Slashdot Mirror

What cost $5000 in 1985 would cost $11,102.50 in 2015.The Inflation Calculator. In other words, Boom is claiming a ticket for their 40-seat SST will cost half the price charged for one aboard the 128-seat Concorde.

The Lufthansa executive transatlantic suite in 2016 costs $10,000.

Including limo service and other amenities. The SST is fast, but far from instantaneous, and over longer routes rather confining and comfortless, and for that there is no easy fix.

I get $4.15
http://www.westegg.com/inflati...

http://www.westegg.com/inflati...
What cost $100 in 1980 would cost $278.44 in 2013.

So Reagan's increase was about the same as Obama's.
And a lot of Reagan's increase ALSO came from unrealistically high defense spending and tax cuts on the wealthy.

What cost $100 in 1988 would cost $193.96 in 2013.
Bush's deficit increase was also about the same as Obama's increase.

Clinton used funny accounting tricks and gutted social security to balance the books. Actually he increased the deficit about 2T when you remove the accounting tricks.
What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $163.61 in 2013.
So his increase was about 3T about half of Obama's.

What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $122.42 in 2000.
Bush Jr increased the deficit by 7T. Currently still a record.

And bush's tax cuts account for 30% of the deficit. Obama is responsible for not allowing them to lapse. Defense spending the size of the next 25 nations combined accounts for another 40% of the deficit and *modest* cuts would have reduced the deficit by 1T. And we'd have still been spending more than china, russia, and all of europe combined. All of the rest of government accounts for the other 30%. Notably, the ACA is only a miniscule part of the deficit. The vast majority of it is bills from prior administrations that are difficult to stop- and impossible to stop with the republican dominated congress passing bills which only increase costs.

But Obama could have allowed the tax cuts to lapse and he'd be at about $4T. A *REAL* failure of spine there. And that's been the biggest gap. Let's rate them by spine.

Bush Jr., Spine of Titanium.
Bush Sr., Spine of Steel (and it cost him the election)
Clinton, Spine of Iron
Reagan, Spine of Wood (really- he basically went "Guns AND Butter)
Obama, Spine of Silly Putty

Hate him or love him- Bush got what he wanted. But he had the largest deficit adjusted for inflation and his policies are responsible for 1T to 2T of Obama's deficits (before Obama had a chance to allow them to lapse).

This Mac is not the most expensive Apple Computer. To tell you true true, is in the historical average for its class: in the nineties, the Quadra 950 was sold for 7200USD - something as 11200USD nowadays, as calculated by http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ .

Apple Computer was never a cheap computer shop. Since the Apple II era, their computers was far more expensive than the competition. It's a computing niche, where quality and user satisfaction worths more than money.

The cost/benefit ratio is far from reasonable, if you ask my opinion. But the same can be said about Ferrari cars, and you can bet your damn mouse I would drive a Ferrari if I could.

...why did I type 103. It's $109,549,232.63. Source.

Why should it? In 1975(just before the Brazilian Freeze Coffee (an 8 oz cup) on average was 30 cents, 50 cents a year later) From http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

What cost $.30 in 1975 would cost $1.26 in 2012.

A Tall at Starbucks* is 1.35. And it's in a coffee specialty store, not a Denny's like restaurant.

*I'm not a fan of Starbucks, I use them becasue they are pretty much everywhere.

Huh? Boy oh boy i wanna move to where you are.. what cost $.30 here in 1975 now cost about $4, and worse, if you're dealing with items subject to "sin tax", like beer, tobacco, gas (if driving to the grocer's on the next brock a sin?). that's a little closer with rents, as an apartment i rented in 1975 for $200 is now $1300.. however, I had an accident in 1978, and have since ben on a disability, my allowance was $350 for rent, but now it's.. oh, wait, that hasn't changed in 35 years.. it's still $350 ;-)

Why should it? In 1975(just before the Brazilian Freeze Coffee (an 8 oz cup) on average was 30 cents, 50 cents a year later)
From http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

What cost $.30 in 1975 would cost $1.26 in 2012.

A Tall at Starbucks* is 1.35. And it's in a coffee specialty store, not a Denny's like restaurant.

*I'm not a fan of Starbucks, I use them becasue they are pretty much everywhere.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost:

"The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973"

According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ that would be $129.47 in 2012. Now obviously we have the benefit of relatively inexpensive technology to help offset that. However we also have the burden of stricter safety standards and more expensive "available" technology as opposed to "required" technology. Hopefully the government would be pragmatic enough to select the "appropriate" level of safety. That means quantifying the numeric value of a life (factoring in all the publicity involved, future projects, etc) which is something people don't seem willing to do. I suspect that NASA is very gunshy about repeating a shuttle type disaster, and would not be able to give an upper bound to that number.

All it all, it seems pretty farfetched that this will happen to me.

the 1964 minimum wage was just under an ounce of silver per hour (~$1.25) and that today's value would be around $25 per hour

Sure, if you just ignore the fact that US currency hasn't been backed by precious metals since ~1970.

I checked two separate inflation calculators, and they both agree that $1.25 in 1964 would be somewhere around $9.13 - $9.26 in 2012 dollars, depending on which data sources you use. That's still higher than current minimum wage, but not by all that much.

From 1977 and 1978, these documents chronicle Apple's first OS and what made the Apple II into a serious computer for the masses.

The computer for the masses has to be affordable.

The original retail price of the computer was US $1298 (with 4 kB of RAM) and US $2638 (with the maximum 48 kB of RAM). The original Apple II was discontinued at the start of 1981, having been superseded by the II+.

An estimated 40,000 machines were sold for its 4-year production run.

Apple II series

What cost $1298 in 1977 would cost $4848.66 in 2012. What cost $2638 in 1977 would cost $9854.21 in 2012. The Inflation Calculator

Following Visicalc's release, Bricklin and Frankston developed ports for the Atari 800 and Commodore PET, both of which could be done easily due to sharing 6502 CPUs with the Apple II and being able to recycle large portions of code. Other versions followed for the HP 150 and TRS-80 Model I and II. Finally, Visicalc was ported to the IBM PC and became one of the initial pieces of software available for it on its 1981 launch.

VisiCalc

Decided to run the numbers, out of curiosity. From an inflation calculator:

What cost $1,000,000 in 1920 would cost $11,332,743.94 in 2012.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2012 and 1920,
they would cost you $1,000,000 and $77,800.45 respectively.

So the modern equivalent to "millionaire" as a term for rich people is now "ten-millionaire".

between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.

Doesn't that average out to about 10% increase a year? How much of that is normal inflation and how much is Monsanto being greedy?

The consumer price index (a common definition of inflation) rose by 45.75% total between 1995 and 2011. So for 325%, Monsanto was a greedy bastard to the tune of 279.25%. For 259%, Monsanto was a greedy bastard to the tune of 213.25%.

it was consumers getting burned by 2600 shovelware and rushed arcade ports

Let's analyze that, shall we? An InfoWorld article points out that in 1982, Atari 2600 game cartridges cost $4.50 to $6.00 to replicate and $1.00 to $2.00 to advertise and sold for $18.95 wholesale, or $43.47 in 2011 dollars according to this calculator. Assuming a 30 percent retailer margin, the same that Apple currently takes in its App Store, a game might have sold for $26.95, or $61.82 in 2011 dollars. That's release-day AAA pricing, and I can understand how people would react to having bought absolute crap for that much money.

Fast forward three decades to the present day. Release-day AAA disc games still cost $59.95, whether on PC or on console. But the rapid decline in replication costs allowed tiers of less ambitious software to take shape. In the 1990s, the shareware model of distributing a $0.00 trial version with only the first episode was common. I've seen casual PC disc games for $9.98 in retail stores. Downloadable games of a similarly limited scope can be $10 for a Steam game or a game in a console's store.

Now consider platforms that are not as open as the PC but not as closed as PlayStation or Nintendo consoles: iOS App Store and Xbox Live Indie Games. For about $1,000, anyone in a supported country can buy a computer, the device, and a certificate, and get started developing a game for these platforms. Prices for games on the App Store and XBLIG (in countries where available) tend to range from $1 to $5. Many iOS game publishers offer a pricing structure similar to shareware, with free trial versions that treat later levels as paid DLC. All XBLIG titles have an eight-minute free trial, and I've read that all games in the Ouya Store will have a free trial as well. I imagine that gamers feel far less burned by a free trial than by what Atari 2600 games cost. That's why I contend that the entry barrier familiar from PlayStation and Nintendo consoles is no longer necessary to avoid another 1984.

cheap true "home computers" like the C64, which itself was killed by the NES.

What exactly caused the NES to beat the C64? Was it the price of the 1541 floppy disk drive?

The VW Beetle came to the US, if memory serves, at $1666 in 1960s dollars.

Inflation Calculator says "What cost $1666 in 1960 would cost $12476.90 in 2011."

You can't eat gold. You can't grow crops on it. You can't plow with it. Well, you can, but plows made out of 24 karat gold aren't as good as steel ones.

If you look at the things most American consumers bought from the date our Constitution became effective until the late 1960s, we did experience changes in prices. Sometimes this was inflation, sometimes it was deflation.

Here are some examples, looking only at an "apples to apples" comparison of identical goods:
1800-1849: $20 in 1800 is worth $9.78 in 1849
1850-1899: $20 in 1850 is worth $20.02 in 1999
Skipping 1900, the year we went on the Gold Standard
1901-1932, the true "Gold Standard" years: $20 in 1901 is worth $32.71 in 1932
Skipping 1933, the year we went off the Gold Standard, and 1934, the first year of the $35/Troy Ounce fixed price of gold.
1935-1967, when Gold is fixed at $35/Troy Ounce: $20 in 1935 is worth $48.68 in 1967.

Remember, during several periods of American history, large, exploitable gold reserves were found in America and in other parts of the world. As supply goes up, the price relative to other commodities tends to go down. During other periods, the demand for gold for jewelry, industrial use, and other uses increased and prices relative to other commodities likely went up. During practically all of our nation's history, gold has also been seen as a "safe haven," which means its price goes up relative to other commodities during times of increasing instability and it goes down during times of increasing stability.

Source for inflation figures:
Inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

More citations for the inflation from the top hits on Google.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm/
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp

So, please cite your source.

8 meg of RAM was the minimum requirement to run Win95, not typical, which I would say was closer to 32 meg.

The price of 32 MB of RAM in 1996 --- as advertised in BYTE was --- $550. Memory Prices (1957-2012)

$756, adjusted for inflation (2010) The Inflation Calculator

I would be enormously surprised if the mass market Win 95 PC averaged more that 8 MB of RAM.

Oh yeah, also, historically speaking, we're paying much less for a new game than we used to be. Ditto consoles.

According to The Inflation Calculator:

Atari 2600 - $199 in 1977 - $707 today (in 2010 dollars, anyway)
Intellivision - $299 in 1979 - $886 today
NES - $199 in 1985 (US release) - $398 today
PC Engine/TG-16 - $249 in 1989 - $432 today

Games were also pretty expensive. I didn't actually buy my own games until the NES-era (and I'm having a hard time finding historical retail prices on video game cartridges), but even then, a new game was somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 back then, which would translate to $100 today. And look at how little you got for it in the case of a lot of games! I paid the equivalent of $100 for Mario Bros. 2 and beat it in a day. Ditto Mega Man 2 and 3. Ditto a lot of games.

I think many of us are more cognizant of how much were paying for games today because we're not using birthday money and allowance to buy them anymore, coupled with the fact that it's harder and harder to justify the expense with the economy being rough like it is. But in truth, we used to get charged a hell of a lot more.

That's not to say that I don't have my own misgivings, particularly related to the abuse of DLC as a concept. It seems like more and more games are coming out with 2/3 of the content they used to, with the intention of selling the remaining 1/3 in a few $10 increments down the road. The DLC on disc bullshit is even more ridiculous and unforgivable in my opinion.

Many places define value for purposes of theft as the highest amount possible determined by reasonable standards. In New Hampshire for example, the theft law defines "value" as:

"Value'' means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services. (RSA 637:2, V)

Are you suggesting that because you don't like the manufacturer's pricing models, that we should just write a special exception into the laws for phones requiring some other standard be used?

This is not a situation like when the RIAA claims a mere copy of bits on a disk representing "music" and sold for $0.99 is actually worth $50,000. If someone steals someone's smart phone, the victim actually paid the $800 for that physical, tangible property, and will have to pay $400 again to replace it.

There are certainly problems with the felony laws: In many places, the threshold between misdemeanor and felony was defined decades ago and hasn't been updated for inflation. For example, it was set to $500 in New Hampshire sometime in the 1970s, and was only increased to $1,000 in 2010 (SB205, 2010), whereas $500 in 1971 is actually worth $2661.24 today (Inflation Calculator). But this doesn't mean we should be adding special exceptions into the laws for products people don't think are worth the purchase cost.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Today's $5 gallon gasoline is 2000's $4 gallon gasoline.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Gasoline still cheaper than 2008.

---

Gasoline cost about 31 cents in 1960.
What cost $.31 in 1960 would cost $2.26 in 2010.

$5 is expensive. But for most people, it's only $1,000 per year they lose.

According to the inflation calculator $49.99 in 1996 is equivalent to $68.75 as of 2010, so not only is it not double, it's actually less than it should be (if that was the only consideration, which I know it is not).

Shit, I remember buying NES games for $49.99 back in like 1987. According to the same site, that's the equivalent of $94.66 in today's dollars, and I remember my father paying at least $200 for a Colecovision console back in 1982, the equivalent of $445.79 today.

The moral of the story is, we've always paid out the ass for video games...a lot of us just don't realize it because we weren't necessarily the ones actually paying out the ass.

And if you consider inflation that $49.99 15 years ago is more that the cost of the $59.99 games today.

What cost $49.99 in 1996 would cost $68.75 in 2010.
source - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

so actually games have been getting cheaper as they have not been adjusting for inflation.

and it says $850 in 1909 = $20,363 in 2010 dollars.

Right on the spot.

A 500-dollar amp from 1980 can't possibly compare to a 500-dollar amp from 2011, since the 500 dollars themselves are worth much much less than before. Counting only the officially admitted inflation and all, you'd probably need at least 1,300 dollars to buy for the same value of goods than 20 years ago.*

They should've compared a 2011's $2000 amp with a $500 amp from the 1980s. But thinking about inflation got unpopular since the Big O.

*) source: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes.

And 400 people control more than half of the wealth in the country. You don't see an inherent problem here?

So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich.

If you define "the rich" as people who make above $114,000 per year. Which still doesn't account for your lousy math and inability to calculate the crucial percentage of individual income number from what you claim above.

Meanwhile, Democrats have defined "the rich" as people making above $200k/year individually or $250k total household income. Republicans insist that these people are "not making all that much." What was your point about who the "rich" are again? Please do define your terms so that we can have an actual discussion here.

The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.

Funny thing about that: if you are making below $33,000 per year at today's prices, you have almost no disposable income to start with: you are making the equivalent of $6000 in 1970 money (feel free to run some other calculations yourself. This is especially true if you are a single parent or have someone else (aging family member) to support. The phrase you are looking for is "blood from a stone."

Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.

Please get an education and learn to stop lying. All you have to do is hold an "investment" for slightly longer than a year to get it taxed at a mere 15% instead of your actual income-tax rate. The more money people have, the more money they simply funnel through "cycling" schemes that contribute NOTHING to the economy, in order to take advantage of this loophole.

Capital gains taxes need to be eliminated, pure and simple, and any money gained that way treated as what it is, INCOME and taxed accordingly.

You are on crack. There were plenty of dollar devaluations during the 1800's (1810's, 1860's for example).

inflation calculator

What cost $1 in 1800 would cost $0.58 in 1913.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
they would cost you $1 and $1.76 respectively.

---

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%
Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%
Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%
Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%
Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%
Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%
Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%
Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%
Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%
Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%
Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%
Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%
Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%
Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%
Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%
Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657%
Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 71%
Uranium Dec 2003: 13.35 USD/pound, Apr 2011: 57.84 USD/pound, price up by over 333%
Iron Ore Dec 2003: 13.82 cents/dry Metric Ton, Apr 2011L: 179.26 cents/dry Metric Ton, price up by over 1197% (yeah, almost 1200%)
Gasoline Dec 2003: 0.89 USD/Gallo

(€500 = US$730)

I think the Brits are right on this. Who wants a $730 note? Just doesn't add up....

A $100 bill in 1960 was worth about what a €500 note is worth now, due to inflation.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

You give me a link, I'll give one back to you, it's called the 'inflation calculator'. Put in the starting date at 1800, the end date at 1913 and use 1 dollar and calculate inflation rate.

Here is what it produces:

What cost $1 in 1800 would cost $0.58 in 1913.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
they would cost you $1 and $1.76 respectively.

then put in start date at 1914 and end date at 2010, still use 1 dollar, and here is what you get:

What cost $1 in 1914 would cost $21.50 in 2010.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1914,
they would cost you $1 and $0.05 respectively.

Now, I disagree with the way they calculate current inflation. I calculated that it is 76% just from 2003, but whatever, their calculator is informative anyway, and your comment:

The period of 1800-1900 was evidently not "deflation at the time".

- is again, a fail.

The dollar was gaining in value, firstly because almost every other civilized country on the western hemisphere was growing at that time, secondly because it was backed by an inflating supply of gold (the US was one of the biggest gold producers at the time), thirdly because the US had a very rapid influx of population, lots of migrating workers eager to increase the international value of the fixed supply of dollars.

- you even contradict yourself. Gold cannot simply go up in value due to US being the biggest producer of it. The more of it is produced, the less relative value it has.

As to France - its a huge socialist state, whenever I go there (every now and then), I am amazed at the disparity between the grandeur of the past and the poverty derived from this failing social experiment they started with their revolutions. Well, at least they didn't go full 'USSR' there, they had some sense.

Again, stick to your fiat, I really wish you good luck with that strategy.

Strange thing is these cost as much as they did when i bought mine 20 + years ago.. They should be cheaper now, so what is up with that?

If you figure $61 based on a google search, and calculate the inflation-adjusted price then you see that it's only actually $35.71 in 1990 dollars. So they have become significantly cheaper.

According to the CPI rate calculator here, that's about $700 today. Not $1000, but still quite comparable.

I don't know that I agree with MobileTatsu-NJG, but they make an excellent point. We collectively value cheap electronics and other goods. There is a race to the bottom and the more expensive products are having trouble competing.

This is true. But it doesn't cost a fortune to make a good film; see Fassbinder's Marta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_(1974_film), or really any of his - they were made on a budget, but the acting was phenomenal). In today's dollars (according to some perhaps shaky assumptions re the equivalence of DM and USD inflation rates between 1974-2009, and these sites: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi and http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/exchangeglobal/result.php), Marta cost ~$833076 2009 USD. I can't find any information about Zenith's cost, but even ~$900,000 USD is not out of reach for an ambitious (and talented) (outsider) director.

30 million is actually fairly low budget by Hollywood standards. A director of Jackson's stature can often receive almost that much in up front pay for a film.

For reference, The Rocky Horror Picture had a $1.2m in 1975, which adjusted for inflation comes out to between $28m and $47m in 2009 (the year District 9 came out) depending on whether you use purchasing power or straight valuation, respectively. I think a solid case can be made for calling RHPS "low-budget".

At least those are the numbers I got from http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Consumer Price Index is at 95% as of 2009 (and last year was pretty bad).

Commodities are similar. Seeing as gold was the standard at the time, we can consider that thusly:

(1-(1/(1400/25)))*100 = 98.2% loss over the same period. That's approximately the same.

What cost $15 in 1980 would cost $38.55 in 2009 thanx to inflation. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

1980 median income in 2004 dollars was $27,206. 2004 median income in (drumroll) 2004 dollars was $30,513. A pretty flat line.

I agree commodity, real estate, food, health insurance, all those prices for mandatory purchases have increased.
That means discretionary income has collapsed over that interval, so game prices are a higher fraction of the entertainment dollar than ever before.

In 1980 my father may have gone to the mall with the equivalent of $100 in his pocket. I might only have $50 in my pocket now. Games should be dropping in price if they want to maintain volume.

What cost $15 in 1980 would cost $38.55 in 2009 thanx to inflation. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Remember...He didn't even have DOS when he sold it to IBM.

What Gates had was a full suite of programming languages ready to port to the new micro.

What Gates had was the guts to promise delivery of a serviceable 16 bit CP/M clone in time for the scheduled launch of the IBM PC.

These were the words IBM needed to hear.

What Gates had was the smarts to negotiate a non-exclusive license for DOS -

which would sell for $200 less than CP/M 86.

$467 less, adjusted for inflation. The Inflation Calculator

MS-DOS would be the commodity OS.

That alone permanently altered the landscape.

The MS-DOS PC was an unquestionably viable commercial product before the cloning of the PC BIOS.

The most popular of these, the Atari VCS/2600, sold games for $30 new, and $25 for older titles.

What cost $30 in 1978 cost $97.60 in 2009. The Inflation Calculator

The nominal price may have doubled, but that doesn't really tell the whole tale. One simple way to do this is to think about minimum wage. I was in HS in the mid 80s, had a job making pizza that paid $3.35/hr (or thereabouts). Gas was up to $1.20/gal sometimes, but call it a buck/gal -- roughly 18 minutes for a gallon of gas. Currently min. wage in my area is $8.55/hr, and gas is $3.20, or about 23 minutes for a gallon. So, in the last 20 years, the time-cost of gas for the bottom earners has risen maybe 28%.

It's worth looking at an inflation calculator: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

A dollar in 1986 is worth $1.93 in 2009. With gas at $3.20, gas is 65% more expensive on an inflation adjusted basis.

10 cents in 1950 is worth 79 cents in 2009. Gas is 4x its 1950s price on an inflation adjusted basis. The 1955 minimum wage was 75c/hr, meaning it took about 8 minutes of labor per gallon. I guess this is the difference between being the world's biggest exporter, and our current status as the biggest importer.

There's a silver lining in all this: that $.50 in 1970 is worth $2.73 now!

This site claims the average household income in 1986 was $30,000 before taxes. For comparison, the average household income in the region where I live is about $35,000 today. I really see no reason why the average person was unable to afford a computer in the 80s, though I welcome numbers to show otherwise.

You know it's possible to look up inflation directly instead of using two arbitrary and unrelated numbers. You came up with 17% inflation, which I'm surprised anyone would believe. From 1986 to 2009, the source I found says it was 93%, which is must more consistent with what I saw during that period.

He got the year wrong - 1980 was the high. The peak was Jan. 18- 20 1980, $830-$850 = $2146 - $2184 in 2009 CPI- adjusted dollars.

Last 6 months gold has been $1100 - $1200. In highly understated 1980 CPI adjustments, that is about $430 - $470 in 1980 dollars. The price of gold was nearly always higher in real terms from about 12/79 to 6/81. See kitco.com and http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi for documentation.

As you said: "What would prompt you to make up other numbers?"

Inflation since then runs close to 1000-1500% (depending on initial year) than 60,000%, actually. Please check out this inflation calculator if you would like to see for yourself.

Inflation adjustment is not as simple as what the westegg calculator makes it out to be.

Look at the results at measuringworth.com. I would agree that I over estimated off the top of my head, as I over estimated inflation in the 1800's. Personally, I would say that the $70k number is probably the more relevant number as it puts the punishment about the twice the cost of hiring someone at minimum wage for the year.

Inflation since then runs close to 1000-1500% (depending on initial year) than 60,000%, actually. Please check out this inflation calculator if you would like to see for yourself.

Taking in account inflation alone: according to The Inflation Calculator , $1295 in '85 dollars is equal to $2558.09 in '08 dollars.

But those numbers alone don't tell the whole story. Later Amigas were cheaper. And consider that the Amiga was far more advanced than the PC at the time it was introduced, although the price was similar. You can say the inferior system won, likely due to Commodore's sheer business incompetence. But anyway... it's all in the realm of "what if" now.

What cost $100 in 1994 would cost $143.47 in 2008.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2008 and 1994, they would cost you $100 and $70.51 respectively.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

You were on the right track, but your point of reference is way off. Try something like this calculator which adjusts $$ for inflation:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

What cost $2800 in 1955 would cost $21457.27 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1955,
they would cost you $2800 and $377.12 respectively.

Or look for a CPI (consumer price index) calculator, like:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

which believes according to it's data that
$
in
has the same buying power as
$22,278.81
in 2009

So, corvettes have risen in price dramatically faster than the general "basket of goods" tracked by the CPI.

I don't think your analysis is complete.

Using your figures, we assume a 600% inflation rate since 1962 ("... yet cost 1/16th as much adjusted for inflation", applied to $100 million current dollars, yields a little over $6 million dollars or 6 times the unadjusted cost for "Dr. No"). That may seem a little high, but I just put the numbers in an inflation calculator (The Inflation Calculator) and it's close: 679% inflation between 1962 and 2007. So, let's assume that figure.

At 679% inflation, "Dr. No" would have earned $407 million current dollars at an expense of $7 million, or a total profit of $400 million current dollars. On the other hand, "Casino Royale" earned $600 million at an expense of $100 million, or a total profit of $500 million.

So, "Casino Royale" made 25% more profit than "Dr. No", when adjusted for inflation. It's not a huge jump, but it debunks your assertion that the new movie actually made much less by comparison. The new movie made less "percentage-wise" when comparing income to investment, but more actual dollars.

If you can gain 25% profit by investing 16 times more money, and you have the money to invest, you would be wise to do so.

You're a geek. You don't care about normal people, because you were perfectly happy with DOS or whatever you were using.

Harsh! The truth is, I wanted a mac really badly. I lusted deeply for it. But the true appeal of it was more emotional than practical. And as awesome as it was, for most people the Mac and the Lisa wasn't truly justified by their high price tag.

The Mac was selling in 1984 for $2500 or so. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $5000 now. $5000 is a lot of money for word processing or other personal computing tasks today, and $2495 was a lot of money for personal computing tasks then, in pretty much the same way that $5000 is a lot of money for personal computing tasks now.

Also consider that the early Mac printers were dot matrix, and generally the results were actually not as professionally acceptable as the daisy wheel printers of the era.

I love Macs as much as anybody. And I'm not a mindless command line fanboi like many people around here are. I'm just sayin, the appeal of the Mac and the Lisa was as much about "cool" as it was about "practical". And it's much the same with the current Apple offerings. They're fantastic products, and they're expensive, and for some reason I buy them even though I can accomplish the same things elsewhere for half the price or less.

--
Posted from my iPhone (and it took me like an hour to type it, but damn did I look sexy)

That was interesting -- the ad your brother links to says that a basic model was $825, more depending on memory and options. Going to an inflation calculator ( http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi ) shows that it would have cost $3266.19 in 2008 dollars. That was once upon a time, quite a pricey machine.

When accounting for inflation, using this inflation calculator, $6.00 an hour in 1969 is just over $33 an hour in 2007 money. That works out to be $68k a year, based on the articles 2080 hours per year figure.

So yeah, not a huge amount of money, but still a decent wage imho