I have a box of Sears and Roebuck .22LR in the ammo can. 'Twas my dear departed grandfather's, and it is now oxidized and not really healthy to handle, much like him.
Even converting it to "todays" dollars doesn't really express it. Our standard of living is so much better than it was in 1904 that that $7 was much more important as a percentage of total income than the "inflation adjusted" amount would be to us today.
Average income was $450 a YEAR in 1904 and most families lived on a single income.
Median household income in 2009 was about 50K
So in real impact...i.e. percentage of family income, that $7 in 1904 was worth about $778 in 2009.
Even looking at it from an individual standpoint: The average hourly wage in 1902 was 22 cents an hour. That means it would take an average worker in 1904 31.82 hours to make $7.
The average hourly wage in 2009 was around $18.50 per hour. The same 31.82 hours of work in 2009 would earn the average worker $588.67
Either way you look at it, it's not such a bargain when you get right down to it.
BTW: The average life expectancy in 1904 was 48.
I just turned 46.
That's sobering.
Maybe the good old days weren't so good after all.
Not really. What happens when you put inflation into account? If you account for inflation we actually pay LESS for ammo if you could believe it. And the ammo is of better quiality. And guns the prices have not really changed over the years. But one could argue that guns now again after inflation cost LESS than they did in 1904. As one brought up in todays dollars it would be $778. For a single shot breach loader. A cheap crescent sub-contract one at that. I can get a mossberg 500, a much better made and practical gun for not even half that.
My analogy is fatally flawed because it doesn't account for inflation at all. You'd have to combine both my concept and Nate's to get an accurate idea. I guess that's why I'm not an economist.
And Sendarius makes an EXCELLENT point. We can only dream of the days when you could order a Thompson Sub-machine gun from a catalog and have it delivered to your door via US Mail.
8 comments:
I have a box of Sears and Roebuck .22LR in the ammo can. 'Twas my dear departed grandfather's, and it is now oxidized and not really healthy to handle, much like him.
Of course, that's $164 in 2009 dollars, which just a bit less than you can get a basic Mossberg or Remington for.
1) It looks like you order it from one of their places in Chicago....
2) Ahhh, the days when they referred to *smokeless powder* as *white powder*
Even converting it to "todays" dollars doesn't really express it. Our standard of living is so much better than it was in 1904 that that $7 was much more important as a percentage of total income than the "inflation adjusted" amount would be to us today.
Average income was $450 a YEAR in 1904 and most families lived on a single income.
Median household income in 2009 was about 50K
So in real impact...i.e. percentage of family income, that $7 in 1904 was worth about $778 in 2009.
Even looking at it from an individual standpoint: The average hourly wage in 1902 was 22 cents an hour. That means it would take an average worker in 1904 31.82 hours to make $7.
The average hourly wage in 2009 was around $18.50 per hour. The same 31.82 hours of work in 2009 would earn the average worker $588.67
Either way you look at it, it's not such a bargain when you get right down to it.
BTW: The average life expectancy in 1904 was 48.
I just turned 46.
That's sobering.
Maybe the good old days weren't so good after all.
Not really. What happens when you put inflation into account? If you account for inflation we actually pay LESS for ammo if you could believe it. And the ammo is of better quiality. And guns the prices have not really changed over the years. But one could argue that guns now again after inflation cost LESS than they did in 1904. As one brought up in todays dollars it would be $778. For a single shot breach loader. A cheap crescent sub-contract one at that. I can get a mossberg 500, a much better made and practical gun for not even half that.
Seriously folks, the PRICE isn't the issue.
That shotgun was MAIL-ORDER, to your door, no form 4473, no FFL, no FOID, no 'permit to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right' required.
That is what we have lost.
Shawn and Sendarius both make good points.
My analogy is fatally flawed because it doesn't account for inflation at all. You'd have to combine both my concept and Nate's to get an accurate idea. I guess that's why I'm not an economist.
And Sendarius makes an EXCELLENT point. We can only dream of the days when you could order a Thompson Sub-machine gun from a catalog and have it delivered to your door via US Mail.
I still prefer modern life expectancies though.
I'm not seeing any expiration dates on those ads.
Maybe I'll order 5 or six dozen.
Post a Comment