1961 food prices vs. today (for a family with 18 kids)

[leno...@yahoo.com]

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.

[tra...@optonline.net]

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/1960-Food-College-Income.html

I'm sure there are other resources on this as well.

[wilm...@gmail.com]

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.

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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

[The Real Bev]

On 03/13/2015 08:45 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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.

>> 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.


--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================================
"If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than
if you just drank gin straight from the bottle."
- Garrison Keillor

[wilm...@gmail.com]

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, wilm...@gmail.com 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.

Here:

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 more: http://www.care2.com/causes/sorry-no-super-sized-incredible-hulk-turkeys-this-year-says-butterball.html#ixzz3UVFIgqGB

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 12:25:28 AM UTC-4, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 03/13/2015 08:45 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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.

+1

I do recall it being said that it was poor people's food back in
the days of the Pilgrims, but lobster sure wasn't cheap in 1961.

>
> >> 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.
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev

I don't know what the poster is talking about either. People still send
oranges and other fruit as gifts at Xmas. It doesn't have anything
to do with them being rare or unusual. And certainly oranges were
plentiful in the 1960s.

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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.

[Bob F]

The Real Bev wrote:
> On 03/13/2015 08:45 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, wilm...@gmail.com 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.
>
>>> 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.

Where in new england did you live in 1961?

[Bob F]

OP's talking about 1961. Things have changed.

It used to be that local products in season were very cheap. Now, the best of
everything gets shipped across the nation/world to where better prices can be
had. So local prices don't get the big drops.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Wow, 1961, you really figured that out?

>
> It used to be that local products in season were very cheap. Now, the best of
> everything gets shipped across the nation/world to where better prices can be
> had. So local prices don't get the big drops.

Lobster and the other typical seafood was never cheap and poor
people's food in the 60's. I live at the shore, I know.

[wilm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 7:24:41 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

>
> Lobster and the other typical seafood was never cheap and poor
> people's food in the 60's. I live at the shore, I know.

I don't know if you lived at the shore, nor do I know about your memory. But I do know that I have the internet.

To begin- the wholesale price of lobster is better than $8/lb (look it up).

In 1961 the wholesale price of lobster was $0.53/lb. That can be found on page 24 of this document:

http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=fisheries

Inflation figured in, $0.53 in 1961 is equal to about $4 today. Using:

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=300&year=1961

Conclusion: Lobster was easily half the price in 1961 as it is today. And that is wholesale. Today there are many more middlemen and the people in N.E. are competing against a world market to put lobsters on the plates of starving children of Portland.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 5:52:29 PM UTC-4, wilm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 7:24:41 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Lobster and the other typical seafood was never cheap and poor
> > people's food in the 60's. I live at the shore, I know.
>
> I don't know if you lived at the shore, nor do I know about your memory. But I do know that I have the internet.
>
> To begin- the wholesale price of lobster is better than $8/lb (look it up).

I don't think so:

http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/07/24/new-englands-live-lobster-prices-set-to-fall-to-seasonal-lows-as-new-shell-product-hits-market/

Looks more like $5.50. I can buy them in the supermarket for $8,
$6 when they are on sale.

>
> In 1961 the wholesale price of lobster was $0.53/lb. That can be found on page 24 of this document:
>
> http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=fisheries

That puts the retail price at ~ $1.06, ie 2X wholesale

>
> Inflation figured in, $0.53 in 1961 is equal to about $4 today.

Don't have to adjust to today. The issue was whether poor people
were eating lobster in 1960. Just look at the link I posted early in
the thread that shows the actual prices of some other sources of food
in 1960:

http://www.clearpictureonline.com/1960-Food-College-Income.html

Sirloin stake is $.79 a pound. Were poor people eating that?
And note that a pound of sirloin is almost all edible. A pound
of lobster, maybe half is edible, so double the cost delta. Even
if you somehow got that lobster at wholesale, at your $.53, the
effective cost of the meat is easily double that.

What were poor people eating:

fryers: .37 /lb
grnd beef .33
rice .15
bread .14
potatoes .05
bananas .10

And those are *retail* prices.

Using:
>
> http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=300&year=1961
>
> Conclusion: Lobster was easily half the price in 1961 as it is today. And that is wholesale. Today there are many more middlemen and the people in N.E. are competing against a world market to put lobsters on the plates of starving children of Portland.

Even if it was half the price it was today, that has nothing
to do with whether poor people could afford it or not. Diamonds
were probably half the price, did the poor have those too? The other
fundemental misconception you have is that somehow poor people
are able to buy lobster at wholesale prices. Wholesale, is, well
wholesale, ie large quantities to the trade. I've lived near
the shore my whole life and we never had some special track to buy
at wholesale prices or anywhere near wholesale price for seafood
or just about anything else. We paid retail, even at fish markets
near the shore. Some exceptional rare circumstances
excepted. And we were middle class and rarely had lobster because
it was expensive compared to other food choices. The above proves
it.