7 ms·

$25 in 1882 is about $600 today. That's like losing an iPhone.

by blfr 12y ago

dahart 12y ago
Wild! I already learned something today -- read this and gut reaction thought to myself it has to be much higher, but I was wrong. Apparently I don't know how big the Great Depression really was.
kristopolous 12y ago
losing an iphone? in that case they should be looking for an empty 1882 bottle of liquor there too.
ckinnan 12y ago
Real per capita income was roughly 1/9 of today's...so it is more like losing something worth $5,400.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Aren't you then making the correction twice? It appears it would have been between 1 and 3 weeks wages for someone in a job where they would carry a gun: http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/01/what-did-things-cost-in-1876.html http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/01/wh... A somewhat decent low skill job these days pays $30,000-35,000, which puts the comparison in the ballpark of $500, not $5,000.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    No. I experienced this when I went to Colombia. Their peso generally goes for a quarter to a third of a dollar. But prices are also cheaper. Something that costs a dollar here will cost one or two pesos there. So there's the multiplier of currency / price difference. There's also the multiplier of the amount of money people make. This one's harder to nail down, but just because something costs $600 in real money doesn't mean that that will feel like $600 coming out of your pocket when you spend it. I can spend $600 weekly without batting an eye, but someone at my relative social station in Colombia probably wouldn't be able to, their salary would be less even accounting for the currency difference. There's also access to credit. A purchase is much easier to make when you can get someone to finance it for you. There's a lot more to relative value than just currency differences.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I feel like you only read the first sentence of my comment. "2 weeks wages" should feel somewhat similar across time and place.
      - vinceguidry 12y ago
        Why would you expect that? If the purchasing power of that wage isn't the same, then it will feel different. If the only thing changing is the currency value, then sure, it will feel similar. Currency exchange rates != purchasing power. The reason there's a difference between the two is that currency exchange rates are calculated using different inputs than purchasing power rates are. Purchasing power compares things like milk and eggs and gas whereas currency exchange is mostly limited to fairly liquid financial instruments like bank notes and bond instruments.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Making such corrections is interesting. I'd like to hear more comments on it. Whether it's equivalent current value is $600 (as posted elsewhere) or $5400, both numbers are believable. The functional difference between a modern $600 rifle and a $5400 one is, to most casual observers, minimal - though the owner may have reason to pay $4800 for that difference.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    If you'd really like to make price-corrections look at a place like http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that has a bunch of indexes.
  - djrogers 12y ago
    In modern terms, anyone selling a $5,400 rifle would be hard pressed to sell 2,500 of them, let alone 25,000 to the civilian market. And while we're making adjustments, the US population in 1900 was just a hair over 75m, meaning that one of these was produced for every 3k people. Don't let the raw numbers fool you - this was an everyman's gun. A good one, yes. Still though, an everyman's gun.
jackgavigan 12y ago
I once found a $200+ pair of sunglasses (Oakley Juliets) under a tree in the Yosemite backcountry. They were moss-encrusted and half-buried in the humus but still perfectly serviceable once I gave them a quick wash/polish.
- mhb 12y ago
  The price of sunglasses is insane.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Might be worth it for Juliets - mine are ten years old and have taken a lot of abuse - (particularly being hit by the boom of dinghies and falls while skiing/cycling). I think I'm on my fourth set of lenses!
    - tlrobinson 12y ago
      The problem is not that sunglasses are overpriced for their quality (though sometimes they are) it's that I lose a damn pair every 6 months.
      - jackgavigan 12y ago
        Did you lose a pair of Juliets in Yosemite a few years back? :-)
        ytjohn 12y ago
        Not OP, but I too loose sunglasses all the time. I'm pretty sure those are mine. Now as soon as I figure out what Juliets are and where "Yosemite backcountry" is, I'll prove it to you. Actually, I've been able to hang onto my most recent pair for well over a year now. The trick is never taking them out of the car. The way they get lost is you wear them from your car into some house and take them off.
      - post_break 12y ago
refurb 12y ago
Not too far off what a decent rifle would cost today!
- ctdonath 12y ago
  That particular model is still in production, costs around $1000. Yes, similar rifles can be had around $600. There's an old (as in 1-2 centuries) aphorism that a good handgun costs about an ounce of gold. True then, true today; doesn't matter how currency fluctuates, solidly built classic products retain value.
  - ethana 12y ago
    Same goes for a good men's suit.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      Is there a secondary market for suits that I'm not aware of that isn't Goodwill? Clothing depreciation after purchase is almost as bad as cars, doesn't matter the quality.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        Secondhand or secondary? Secondhand - Thredup and sites like it. Marshall's, TJ Maxx, Men's Warehouse, etc. You can also travel to Hong Kong, Beijing, or one of many other cities in Asia and have them tailored for much less than retail department store prices.
      - dTal 12y ago
        It's a bit thin on the ground in the US. In the UK at least, the "charity shop" is an important part of the circulation of used clothes (and to a lesser extent books and ornaments). They are small and common rather than large and rare like Goodwill (I live in a medium-sized market town, population ~50,000, and there are dozens of them) and are usually run directly by charities with specific goals. It's a standard part of the culture to donate unwanted clothes, and the volume of donations is such that they usually only sell undamaged clothes. It's perfectly possible to only buy charity shop clothes, and because they're so cheap (price of a beer or two) one's wardrobe tends to grow quickly - until you run out of space and have to donate stuff to make room. So it's a nice system. It's a shame that the US hasn't adopted it.
scoot 12y ago
A 30 year old iPhone? (If it was, as suggested in the article, lost about 100 years ago.) Sure, the gun will have retained its resale value, but the owner will have also had years worth of use.

$25 in 1882 is about $600 today. That's like losing an iPhone.

by blfr 12y ago

$25 in 1882 is about $600 today. That's like losing an iPhone.

Wild! I already learned something today -- read this and gut reaction thought to myself it has to be much higher, but I was wrong. Apparently I don't know how big the Great Depression really was.

kristopolous 12y ago

losing an iphone? in that case they should be looking for an empty 1882 bottle of liquor there too.

ckinnan 12y ago

Real per capita income was roughly 1/9 of today's...so it is more like losing something worth $5,400.

maxerickson 12y ago
Aren't you then making the correction twice? It appears it would have been between 1 and 3 weeks wages for someone in a job where they would carry a gun: http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/01/what-did-things-cost-in-1876.html http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/01/wh... A somewhat decent low skill job these days pays $30,000-35,000, which puts the comparison in the ballpark of $500, not $5,000.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  No. I experienced this when I went to Colombia. Their peso generally goes for a quarter to a third of a dollar. But prices are also cheaper. Something that costs a dollar here will cost one or two pesos there. So there's the multiplier of currency / price difference. There's also the multiplier of the amount of money people make. This one's harder to nail down, but just because something costs $600 in real money doesn't mean that that will feel like $600 coming out of your pocket when you spend it. I can spend $600 weekly without batting an eye, but someone at my relative social station in Colombia probably wouldn't be able to, their salary would be less even accounting for the currency difference. There's also access to credit. A purchase is much easier to make when you can get someone to finance it for you. There's a lot more to relative value than just currency differences.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I feel like you only read the first sentence of my comment. "2 weeks wages" should feel somewhat similar across time and place.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      Why would you expect that? If the purchasing power of that wage isn't the same, then it will feel different. If the only thing changing is the currency value, then sure, it will feel similar. Currency exchange rates != purchasing power. The reason there's a difference between the two is that currency exchange rates are calculated using different inputs than purchasing power rates are. Purchasing power compares things like milk and eggs and gas whereas currency exchange is mostly limited to fairly liquid financial instruments like bank notes and bond instruments.
ctdonath 12y ago
Making such corrections is interesting. I'd like to hear more comments on it. Whether it's equivalent current value is $600 (as posted elsewhere) or $5400, both numbers are believable. The functional difference between a modern $600 rifle and a $5400 one is, to most casual observers, minimal - though the owner may have reason to pay $4800 for that difference.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  If you'd really like to make price-corrections look at a place like http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that has a bunch of indexes.
- djrogers 12y ago
  In modern terms, anyone selling a $5,400 rifle would be hard pressed to sell 2,500 of them, let alone 25,000 to the civilian market. And while we're making adjustments, the US population in 1900 was just a hair over 75m, meaning that one of these was produced for every 3k people. Don't let the raw numbers fool you - this was an everyman's gun. A good one, yes. Still though, an everyman's gun.

jackgavigan 12y ago

I once found a $200+ pair of sunglasses (Oakley Juliets) under a tree in the Yosemite backcountry. They were moss-encrusted and half-buried in the humus but still perfectly serviceable once I gave them a quick wash/polish.

mhb 12y ago
The price of sunglasses is insane.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Might be worth it for Juliets - mine are ten years old and have taken a lot of abuse - (particularly being hit by the boom of dinghies and falls while skiing/cycling). I think I'm on my fourth set of lenses!
  - tlrobinson 12y ago
    The problem is not that sunglasses are overpriced for their quality (though sometimes they are) it's that I lose a damn pair every 6 months.
    - jackgavigan 12y ago
      Did you lose a pair of Juliets in Yosemite a few years back? :-)
      - ytjohn 12y ago
        Not OP, but I too loose sunglasses all the time. I'm pretty sure those are mine. Now as soon as I figure out what Juliets are and where "Yosemite backcountry" is, I'll prove it to you. Actually, I've been able to hang onto my most recent pair for well over a year now. The trick is never taking them out of the car. The way they get lost is you wear them from your car into some house and take them off.
    - post_break 12y ago

refurb 12y ago

Not too far off what a decent rifle would cost today!

ctdonath 12y ago
That particular model is still in production, costs around $1000. Yes, similar rifles can be had around $600. There's an old (as in 1-2 centuries) aphorism that a good handgun costs about an ounce of gold. True then, true today; doesn't matter how currency fluctuates, solidly built classic products retain value.
- ethana 12y ago
  Same goes for a good men's suit.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    Is there a secondary market for suits that I'm not aware of that isn't Goodwill? Clothing depreciation after purchase is almost as bad as cars, doesn't matter the quality.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      Secondhand or secondary? Secondhand - Thredup and sites like it. Marshall's, TJ Maxx, Men's Warehouse, etc. You can also travel to Hong Kong, Beijing, or one of many other cities in Asia and have them tailored for much less than retail department store prices.
    - dTal 12y ago
      It's a bit thin on the ground in the US. In the UK at least, the "charity shop" is an important part of the circulation of used clothes (and to a lesser extent books and ornaments). They are small and common rather than large and rare like Goodwill (I live in a medium-sized market town, population ~50,000, and there are dozens of them) and are usually run directly by charities with specific goals. It's a standard part of the culture to donate unwanted clothes, and the volume of donations is such that they usually only sell undamaged clothes. It's perfectly possible to only buy charity shop clothes, and because they're so cheap (price of a beer or two) one's wardrobe tends to grow quickly - until you run out of space and have to donate stuff to make room. So it's a nice system. It's a shame that the US hasn't adopted it.

scoot 12y ago

A 30 year old iPhone? (If it was, as suggested in the article, lost about 100 years ago.) Sure, the gun will have retained its resale value, but the owner will have also had years worth of use.