Gregory Morrow wrote:

> JRStern wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Using this tool, multiply 1961 prices by about 8 to get present - day adjusted - for - inflation prices:
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
>
>
> A more important metric is, what *percentage* of an average household's income was spent on food in any particular era. I remember searching this years ago, and ISTR that in the US at least, that percentage has declined through the years, with it being considerably *less* now than in 1960; also average disposable income is far higher today than in 1960. Maybe someone here can take a stab at researching this...
>
> Generally, the more affluent a society is, a lower percentage of income is spent on food.
>


Here ya go:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...-spending.aspx


"Between 1960 and 2007, the share of disposable personal income spent on total food by Americans fell from 17.5 to 9.6 percent, driven by a declining share of income spent on food at home. During the 2007-09 recession, the shares of income spent on total food and its at-home and away-from-home components leveled off as incomes stagnated. In 2013, Americans spent 5.6 percent of their disposable personal incomes on food at home and 4.3 percent on food away from home."


--
Best
Greg