Using Another measure of economic well-beingincome to measure well-being avoids is expenditures of households and fami-comparing the situations of people with lies.1 Expenditure measures focus ondifferent spending preferences. For what a household spends rather than onexample, one person might spend income it receives. Closely related aremoney on a variety of goods; another “consumption” measures, which focus onmight spend almost all on video games; the benefits derived from money spent orwhile a third might spend little and save items owned. A report on poverty meas-for a rainy day. If their incomes are the urement by the National Academy ofsame, an income measure considers Sciences stated that expenditures andthem to be equally “well-off,” even if they consumption measure not only the abilitydiffer in other aspects of their material to maintain a certain level of well-beingcondition. but also the actual level attained (Citro

and Michael, 1995). Researchers havePoverty, as officially defined, indicates

observed that expenditures vary less thanthat a family’s income is below a thresh-

income in the United States, because peo-old designed to reflect its needs. The

ple tend to save when their income isthresholds, designed in the 1960s, vary

high and spend from savings or borrowby family size and composition to deter-

when it is low (Slesnick, 1993). Thus,mine who is in poverty. If a family’s total

information on expenditures can shedincome is less than that family’s thresh-

light on economic well-being beyond thatold, then that family, and every individual

which comes from information on currentin it, is considered to be in poverty.

income alone.Official poverty estimates are based ondata collected in the Current PopulationSurvey’s (CPS) Annual Social and Economic

1 See the discussion in the 2003 report on sup-plemental measures of well-being (U.S. Census

Supplement (ASEC), following the Office of Bureau, 2003).

The focus of this report is on yet ■ Some measures of material well-another set of measures of eco- being reflect not only income ornomic well-being, simply called other resources, but also needs,“material well-being” indicators, which are sometimes hard towhich provide a more or less direct measure. For example, peoplepicture of the conditions in which may have health problems, apeople are living. The indicators high cost of living, or other fac-include the presence or absence of tors that make it harder to makeselected appliances and electronic ends meet with a given level ofgoods in a home, take account of income. When needs put a strainhousing and neighborhood condi- on the budget, the strain affectstions, obtain ratings of community living conditions and thereforeservices, and measure whether affects material well-being.households have been able to meet

■ Material well-being can also differbasic needs. Some specific exam-

for households depending onples include items such as refriger-

assistance provided by relatives,ators, telephones, and air condi-

neighbors, employers, charities,tioning; problems such as broken

and others not counted inwindows, leaky roofs, fear of

income or expenditures.crime, streets out of repair; andwhether rent and utility bills have The 2003 report Supplementalbeen paid. Overall, the set of Measures of Material Well-Being:measures is meant to take broad Expenditures, Consumption, andaccount of a household’s standard Poverty 1998 and 2001 was issuedof living. Material well-being meas- by the Census Bureau with the col-ures have some features that make laboration of the Interagencythem attractive as an additional Working Group on Alternativemeasure of economic well-being. Measures of Material Well-Being,For example: which included representatives of

the Office of Management and■ Material well-being measures

Budget, the Bureau of Economiccan be closer to conditions

Analysis, the Bureau of Laborexperienced at the present time.

Statistics, and the EnergyMore like expenditure measures,

Information Administration (U.S.and less like income and

Census Bureau, 2003). That reportpoverty measures, they are less

provides further background andsubject to major swings when

discussion of detailed properties ofpeople temporarily have high or

well-being measures and a bibliog-low income.

raphy of related materials.■ Material well-being can be

This report focuses on trends inimproved by purchases made in

economic well-being from 1992 toprevious years, such as appli-

2002. The purpose is to broadenances, cars, or houses. People

discussion of the issues involvedbenefit from these assets long

with supplementing income-basedafter they received the income

poverty measures with other meas-or made the purchase. Material

ures that focus on consumption andwell-being measures are closer

material well-being. It is by noto consumption measures than

means a comprehensive document.are income, poverty, or expendi-ture measures in reflecting this The next section discusses trendsaspect of living conditions. in material well-being from 1992 to

1998, using data from the Surveyof Income and ProgramParticipation (SIPP), and includesinformation on material well-being,the relation of material well-beingto poverty, and changes for popu-lation subgroups. The third sec-tion examines the possession ofconsumer durables from 1992 to2002, using data from theConsumer Expenditure Survey (CE).The fourth section uses data fromthe Residential EnergyConsumption Survey (RECS) toexamine trends in energy use andenergy efficiency in the UnitedStates from 1981 to 2001, with afocus on energy use by householdswith poverty-level incomes. Thereport concludes with a review ofresults, a discussion of datasources, and information on howto obtain additional detailed tablesand other information related tothe subjects covered in this report.

TRENDS IN MATERIALWELL-BEING: 1992 TO 1998

The Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation (SIPP) provides meas-ures of more than 70 items relatedto household material well-being.Thirty-nine of the measures reportedin 1992 and 1998 can be comparedand are examined here.2 Thesemeasures cover five topical areas or“domains”: consumer durables,

2 U.S. Census Bureau

2 The data for this section of the reportcome from the 1991, 1992, and 1996 panelsof the SIPP. Data from the 1991 and 1992panels used in this report were collected fromOctober 1992 to January 1993; data from the1996 panel used in this report were collectedfrom August to November 1998. The popula-tion represented (the population universe) isthe civilian noninstitutionalized population liv-ing in the United States. The estimates in thisreport are based on responses from a sampleof the population. As with all surveys, esti-mates may vary from the actual valuesbecause of sampling variation or other fac-tors. All comparisons using SIPP data in thisreport have undergone statistical testing andare significant at the 90-percent confidencelevel unless otherwise noted.

housing conditions, crime and The trend towards greater material New goods matter if they improvesafety, neighborhood conditions, well-being was especially strong for the quality of life . . . and/or allowand meeting basic needs. Across 28 items that could be considered the current quality of life to beof these 39 measures, positive indi- innovations. Bresnahan and Gordon maintained at less expense.” Thecations of material well-being were (1997, page 2) noted that durable goods considered innova-in evidence for a higher proportion “Innovations are important if they tions are computers, microwaveof U.S. households in 1998 than six make a difference in the way ovens, and videocassette recordersyears earlier (Table 1). human beings live and work . . . (VCRs). In 1992, 21 percent of

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.Percent of Households With Selected Indicators of Material Well-Being: 1992 and 1998

Indicator

1992 1998

Percentage-point changeEstimate

90-percentconfidence interval Estimate

90-percentconfidence interval

Consumer durablesFood freezer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 36.5−37.7 34.9 34.2−35.7 *–2.2Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 20.3−21.2 42.0 41.4−42.6 *21.3Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 48.6−50.0 56.0 55.4−56.7 *6.7Air conditioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.7 68.1−69.5 77.7 77.0−78.4 *9.0Clothes dryer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.0 77.5−78.4 77.8 77.3−78.3 –0.2Clothes washer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.8 84.4−85.2 82.0 81.7−82.4 *–2.8Videocassette recorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.8 73.4−74.3 85.2 84.7−85.7 *11.4Microwave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2 81.7−82.6 90.7 90.3−91.1 *8.5Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.7 94.5−94.9 96.2 95.9−96.4 *1.5Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.6 96.4−96.8 98.4 98.2−98.5 *1.8Stove. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.9 98.8−99.1 98.7 98.6−98.8 –0.3Refrigerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Housing conditions

99.1 99.0−99.2 99.3 99.2−99.4 0.2

No problem with mice, rats, insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 84.7−85.6 87.3 86.8−87.8 *2.2Housing not so bad, would move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 89.7−90.3 92.1 91.8−92.5 *2.1No roof or ceiling leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 91.1−91.7 93.1 92.8−93.4 *1.7No broken windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.4 92.1−92.7 95.9 95.7−96.1 *3.6No cracks in walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 95.1−95.6 96.0 95.8−96.2 *0.7No plumbing problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.0 94.7−95.3 97.4 97.2−97.6 *2.4No holes in floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.9 98.8−99.0 99.1 99.0−99.2 0.2No exposed wires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crime and safety

98.6 98.4−98.7 99.2 99.1−99.3 *0.6

Does not stay at home for safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 88.9−89.6 87.1 86.8−87.5 *–2.1Neighborhood is considered safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.0 90.7−91.4 91.4 91.1−91.7 0.3Does not carry anything to protect self . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.5 88.2−88.8 92.5 92.1−92.8 *4.0Home is considered safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Neighborhood conditions

94.1 93.8−94.4 95.9 95.7−96.2 *1.8

Free from traffic noise problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.4 75.0−76.0 78.6 78.1−79.2 *3.2Free from street repair problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 79.7−80.8 83.6 83.1−84.1 *3.4Free from trash or litter in area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.8 88.4−89.1 91.8 91.5−92.1 *3.1No abandoned buildings in neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . 89.6 89.3−90.0 92.0 91.7−92.4 *2.4No problem industry or business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 90.0−90.8 92.7 92.4−93.1 *2.4No smoke or odors in neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.6 92.4−93.0 95.1 94.8−95.4 *2.4Would not move due to poor community services . . .

Meeting basic needs

94.3 94.0−94.5 98.2 98.0−98.3 *3.9

No unmet essential expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.9 85.4−86.2 86.0 85.6−86.4 0.1Expect help from friends, family, or community . . . . . 84.4 83.9−84.7 86.5 86.1−87.0 *2.1No unpaid utility bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.9 89.6−90.3 90.9 90.5−91.2 *0.9No unmet need for dentist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.3 89.8−90.5 92.1 91.7−92.5 *1.8No unpaid rent or mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 91.9−92.5 94.6 94.4−94.9 *2.4No unmet need for doctor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 91.9−92.6 93.9 93.6−94.2 *1.6Phone was not disconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.4 96.2−96.6 96.2 95.9−96.4 –0.3Had enough of food wanted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.6 97.5−97.8 97.8 97.6−98.0 0.2

* Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998 is statistically significant from 0 at the 90-percent confidence level.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.

households had computers; by1998, 42 percent did. VCRs andmicrowave ovens made their com-mercial debuts in the 1970s, whichmakes them newer than most otheritems asked about in the SIPP.3

They increased in prevalence by 11percentage points and 9 percentagepoints, respectively, in the 1992 to1998 period. Air conditioning(though not a new technology) alsoincreased in prevalence during thistime.4

Some indicators of material well-being, however, showed no growthor even a decline. Fewer house-holds had freezers in 1998 than in1992. A greater number of house-hold respondents in 1998 than in1992 said they sometimes stayedat home out of concern for their safety.5

Many of the items that showedslow growth or no growth between1992 and 1998 had alreadybecome nearly universal by 1992.This was true of televisions,stoves, refrigerators, and freedomfrom housing problems such ascracks in walls, holes in the floor,and exposed wires. It was alsotrue of avoiding disconnection oftelephone service and havingenough food in the household. Atleast 95 percent of householdsalready exhibited these indicatorsof material well-being in 1992.6


3 Microwave ovens were introduced in1967, but less than 1 percent of householdspossessed one until after 1971 (Liegey,2001). VCRs were introduced in the late1970s (Liegey and Shepler, 1999).

4 The increase in the possession of airconditioners was not statistically differentfrom that of VCRs or microwave ovens.

5 The decline in the possession offreezers was not statistically different fromthe decline in not staying home for safetyreasons.

6 Although the percentage increase wassmall, growth was statistically significant inthe percentage of households possessing tel-evisions, having no cracks in walls, or nothaving exposed wires.

Neither the slow growth nor the fastgrowth items clustered in any one ofthe five domains. In fact, the con-sumer durables domain included theitem with the fastest growth (com-puters) and several of the items withthe greatest declines.7 One domainshowed relatively equal growth

7 The apparent decline in the possessionof clothes washers and dryers may have beenproduced by a change in wording of the ques-tions between 1992 and 1998. Freezers werenot statistically different in their rate ofdecline from clothes washers and dryers, andalso not statistically different from someitems in other domains: staying at home forsafety, meeting essential expenses, or havingphone service disconnected.

across items: all neighborhood con-ditions showed growth of 2 to 4 per-centage points.

While the list of 39 measured itemsprovides a detailed accounting ofchanges in material well-being,focusing on a few items helps illu-minate the change. The 2003report on supplemental measuresof material well-being illustratedthe range of available indicatorsby choosing 14 measures (U.S.Census Bureau, 2003, p. 9). Ofthese, 13 can be tracked from1992 to 1998. As with the full set

Figure 1.Households by Specific Measures of Material Well-Being: 1992 and 1998


Computer

Dishwasher

Air conditioner

Clothes washer

No unmet essential expenses

No abandoned buildingsin neighborhood

No roof or ceiling leaks

No unmet need for doctor

No unpaid rent or mortgage

No smoke or odorsin neighborhood

Telephone

Had enough of food wanted

Stove

19921998(In percent)

20.7

42.0

49.3

56.0

68.7

77.7

84.8

82.0

85.9

86.0

89.6

92.0

91.4

93.1

92.3

93.9

92.2

94.6

92.6

95.1

94.7

96.2

97.6

97.8

98.9

98.7

of items, the proportion of thepopulation that possessed itemsin most of these areas increased(Figure 1). This is especially evi-dent in the three items that werepresent in the smallest portion ofhouseholds: computers, dishwash-ers, and air conditioners (centraland room). Noticeably fewerhouseholds possessed these itemsin 1992 than in 1998. Overall, theproportion of households withthese measures of material well-being increased for 10 of the 13types.8

Evaluating changes in material well-being

This record of increasing materialwell-being measured in the SIPPmatches up with Census Bureaureports of trends in income andpoverty measured in the CurrentPopulation Survey (CPS) over thisperiod of time. While many types ofmaterial well-being were growing inprevalence, household income wasrising and poverty was falling.Median household income meas-ured in the CPS in 1992, adjusted to1998 dollars, was $38,482, and itgrew to $42,844 in 1998 (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2003). The officialpoverty rate, also based on CPSdata, was 14.8 percent in 1992 andfell to 12.7 percent in 1998 (Proctorand Dalaker, 2003). It should benoted that differences in datasetslimit the accuracy of comparisons oftrends in material well-being withtrends in income and poverty.9


8 The exceptions were unmet essentialexpenses, having enough food, and posses-sion of a stove. None of these measuresdecreased significantly from 1992 to 1998.

9 Household poverty trends recorded inthe SIPP did not match trends in officialpoverty rates. Official poverty rates fell dur-ing this period, but the SIPP householdpoverty rates remained unchanged. Two fac-tors may be responsible for this difference.First, poverty calculated on a household basishas quite different properties from the officialrates, which are calculated using the family asthe unit of analysis (Mayer and Jencks, 1993;Bauman, 1999). Second, numerous differ-ences in data-collection methods create differ-ences in estimated income and other charac-teristics between SIPP and other surveys(Coder and Scoon-Rogers, 1996).

Nonetheless, the increases in thesemeasures of well-being from 1992to 1998 did correspond with similartrends in other measures of eco-nomic well-being. The agreementof all three indicators increases con-fidence that overall well-being didincrease during this period.

That American households hadhigher income, a lower prevalenceof poverty, and increasing pres-ence of many indicators of materialwell-being suggests that Americanswere, in fact, “better off” in a largersense. However, various sub-groups of the population may haveparticipated in these trends differ-ently—a possibility that will beexamined below.

For durable goods, and perhaps cer-tain other material well-being meas-ures, improvements in quality andtechnology pose another problemfor interpretation. This is becausethe measures used here reflect onlywhether a household owns adurable; they do not provide anyinformation about its characteristicsor condition. Changes in materialwell-being may be understatedbecause quality improvements arenot counted, as is often the casewhen the possession of appliances,vehicles, and computers isrecorded. Alternatively, low-incomehouseholds may possess items ofolder vintage that are more expen-sive to use. One indicator relatedto the latter hypothesis, the energyefficiency of home heating and cool-ing, is examined in Section Four,which presents statistics from theEnergy Information Administration(EIA).

Finally, indicators of material well-being may partially reflect tastes orpriorities rather than economic con-ditions. In some cases, for exam-ple, a household may not want anitem and may even consider itselfbetter off by not owning it. More

broadly, changes in the proportionof households owning various itemsmay reflect general popularity andnot simply a change in ability toafford them. It may be that popu-larity or changing tastes influencedthe observed decrease in ownershipof food freezers as well as the rapidincrease in ownership of computers.Other observed patterns of materialwell-being indicators may also havebeen subject to similar influences.

Material well-being and poverty

Just as measures of material well-being increased from 1992 to 1998for all households, they alsoincreased for households withincome below the poverty linemeasured in the SIPP data10

(Table 2). Households below thepoverty line had large increases inthe possession of computers andair conditioners (the difference inthe percentage-point growth inthese two items was not statisticallysignificant). The percentage ofhouseholds below the poverty linethat did not pay rent or mortgagebecause of difficulty meetingexpenses decreased by 5 percent-age points from 1992 to 1998; thepercentage with telephonesincreased by 6 percentage points.Of the 12 measures examined inTable 2, 8 showed a significantincrease in the 1992–1998 period.

Household characteristics andmaterial well-being

Levels and trends in material well-being differ by age, sex, race,

10 In this section, poverty refers to house-hold poverty as measured in the SIPP, whichis similar to the official poverty measuremeasured in the CPS, but is based on theage and income of all household members,rather than only those related by birth ormarriage. See discussion in footnote 9.

For a technical discussion of ways tocompare changes in the material well-beingof poor and non-poor households, seeAppendix C.

Hispanic origin, and other factors.11

To examine these differences, fourindicators of well-being wereselected to summarize trends intheir respective domains.12 The firstindicator measures whether ahousehold has all of the followingappliances: a telephone, a stove, arefrigerator, a clothes washer, aclothes dryer, and a dishwasher. In1992, 45 percent of all householdshad a complete set of these basicappliances. By 1998, 50 percentdid (Table 3). The second indicatorwas whether a household lived in a


11 Among the factors used to describehouseholds is “household type” (see Table 3).This factor includes the traditional CensusBureau classifications of family or nonfamilyhouseholds (based on the presence of morethan one person related by birth or marriage)and classification based on the presence orabsence of children under 18 in the house-hold. Earlier reports found that the presenceof children was strongly related to lowermaterial well-being.

12 No generally accepted method exists tosummarize indicators of material well-beingin various domains. With the exception ofthe indicator of neighborhood safety, thesummary indicators used here were chosento be consistent with previous Census Bureaureports and to represent the full range of sub-jects covered by the individual measures(Bauman, 2003). Neighborhood safety waschosen because, among safety indicators, itwas close to the middle in terms of the1992–1998 change.

dwelling free from broken windows,a leaky roof, cracks in the walls,holes in the floor, plumbing prob-lems, exposed wires, and problemswith pests. In 1992, 73 percent ofhouseholds reported they had noneof these problems, growing to 79percent in 1998. The third indica-tor, representing the domain ofcrime and safety, was whether thehousehold considered its neighbor-hood to be safe. This measureshowed no change from 1992 to1998, remaining at 91 percent inboth years. Finally, the fourth indi-cator, having fewer than two diffi-culties meeting basic needs, grewfrom 88 percent to 90 percent inthe 1992 to 1998 period.

Different segments of the popula-tion had different levels of theseindicators of material well-being.Among those with higher levels in1998 were households with house-holders aged 65 and over, whichwere more likely than youngergroups to be free of housing prob-lems and to report fewer than twodifficulties meeting basic needs(although they were below youngergroups in their rate of possessionof a complete set of appliances).13

Others with high levels of thesematerial well-being indicators in1998 were households with house-holders holding bachelor’s orhigher degrees and married house-holds without children.14 Groupswith low material well-being indica-tor levels included Black house-holds, Hispanic households, house-holds whose reference person wasnot a high school graduate, andunmarried households with chil-dren.15

Growth in at least some types ofmaterial well-being measures was

13 The difference in freedom from hous-ing problems between households withhouseholders 65 and older and householdswith householders aged 45 to 64 was notstatistically significant.

14 The difference between married house-holds without children and married house-holds with children in the possession of acomplete set of appliances was not statisti-cally significant.

15 Because Hispanics may be any race, datain this report for Hispanics overlap slightlywith data for the Black population. Based ondata from Wave 8 of the 1996 panel of theSIPP, 4 percent of Black households were alsoHispanic. Data for Asians and PacificIslanders and for the American Indian andAlaska Native population are not shown inthis report because of their small sample sizein the 1998 panel of the SIPP. None of thedifferences between Blacks and Hispanics inthe four types of material well-being shown inTable 3 was statistically significant.

Table 2.Households With Income Below Poverty: Percentage With Selected Measures of MaterialWell-Being: 1992 and 1998

Indicator 1992 1998Percentage-

point change

Stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.1 96.7 –0.4Enough of food wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1 92.4 1.3Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.1 87.0 *5.9No smoke or odors in neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 93.2 *3.6No unpaid rent or mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4 86.8 *5.4No unmet need for doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 85.9 1.7No roof or ceiling leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.5 89.1 *3.6No abandoned houses in neighborhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.3 88.3 *5.1No unmet essential expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4 69.3 0.9Air conditioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.6 67.7 *15.1Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 25.7 *5.7Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 18.4 *11.4

* Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998 is statistically significant from 0 at the 90-percent confidence level.


observed for all population sub-groups. With one exception,households with a reference per-son aged 65 or over, all subgroupsexamined here had greater free-dom from housing problems in1998 than in 1992. Measures ofthe possession of basic appliancesand having fewer than two difficul-ties meeting basic needs improvedfor half or more of the groups as

well.16 Perceptions of neighbor-hood safety, which did not change


16 The change in the rate of possession ofconsumer durables was statistically signifi-cant for all but the following: householdswith a reference person aged 15 to 29,Hispanics, households with a reference per-son with less than a high school diploma,nonfamily households living with others, andunmarried households without children. Thechange in having fewer than two difficultiesmeeting basic needs was statistically signifi-cant for 12 of the 22 groups.

for the population as a whole, alsodid not change for most (20 of 22)of the population subgroups exam-ined here. Perception of neighbor-hood safety increased for house-holds with a female referenceperson and those with a Hispanicreference person.

Table 3.Percent of Households With Favorable Measures of Material Well-Being by Characteristicsof Householder and Household Type: 1992 and 1998

Household characteristicPossess basic durables No housing problems

Considerneighborhood

safe

Fewer than twodifficulties meeting

basic needs

1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1

All households

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age of householder

44.6 50.5 5.8 73.0 79.2 6.2 91.0 91.4 0.3 88.3 90.4 2.1

15 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 35.8 3.2 69.1 78.0 8.8 87.5 89.6 2.1 81.9 85.1 3.330 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.7 53.5 5.8 69.1 77.2 8.1 90.5 91.1 0.6 83.8 87.1 3.345 to 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.0 56.4 4.4 74.3 79.7 5.4 92.5 91.5 –1.0 90.5 91.4 0.965 or older. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sex of householder

37.1 45.0 7.9 79.9 82.3 2.3 92.3 92.7 0.3 97.0 97.2 0.2

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.8 55.1 4.2 75.0 80.8 5.8 93.2 93.3 0.1 90.0 92.5 2.5Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and Hispanic originof householder

33.3 44.9 11.6 69.2 77.2 8.0 87.1 89.0 1.9 85.3 87.9 2.6

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.2 53.9 5.7 75.3 80.3 5.0 92.7 92.9 0.2 89.6 91.6 2.0White non-Hispanic . . . . . . 50.3 56.8 6.5 76.7 81.5 4.8 93.9 93.8 –0.1 90.3 92.4 2.1

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 28.3 10.8 56.0 72.9 16.9 78.6 80.6 2.0 78.2 81.8 3.7Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.7 44.2 –1.5 69.6 73.9 4.4 89.8 90.5 0.7 90.0 90.6 0.5

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . .

Householder education

20.3 24.6 4.3 56.6 68.7 12.1 78.3 83.8 5.5 80.1 84.0 3.8

Not high school graduate . . . 20.3 23.1 2.8 65.5 72.2 6.7 86.5 86.3 –0.1 84.9 86.0 1.1High school graduate . . . . . . 40.9 46.1 5.2 72.6 79.8 7.3 91.0 91.3 0.2 86.4 89.1 2.7Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1 55.3 4.2 74.4 79.4 5.1 91.4 91.3 –0.1 87.3 89.7 2.4Bachelor’s or more . . . . . . . .

Household type

67.3 70.1 2.8 79.2 83.1 3.9 94.9 95.1 0.2 95.2 96.1 0.9

Nonfamily alone . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 34.7 5.6 75.6 79.9 4.3 89.6 90.3 0.8 91.5 91.2 –0.3Nonfamily with others . . . . . . 36.3 41.9 5.6 69.1 78.1 9.0 88.0 91.1 3.0 84.8 88.7 3.9Married, no children2 . . . . . . . 58.3 65.1 6.8 80.7 84.3 3.6 94.9 94.3 –0.6 94.8 96.2 1.4Married with children2 . . . . . . 56.1 64.2 8.1 70.6 78.9 8.3 93.0 92.9 –0.1 86.0 90.4 4.4Unmarried, no children2 . . . . 32.7 37.8 5.1 69.5 75.6 6.1 87.5 90.5 3.0 87.5 89.2 1.7Unmarried with children2 . . . 25.0 29.9 5.0 55.4 67.4 12.1 82.2 83.4 1.1 71.6 75.0 3.4

1 Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998.2 Children include all household members under 18.


8U

.S. Cen

sus Bu

reau

Table 4.Percent of Consumer Units (CUs) Reporting Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehicles by Expenditure (Outlay)Decile: 1992 and 2002

Expenditure decile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall

Microwave1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.4 60.8 64.7 73.4 78.1 83.9 88.7 90.7 94.0 94.3 76.82002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 89.1 90.6 94.5 94.8 95.8 96.0 97.9 98.4 97.7 93.2Refrigerator1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.9 97.7 98.0 98.8 99.2 99.3 99.5 99.9 99.7 99.9 98.72002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 99.0 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.2Freezer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 28.5 28.4 28.6 31.4 32.2 36.0 39.6 40.0 42.3 32.82002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 28.1 27.2 29.5 28.8 31.0 32.6 36.9 34.6 37.8 30.8Garbage disposal1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 20.4 23.5 30.4 31.7 38.2 43.4 47.7 56.9 66.8 37.32002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 28.1 35.8 39.1 43.8 49.4 53.1 60.6 65.6 71.3 47.0Washer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.5 60.5 63.2 69.0 71.8 77.7 84.9 90.3 93.0 95.0 75.02002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0 68.0 71.6 76.8 78.7 84.9 87.5 89.9 93.0 95.3 80.0Dryer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 46.7 52.8 60.9 66.1 73.8 82.6 87.3 91.3 93.4 68.52002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.0 62.3 67.1 73.4 76.7 82.5 85.9 89.1 92.2 95.1 77.1Color TV1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.5 91.5 92.6 95.5 96.4 97.2 98.3 99.0 99.2 99.4 94.72002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.4 97.1 98.1 98.9 98.7 98.9 99.5 99.1 99.5 99.7 98.2Computer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 5.1 6.2 8.6 13.7 16.2 22.7 26.3 37.5 45.8 18.62002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 30.3 38.8 48.8 55.4 66.4 74.4 80.2 86.7 91.1 59.3Sound components1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 35.3 43.6 50.3 54.7 62.0 68.1 70.0 77.7 84.9 57.32002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.9 57.6 63.5 71.6 72.0 76.8 81.8 83.7 88.4 89.5 72.5VCR1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 38.2 50.6 62.2 71.7 77.4 84.4 88.2 92.0 93.6 68.12002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 75.0 82.8 89.9 89.1 92.8 93.6 95.6 96.6 97.6 86.9

1Stoves combined1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.5 97.7 97.7 98.7 99.0 99.1 99.3 99.7 99.7 99.8 98.02002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1 99.0 98.3 99.0 99.1 99.2 99.4 98.9 99.3 99.4 98.3

2Dishwashers combined1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 22.0 29.2 37.6 44.4 51.3 59.6 65.7 77.6 87.8 48.72002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 35.7 39.9 48.3 54.8 62.3 69.2 75.9 83.3 88.1 58.1Auto, truck, van1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.6 68.8 80.1 87.7 91.4 93.4 95.7 95.9 96.9 96.0 85.12002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 73.1 81.7 89.5 91.4 93.5 94.3 95.2 95.8 94.6 85.7

1 2Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves. Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers.Notes: Appliances that are provided in rental units are included in the above charts. Expenditure deciles are created by using an outlays definition of expenditures. The primary dif-

ferences between total expenditures, as used in CE published data, and outlays are in the vehicle and home mortgage definitions. The outlays approach replaces vehicle sales pricewith vehicle payments made during the survey reference period. Home mortgage principal payments are included in outlays, while the CE total expenditures definition considers theseto be investments and does not include them. The information on appliance ownership is inventoried during the CU’s first interview and is carried forward to subsequent interviews. If aCU purchases an appliance (which it previously did not own) in a subsequent interview, the inventoried information is not updated. Similarly, the first interview appliance information isnot updated if an appliance is sold or discarded in a subsequent interview.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.

Changes in indicators ofmaterial well-being ofpopulation subgroups

Although the rate of growth of indi-cators of material well-being variedsomewhat across subgroups, theperiod from 1992 to 1998 did notproduce great changes in thegroups’ relative standing. Of thefew population subgroups that hadlarger increases than others, mosthad had lower material well-beingthan the comparison groups did in1992. This pattern was true ofBlacks and Hispanics, two groupsthat made gains relative to non-Hispanic Whites in freedom fromhousing problems.17 Hispanics also


17 Blacks were not statistically differentfrom Hispanics in their rate of change infreedom from housing problems.

had a larger gain in perceivedneighborhood safety than did non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, house-holds with a female reference per-son had a larger gain in theirpossession of basic appliances thanhouseholds with a male referenceperson, after starting with a lowerlevel of possession in 1992.18 Theshare of married households withchildren with fewer than two diffi-culties meeting basic needsincreased more than the shares ofnonfamily households living aloneand married households withoutchildren. Both married andunmarried households with children

18 However, this finding may reflect agreater percentage of households identifyingwomen as the reference person in 1998 thanin 1992, possibly due to changes in inter-view procedures.

experienced larger growth infreedom from housing problemsthan did single-person householdsand married households withoutchildren.

Smaller increases in material well-being indicators occurred in twogroups that already had higher lev-els. Gains in freedom from housingproblems and in having fewer thantwo difficulties meeting basic needswere smaller for households with areference person aged 65 or overthan for most younger groups.Households whose reference personhad a bachelor’s degree or moreeducation had smaller gains in free-dom from housing problems thanhouseholds whose reference personhad a high school diploma.

One notable exception was found inthe pattern of greater increases inmaterial well-being occurring ingroups with previous low measuresof material well-being. Householdswith working-age adults reportingthat they are limited in their workdue to disability have been found inthe past to have low levels of mate-rial well-being. This group contin-ued to have low well-being levelseven after controlling for income,assets, and other economic anddemographic factors (Bauman,2004). Similarly, the relative posi-tion of households with disabledmembers did not improve in any ofthe four areas examined here, andthey fell behind in possession ofbasic appliances and in consideringtheir neighborhoods safe (Figure 2).

In 1992, 36 percent of householdswith disabled working-age adults(aged 25 to 64) reported having afull set of appliances, comparedwith 46 percent of other house-holds. In 1998, the proportionswere 37 percent (an increase of 1percentage point) and 52 percent(an increase of 6 percentagepoints), respectively.

Figure 2.Indicators of Material Well-Being by Household Disability Status: 1992 and 1998

Note: Households classified as disabled have one or more working age adults (aged 25 to 64) reporting that a health condition limits the work they can do.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.

Fewer than two difficulties meetingbasic needs - Not disabled

Fewer than two difficulties meetingbasic needs - Disabled

Consider neighborhood safe -Not disabled

Consider neighborhood safe -Disabled

No housing problems -Not disabled

No housing problems -Disabled

Possess basic appliances -Not disabled

Possess basic appliances -Disabled

19921998(In percent)

32.7

89.6

90.5

78.4

77.7

91.5

91.9

87.6

84.2

74.3

79.9

62.3

67.0

46.2

54.3

32.8

10

U.S. C

ensu

s Bureau

Table 5.Average Number of Selected Appliances and Vehicles Owned per Consumer Unit (CU) by Expenditure (Outlay) Decile:1992 and 2002

Expenditure decile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall

Microwave1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.82002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Refrigerator1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.12002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1Freezer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.32002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3Garbage disposal1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.42002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5Washer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.82002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8Dryer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.72002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8Color TV1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 1.62002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.1Computer1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.22002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8Sound components1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.72002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.0VCR1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.82002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.4

1Stoves combined1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.12002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0

2Dishwashers combined1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.52002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6Auto, truck, van1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.62002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.7

1 2Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves. Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers.Notes: Appliances that are provided in rental units are included in the above charts. Expenditure deciles are created by using an outlays definition of expenditures. The primary dif-

ferences between total expenditures, as used in CE published data, and outlays are in the vehicle and home mortgage definitions. The outlays approach replaces vehicle sales pricewith vehicle payments made during the survey reference period. Home mortgage principal payments are included in outlays, while the CE total expenditures definition considers theseto be investments and does not include them. The information on appliance ownership is inventoried during the CU’s first interview and is carried forward to subsequent interviews. If aCU purchases an appliance (which it previously did not own) in a subsequent interview, the inventoried information is not updated. Similarly, the first interview appliance information isnot updated if an appliance is sold or discarded in a subsequent interview.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.

Similarly, households with disabledworking-age adults fell behind intheir perception of neighborhoodsafety by 3 percentage points,while other households gained by1 percentage point. Larger propor-tions of households with disabledadults reported freedom fromhousing problems and fewer thantwo difficulties meeting basicneeds. Those improvements wereabout the same as the improve-ments for other households.

TRENDS IN THE POSSESSIONOF CONSUMER DURABLES:1992 TO 2002

Data from the U.S. ConsumerExpenditure (CE) Survey also shedlight on material well-being.Consumer units (CUs), rather thanhouseholds or families, are theunit of analysis.19 Tables 4 and 5and Figures 3, 4, and 5 includeinformation on the percentage ofconsumer units reporting the own-ership of selected appliances andvehicles and the average numberof these durables in 1992 and2002. Tables 6 and 7 show meas-ures of their distribution over thefull 11-year period, 1992 to 2002.The information presented is basedon appliance ownership collectedduring the first interview.20


19 A consumer unit consists of members ofa household related by birth, marriage, adop-tion, or some other legal arrangement; a sin-gle person living alone or sharing a house-hold with others, but who is financiallyindependent; or two or more people livingtogether who share responsibility for at leasttwo out of the three major types of expenses:food, housing, and other expenses. Also, stu-dents living in university-sponsored housingare included in the sample as separateconsumer units.

20 The information on appliance ownershipis inventoried during the consumer unit’s (CU)first interview and is carried forward to subse-quent interviews. If a CU purchases an appli-ance (which it previously did not own) in asubsequent interview, the inventoried infor-mation is not updated. Similarly, the firstinterview appliance information is notupdated if an appliance has been sold or dis-carded by the time of a subsequent interview.An appliance that is provided in a rental unitis included and identified as “owned” althoughthe consumer unit does not own the item buthas exclusive access to it.Ta

ble

6.

Con

cen

trati

on

Ind

exe

sof

Ow

ners

hip

Rate

sof

Sele

cte

dA

pp

lian

ces

an

dV

eh

icle

s:1

99

2to

20

02

(By

expe

nditu

reou

tlays

)

Con

cent

ratio

nin

dexe

s

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Ref

riger

ator

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

Col

orT

V..

....

....

....

....

....

....

.0.

030.

020.

020.

020.

020.

020.

020.

020.

010.

010.

01M

icro

wav

e..

....

....

....

....

....

...

0.12

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.03

VC

R..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.19

0.17

0.15

0.13

0.11

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.07

Was

her.

....

....

....

....

....

....

...

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.09

0.08

Dry

er..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.16

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.14

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.11

0.10

Sou

ndco

mpo

nent

s..

....

....

....

...

0.18

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.14

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.11

1S

tove

sco

mbi

ned

....

....

....

....

..0.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

020.

010.

01C

ompu

ter.

....

....

....

....

....

....

.0.

400.

380.

370.

380.

340.

320.

300.

270.

250.

230.

222

Dis

hwas

hers

com

bine

d..

....

....

...

0.27

0.26

0.26

0.25

0.23

0.23

0.23

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.20

Gar

bage

disp

osal

....

....

....

....

...

0.24

0.22

0.21

0.23

0.19

0.21

0.21

0.18

0.18

0.20

0.18

Fre

ezer

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.08

Aut

o,tr

uck,

van

....

....

....

....

....

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.08

1S

tove

sco

mbi

ned

incl

udes

gas

stov

es,

elec

tric

stov

es,

and

othe

rst

oves

.2D

ishw

ashe

rsco

mbi

ned

incl

udes

built

-indi

shw

ashe

rsan

dpo

rtab

ledi

shw

ashe

rs.

Not

es:

Con

cent

ratio

nin

dexe

sar

ea

biva

riate

anal

ogof

the

Gin

icoe

ffici

ent.

Aco

ncen

trat

ion

inde

xw

illha

vea

valu

eof

zero

whe

nth

ere

isno

ineq

ualit

yin

the

owne

rshi

pof

apa

rtic

u-la

rdu

rabl

eac

ross

the

expe

nditu

reou

tlays

dist

ribut

ion.

Inot

her

wor

ds,

the

perc

enta

ges

ofco

nsum

erun

itsow

ning

apa

rtic

ular

dura

ble

are

equa

lacr

oss

the

deci

les.

Inde

xes

ofhi

gher

valu

esin

dica

teth

atin

equa

lity

inou

tlays

favo

rco

nsum

erun

itsof

high

erou

tlays

,w

hile

inde

xes

less

than

zero

indi

cate

aco

ncen

trat

ion

ofow

ners

hip

amon

gco

nsum

erun

itsw

ithlo

wer

outla

ys.

For

thes

ein

dexe

s,co

nsum

erun

itsar

era

nked

byto

tale

xpen

ditu

reou

tlays

.

Sou

rce:

Bur

eau

ofLa

bor

Sta

tistic

s,un

publ

ishe

dC

onsu

mer

Exp

endi

ture

Sur

vey

Inte

rvie

wD

ata

1992

,20

02.

As presented in the 2003 report onsupplemental measures, results areshown by deciles. First, consumerunits are ranked by expenditureoutlays from lowest to highestexpenditure level and then dividedinto 10 equal groups of CUsaccording to this ranking.Percentages of ownership and theaverage number of durables ineach decile are then produced.Expenditure deciles are created byusing an outlays definition, as inthe 2003 report. The primary dif-ferences between total expendi-tures used in CE published dataand outlays used in the tables andcharts in this report are in the vehi-cle and home mortgage defini-tions. The outlays approachreplaces vehicle sales price withvehicle payments made during thesurvey reference period. Homemortgage principal payments areincluded in outlays, while the CEtotal expenditures definition con-siders them to be investments anddoes not include them.21

As shown in the 2003 report onsupplemental measures of well-being (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003)and by others (noted previously aswell), the majority of consumerunits own or have access to most ofthe appliances and vehicles invento-ried in the CE (exceptions are freez-ers and garbage disposals, and in


21 The updated values for vehicle owner-ship for 2001 are different than thosereported in the 2003 report on supplementalmeasures of well-being (U.S. Census Bureau,2003). The values reported here were pro-duced by first ranking all consumer units bytotal expenditure outlays. Then the owner-ship rates and average number of durablesowned in each decile of consumer units wereproduced. The 2001 results for vehiclespublished in the 2003 publication werebased on ranking consumer units by expen-ditures using a family size adjustment. Theappliance results for 2001 are slightlydifferent from those reported in the 2003report because of a slight modification tothe construction of the ranking and thecreation of deciles.

1992, computers and dishwashers). 59.3 percent did (Table 4 and The percentages of ownership for Figure 3). Consumer units in therefrigerators, stoves, and color tele- higher deciles were more likely thanvisions are consistently high over those in lower deciles to own com-the deciles from 1992 to 2002. The puters (Table 4 and Figure 5). Thisgreatest gain in ownership from trend is also exhibited by the con-1992 to 2002 is for computers. In centration indexes shown in Table1992, 18.6 percent of all consumer 6: the higher the concentrationunits owned or had access to a index, the greater the concentrationcomputer in their homes; by 2002, of computers in the higher

Figure 3.Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehicles by Consumer Units: 1992 and 2002

1 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey interview data, 1992 and 2002.

Freezer

Garbage disposal

Dishwashers combined1

Computer

Sound components

Dryer

Washer

VCR

Microwave

Auto, truck, van

Color TV

Stoves combined1

Refrigerator

19922002

99.2

32.8

30.8

37.3

47.0

48.7

58.1

18.6

59.3

57.3

72.5

68.5

77.1

75.0

80.0

68.1

86.9

76.8

93.2

85.1

85.7

94.7

98.2

98.0

98.3

98.7

(In percent)

expenditure outlay deciles.22 Theconcentration index has been


22 A concentration index is a bivariateanalog of the Gini coefficient. The index isbased on the distribution of one variable incombination with another variable. Forexample, in Table 6, the concentration indexrepresents a particular relationship betweenthe distribution of the ownership of adurable and the rank of consumer units bytotal expenditure outlays. Graphically theindex can be represented by the plot of thecumulative distribution of consumer unitsowning a particular durable on the y axis byconsumer units ranked by total expenditure

decreasing over time, indicating anincreasingly more equal

outlays on the x axis. A concentration index will have a value of

zero when there is no inequality in the own-ership of a particular durable across theexpenditure outlays distribution. In otherwords, the percentages of consumer unitsowning a particular durable are equal acrossthe deciles. Indexes of higher values indicatethat inequality in outlays favor consumerunits of higher outlays, while indexes lessthan zero indicate a concentration of owner-ship among consumer units with loweroutlays.

distribution. The average numberof computers owned also increasedfrom 1992 through 2002 (Table 5).In the top deciles, each consumerunit had on average more than onecomputer in 2002; in 1992 it wasless than one.

Other large increases in ownershiprates occurred for microwaveovens and entertainment equip-ment such as VCRs and soundcomponents. Microwaves werealmost as prevalent as refrigeratorsby 2002 (Table 4), and their distri-bution became fairly equal over thedeciles as evidenced by the con-centration indexes decreasing from0.12 to 0.03 from 1992 to 2002(Table 6). The average number ofmicrowaves in a consumer unit wasone or almost one for each decileby 2002.

Entertainment equipment, repre-sented by VCRs and sound compo-nents, increased in ownership andprevalence over the time period.About 87 percent of all consumerunits in 2002 owned a VCR, com-pared with 68 percent in 1992(Table 4). The 1992 and 2002 per-centages for sound componentswere slightly lower than the per-centages for the same years forVCRs. The average number ofvideocassette recorders owned inthe upper deciles doubled to abouttwo per consumer unit in 2002,from less than two in 1992 (Table5). The number of sound compo-nents was 1.5 in the upper decilein 2002. The concentration indexesreveal that the ownership of VCRsvaried along the expenditure out-lays distribution but that consumerunits all along the distributionwere becoming more likely to owna VCR in 2002 (index = 0.07) com-pared with 1992 (index = 0.19)(Table 6). Sound components weresomewhat concentrated amongconsumer units in the upperdeciles (Table 4) but were

Figure 4.Average Number of Selected Appliances and Vehicles Owned by Consumer Units: 1992 and 2002

1 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey interview data,1992 and 2002.

Freezer

Garbage disposal

Dishwashers combined1

Computer

Sound components

Dryer

Washer

VCR

Microwave

Auto, truck,van

Color TV

Stoves combined1

Refrigerator

19922002

1.1

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.8

0.7

1.0

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.4

0.8

1.0

1.6

1.7

1.6

2.1

1.1

1.0

1.1

becoming more equally distributed(Table 6) (2002 index = 0.11 ver-sus 1992 index = 0.18).

On average, by the year 2002,most consumer units owned or hadaccess to only one each of thedurables with a few exceptions(Table 5). The average was aboutone-half for food freezers, garbagedisposals, and dishwashers. Theaverage overall ranged from 1.4 to2.1 for VCRs (already discussed),color televisions, and vehicles. Theaverage number of color televi-sions and vehicles was greaterthan one for most deciles, with theaverage for color televisionsgreater over the deciles and overtime. The average number of vehi-cles owned changed very little overthe 1992 to 2002 period. The dis-tribution of vehicles was more con-centrated among consumer unitswith greater expenditures thanamong those with lower expendi-tures. Compared with vehicles, thepossession of color televisions wasrelatively more equally distributedacross the total expenditure distri-bution (Table 7).

ENERGY USE AND POVERTY:1981 TO 2001

The Energy Information Administra-tion (EIA) of the U.S. Department ofEnergy conducts the ResidentialEnergy Consumption Survey (RECS)every four years. The RECS collectsdata on energy consumption andexpenditures and energy-relatedsubjects for the household sector ofthe U.S. economy.

Between 1981 and 2001, the totalnumber of households representedby the RECS increased by 28.8 per-cent, from 83.1 million in 1981 to107.0 million in 2001 (Table 8).Over the same period, the numberof households with householdincome below the poverty lineincreased by 36.4 percent, from


Figure 5.Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehiclesby Consumer Units at the First and TenthExpenditure (Outlay) Decile: 1992 and 2002

¹ Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. Note: Expenditure deciles are created by using an ‘‘outlays’’ definition of expenditures. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.

First (lowest) expenditure decileTenth (highest) expenditure decile

(In percent)

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

Refrigerator

Stoves combined¹

Color TV

Auto, truck, van

Microwave

VCR

Washer

Dryer

Sound components

Computer

Dishwashers combined¹

Garbage disposal

Freezer

94.999.9

95.399.9

89.599.8

91.199.4

77.599.4

92.499.7

45.696.0

48.094.6

39.494.3

77.197.7

22.193.6

55.997.6

44.595.0

54.095.3

30.493.4

47.095.1

26.584.9

39.989.5

4.145.8

21.091.1

11.587.8

23.888.1

14.266.8

23.271.3

20.542.3

21.637.8

11.0 million in 1981 to 15.0 mil-lion in 2001.

Total annual Btu consumption perhousehold decreased by 17.5 per-cent between 1981 and 2001 froman average of 111.7 million Btu to92.2 million Btu. Among thosehouseholds with householdincomes below the poverty line,total Btu consumption was lowerand the decrease between 1981and 2001 was larger. Total Btuconsumption per household forthese households decreased by23.7 percent between 1981 and2001 from an average of 92.7 mil-lion Btu to 70.7 million Btu.Among households with incomesabove 1.25 times the poverty level,total annual Btu consumption perhousehold decreased by 16.9 per-cent between 1981 and 2001, froman average of 115.8 million Btu to96.2 million Btu.

After adjusting for inflation, totalannual energy expenditures amongall U.S. households decreased by16.9 percent between 1981 and2001, from an average of $1,760to $1,463 in 2000 dollars (Figure6). Among the households withincomes below the poverty line,total energy expendituresdecreased by 22.1 percent, froman average of $1,431 to $1,115.Among households with incomesabove 1.25 times the poverty level,total energy expendituresdecreased by 16.5 percent, from$1,832 to $1,529.

Home heating

Paralleling total annual space heat-ing Btu consumption, total annualinflation-adjusted space heatingexpenditures decreased by 33.5percent between 1981 and 2001,from an average of $705 to $469(Table 9). Among households inpoverty, total inflation-adjustedspace heating Btu expenditureswere lower and the decrease


Table

7.

Con

cen

trati

on

Ind

exe

sof

Avera

ge

Nu

mb

er

of

Sele

cte

dA

pp

lian

ces

an

dV

eh

icle

sO

wn

ed

:1

99

2to

20

02

(By

expe

nditu

reou

tlays

)

Con

cent

ratio

nin

dexe

s

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Ref

riger

ator

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

Col

orT

V..

....

....

....

....

....

....

.0.

150.

150.

150.

150.

140.

130.

140.

140.

140.

130.

13M

icro

wav

e..

....

....

....

....

....

...

0.12

0.10

0.10

0.09

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.04

VC

R..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.24

0.22

0.21

0.20

0.19

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.17

Was

her.

....

....

....

....

....

....

...

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.10

0.09

Dry

er..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.16

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.14

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.11

0.10

Sou

ndco

mpo

nent

s..

....

....

....

...

0.22

0.22

0.21

0.22

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.19

0.17

1S

tove

sco

mbi

ned

....

....

....

....

..0.

030.

030.

030.

030.

020.

030.

030.

030.

030.

030.

03C

ompu

ter.

....

....

....

....

....

....

.0.

420.

400.

390.

410.

370.

350.

340.

320.

300.

280.

272

Dis

hwas

hers

com

bine

d..

....

....

...

0.27

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.23

0.23

0.23

0.20

0.21

0.21

0.20

Gar

bage

disp

osal

....

....

....

....

...

0.24

0.23

0.22

0.23

0.20

0.21

0.21

0.18

0.19

0.20

0.19

Fre

ezer

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.10

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.08

Veh

icle

s..

....

....

....

....

....

....

.0.

210.

200.

200.

190.

200.

190.

190.

190.

180.

180.

19

1S

tove

sco

mbi

ned

incl

udes

gas

stov

es,

elec

tric

stov

es,

and

othe

rst

oves

.2D

ishw

ashe

rsco

mbi

ned

incl

udes

built

-indi

shw

ashe

rsan

dpo

rtab

ledi

shw

ashe

rs.

Not

es:

Con

cent

ratio

nin

dexe

sar

ea

biva

riate

anal

ogof

the

Gin

icoe

ffici

ent.

Aco

ncen

trat

ion

inde

xw

illha

vea

valu

eof

zero

whe

nth

ere

isno

ineq

ualit

yin

the

owne

rshi

pof

apa

rtic

u-la

rdu

rabl

eac

ross

the

expe

nditu

reou

tlays

dist

ribut

ion.

Inot

her

wor

ds,

the

perc

enta

ges

ofco

nsum

erun

itsow

ning

apa

rtic

ular

dura

ble

are

equa

lacr

oss

the

deci

les.

Inde

xes

ofhi

gher

valu

esin

dica

teth

atin

equa

lity

inou

tlays

favo

rco

nsum

erun

itsof

high

erou

tlays

,w

hile

inde

xes

less

than

zero

indi

cate

aco

ncen

trat

ion

ofow

ners

hip

amon

gco

nsum

erun

itsw

ithlo

wer

outla

ys.

For

thes

ein

dexe

s,co

nsum

erun

itsar

era

nked

byto

tale

xpen

ditu

reou

tlays

.

Sou

rce:

Bur

eau

ofLa

bor

Sta

tistic

s,un

publ

ishe

dC

onsu

mer

Exp

endi

ture

Sur

vey

Inte

rvie

wD

ata

1992

,20

02.

between 1981 and 2001 waslarger. The average total annualspace heating expenditures forthese households decreased by37.7 percent from $608 to $379.Among households with incomesabove 1.25 times the poverty level,total space heating expendituresper household decreased by 32.9percent between 1981 and 2001from an average of $723 to $485.

Two space heating energy con-sumption and expenditures meas-ures providing insight on the“energy burden” for a housing unitare Heating Btu Intensity andHeating Dollar Intensity. HeatingBtu Intensity is a measure of thenumber of Btu consumed per1,000 square feet of heated livingspace and heating degree-day.23

Heating Dollar Intensity is a meas-

ure of the dollars spent per 1,000square feet of heated living spaceand heating degree-day.

Heating Btu Intensity for all U.S.housing units has been decreasingsince 1981, when it was 9.0, to its2001 low of 6.4. These decreaseswere observed for all incomegroups (Table 9). Heating BtuIntensity was highest for house-holds whose income was below the


23 A heating degree day is a measure ofhow cold a location is over a period of timerelative to a base temperature, most com-monly specified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit.The measure is computed for each day bysubtracting the average of the day’s highand low temperatures from the base temper-ature (65 degrees), with negative values setequal to zero. Heating degree-days aresummed to create a heating degree-daymeasure for a specified reference period.Heating degree-days are used in energyanalysis as an indication of space heatingenergy requirements or use.

24 The level of 12.8 for Heating BtuIntensity for households with income belowthe poverty threshold was reached in 1987.See “Additional Data” at the end of the textof this publication for information on how toaccess these data.

25 Information on 1993 is taken from tab-ulations that will be published separately bythe Energy Information Administration.

poverty level, ranging between 8.7and 12.8,24 and lowest for thosehousing units whose householdincome was greater than 1.25times the poverty level, rangingbetween 6.1 and 8.6. Clearly, the“energy burden” is greater forhouseholds below the poverty linethan for more affluent ones.

Heating Dollar Intensity for all U.S.housing units decreased from itshigh in 1981, when it was 9.6, to itslow of 6.3 in 1993.25 In 2001,Heating Dollar Intensity increased to6.9. This pattern of decreases

Table 8.Energy Consumption and Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics: 1981 and2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Number ofhouseholds

(millions)

Total Btus1

per household(thousand Btus)

Total dollarsper household

(inflation-adjusted

U.S. dollars)

Number ofhouseholds

(millions)

Total Btus1

per household(thousand Btus)

Total dollarsper household

(inflation-adjusted

U.S. Dollars)

All households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 111,720 1,760 107.0 92,202 1,463

Household incomeLess than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 94,160 1,453 11.0 65,248 1,019$10,000 to $14,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 104,135 1,630 7.7 69,704 1,101$15,000 to $19,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 103,669 1,633 8.9 80,479 1,265$20,000 to $29,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 114,696 1,848 14.0 83,380 1,289$30,000 to $39,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 132,567 1,986 13.9 86,881 1,370$40,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 130,480 2,152 13.2 92,804 1,488$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 149,313 2,521 21.7 102,516 1,650$75,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 204,742 3,181 16.6 124,675 1,993

Income relative to poverty thresholdIncome below poverty threshold. . . . . 11.0 92,733 1,431 15.0 70,697 1,115Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty . . . . . 4.8 98,311 1,508 5.1 87,421 1,370Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 67.3 115,779 1,832 86.9 96,192 1,529

1British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at thetemperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are formajor fuels used by the household, including electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as applicable.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Forms EIA-457 A-G of the 1981 Residential EnergyConsumption Survey and 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

followed by an increase wasobserved for all income groups.Heating Dollar Intensity (afteradjusting for inflation) was highestfor households whose householdincome was below the poverty level,ranging between 9.7 and 12.3, andwas lowest for households whoseincome was greater than 1.25 timesthe poverty level, ranging between6.5 and 9.2.

Air-conditioning

In 1981, 47.6 million households,or 57.3 percent, used electricity forair-conditioning their homes. In2001 this number increased to80.8 million or 75.5 percent.26

Despite the fact that air-condition-ing Btu consumption per house-hold rose by 8.5 percent over the


26 Unpublished tabulations from the RECS.

1981–2001 period, annual perhousehold expenditures (afteradjusting for inflation) fell by 16.5 percent from $231 per year in1981 to $193 per year in 2001(see Table 10). This result reflectsthe fact that the cost, in inflation-adjusted dollars, of electricity, theprincipal source of energy for air-conditioning, decreased 22.5 per-cent over this period.

Table 9.Home Space Heating Consumption and Expenditures by Selected HouseholdCharacteristics: 1981 and 2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Dollars forspace heatingper household

(inflation-adjusted

U.S. dollars)

Heating Btu1

intensity(Btus perthousand

square feetand

degree-day2)

Heating dollarintensity

(inflation-adjusted U.S.

cents persquare feet and

degree-day2)

Dollars forspace heatingper household

(inflation-adjusted

U.S. dollars)

Heating Btu1


square feetand

degree-day2)

Heating dollarintensity


cents persquare feet and

degree-day2)

All households (that use eitherelectricity, natural gas, fuel oil,kerosene, or LPG for heating . . . . . . 705 9.0 9.6 469 6.4 6.9

Household incomeLess than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 11.4 12.4 372 8.7 9.8$10,000 to $14,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 9.3 10.2 389 7.9 8.8$15,000 to $19,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 8.7 9.6 439 7.9 8.5$20,000 to $29,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 8.2 8.8 447 7.9 8.5$30,000 to $39,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 8.2 8.0 448 7.2 7.7$40,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 7.4 8.1 479 6.2 6.7$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887 8.1 9.0 488 5.6 5.9$75,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,168 8.9 8.9 585 5.3 5.5

Income relative to poverty thresholdIncome below poverty threshold. . . . . 608 11.5 12.3 379 8.7 9.7Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty . . . . . 676 11.5 12.4 443 8.2 8.9Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 723 8.6 9.2 485 6.1 6.5

1British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit atthe temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

2Heating Degree-Days (HDD): A measure of how cold a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonlyspecified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the average of the day’s high and low tempera-tures from the base temperature (65 degrees), with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s heating degree-days are summed to cre-ate a heating degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Heating degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indication ofspace heating energy requirements or use.

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are formajor fuels used by the household, including electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as applicable.


Annual per household expendi-tures for air-conditioning were pos-itively related to income relative tothe poverty level. Annual expendi-tures by households with incomesbelow the poverty level were lowerthan those by households withincomes greater than 1.25 timesthe poverty level. The 1981–2001decrease in expenditures amonghouseholds below the poverty levelwas 26.4 percent, compared with15.5 percent among more affluenthouseholds.

Cooling Btu Intensity for all U.S.housing units has been decreasingsince 1981, when it was 4.5, to its2001 low of 2.8. Decreases wereobserved for all income groups.Cooling Btu Intensity was higherfor households whose householdincome was below the povertylevel, ranging between 4.8 and 3.4,than for households whose house-hold income was greater than 1.25times the poverty level, rangingbetween 4.5 and 2.8.

As was the case with Cooling BtuIntensity, Cooling Dollar Intensity(after adjusting for inflation) alsodecreased from its high of 14.6 in1981 to its 2001 low of 7.1.These decreases were observed forall income groups. Cooling DollarIntensity (after adjusting for infla-tion) was highest for householdswith incomes below the povertylevel, ranging between 15.7 and8.2, and lowest for householdswhose household incomes weregreater than 1.25 times thepoverty level, ranging between14.7 and 7.0.

TWO DECADES OF CHANGE

This report has presented meas-ures of material well-being fromthree separate survey programs,covering the period from 1981 to2002. During the 1990s, improve-ments were observed in the pos-session of most types of consumer

durables, in most housing and consumer durables from 1992 toneighborhood conditions, and in 2002. During this period, the CEmeeting basic needs. Possession data showed that the lowestof consumer durables continued to expenditure decile maintained orclimb through 2002. increased its rate of possession of

13 types of durables. According toNotable growth was observed in

SIPP data, groups defined by age,the possession of newer goodssex, race, Hispanic origin, educa-such as microwaves, computers,tion, and household type (marriedand VCRs during the entire 1992or unmarried, with or without chil-to 2002 period. On the otherdren) increased their possession ofhand, no clear trend appeared inconsumer durables, reported fewerperceptions of crime and safetyhousing problems, and had lessduring the period 1992 to 1998.difficulty meeting basic needsSome crime and safety indicatorsbetween 1992 and 1998. In con-rose during the period while at

least one fell; people were more trast, households with a disabled

likely to have stayed at home out working-age adult showed lower

of concern for safety in 1998 than gains than the rest of the popula-

in 1992. tion in the possession of consumerdurables and freedom from the

Nearly all groups participated in fear of crime.the gains in possession of


Figure 6.Total Inflation-Adjusted Energy Expenditures per Household by Income Relative to Poverty Threshold

Sources: Energy Information Administration: 1981, 1987, 1993, and 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Surveys.

1981198719932001

$1,529

$1,760

$1,522

$1,460

$1,463

$1,431

$1,274

$1,202

$1,115

$1,508

$1,330

$1,300

$1,370

$1,832

$1,579

$1,519

Income above1.25 times

poverty

Income1 to 1.25 times

poverty

Income belowpoverty threshold

All households

(Inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars)

Lower income or expenditure foot and per-degree-day basis; across expenditure deciles, whichhouseholds increased their posses- these costs fell greatly over the meant that the share going to thesion of many consumer durable period 1981 to 2001, and to about lowest-expenditure householdsitems. Quality of consumer the same extent as for other increased. The association ofdurables was not observed in households. material well-being measures withthese surveys, but an aspect of poverty over this period was not

Lower-income households gainedquality could be observed in the examined.

ground on higher-income house-energy efficiency and cost of heat-

holds in the possession of con- Further evidence on areas of mate-ing and cooling of their homes.

sumer durables. Over the period rial well-being other than consumerHouseholds with low incomes had

from 1992 to 2002, the ownership durables from SIPP data collectedhigher costs associated with heat-

of most consumer durables in 2003 will be available later.ing and cooling on a per-square-

became more equally distributed


Table 10.Home Space Cooling Consumption and Expenditures by Selected HouseholdCharacteristics: 1981 and 2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Dollars for airconditioning

per household(inflation-adjusted

U.S. dollars)

Cooling Btu1


square feetand

degree-day2)

Cooling dollarintensity


cents perthousand

square feet anddegree-day2)

Dollars for airconditioning

per household(inflation-adjusted

U.S. dollars)

Cooling Btu1


square feetand

degree-day2)

Cooling dollarintensity


cents perthousand

square feet anddegree-day2)

All households (that use electricityfor central air-conditioning) . . . . . . . . 231 4.5 14.6 193 2.8 7.1

Household incomeLess than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 4.3 14.2 126 3.1 7.7$10,000 to $14,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 4.4 14.0 132 3.0 7.3$15,000 to $19,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 4.8 15.2 159 3.2 7.9$20,000 to $29,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 4.5 14.8 143 2.9 7.1$30,000 to $39,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 4.7 14.7 170 3.1 7.8$40,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 4.4 13.8 187 2.8 6.9$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 4.7 16.0 230 2.9 7.2$75,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 5.3 19.5 280 2.6 6.7

Income relative to poverty thresholdIncome below poverty threshold. . . . . 193 4.8 15.7 142 3.4 8.2Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty . . . . . 161 3.7 13.4 170 3.4 8.1Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 239 4.5 14.7 202 2.8 7.0

1British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at thetemperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

2Cooling degree-days (CDD): A measure of how warm a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonlyspecified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the average of the day’s high and low tempera-tures from the base temperature (65 degrees), with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s cooling degree-days are summed to cre-ate a cooling degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Cooling degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indication of air-conditioning energy requirements or use.

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are forelectricity used for central air-conditioning.


References Current Population Survey and Well-Being,” in D. B.the Survey of Income and Papadimitriou and E. N. Wolff,Agresti, Alan, Categorical DataProgram Participation,” Survey of Ed., Poverty and Prosperity inAnalysis, Second Edition, WileyIncome and Program the USA in the Late TwentiethSeries in Probability andParticipation Working Paper Century, St. Martin’s Press, NewStatistics, Number 359, JohnSeries, No. 215, U.S. Census York, 1993.Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002.Bureau, Washington, DC, 1996.

Proctor, Bernadette D. and JosephBauman, Kurt J., “Age and MaterialDeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Robert W. Dalaker, Poverty in the UnitedWell-Being in the Survey of

Cleveland, and Bruce H. States, 2002, Current PopulationIncome and ProgramWebster, Jr., Income in the Reports, P60-222, U.S. CensusParticipation,” 2003United States, 2002, Current Bureau, Washington, DC, 2003.Proceedings, American StatisticalPopulation Reports, P60-221,Association, Social Statistics Short, Kathleen S. and MartinaU.S. Census Bureau, Washington,Section, 2004. Shea, Beyond Poverty, ExtendedDC, 2003.

Measures of Well-Being: 1992,Bauman, Kurt J., ExtendedFienberg, Stephen E., The Analysis Current Population Reports, P70-Measures of Well-Being: Living

of Cross-Classified Categorical 50RV, U.S. Census Bureau,Conditions in the United States:Data, Second Edition, MIT Press, Washington, DC, 1995.1998, Current PopulationCambridge, MA, 1980.Reports, P70-87, U.S. Census Slesnick, Daniel, “Gaining Ground:

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2003. Greenspan, Alan, “Income Poverty in the Postwar UnitedInequality: Issues and Policy States,” Journal of PoliticalBauman, Kurt J., “Shifting FamilyOptions,” Remarks at a sympo- Economy 101:1, 1993.Definitions: The Effect ofsium sponsored by the FederalCohabitation and Other U.S. Census Bureau, Money IncomeReserve Bank of Kansas City,Nonfamily Household of Families and Persons in theJackson Hole, Wyoming,Relationships on Measures of United States: 1978, Current(August), 1998.Poverty,” Demography 36(3): Population Reports, P60-123,

315–325, 1999. Liegey, Paul, “Hedonic Quality U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,Adjustment Methods for DC, 1980.Bresnahan, Timothy F. and RobertMicrowave Ovens in the U.S.J. Gordan (eds.), The Economics U.S. Census Bureau, SupplementalCPI,” BLS Draft Paper, Bureau ofof New Goods, Studies Income Measures of Material Well-Being:Labor Statistics,and Wealth Volume 58, National Expenditures, Consumption and<www.bls.gov/cpi/cpimwo.htm>Bureau of Economic Research, Poverty 1998 and 2001, Currentaccessed June 25, 2004,The University of Chicago Press, Population Reports, P23-201,Washington, DC, 2001.Chicago, IL,1997. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,

Liegey, Paul and Nicole Shepler, DC, 2003.Citro, Constance. F. and Robert T.“Adjusting VCR Prices for QualityMichael (eds.), Measuring U.S. Department of Health andChange: A Study Using HedonicPoverty: A New Approach, Human Services, Measures ofMethods,” Monthly Labor ReviewNational Academy Press, Material Hardship, U.S.(September): 22–37, 1999.Washington, DC, 1995. Department of Health and

Mayer, Susan and Christopher Human Services, Office of theCoder, John and Lydia Scoon-Jencks, “Recent Trends in Assistant Secretary for PlanningRogers, “Evaluating the QualityEconomic Inequality in the and Evaluation, (April),of Income Data Collected in theUnited States: Income versus Washington, DC, 2004.Annual Supplement to the MarchExpenditures versus Material



APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

The Survey of Income and pling error into account and areProgram Participation significant at the 90-percent confi-

dence level. This means the 90-The data in Tables 1 to 3 and inpercent confidence interval for theFigures 1 and 2 in this report weredifference between the estimatescollected from three panels of thebeing compared does not includeSurvey of Income and Programzero. Nonsampling errors in sur-Participation (SIPP). Data for 1992veys may be attributed to a varietywere collected from two panels:of sources, such as how the surveythe 1991 panel third wave (inter-was designed, how respondentsview) and the 1992 panel sixthinterpret questions, how able andwave. Data from both these panelswilling respondents are to providewere collected in the same months:correct answers, and how accu-September to December of 1992.rately answers are coded and clas-These data do not include imputa-sified. The Census Bureau employstions for item nonresponse, there-quality control proceduresfore frequencies are based onthroughout the productionactual responses. For the mostprocess, including the overallpart, nonresponse levels for thesedesign of surveys, testing thequestions were in the range of 1 towording of questions, reviewing2 percent. Data from the 1996the work of interviewers andpanel were collected during Augustcoders, and conducting statisticalthrough November 1998 in thereview of reports, to minimize theeighth wave. Unlike the data fromchance of errors.the 1991 and 1992 panels, these

data include imputations for nonre- The SIPP employs ratio estimation,sponse. The comparison of num- whereby sample estimates arebers of households in Table 2 is adjusted to independent estimatesaffected by the change in handling of the national population by age,of missing responses. However, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Thisthe imputations have little impact weighting procedure partially cor-on comparisons of percentages. rects for bias because of undercov-

erage, but how it affects differentThe SIPP is a longitudinal surveyvariables in the survey is not pre-conducted at four-month intervals.cisely known. Moreover, biases mayThe population represented (thealso be present when people whopopulation universe) is the civilianare missed in the survey differ fromnoninstitutionalized population liv-those interviewed in ways othering in the United States. The insti-than the categories used in weight-tutionalized population, which ising (age, race, sex, and Hispanicexcluded from the population uni-origin). All of these considerationsverse, is composed primarily of theaffect comparisons across differentpopulation in correctional institu-surveys or data sources.tions and nursing homes (91 per-

cent of the institutionalized popula- Information on the source of datation [4.1 million] in Census 2000). and the accuracy of estimates from

the 1991 and 1992 panels of theStatistics from sample surveys areSIPP, including the use and compu-subject to sampling and nonsam-tation of standard errors, is avail-pling error. All comparisons pre-able in the “Source and Accuracysented in the sections of the reportStatement for the 1992 Public Useusing SIPP data have taken sam-Files From the Survey of Income

and Program Participation,” at<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/sourceac/S&A92_puf.pdf>.Information on the source of dataand the accuracy of estimates fromthe 1996 panel is available in the“Source and Accuracy Statementfor the 1996 Public Use Files Fromthe Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation,” at <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/sourceac/s&a96_040501.pdf>. For furtherinformation on statistical standardsand the computation and use ofstandard errors, contact John L.Boies, U.S. Census Bureau,Demographic Statistical MethodsDivision, at 301-763-4150 or viaInternet e-mail ([email protected]).

The Consumer Expenditure Survey

The current Consumer Expenditure(CE) Survey program began in1980. The Census Bureau con-ducts the survey for the Bureau ofLabor Statistics. The principalobjective of the survey is to collectinformation on the buying habitsof consumers living in the UnitedStates. The survey consists of twocomponents:

■ A Diary, or recordkeeping, sur-vey completed by participatingconsumer units for two consecu-tive one-week periods.27

■ An Interview survey in whichexpenditures of consumer unitsare obtained in five interviewsconducted every three months;the inventory information ana-lyzed in this study are from theInterview survey.

Survey participants report dollaramounts for goods and services

27 For a definition of consumer units, seefootnote 19.

purchased during the reporting on small, frequently purchased describing the consumption andperiod, regardless of whether pay- items that are normally difficult for use of energy and the characteris-ment is made at the time of pur- respondents to recall. Detailed tics of the consumers. Publicationschase. Expenditure amounts records of expenses are kept for and electronic data files can beinclude all sales and excise taxes food and beverages (both at home viewed and downloaded from thefor all items purchased by the con- and in eating places) tobacco, Internet through the EIA Home Pagesumer unit for itself or for others. housekeeping supplies, nonpre- <www.eia.doe.gov> or more directlyExcluded from both surveys are all scription drugs, and personal care at <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs>.business-related expenditures and products and services. Expenditures

The survey is conducted in twoexpenditures for which the con- incurred away from home overnight

phases. In the first phase, thesumer unit is reimbursed. or longer are excluded from the

energy-related characteristics ofDiary survey. Although the diary

Each component of the survey the household and data on thewas designed to collect information

queries an independent sample of fuels and equipment used in theon expenditures that could not be

consumer units that is representa- housing unit are collected during arecalled easily over a given period,

tive of the U.S. population. In the personal interview with an eligiblerespondents are asked to report all

Diary survey, about 7,500 consumer adult member of the household.expenses (except overnight travel

units are sampled each year. Each Building and energy characteristicsexpenses) that the consumer unit

consumer unit keeps a diary for two for rental units are collected fromincurs during the survey week.

one-week periods, yielding approxi- rental agents, landlords, and apart-mately 15,000 diaries a year. The ment managers during telephoneThe Residential EnergyInterview sample is selected on a Consumption Survey interviews. The second phase ofrotating-panel basis, surveying RECS collects data on fuel con-

The Residential Energy Consumptionabout 7,500 consumer units each sumption and expenditures by

Survey (RECS) is the Energyquarter. Each consumer unit is housing unit from the suppliers of

Information Administration’s (EIA)interviewed once per quarter, for energy to the housing units in the

benchmark national survey provid-five consecutive quarters. Data are RECS sample.

ing data on energy consumptioncollected on an ongoing basis in

and expenditures in conjunction The RECS also collects data for the105 areas of the United States.with characteristics of housing units U.S. Department of Health and

The Interview survey is designed to and their residents. The RECS is Human Services (HHS)capture expenditure data that conducted every 4 years, most Administration for Children andrespondents can reasonably recall recently for data year 2001, the Families (ACF). In 2001, ACFfor a period of three months or eleventh time the survey was con- funded a supplemental survey oflonger. In general, the data cap- ducted. Data are collected via vol- 500 Low Income Housing Energytured are relatively large expendi- untary computer-assisted personal Assistance Program (LIHEAP) recipi-

interviews with a probability sampletures, such as spending on real ent households residing in theof about 5,000 housing units nation-property, automobiles, and major areas targeted for sampling. Priorwide, and via mandatory follow-upappliances, or expenditures that to 2001, the RECS collected LIHEAPmail collection of energy data fromoccur on a regular basis, such as data from a supplemental samplethe sample households’ energy sup-spending on rent, utilities, and of approximately 800 low-incomepliers. Almost all of the housinginsurance premiums. Including households.unit data are provided by a responsi-global estimates of spending forble householder, but the interviewerfood, it is estimated that about 95 Among the household characteristicsdoes measure the floor space of thepercent of expenditures are covered collected are the number of house-housing unit, which is a crucial vari-in the Interview survey. hold members and total householdable explaining energy use.Expenditures on nonprescription income from all sources. These data

drugs, household supplies, and per- permit the construction of identifiersThe RECS estimates are based on asonal care items are excluded, but of household income relative to thestatistical sample using an areaare collected in the Diary survey. poverty line and an identifier for eli-probability sampling design. TheThe Interview survey also provides gibility for federal assistance (i.e.,sampling unit is the housing unit.data on expenditures incurred on LIHEAP). The former identifiers areThe information obtained in theleisure trips. The Diary survey is the basis for the tables and figuresRECS is used to construct adesigned to capture expenditures presented in this report.database on the household sector


(2)∑ ==

10

1i jijiji rrp

(1)x

Cy = 1 - 2 I Fi [ g (x) ] d F ( x )0


APPENDIX B: CONCENTRATION INDEXES FOR DURABLE GOODS

The Concentration Index is com-puted as one minus twice the areaunder the concentration curve(defined below). This is similar tothe equation used to compute theGini coefficient; however, the Giniis based on the area under theLorenz curve.28 The curves repre-sent cumulative probability distri-butions (CPD).

Consider a variable, y, that is somefunction of total expenditures, x;i.e., y = g(x), and consumer unitsare ranked in ascending order ofx—their total expenditures in thiscase. The concentration curve fory is defined as the share of total y,for example the total percentage ofconsumer units who own a televi-sion, for consumer units with totalexpenditures of x or less, Fi[g(x)],graphed against the populationshare of those with total expendi-tures no greater than x, F(x). The

28 The Gini coefficient (or index of incomeconcentration) is a statistical measure ofincome equality ranging from 0 to 1. Ameasure of 1 indicates perfect inequality;i.e., one person has all the income and therest have none. A measure of 0 indicatesperfect equality; i.e. all people having equalshares of income. For a more detailed dis-cussion, see U.S. Census Bureau, 1980.

concentration index is one minustwice the area under the concentra-tion curve; i.e.,

The concentration index liesbetween –1 and +1. It could benegative if low-income people hada higher ownership rate than high-income people. This is in contrastto the Gini coefficient that liesbetween zero and one.

Using percent ownership

To produce the concentrationindexes for ownership, the percentownership rates by decile aretransformed into a discrete proba-bility distribution and replace y inequation 1. This is shown in equa-tion 2:

where pji is the fraction of allhouseholds that own durable goodj that are in total expendituredecile i and rji is the actual owner-ship rate of good j for the ithdecile. By construction, the sum ofthe pjis is equal to one. For goods

that have ownership rates that arerelatively equal across deciles,regardless of the level of the own-ership rate, the probability distri-butions are fairly flat with valuesfor pji close to 0.1. For goods thatare more concentrated among theaffluent households, the probabil-ity distributions tend to rise acrossthe income deciles.

Using average number owned

When using the concentrationindex to describe the distributionof average number of durablegoods owned, the computation isthe same as in equation 2 exceptthat the percent ownership in eachdecile is replaced by the averagenumber owned in each decile.

Using average value

For each decile, the average expen-diture on durable goods for thoseconsumer units that purchased adurable good is calculated. Thisamount is multiplied by the aver-age number of vehicles owned (bydecile). This yields a proxy for thevalue of the vehicles owned byeach decile.


APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL APPROACHES TO COMPARING TRENDS IN MATERIAL WELL-BEING

This appendix discusses several period, households with income among households with income atapproaches that can be taken to below poverty increased their rate or above poverty in 1992 was 0.29compare the relative performance of computer ownership by 2.6 divided by 0.08, or 3.9. In otherof households with income above times (7 percent to 18 percent), for words, households with income atand below the poverty threshold, a 161 percent gain. or above poverty had almost 4with a focus on the example of times the odds of having a com-

The two methods for examiningcomputer ownership by poverty puter as households with income

the relative increase in computerstatus in 1992 and 1998. below poverty.

ownership by households withRelative performance of house- income at or above poverty and The odds ratio of 3.9 showsholds is not as easily described as households with income below greater prevalence of computersabsolute performance, because rel- poverty yield opposite conclusions. among households with income atative performance can be The 23 percentage-point gain in or above poverty than amongdescribed in different ways. computer ownership by house- households with income belowPercentage point change in the holds at or above the poverty level poverty, and confirms what waspercent of households having a was larger than the 11 percentage- stated above using simpler statis-particular material well-being indi- point gain of households below tics: households with income at orcator is the percent having an indi- poverty. At the same time, the above poverty were more likely tocator in 1998 minus the percent 100 percent gain in proportions own computers. Where the oddshaving that indicator in 1992. The owning a computer of households ratios provide additional insight isprevalence of computers in house- at or above the poverty level was in the examination of changesholds with income at or above smaller than the 161 percent gain between 1992 and 1998. In 1998poverty grew from 23 percent to of households below poverty. the odds ratio favoring computer45 percent from 1992 to 1998, ownership among households with

To address these complications,while the corresponding growth in income at or above poverty was

statisticians have proposed thehouseholds with income below 3.7, not statistically different fromodds ratio as a possible way topoverty was from 7 percent to 18 the value of 3.9 observed in 1992.represent these relationshipspercent (Table 11). The percent- In other words, as measured by the(Fienberg, 1980; Agresti, 2002).age-point shift in possession of odds ratio, the relative computer“Odds” compare the probabilitycomputers is the 1998 percentage ownership by households withthat an event will occur to theminus the 1992 percentage, or 23 income at or above poverty andprobability it will not, and thepercentage points for households households with income below“odds ratio” is the ratio of twoabove poverty and 11 percentage poverty did not change betweenodds. The odds of a householdpoints for households below 1992 and 1998.with income at or above thepoverty (see the first two columns

poverty level having a computer in Across all 12 items on which odds-of Table 12).1992 was the percentage that had ratio comparisons between 1992

Another common measure of com- a computer (23 percent) divided by and 1998 were made (Table 12),parative growth is the percent the percentage that did not have a none showed a statistically signifi-change in the proportion of house- computer (77 percent), or 0.29. cant change. Despite the absoluteholds having a material well-being The odds of a household with increase in 8 of these materialindicator. Using the same exam- income below the poverty level well-being indicators by house-ple, the proportion of households having a computer in 1992 was the holds with income below poverty,with income at or above poverty percentage that had a computer (7 there was no increase or decreasepossessing computers doubled percent) divided by the percentage in their position relative to house-during the 1992 to 1998 period that did not have a computer (93 holds at or above poverty during(23 percent to 45 percent), for a percent) or 0.08. The odds ratio this period.100 percent gain. Over the same favoring computer ownership


ADDITIONAL DATA

Tables with additional information <www.census.gov/population Also, the Energy Informationon the topics covered in this report /www/socdemo/wellbeing.html>. Administration has produced a setare available from each of the of detailed tables on energy use by

Additional tables on possession ofthree contributing agencies. The households, energy efficiency ofconsumer durables and relatedCensus Bureau has produced sev- heating and cooling, and other top-information from the Consumereral reports on measures of mate- ics, at <www.eia.doe.gov/emeuExpenditure Survey are availablerial well-being, including detailed /recs/contents.html>.from the Bureau of Labor Statisticstables, which are available atat <www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm>.

Table 11.Percentage of Households With Selected Measures of Material Well-Being by PovertyStatus: 1992 and 1998

All households At or above poverty Below povertyIndicator

1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998

Stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.9 98.7 99.2 99.0 97.1 96.7Enough of food wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.6 97.8 98.6 98.5 91.1 92.4Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.7 96.2 96.7 97.5 81.1 87.0No smoke or odors in neighborhood . . . . . . . . . 92.6 95.1 93.1 95.4 89.7 93.2No unpaid rent or mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 94.6 93.8 95.7 81.4 86.8No unmet need for doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 93.9 93.4 95.0 84.2 85.9No roof or ceiling leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 93.1 92.1 93.7 85.5 89.1No abandoned houses in neighborhood. . . . . . 89.6 92.0 90.6 92.6 83.3 88.3No unmet essential expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.9 86.0 88.4 88.3 68.4 69.3Air conditioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.7 77.7 71.1 79.1 52.6 67.7Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 56.0 53.4 60.3 20.0 25.7Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 42.0 22.6 45.3 7.1 18.4


Table 12.Comparison of Indicators of Material Well-Being of Households by Poverty Status UsingThree Measures—Percentage Point Change, Percent Change in Proportions, and OddsRatio: 1992 and 1998

Percentage point change inhouseholds, 1992 to 1998

Percentage change inproportion of households,

1992 to 1998

Odds ratio of householdsabove poverty and

below poverty1

At or abovepoverty

Belowpoverty

At or abovepoverty

Belowpoverty 1992 1998

Stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.3 –0.4 -0.3 –0.4 3.9 3.2Enough of food wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.1 1.3 -0.1 1.4 7.0 5.5Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 5.9 0.8 7.3 6.9 5.7No smoke or odors in neighborhood . . . . . . 2.3 3.6 2.4 4.0 1.6 1.5No unpaid rent or mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 5.4 2.0 6.7 3.5 3.4No unmet need for doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.1No roof or ceiling leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.6 1.7 4.2 2.0 1.8No abandoned houses in neighborhood . . . 2.0 5.1 2.2 6.1 1.9 1.6No unmet essential expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . –0.1 0.9 -0.1 1.3 3.5 3.3Air conditioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 15.1 11.2 28.7 2.2 1.8Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 5.7 12.9 28.6 4.6 4.4Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 11.4 100.0 161.2 3.9 3.7

1 For definition of odds ratio, see text.


U.S. Department of CommerceFIRST-CLASS MAILEconomics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census BureauWashington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

supplemental measures of material well-being: basic … · home or consumer durables. the economic...

Documents