Re: Funeral expenses

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Mann

unread,
Jul 8, 2012, 12:17:50 PM7/8/12
to

> I happened across something that I thought perhaps /might/ be marginally
> useful to someone sometime, someplace.
>
> I'm happy to use it as a starting point; you may not be, but if so I don't
> actually need to know that. (g) All the pitfalls of using it are hereby
> stipulated.
>
> The same funeral home, in the same town, and for the same family charged
> these amounts for a funeral in the years specified.
> 1929: $225
> 1941: $218
> 1987: $2301
> 1996: $7007
>
> (As an aside, all 4 bills were paid in a single cash/check payment.)
>
> Now, if anyone can come up with prices for tombstones in those same years and
> post them here, I'd be grateful!
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


Very interesting! When you apply a calculation for inflation (I like to use
http://www.westegg.com/inflation ) from the 1929 rate to 1996 you see the
funeral home in 96 was making a hefty markup above inflation - $2062.89 would
be the inflation adjusted amount for that 1929 funeral in 1996!


--
Joseph Mann

Joe Mann <j...@mannfamily.cc>

singhals

unread,
Jul 8, 2012, 4:08:03 PM7/8/12
to
> Joe Mann


Lots of things could have fed the discrepancies. F'instance, in 1929, $225 was
a bit pricey, as supported by the fact that 20 years later, it went down. '87
and '96 were boom years as I recall. Or, in either of those last two years
the funeral home may have facilitated the purchase of a new plot in a
cemetery, or the state may have changed burial rules in some expensive way ...

Cheryl

singhals <sing...@erols.com>

Keith Nuttle

unread,
Jul 9, 2012, 12:38:14 PM7/9/12
to
> Joe Mann <j...@mannfamily.cc>


One of the things that must be compared in comparing cost is the technology.
I am sure that it cost significantly less to carve a tombstone in 96 than in
29, assuming the the 96 was craved with a computer guided cutter. I suspect
the cost of taking the stone from that quarry and of transporting the stone
from the quarry to the cemetery has significantly decreased.

I would assume that proportionally that a tractor can dig a grave cheaper than
a couple of men.

I hope you see what I mean.

Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net>

Brian

unread,
Jul 10, 2012, 2:00:56 PM7/10/12
to

> One of the things that must be compared in comparing cost is the technology.
> I am sure that it cost significantly less to carve a tombstone in 96 than in
> 29, assuming the the 96 was craved with a computer guided cutter. I suspect
> the cost of taking the stone from that quarry and of transporting the stone
> from the quarry to the cemetery has significantly decreased.
>
> I would assume that proportionally that a tractor can dig a grave cheaper than
> a couple of men.
>
> I hope you see what I mean.
>
> Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net>


I would imagine that the wages of the workers have increased considerably and
the cost of the equipment can be quite substantial.

Wes Groleau

unread,
Jul 13, 2012, 5:59:23 PM7/13/12
to

> I would assume that proportionally that a tractor can dig a grave cheaper than
> a couple of men.
>
> Keith Nuttle


"That blasted backhoe put ten guys with shovels out of work."

"Yeah, and that blasted shovel laid off a hundred guys with spoons."


--
Wes Groleau

“There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.”
— Larry Wall

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages