$242,240 in 2005 according to the http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm
On a salary of $15,000, or $121k today. God damm the FED.
Obviously inflation is non-linear. That house would probably cost half a million in today's economy -- in some parts of the country, it'd be a full million.
And of course, getting up at 5:30 to be to work by 9:00 is nothing to blink at these days.
*/\*Goonies never say die!*/\*
A useful procedure in watching this film is simply to add an additional zero to each of the dollar amounts. Then the prices are comparable to those in 2006.
And yes, may the Federal Reserve and all its minions find eternal torment, in the depths of darkest hades, for inflating our currency so as to lose 90 cents on the dollar in 60 years. (Ben Bernanke could not drop money from a helicopter in 1948, could he? The helicopter had not been widely available then.)
Buying into property like Mr. Blandings does would seem to have preserved one's wealth, as opposed to holding cash: Does he not buy his 35 acres (more or less) for only $10,000? Try finding anything like that in CT today, for a mere $100,000. That's the price of a single 1/4-acre lot in our bigger rat-race cities. Of course, this does not take the popping of the housing bubble into account.
It is something, in this film, to see all of the contractor workers be Euro-Americans, where today of course you'd hear mostly Spanish on such a job site.
I don't think that's right about adding the zero. They said he makes $15,000 per year. To be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment like that, plus a full-time maid, plus private school for both girls, braces, a progressive camp, and extra French lessons, he would have to be making $300,000 a year, at least. I should know, because we live in Manhattan, me and my wife both work, and we can't afford all that stuff for our family on our "ample" combined income.
I think it's add a zero and double it - 20 times, not 10. The renovations they were talking about being $7000? That would be $140,000 today, and to really renovate a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan nowadays, including knocking out walls, and the like, $140,000 would be about right. Mind you, an apartment like theirs would go for about $1.3 million now, depending on location, floor, building amenities, and things like that. But that's with the real estate bubble - 10 years ago, you could get that apartment for about $500,000. So using my formula, that would be $25,000 back then, which compares favorably to his $15,000 per year salary.
As proof of my point that it's 20 times, not 10, the fictional Ralph Kramden, of Honeymooners fame from the fifties, made $62 per week. That is $3224 per year. Wages in the fifties are broadly comparable to what they were in the 1948; inflation was not much then. Nowadays a New York City Transit Authority bus driver makes $63,000 per year. That's 20 times, not 10.
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Based on that architectural drawing I just saw in the film, and with 35 acres,
in southwest CT on a commuter rail town, that property and house would go for
between $3 and $7 million today. Depends on town and what 35 acres.
Of course, other prices have not gone up so much. SW CT was in development
then and the commuters with jobs in NYC that commuted to CT made the prices
skyrocket in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even continuing today...
I wish I had a place like that then!!!
Good flick.
In 2005, $15,000.00 from 1948 is worth:
$121,666.67 using the Consumer Price Index
$103,241.76 using the GDP deflator
$216,927.32 using the unskilled wage
$342,546.39 using the nominal GDP per capita
$694,045.32 using the relative share of GDP
In 2005, $30,000.00 from 1948 is worth:
$243,333.33 using the Consumer Price Index
$206,483.52 using the GDP deflator
$433,854.65 using the unskilled wage
$685,092.79 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1,388,090.64 using the relative share of GDP
SOURCE:
http://eh.net/hmit/compare/
[deleted]
The Blandings snatched up 30+ acres of Conn real estate within commuting distance of NYC. Even by the 70's it would have been worth a small fortune. By the 90's it would have been worth a VERY LARGE fortune.
share[deleted]
I remember my father bought a rambler near seattle in 1967, brand new, for $21K and at the time he made around 10K. that seemed to be the norm back then, a house cost around twice what your salary was. today, if one makes 35K a year, could he buy a house, any house, for 70k? no way. now around here that same house is $400K. a lot of people spend half their monthly salary just to pay the mortgage payment. it's sad really. and back then, it was up to the man to pay it, now forget it, you almost have to have two people to barely afford the mortgage.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040613/trivia
Although this film was from the novel of the same name, much of the story is autobiographical. Eric Hodgins and his wife built the actual house in the rural Litchfield County, Connecticut town of New Milford. Located in the bucolic Merryall section of town, the house recently sold for $1.2 million.