On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/9/2015 1:31 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Using your inflation calculation, the multiplier is 7.8
>
>Prices I remember from working in a grocery store in high school in 1961-62
>
>Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82. Actual ranges is about $3 to $4
>depending on grade
>
>Deli ham 1.29 should be $10.00. It is about $8 to $9 today
>
>Campbell's tomato soup. .14 should be 1.09 Not sure of actual.
>
>Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower
>
>Quart of soda .25 should now be $1.95 I can get 2 liters as cheap as
>78¢ for generic store brand but name brand is $3.29
>
>When we first married in 1966, a trip to the grocery store very two
>weeks was about $20 for 4 bags of groceries. That would be $156 today.
>Probably not far off.

Remarkably close figures, thanks!

I was going to say, as a general multiplier I'd make the number much
higher, I think even at government numbers it would be over 10x, so
this would indicate that food is relatively cheaper now.

J.