On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>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."

That don't make a lick of sense, unless eating out is cheaper than at
home.

J.