The curve shown in the chart below pictures more readily to the eye the changes in the cost of the food budget than do the index numbers given in the table. Comparison of Retail Food Costs in 51 Cities 3 TABLE 5 shows for 39 cities the percentage of increase or decrease in the retail cost of food in November, 1931, compared with the average cost in the year 1913, in November, 1930, and October, 1931. For 12 other cities comparisons are given for the 1-year and the 1-month periods; these cities have been scheduled by the bureau at different dates since 1913. The percentage changes are based on actual retail prices secured each month from retail dealers and on the average consumption of these articles in each city." Effort has been made by the bureau each month to have all schedules for each city included in the average prices. For the month of JAN, FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC. 165 145 125 105 November schedules were received from 99.0 per cent of the firms in the 51 cities from which retail prices of food are collected. Out of about 1,230 food reports 16 were not received-1 each in Boston, Buffalo, Butte, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Peoria, Pittsburgh, Portland (Oreg.), St. Louis, San Francisco, Savannah, and Washington, and 2 each in New Orleans and Seattle. Out of about 350 bread reports 3 were missing-1 each in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Jacksonville. A perfect record is shown for the following named cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Bridgeport, Charleston (S. C.), Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fall River, Houston, Indian * For list of articles see note 2, p. 216. The consumption figures used for January, 1913, to December, 1920, for each article in each city are given in the Labor Review for November, 1918, pp. 94 and 95. The consumption figures which have been used for each month beginning with January, 1921, are given in the Labor Review for March, 1921, p. 26. 91909-32-15 apolis, Kansas City, Little Rock, Louisville, Manchester, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Mobile, Newark, New Haven, New York, Norfolk, Omaha, Philadelphia, Portland (Me.), Providence, Richmond, Rochester, St. Paul, Salt Lake City, Scranton, and Springfield (Ill.). TABLE 5.-PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE RETAIL COST OF FOOD IN NOVEMBER, 1931, COMPARED WITH THE COST IN OCTOBER, 1931, NOVEMBER, 1930, AND WITH THE AVERAGE COST IN THE YEAR 1913, BY CITIES AND IN THE UNITED STATES Retail Prices of Coal in November, 19311 DETAIL prices of coal are secured in each of the 51 cities in which retail food prices are obtained. The prices quoted are for coal delivered to consumers but do not include charges for storing the coal in cellar or bins where an extra handling is necessary. Average prices for the United States for bituminous coal and for stove and chestnut sizes of Pennsylvania anthracite are computed from the quotations received from retail dealers in all cities where these coals are sold for household use. The table shows the average prices of coal per ton of 2,000 pounds for the United States on November 15, 1931, in comparison with the average prices on October 15, 1931, and November 15, 1930, together with the percentage change in the year and in the month. 1 Prices of coal were formerly secured semiannually and published in the March and September issues of the Labor Review. Since June, 1920, these prices have been secured and published monthly. AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES PER 2,000 POUNDS OF COAL FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND PER CENT OF CHANGE ON NOVEMBER 15, 1931, COMPARED WITH NOVEMBER 15, 1930, AND OCTOBER 15, 1931 Comparison of Retail-Price Changes in the United States and in Foreign Countries HE principal index numbers of retail prices published by foreign countries have been brought together with those of this bureau in the subjoined table, the base years in all cases being as given in the original reports. As stated in the table, the number of articles included in the index numbers for the different countries differs widely. These results, which are designed merely to show price trends and not actual differences in the several countries, should not, therefore, be considered as closely comparable with one another. In certain instances, also, the figures are not absolutely comparable from month to month over the entire period, owing to slight changes in the list of commodities and the localities included on successive dates. |