Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 9th 15, 05:32 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected] lenona321@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 169
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

The family?

The Beardsleys, of California, as featured in the Lucille Ball movie "Yours,
Mine, and Ours."

Before the movie, their story was written by the mother as "Who Gets the
Drumstick?" (Helen was a widow with 8 kids, he was a widower with 10. They
had two more.)

In that book (chapter 12), a researcher comes to the house a month after
the wedding in the fall of 1961, to do the math on how they manage. He
concludes that they spend 66 cents a day for food, per person. According to
one inflation calculator, that's $5.15 in 2014 - and another says $5.16 in
2015. (I assume they were strict about not wasting food!)

What's interesting, though, is that I DO waste food, unfortunately, but
MY food budget, last December, was $120 a month - or about $4 a day!

Also, there was clearly a mistake in the book - the mother said they spent
$450 a month on food, so unless she meant $400, that would be just under
74 cents per person per day (using 365.25 days a year, I mean), not 66 cents!

Thoughts? Granted, I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons food might be
cheaper now - someone also once said that in the 19th century, too, food
was pricey but servants were cheap, which was why Louisa May Alcott, in
"Little Women" could get away with calling her family "poor" even though
they had a servant, Hannah.


Lenona.

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 12th 15, 12:27 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected]online.net trader4@optonline.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 93
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 1:32:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
The family?

The Beardsleys, of California, as featured in the Lucille Ball movie "Yours,
Mine, and Ours."

Before the movie, their story was written by the mother as "Who Gets the
Drumstick?" (Helen was a widow with 8 kids, he was a widower with 10. They
had two more.)

In that book (chapter 12), a researcher comes to the house a month after
the wedding in the fall of 1961, to do the math on how they manage. He
concludes that they spend 66 cents a day for food, per person. According to
one inflation calculator, that's $5.15 in 2014 - and another says $5.16 in
2015. (I assume they were strict about not wasting food!)

What's interesting, though, is that I DO waste food, unfortunately, but
MY food budget, last December, was $120 a month - or about $4 a day!

Also, there was clearly a mistake in the book - the mother said they spent
$450 a month on food, so unless she meant $400, that would be just under
74 cents per person per day (using 365.25 days a year, I mean), not 66 cents!

Thoughts? Granted, I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons food might be
cheaper now - someone also once said that in the 19th century, too, food
was pricey but servants were cheap, which was why Louisa May Alcott, in
"Little Women" could get away with calling her family "poor" even though
they had a servant, Hannah.


Lenona.


It's not a very valid comparison looking at a family of 18 from 1961,
comparing it to your food budget for one today, and trying to draw
conclusions on relative food prices. You really don't know what
the product mix is. Here's a link that did an
actual item by item comparison of 1960 vs 2008. Overall, the food
prices were about the same when adjusted for inflation.


http://www.clearpictureonline.com/19...ge-Income.html

I'm sure there are other resources on this as well.
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 13th 15, 08:04 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected] Wilma6116@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 121
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people food for New Englanders. Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer. Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for Christmas.

And then again, what was an average meal in 1961? In 1960, people consumed an average of 600 calories less than they do today, even though my grandmother had no qualms about smearing bacon grease on a slice of Wonder Bread with a glass of whole milk and calling it lunch.

Yeah, I think we are comparing oranges with mandarins.
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 14th 15, 03:45 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
Michael Black[_2_] Michael Black[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 253
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wrote:

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have
cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people
food for New Englanders. Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer.
Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's
turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange
in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for
Christmas.

I thought seafood was always poor people's food, if you lived by the sea.
The exception would be something that is rare, so it would go elsewhere
right away.

The cost of lobster reflects the transport to other markets. The people
collecting them don't make that much money, the price paid at the
supermarket or restaurant reflect the cost of getting it there fast.

Michael

And then again, what was an average meal in 1961? In 1960, people consumed an average of 600 calories less than they do today, even though my grandmother had no qualms about smearing bacon grease on a slice of Wonder Bread with a glass of whole milk and calling it lunch.

Yeah, I think we are comparing oranges with mandarins.

  #6   Report Post  
Old March 16th 15, 12:17 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected] Wilma6116@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 121
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:25:28 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
On 03/13/2015 08:45 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wrote:

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have
cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people
food for New Englanders.


Are you sure you meant NINETEEN61? I don't think lobster has been cheap
food during my lifetime.




When I was a kid the family would take a car trip to New England for lobster. If my old man took a station wagon full of kids for lobster, it was cheap. Though I was reading in the late 1800's lobster was fed to prisoners until they rioted, and it was also used as fertilizer.

Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer.
Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's
turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange
in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for
Christmas.


OK, you're definitely not talking about 1961.


He

Back in 1965, a typical turkey raised to be Thanksgiving dinner weighed about 18 pounds. Thanks to poultry industry practices, the turkey of today weighs 57 percent more -- a comparatively gargantuan 28.2 pounds. Think about it this way: If a baby grew as fast as a modern day turkey does, at 18 weeks of age he'd weigh a mind boggling 1,500 pounds.

Read mo
http://www.care2.com/causes/sorry-no...#ixzz3UVFIgqGB

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 16th 15, 06:06 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected] trader4@optonline.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 93
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wrote:

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have
cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people
food for New Englanders. Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer.
Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's
turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange
in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for
Christmas.

I thought seafood was always poor people's food, if you lived by the sea.


I guess you don't live by the sea. I'm at the NJ shore and most seafood
here has always been a more expensive food source and not
poor people's food, unless you catch it yourself. Prices for a piece of
fish aren't that much different than if you were in OH. In fact, I've
seen some places well inland, when traveling, where fish prices were less
than they are here at the coast.


The exception would be something that is rare, so it would go elsewhere
right away.

The cost of lobster reflects the transport to other markets. The people
collecting them don't make that much money, the price paid at the
supermarket or restaurant reflect the cost of getting it there fast.

Michael


The transportation is a component, but it's not the dominant factor
in the price. There are lobster boats right here, but the price isn't cheap
and poor people aren't eating them. Even typical average American
family obviously finds them pricey, because I don't see folks eating
them much. I'd eat them a lot if they were cheap.


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 17th 15, 05:40 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
Michael Black[_2_] Michael Black[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 253
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015,
wrote:

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have
cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people
food for New Englanders. Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer.
Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's
turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange
in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for
Christmas.

I thought seafood was always poor people's food, if you lived by the sea.


I guess you don't live by the sea. I'm at the NJ shore and most seafood
here has always been a more expensive food source and not
poor people's food, unless you catch it yourself. Prices for a piece of
fish aren't that much different than if you were in OH. In fact, I've
seen some places well inland, when traveling, where fish prices were less
than they are here at the coast.

I saw an article some time back about how the price of lobster at the dock
was way down (I can't remember the reason), making it quite hard to be the
ones catching them. Yet the prices didn't go down at the consumer end.

There's also that classic documentary "Mystic Pizza" where Julia Roberts
complains of always having lobster, since her mother worked in lobsters
and was always bringing them home.

I'd discount the second one, but not the first.

Michael
  #10   Report Post  
Old March 18th 15, 01:24 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living
[email protected] trader4@optonline.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BargainBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 93
Default 1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015,
wrote:

Depends on what you call food. I bet in 1961 a kale salad would have
cost a small fortune, while at the same time lobster was poor people
food for New Englanders. Beef used to be cheap, but is no longer.
Turkeys used to be a lot bonier than they are today, heck today's
turkeys can barely stand because of all the breast meat. And an orange
in the winter was a such a delicacy they were given as gifts for
Christmas.

I thought seafood was always poor people's food, if you lived by the sea.


I guess you don't live by the sea. I'm at the NJ shore and most seafood
here has always been a more expensive food source and not
poor people's food, unless you catch it yourself. Prices for a piece of
fish aren't that much different than if you were in OH. In fact, I've
seen some places well inland, when traveling, where fish prices were less
than they are here at the coast.

I saw an article some time back about how the price of lobster at the dock
was way down (I can't remember the reason), making it quite hard to be the
ones catching them.


Making it quite hard to earn a decent profit catching lobsters
doesn't equate with them being cheap and the food poor people are
eating. At $2.50 a pound wholesale, the fishermen may be making
little or no profit, but that still puts them at $5+ retail. And
considering what meat there is on them versus waste, you can more
that double that price. How does that compare to other available
food sources? It sure isn't what poor people are eating. And I'd note
that those periods of low prices are the exception, you stated
that lobster has always been poor people's food by the sea. I'm
2 miles from the sea and you're wrong. I've never been poor and
still lobster is something we enjoy only occasionally.



Yet the prices didn't go down at the consumer end.


So then how are poor people eating lobsters at the seashore? Prices
don't just magically behave differently here.





There's also that classic documentary "Mystic Pizza" where Julia Roberts
complains of always having lobster, since her mother worked in lobsters
and was always bringing them home.

I'd discount the second one, but not the first.

Michael


There is no first. And the second, well if you're stuffing lobsters
into your purse, your shorts, or getting some special employee deal,
then it's an exceptional case, not what most poor people are doing.
Good grief.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: MUST SEE Gemstone jewelry, art & kids shoes - LOW PRICES! Jewelry by Yael Frugal living 0 May 25th 08 03:46 PM
Biofuel hoax is the cause of recent food inflation and new biofuelbill will skyrocket food prices higher! [email protected] Frugal living 10 December 25th 07 02:23 PM
Need source for steak/roast at good prices for family reunion! slugbug Frugal living 10 October 18th 06 09:23 PM
Free Food & Family Magazine TheBestFreebies.com Frugal living 0 August 17th 06 08:46 PM
Better to buy Family Travelcard (even if no kids with you) tHatDudeUK UK discounts & bargains 13 January 18th 05 12:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 BargainBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Bargains and Discounts"

 

Copyright © 2017