In 1959 the average American family paid $989 for a year’s supply of food. In 1972 the family paid $1311.That was a price increase of nearly one-third.
Everyone agrees that the cost of feeding a family has risen sharply. But there is less agreement when reasons for the rise are being discussed. Who is really responsible?
Many blame the farmers who produce the vegetables, fruit, meat, eggs, and cheese that stores offer for sale. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the farmer’s share of the $1311 spent by the family in 1972 was $521.This was thirty-one percent more than the farmer had received in 1959.But farmers tend to blame others for the sharp rise in food prices. They particularly blame those who process the farm products after the products leave the farm. These include truck drivers, meat packers, manufac- turers of packages and other food containers, and the owners of stores where food is sold. They are among the “middlemen” who stand between the farmer and the people who buy and eat the food. Are middlemen the ones to blame for rising food prices?
Of the $1311 family food bill in 1972, middlemen received $790, which was thirty-three per cent more than they had received in 1959. It appears that the middleman’s profit has increased more than the farmer's. But according to economists at the First National City Bank, the profit for meat packers and food stores amounted to less than one percent. During the same period all other manufacturers were making a profit of more than five per cent. By comparison with other members of the economic system, both farmers and middlemen have profited surprisingly little from the rise in food prices.
Who then is actually responsible for the size of the bill a housewife must pay before she carries the food home from the store? The economists at First National City Bank blame the housewife herself for the jump in food prices. They say that food costs more now because women don't want to spend much time in the kitchen.
Economists remind us that many modern housewives have jobs outside the home. They earn money that helps to pay the family food bills. The housewife naturally has less time and energy for cooking after a day's work! She wants to buy many kinds of food that can be put on her family's table easily and quickly.
“If the housewife wants all of these,” the economists say, “that is her privilege, but she must be prepared to pay for the services of those who make her work easier.
It appears that the answer to the question of rising prices is not a simple one. Producers, consumers, and middlemen all share the responsibility for the sharp rise in food costs.
1959年，美國家庭一年購買食品的平均支出為989美元，1972年的平均支出為1311美元，這就是說食品價(jià)格上漲了近三分之一。
人們一致認(rèn)為養(yǎng)活一個(gè)家庭的費(fèi)用急劇上升，可是，一談到漲價(jià)的原因則眾說紛紜，莫衷一是。究竟是誰負(fù)有責(zé)任呢？
許多人指責(zé)生產(chǎn)蔬菜、水果、肉類、雞蛋和乳酪的農(nóng)民囤積出售。據(jù)美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的資料顯示，從這種家庭在1972年所支出的1311美元中，農(nóng)民攤得521美元。這筆費(fèi)用超過了農(nóng)民1959年收入的百分之三十一。但農(nóng)民們卻指責(zé)其他人對(duì)食品價(jià)格上漲負(fù)有責(zé)任，特別指責(zé)那些從農(nóng)場運(yùn)出農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，并對(duì)農(nóng)產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行加工的那些人。他們是卡車司機(jī)，肉類包裝工，包裝箱和其他食品容器制造業(yè)者，以及銷售食品的商店老板。他們是站在農(nóng)民與食品購買者和消費(fèi)者之間的“中間人”，因食品漲價(jià)而受指責(zé)的該是這些中間人嗎？
從1972年1311美元的家庭食品賬單中，中間人攤得790美元，占他們1959年收入的百分之三十三以上。看起來中間人的利潤增長超過了農(nóng)民，可是，據(jù)第一國民城市銀行的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們說，肉類包裝工和食品商店的利潤低于百分之一。在同一時(shí)期，所有其他制造業(yè)者所獲得的利潤超過百分之五。通過與其它經(jīng)濟(jì)部門的成員比較，農(nóng)民和中間人從食品價(jià)格上漲中所獲得的利潤都少得驚人。
那么究竟由誰來為家庭主婦們從商店把食品買回家之前所必須支付的賬單負(fù)實(shí)際上的責(zé)任呢？第一國民城市銀行的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們指責(zé)，家庭主婦本人應(yīng)該對(duì)食品價(jià)格的大幅度上漲負(fù)責(zé)。他們說，現(xiàn)在食品的花費(fèi)多了，是因?yàn)閶D女們不愿花更多的時(shí)間呆在廚房里。
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家提醒我們說，許多現(xiàn)代家庭主婦走出家門，找到了工作。他們掙的錢對(duì)支付家庭的食品賬單有一定幫助，也就自然而然地花較少的時(shí)間和精力用于下班后的做飯做菜上。她想買的是能夠即輕松又方便地放在家里餐桌上的各式各樣的食品。
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家還說，“如果家庭主婦想得到所有這些“特權(quán)”食品，她就必須為那些讓她們干活輕松提供服務(wù)的人支付費(fèi)用。
對(duì)價(jià)格上漲問題的答案是乎并不簡單。生產(chǎn)者，消費(fèi)者，中間人都對(duì)食品費(fèi)用的急劇上漲負(fù)有責(zé)任。
Everyone agrees that the cost of feeding a family has risen sharply. But there is less agreement when reasons for the rise are being discussed. Who is really responsible?
Many blame the farmers who produce the vegetables, fruit, meat, eggs, and cheese that stores offer for sale. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the farmer’s share of the $1311 spent by the family in 1972 was $521.This was thirty-one percent more than the farmer had received in 1959.But farmers tend to blame others for the sharp rise in food prices. They particularly blame those who process the farm products after the products leave the farm. These include truck drivers, meat packers, manufac- turers of packages and other food containers, and the owners of stores where food is sold. They are among the “middlemen” who stand between the farmer and the people who buy and eat the food. Are middlemen the ones to blame for rising food prices?
Of the $1311 family food bill in 1972, middlemen received $790, which was thirty-three per cent more than they had received in 1959. It appears that the middleman’s profit has increased more than the farmer's. But according to economists at the First National City Bank, the profit for meat packers and food stores amounted to less than one percent. During the same period all other manufacturers were making a profit of more than five per cent. By comparison with other members of the economic system, both farmers and middlemen have profited surprisingly little from the rise in food prices.
Who then is actually responsible for the size of the bill a housewife must pay before she carries the food home from the store? The economists at First National City Bank blame the housewife herself for the jump in food prices. They say that food costs more now because women don't want to spend much time in the kitchen.
Economists remind us that many modern housewives have jobs outside the home. They earn money that helps to pay the family food bills. The housewife naturally has less time and energy for cooking after a day's work! She wants to buy many kinds of food that can be put on her family's table easily and quickly.
“If the housewife wants all of these,” the economists say, “that is her privilege, but she must be prepared to pay for the services of those who make her work easier.
It appears that the answer to the question of rising prices is not a simple one. Producers, consumers, and middlemen all share the responsibility for the sharp rise in food costs.
1959年，美國家庭一年購買食品的平均支出為989美元，1972年的平均支出為1311美元，這就是說食品價(jià)格上漲了近三分之一。
人們一致認(rèn)為養(yǎng)活一個(gè)家庭的費(fèi)用急劇上升，可是，一談到漲價(jià)的原因則眾說紛紜，莫衷一是。究竟是誰負(fù)有責(zé)任呢？
許多人指責(zé)生產(chǎn)蔬菜、水果、肉類、雞蛋和乳酪的農(nóng)民囤積出售。據(jù)美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的資料顯示，從這種家庭在1972年所支出的1311美元中，農(nóng)民攤得521美元。這筆費(fèi)用超過了農(nóng)民1959年收入的百分之三十一。但農(nóng)民們卻指責(zé)其他人對(duì)食品價(jià)格上漲負(fù)有責(zé)任，特別指責(zé)那些從農(nóng)場運(yùn)出農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，并對(duì)農(nóng)產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行加工的那些人。他們是卡車司機(jī)，肉類包裝工，包裝箱和其他食品容器制造業(yè)者，以及銷售食品的商店老板。他們是站在農(nóng)民與食品購買者和消費(fèi)者之間的“中間人”，因食品漲價(jià)而受指責(zé)的該是這些中間人嗎？
從1972年1311美元的家庭食品賬單中，中間人攤得790美元，占他們1959年收入的百分之三十三以上。看起來中間人的利潤增長超過了農(nóng)民，可是，據(jù)第一國民城市銀行的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們說，肉類包裝工和食品商店的利潤低于百分之一。在同一時(shí)期，所有其他制造業(yè)者所獲得的利潤超過百分之五。通過與其它經(jīng)濟(jì)部門的成員比較，農(nóng)民和中間人從食品價(jià)格上漲中所獲得的利潤都少得驚人。
那么究竟由誰來為家庭主婦們從商店把食品買回家之前所必須支付的賬單負(fù)實(shí)際上的責(zé)任呢？第一國民城市銀行的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們指責(zé)，家庭主婦本人應(yīng)該對(duì)食品價(jià)格的大幅度上漲負(fù)責(zé)。他們說，現(xiàn)在食品的花費(fèi)多了，是因?yàn)閶D女們不愿花更多的時(shí)間呆在廚房里。
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家提醒我們說，許多現(xiàn)代家庭主婦走出家門，找到了工作。他們掙的錢對(duì)支付家庭的食品賬單有一定幫助，也就自然而然地花較少的時(shí)間和精力用于下班后的做飯做菜上。她想買的是能夠即輕松又方便地放在家里餐桌上的各式各樣的食品。
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家還說，“如果家庭主婦想得到所有這些“特權(quán)”食品，她就必須為那些讓她們干活輕松提供服務(wù)的人支付費(fèi)用。
對(duì)價(jià)格上漲問題的答案是乎并不簡單。生產(chǎn)者，消費(fèi)者，中間人都對(duì)食品費(fèi)用的急劇上漲負(fù)有責(zé)任。