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.

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.

On 2015-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower

Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
Dave's Bread:

http://www.daveskillerbread.com/#new

It's got mega seeds/grains in it, which I love. I'd bake my own, but
to buy the seed/grains is too expensive. Dave has it all. No GMO
crap, great flavor (I eat a slice plain), all organic, etc.

Funny thing about Dave's Bread. They ALL have mega seeds/grains.
I've yet to discover the diff between his different loaves. Not that
I care. They all taste great and have an overwhelming number of
grains/seeds. I jes bought a loaf called 21 Grains and Seeds. Beats
7 and 11 grain breads all to Hell, in that dept.

nb

On 2015-03-09 3:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.


When I was first married in 1973 our weekly one stop shopping was
usually about $30. We ate well, got lots of fruit and vegetables.nice
cuts of meat most of the time, though wife did wonders braising the cuts
of beef that used to be so cheap, like oxtails, short ribs and stewing
beef.

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

> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.

and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:16:01 PM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower
>
> Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
> Dave's Bread:

To align with 1961 tastes, I feel that white bread would
make a more fair comparison. I can get a loaf of decent white
bread from Italia Bakery (made in Windsor, ON, and sold at my
regular grocery in Ann Arbor, MI). I believe it's about $3.65
per loaf. A bit more than $2.73, but I don't shop at the
cheapest store in town, either.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:29:15 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.
>
>and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.

I concur.
Janet US

> wrote in message
...
> 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.

find some old episodes of Dobie Gillis and look at the store sign prices in
the background.

On 2015-03-09 3:15 PM, notbob wrote:

> Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
> Dave's Bread:

I spend about $3.75 for whole grain or $4.25 for sour dough whole wheat
at the bakery in town, but I often get day old because it is going into
the freezer anyway.

My brother used to buy his bread from the grocery in store bakery. It
was half the price but I tried to convince him that they bakery bread
had more slicer and more weight, more body. He held out until the in
store bakery recipe changed and price went up. Now he is getting his
bread at the bakery.

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:56:31 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:29:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.
>>
>>and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.
>
>I concur.
>Janet US

Even back then I ground my own, my grandmothers did, my mom did, and
so do I... I ain't eating mystery meat... takes ten minutes to grind
ten pounds.

> wrote in message
...
> 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.

I know that I saw the movie but don't remember much about it. And I was
only 2 years old in 1961 so can't say too much about that year, but...

We moved here in 1967. We did have supermarkets here but also lots of mom
and pop type grocery stores. And in some areas, the grocery stores were
still all that were available to the people who lived in those areas. I-5
(Freeway) had not been built yet. If we wanted to go into Seattle, we took
back roads or Highway 99. So just in this area alone, we have many more and
bigger stores and many more roads with many more lanes.

I got married about 20 years ago and left this area. At that point in time,
the part of Bothell where I now live was still for the most part farm
county. People who lived here had to drive quite a few miles to buy
groceries. Now all I have to do is go right around the corner. No, there
is not a supermarket there but a drugstore that sells things like milk,
bread, cottage cheese, yogurt, ice cream, a small selection of frozen,
meals, canned vegetables and fruit, soup, crackers, rice, pasta, etc. When
I was a kid, the drugstores were much smaller and did sell candy and nuts
but not a lot of food beyond that. We also have a little Mexican food
store/taqueria. I haven't been in there so don't know what all they sell.
And two Quickie Mart type places that are open 24 hours a day. They did put
a 7 11 store very near our house when I was a kid but in those days they
were only open from 7 am to 11 pm, hence the name. And they didn't sell any
fresh produce. Now you can get green salad, fruit and perhaps baby carrots.

If I do need to buy groceries, all I have to do is drive 2 miles or less in
one of two directions and there are supermarkets. Also a Dollar Tree and
some other options. Like Fred Meyer. If I choose to drive 7 miles or less,
I have even more options. So I am literally surrounded by food!

I realize that not everyone in this country is as lucky as I am. There was
a woman who lived in the military housing on Cape Cod who came from a very
isolated area. She and I both had very different takes on Cape Cod. To me,
it was a sleepy little area with not a lot to do and I felt like I needed to
pack a lunch if I had to leave the military base to go grocery shopping or
even buy bedding plants. She felt overwhelmed by the area and what seemed
to me to be the few stores and other businesses that we had. I think she
said that she came from North Carolina but I could be wrong on that. She
said that the nearest grocery store to the house that she grew up in was 20
miles away and that wasn't even a large store. She had never eaten fast
food at all nor had she seen a fast food restaurant. So places like that
still do exist in this country but they are not the norm.

Mostly, we are surrounded by food and most of the time, it is easy to get
that food there. Cape Cod was another exception there because there were
only two ways on and off of the island. For the most part, no produce was
grown on the island so things had to be trucked in. So during inclement
weather, things could get bad and food couldn't get to us. I learned to
pretty much live off of canned food during the winter. Good, fresh produce
usually wasn't available. Particularly things like salad greens.

But for most of the country, if someone wants some lettuce or a tomato in
the winter, they can go to the nearby store and get it. Although more and
more people are eating locally and demanding organic foods, I still think
that many people do not care and will buy what's available.

So not only do we have more and bigger stores, more and better roads, better
distribution methods, better growing methods, computers to speed things
along for many reasons, but cheaper ways to produce these foods, partly due
to the reasons I already gave. Factories are much more automated than they
used to be. Lots of reasons.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower
>
> Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
> Dave's Bread:
>
> http://www.daveskillerbread.com/#new
>
> It's got mega seeds/grains in it, which I love. I'd bake my own, but
> to buy the seed/grains is too expensive. Dave has it all. No GMO
> crap, great flavor (I eat a slice plain), all organic, etc.
>
> Funny thing about Dave's Bread. They ALL have mega seeds/grains.
> I've yet to discover the diff between his different loaves. Not that
> I care. They all taste great and have an overwhelming number of
> grains/seeds. I jes bought a loaf called 21 Grains and Seeds. Beats
> 7 and 11 grain breads all to Hell, in that dept.

The bread I buy is over $5 a loaf at most stores. When Costco had it, it
was $3.49. They didn't have it when I was last there. It is locally made
and the loaves are small. I can certainly find cheaper bread. We just
don't eat it.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-03-09 3:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> When I was first married in 1973 our weekly one stop shopping was usually
> about $30. We ate well, got lots of fruit and vegetables.nice cuts of meat
> most of the time, though wife did wonders braising the cuts of beef that
> used to be so cheap, like oxtails, short ribs and stewing beef.

Our produce costs when I was a kid were less because we always had a large
garden. We also went berry picking and most years my parents bought a lot
of apples in Eastern Washington.

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:59:22 AM UTC-7, 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.

When I was a tot first going to the store, a 20 oz loaf of factory bread
was $.31. $.25 a quart for soda pop sounds about right, but I usually
bought a six-pack of Pepsi (returnable bottles). A six-pack, a half
gallon of milk and a loaf of bread just fit into my bike basket.

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:16:01 PM UTC-5, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower
>
> Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
> Dave's Bread:
>
> http://www.daveskillerbread.com/#new
>
> It's got mega seeds/grains in it, which I love. I'd bake my own, but
> to buy the seed/grains is too expensive. Dave has it all. No GMO
> crap, great flavor (I eat a slice plain), all organic, etc.
>
> Funny thing about Dave's Bread. They ALL have mega seeds/grains.
> I've yet to discover the diff between his different loaves. Not that
> I care. They all taste great and have an overwhelming number of
> grains/seeds. I jes bought a loaf called 21 Grains and Seeds. Beats
> 7 and 11 grain breads all to Hell, in that dept.
>
I looked up the bread we buy, and the image is from Target, and it says
that the Target where we shop has it, but I've never seen it there.
Shop'n Save doesn't sell it anymore either.

http://www.target.com/p/brownberry-2...d/-/A-12934759
>
> nb

--Bryan

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 4:46:50 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:

> I spend about $3.75 for whole grain or $4.25 for sour dough whole wheat
> at the bakery in town, but I often get day old because it is going into
> the freezer anyway.
>
> My brother used to buy his bread from the grocery in store bakery. It
> was half the price but I tried to convince him that they bakery bread
> had more slicer and more weight, more body. He held out until the in
> store bakery recipe changed and price went up. Now he is getting his
> bread at the bakery.


If I knew of a bakery that had a rack for day-old bread, I'd consider it.
(But, reportedly, the really crusty bread is bad for your teeth - as
is, ironically, the really cheap processed bread, for a different
reason - it's sugary and sticks to your teeth as mush.)

In the meantime, I buy day-old bread from the in-supermarket bakery.
Not too hard for the bread knife, but not processed bread, either.

From the pen of Fran Lebowitz:

"Bread that must be sliced with an ax is bread that is too nourishing."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xC...tty%22&f=false
(four pages of her quotations on food - some may have been omitted - and
prepare to be a bit shocked if you've never read her books before)


Lenona.

On 3/9/2015 3:15 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-03-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Loaf of bread .35 should be $2.73 I see higher and lower
>
> Who can find GOOD bread for under $3.50 loaf? I spend $5 loaf for
> Dave's Bread:
>
> http://www.daveskillerbread.com/#new
>

Really good bread is about $5. That is what I pay at a local bakery. I
can find "acceptable" bread for 2.29. The example I gave was the typical
sliced white bread of the day. You can get the same today in the $2
range but you can also find bread for a buck.

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:03:42 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:56:31 -0600, Janet B >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:29:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.
>>>
>>>and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.
>>
>>I concur.
>>Janet US
>
>Even back then I ground my own, my grandmothers did, my mom did, and
>so do I... I ain't eating mystery meat... takes ten minutes to grind
>ten pounds.
>
Back then you signaled the butcher and told him you wanted a pound of
ground chuck or sirloin or whatever. He'd take the meat from the
display right in front of you and grind it right in front of you. No
mystery there.
Janet US

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:55:30 -0300, wrote:


snip
>In the sixties for a family of four and one large dog we spent $50 per
>week on groceries and pet food and what's more we would split the list
>and David and I both had a cart full each! Nowadays $50 barely covers
>the bottom of a cart!

In the sixties I had a budget of $15 a week for everything. That
included personal care products, laundry soap and the quarters for the
machines. It was just the two of us.
Janet US

lucretiaborgia wrote:
>
>In the sixties for a family of four and one large dog we spent $50 per
>week on groceries and pet food and what's more we would split the list
>and David and I both had a cart full each! Nowadays $50 barely covers
>the bottom of a cart!

Living is LA in the '60s the total food bill for two adults and a
child was under $20 a week and was more than we could eat.. gasoline
cost 9¢/gal and got double plaid stamps plus a steak knife... I had a
glove compartment chock full of steak knives, today I'd probably be in
prison as a terrorist for that. The world has changed in a bad way, I
don't like it, I'm glad I'm old. However anyone comes to bother me
I'd shoot them full of buck shot with my Winchester 12 ga. without a
moment hesitation. Towel heads would end up in my pond as carp chow,
mo one would find your DNA. Mooslems hate faggots because they are
ALL faggots themselves.

lenona321 wrote:
>
>If I knew of a bakery that had a rack for day-old bread, I'd consider it.
>(But, reportedly, the really crusty bread is bad for your teeth - as
>is, ironically, the really cheap processed bread, for a different
>reason - it's sugary and sticks to your teeth as mush.)
>
>In the meantime, I buy day-old bread from the in-supermarket bakery.
>Not too hard for the bread knife, but not processed bread, either.

I buy expired bread all the time, I use it to feed deer and other
critters but I eat some myself, nothing wrong with it. On Lung
Guyland I lived within walking distance of the Entenmens factory
store, every product cost $1... was nothing wrong with it, restaurants
bought lots to serve at ridiculously high prices... new owners, now
it's crap.

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:26 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>lucretiaborgia wrote:
>>
>>In the sixties for a family of four and one large dog we spent $50 per
>>week on groceries and pet food and what's more we would split the list
>>and David and I both had a cart full each! Nowadays $50 barely covers
>>the bottom of a cart!
>
>Living is LA in the '60s the total food bill for two adults and a
>child was under $20 a week and was more than we could eat.. gasoline
>cost 9¢/gal and got double plaid stamps plus a steak knife... I had a
>glove compartment chock full of steak knives, today I'd probably be in
>prison as a terrorist for that. The world has changed in a bad way, I
>don't like it, I'm glad I'm old. However anyone comes to bother me
>I'd shoot them full of buck shot with my Winchester 12 ga. without a
>moment hesitation. Towel heads would end up in my pond as carp chow,
>mo one would find your DNA. Mooslems hate faggots because they are
>ALL faggots themselves.

9 cents a gallon for gas? I'd believe 29 cents.
Janet US

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.
>
> and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.

Yes and bulk sausage @ 4lbs for $1.

Cheri

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:02:06 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:26 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
> >lucretiaborgia wrote:
> >>
> >>In the sixties for a family of four and one large dog we spent $50 per
> >>week on groceries and pet food and what's more we would split the list
> >>and David and I both had a cart full each! Nowadays $50 barely covers
> >>the bottom of a cart!
> >
> >Living is LA in the '60s the total food bill for two adults and a
> >child was under $20 a week and was more than we could eat.. gasoline
> >cost 9¢/gal and got double plaid stamps plus a steak knife... I had a
> >glove compartment chock full of steak knives, today I'd probably be in
> >prison as a terrorist for that. The world has changed in a bad way, I
> >don't like it, I'm glad I'm old. However anyone comes to bother me
> >I'd shoot them full of buck shot with my Winchester 12 ga. without a
> >moment hesitation. Towel heads would end up in my pond as carp chow,
> >mo one would find your DNA. Mooslems hate faggots because they are
> >ALL faggots themselves.
>
> 9 cents a gallon for gas? I'd believe 29 cents.
> Janet US

+1

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

"barbie gee" > wrote in message
hcrg.pbz...
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015, 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.
>
> Did mom stay home and cook for the family? There weren't nearly as many
> "convenience" foods back then as there are now, that cost a "normal"
> family a pretty penny. Eating habits weren't what they are now, portion
> sizes are all out of whack compared to back then...
>
> What do those goofy Duggars spend monthly, and per person, I wonder?
> They'd be probably the closest modern day equivalent to your Beardsley's
> of 1961...

If you've ever watched the show, you'll see what kind of crap they eat. And
off of Styrofoam plates as well! They have a restaurant kitchen complete
with a restaurant soda dispenser. But they also don't seem to buy
restaurant sized cans of things. The canned soup is they get is the
standard size. I don't know if it's still there or not but they had a Tater
Tot casserole recipe on their website. They use ground turkey instead of
beef. They also eat turkey bacon. Anna once posted a recipe for
Chickenetti which contained chicken (I think it was canned), Velveeta and
Rotel. They do seem to eat cheap white bread. And they don't seem to eat a
lot of vegetables unless you count pickles which are their favorite snack
food. I don't think I've ever seen them eat chips on the show but they do
bake a lot of cookies. They also seem to feed a lot more people than just
their immediate family.

I do not think the types of meals that they eat would be the equivalent of
someone in 1961, since people back then were probably still cooking most
things from scratch. The mom doesn't seem to do much in the kitchen or
otherwise and turns all of the tasks over to the kids. They did say on the
last episode that I watched that they do teach all of the kids to cook,
regardless of gender.

On 3/9/2015 10:02 PM, Janet B wrote:

> 9 cents a gallon for gas? I'd believe 29 cents.
> Janet US
>

I've bought at the Merit station in Philly for 19.9¢ in the early 60's.
Most times is was 22 to 24 for the major brands like Esso. .

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.

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.


--
Best
Greg

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

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:45:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/9/2015 10:02 PM, Janet B wrote:
>
>> 9 cents a gallon for gas? I'd believe 29 cents.
>> Janet US
>>
>
>I've bought at the Merit station in Philly for 19.9¢ in the early 60's.
> Most times is was 22 to 24 for the major brands like Esso. .

Gas around Long Beach, CA was at that time 9¢/gal, the closer to the
refinerys the lower the price... plus all over LA there were price
wars in teh '60s, ther ewas a station on every corner, four at each
intersection, all trying to out do each other with low prices and
freebies... some gave a free car wash with a fill-up, by skimpy bikini
clad Hooters type gals... if it weren't so arid there my car would
have become a pile of rust. Back then gas was less than 30¢/gal
everywhere but LA had the lowest prices. If you stayed at a hotel in
Vegas they filled your tank for free when you checked out. In the
'60s I could drive between Brooklyn and LA for under $50 in gas....
once I made the trip in 45 hours, only stopped for gas and pee... and
the Interstate was far completed then, many miles of bad roads. Back
then Motel 6 cost $6... there were also motels for $3 and $4, you
didn't want to stay there, Alfred Hitchcock had nothing on those
fleabags. Motel 6 was pretty nice, many even had TV in the room (B &
W)... Super 8 was luxury... I still have my Super 8 card... Super 8
costs a lot more than $8 today, but it did then. The nicest motor
lodge I ever stayed at was the Super 8 in Thunder Bay, was brand new
then, still finishing up construction on one wing... anyone ever
drives around Lake Superior be sure to fill up at every gas station,
there weren't many then, you don't want to run out of gas there.. be
very alert driving, Moose think the road is their jogging trail,
today's little puddle jumpers don't stand a chance.

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 10:30:08 PM UTC-4, barbie gee wrote:

>
> Did mom stay home and cook for the family? There weren't nearly as many
> "convenience" foods back then as there are now, that cost a "normal"
> family a pretty penny. Eating habits weren't what they are now, portion
> sizes are all out of whack compared to back then...
>
> What do those goofy Duggars spend monthly, and per person, I wonder?
> They'd be probably the closest modern day equivalent to your Beardsley's
> of 1961...


And then there was Amy Dacyczyn (author of "The Complete Tightwad Gazette").
In 1994, she was able to feed her family of eight - in Maine - on $180 a
month - the fact that impressed people the most. (That's $287.53 in 2014.)
Yes, they ate a lot of rice and beans - but also a lot from their garden.
Plus some meat. If you want to know more about what they ate, their menu
for two weeks in 1992 appears on pages 48-49 of vol. 1. (There's nothing surprising - but it's healthful, especially if the reader has the sense
to assume that some things are merely side treats, not the main course!)
Not sure if it appears in "The Complete Tightwad Gazette," which came out
in 1998 - check the index under "menu."


Lenona.

> If you want to know more about what they ate, their menu
> for two weeks in 1992 appears on pages 48-49 of vol. 1.


To clarify, that's vol. 1 of "The Tightwad Gazette." There were three
volumes. Before that, there were only newsletters.


Lenona.

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 4:59:05 PM UTC-4, Sqwertz wrote:

>
> Different foods have risen in price disproportionately to others.

Definitely!

For a truly sad example of how inflation doesn't tell the whole story,
see the chapter about the county fair in "Charlotte's Web," from 1952.
The father gives money to his two kids for food and rides and tells them
to make it last all day and not eat so much it makes them sick.

So how much did he give them?

70 cents each. I know, even without checking the calculator, that that is
less than $7 in today's money. Even if you're NOT at a fair (and I would
guess that food and rides are cheaper at a county fair than at any huge,
famous, permanent amusement park) that is clearly barely enough for a
sandwich and an ice cream cone. Hardly enough to make you sick.

(Checked just now - it comes to $6.25 in 2014.)

My guess is that today, he'd have to give them at least $40 each, for his
speech to make any sense.


Lenona.

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 4:59:05 PM UTC-4, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>>
>> Different foods have risen in price disproportionately to others.
>
> Definitely!
>
> For a truly sad example of how inflation doesn't tell the whole story,
> see the chapter about the county fair in "Charlotte's Web," from 1952.
> The father gives money to his two kids for food and rides and tells them
> to make it last all day and not eat so much it makes them sick.
>
> So how much did he give them?
>
> 70 cents each. I know, even without checking the calculator, that that is
> less than $7 in today's money. Even if you're NOT at a fair (and I would
> guess that food and rides are cheaper at a county fair than at any huge,
> famous, permanent amusement park) that is clearly barely enough for a
> sandwich and an ice cream cone. Hardly enough to make you sick.
>
> (Checked just now - it comes to $6.25 in 2014.)
>
> My guess is that today, he'd have to give them at least $40 each, for his
> speech to make any sense.
>
>
> Lenona.

I suppose it depends on how big that fair is and where it is. I've been to
some in PA where if you wanted a meal, you were buying something from
someone's Crock-pot that they'd made at home before they came. That food
was super cheap. You could also buy cheese or a piece of fresh fruit. I
don't remember seeing anything like popcorn or cotton candy but there was
roasted corn on the cob and home baked cookies.

If you go to a fair in a big city here, you'll be lucky to eat and drink for
the day for $40! Last time I went I think they were charging $6-7 for a
bottle of water. And it was a hot day. I insisted that we all keep our
bottles and I found a drinking fountain where we could refill them. I also
brought enough food in my purse for our first meal. The prices were insane!

Janet B wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:03:42 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:56:31 -0600, Janet B >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:29:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:09:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ground beef .49 then should be 3.82.
> >>>
> >>>and it was on sale all the time @ 3lbs for $1.
> >>
> >>I concur.
> >>Janet US
> >
> >Even back then I ground my own, my grandmothers did, my mom did, and
> >so do I... I ain't eating mystery meat... takes ten minutes to grind
> >ten pounds.
> >
> Back then you signaled the butcher and told him you wanted a pound of
> ground chuck or sirloin or whatever. He'd take the meat from the
> display right in front of you and grind it right in front of you. No
> mystery there.

I can still do that today at my store. A meat grinder would be nice
but I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price. My grocery store
butcher will do it for free.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...

> I can still do that today at my store. A meat grinder would be nice
> but I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price. My grocery store
> butcher will do it for free.
>
> G.

They do it here too.

Cheri

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:59:22 PM UTC-4, 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.

In 1975, I know that a fifteen,dollar grocery load was good for a week, plus a couple of eat-outs with a 'friend." I have old checkbook registers and my average check was about 15 bucks. ( Yes, anal me here has pumped all this into Quicken.....I kid you not.) I had a great apt for 150 a month, including water and heat.

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.

On 3/10/2015 11:39 AM, JRStern wrote:

> 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.
>

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
7.85

wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> 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.

I actully run an average of 4.45 a day per person (all adults). The
people who can't believe that can happen, generally are getting things
like pre-stuffed chicken breasts and a lot of premade frozen stuff to
nuke.

Of course it doesn't hurt at all if you learn to make real bread. I
make all ours and most of the time I spend about 60 cents to make the
equal of a loaf.

It's mostly raw produce, flour, rice, butter and a few sauces/canned
items like tomatoes here. Mixed million ways, it is not at all boring.

--