ForumGarden

During the 1960's the minimum wage was between $1.00 to $1.40 per hour, but look at these prices. Food Groceries and Toiletries in the 1960's prices 60 examples from The People History Site.

Now wonder I was living so well on my $10,000 yearly :-2

That's exactly what I said Lon. Look at the original thread to see what I was doing with 10K in the '70's. I m-a-y-b-e can do that on 100K today. Nope. More like 120K.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

Simple life - people were satisfied with a Ford Falcon in the 60's and a Pinto in the 70's.

Now they want a BMW - no one is satisfied anymore. greed

My Dad made less than $ 10,000 @ yr. in the 50's & 60's - raised 6 kids

we didn't have as much as others - but we were happy with what we had.

I made $ 2.65 @ hour - my Pinto payment was $ 40.00 @ month, I made ends meet & still enjoyed extras.

I continued my education so I could create a Savings account/cushion so I could afford that flat tire on my Pinto.:wah:

Patsy

Patsy: "Now they want a BMW - no one is satisfied anymore. greed"

I wonder why I see so many expensive cars around here, middle class neighborhood. Then I remembered "Leasing". You used to have to buy a car, now you Lease a car. Bet mighty few I see are actually Owned.

There's an interesting slideshow in Fiscaltimes that shows what minimum wage bought from the '50s through 2010.

Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now | The Fiscal Times

In 1950 11 movies released, 1960, 19 movies, 1970, 31 movies. These stats blew me away. I wonder how many hundreds of movie are released per year now.

YZGI;1456489 wrote: In 1950 11 movies released, 1960, 19 movies, 1970, 31 movies. These stats blew me away. I wonder how many hundreds of movie are released per year now.Run that by me again?

In 1950 I was 10 years old, my city had 3 'first run' theaters, and each of them had a NEW feature every week, with occasional exceptions when a really big hit would be "held over" for a second or very rarely a third week. So that would be about 120-150 'first runs' annually.

What is your source for ELEVEN?

Added later: Also, one of those three "first run" theaters always had a "B" picture ("double feature") which was also first run. So that would put the total annual output in the 1950's closer to 200 annually.

Imdb shows over 1500 films released in 1950.

That seems to be around the average for the 40s and 50s.

Of course, like today, probably 20% at the most are really worth watching.

LarsMac;1457070 wrote: Imdb shows over 1500 films released in 1950.

Is that worldwide?

My 'guesstimate' of 200 was for USA only, and I admit it might be too low, considering all of the "poverty row" studios in operation at that time, whose product rarely reached the "first run" houses.

Mark Aspam;1457071 wrote: Is that worldwide?

My 'guesstimate' of 200 was for USA only, and I admit it might be too low, considering all of the "poverty row" studios in operation at that time, whose product rarely reached the "first run" houses.


Well most of the films on the lists appear to be British and American, with a few Aussie and Canadian films thrown in. Not very many non-English language.

And in 2010 the number was upwards of 7000.

I would imagine that the numbers are nothing to do with a minimum wage, or finance at all (within reason), but increasing access to higher quality & more affordable technology. Where is the earlier days everything would have to be filmed on expensive celuloid, running no more than 15 mins / reel, on even more expensive massive great cameras that would need several people to move the 'mobile' ones, and / or to have them running on railway tracks.

The animated films (Cinderella came out in 1950) had to be made by each frame having to be laboriously drawn by 100s of skilled artists & photographed as a still frame. Then there was the task of dubbing the sound to it all.

These days, an everyday home owned handheld camcorder is capable of the same, or better quality as the top equipment of the 50s, all of which can record hours or more on a single tape cartridge, or directly to a RAM chip. Editing can be done on any home PC. As for animations - even these are all done by computer these days by just having an actor make the movements while wearing a suit of light points for the computer to pick up on, then with just a few editing program points the computer does the rest. And entire animated feature film can be put together in 1 day, rather than over a year, as it would have taken the earlier film makers.

1 year, just of salaries for 100s on the staff (ignoring the equipment) for a single film would be more than enough to finance about 1000s of films AND equipment using today's technology & minimal staff.

It's hardly any wonder that the numbers are constantly increasing from year to year.

Even so, though, 11 in 1950. No way. Wikipedia alone lists the TOP 10 for that year.

Mark Aspam;1457064 wrote: Run that by me again?

In 1950 I was 10 years old, my city had 3 'first run' theaters, and each of them had a NEW feature every week, with occasional exceptions when a really big hit would be "held over" for a second or very rarely a third week. So that would be about 120-150 'first runs' annually.

What is your source for ELEVEN?

Added later: Also, one of those three "first run" theaters always had a "B" picture ("double feature") which was also first run. So that would put the total annual output in the 1950's closer to 200 annually.


In the link Wanderin supplied, Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now | The Fiscal Times

This was in it:1970

In 1970, the outlook for minimum-wage workers was about as bright as a spinning disco ball. Compared to ten years before, the cost of rent and gas actually decreased. Movie tickets were the one exception•gaining in popularity and breadth (31 movies were released in 1970, compared to just 19 in 1960 and 11 in 1950), the cost of a ticket saw a big hike, and was the equivalent of a near hour of work.

Minimum wage: $1.60/hour

Gas: $0.36 or 14m

Movie ticket: $1.55 or 58m

Rent: $108 or 67.5hrs

- See more at: Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now | The Fiscal Times

Obviously not even close.

Here's a great graphic from Yahoo finance!

Proof positive that there need be no national minimum wage. Such a thing is unconstitutional without a "Progressive" spin on interpreting the Constitution.