Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 500 posts

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#61

Post by dmz73 »

Interesting that he compares everything that is hard to compare but ignores one thing that would be very easy - rental pricing. You had to pay it then and you have to pay it now.

"four bedrooms, two sitting rooms, and a “nice outlook on green.” The rent was £90 for a year."

According to one CPI calculator (https://www.in2013dollars.com) "£90 in 1919 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £4,951.54 today" and "£700 in 1919 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £38,511.97 today".

Google search also reveals that average yearly wage in London in 1920 was £205 and average wage in London in 2021 was £53,700 so £700 income in 1919 was 3.5 times the average which in 2021 would be £187,950 (quite a bit more than "equivalent in purchasing power to about £38,511.97 today").

A quick web search for 4 bedroom apartment (not sure about sitting rooms) in London shows that rent is between £2,000 and £8,000 per month - let's say £5,000 for a nice one like what Christie's sounds like which is £60,000 per year. They paid £90/£700 = 13% of their (3.5 the average) annual income for rent and now the equivalent rent would be £60,000/£187,950 = 32% of the 3.5 the average annual income.

Even just comparing the plain average income, person in 1919 could rent the same apartment and still have £205 - £90 = £115 to live on for the year (which seems possible considering maid lived on £36 per year but in 2021 the average income leaves you £53,700 - £60,000 = £6,300 short on the rent alone.

So ignoring the tvs, computers, holidays, cars, healthcare and all the things that we cannot compare and comparing what we can, it is obvious that just to live in 2021 we need more money that what we are making and so it is easy to see how most people feel that the living standards have gone down.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#62

Post by dendriti »

tomrod wrote: post #55
joe_the_user wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a fellow American friend who lived in Bali for a year in the mid-70s. When he arrived, he shopped for his own food and cooked it. But he found that, since the merchants charged people by their social class, he could hire a housekeeper and have them buy and cook his food for the same price as buying his own found. And people expect him to do this.

Philippines as well. If you don't speak the language you are paying a premium for food, travel, communications, and potentially rent.

My experience in SEA in general and Bali specifically (as a Malaysian), prices are not simply a matter of speaking the language. Vendors often charge based literally on your social class/status.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#63

Post by csa »

metacritic12 wrote: post #56
jacknews wrote: post #49

The point is how much money does it take today to have the equivalent wealth status in society as Christie. It is almost certainly far more than $50,000, which is a tradesman's salary these days. So, irrespective of what that money now buys, the true inflation figure (how much does it cost to live at a certain level in society) is far greater than the official figure.

Inflation is defined based on utility, not a certain level of society. The second would be something like GDP growth, much higher than inflation, and definitionally a zero-sum game. Inflation says that you would rather prefer to live it today's society at say $60,000/year (with smart phones, cars, Internet TV), than yesterday's society at say $50,000/year (with two maids, but none of the technology). Introspecting, I…

> Introspecting, I would say the above decision is true for me.

An alternate perspective (not contrary, just different)…

My uncle and late aunt were linguists in Central and South America. They were funded modestly with American funds.

When abroad, they did not have a car, but they did have a housekeeper (cooking and cleaning) and one or two nannies (two when their 3rd kid was young). They got around by scooter, or taxis if necessary.

When they came to the US to raise funds, my aunt always complained about how hard it was to manage everything even though they were frequently given loaner cars and a lot of free food. Apparently the extra labor around the house made a huge difference for household management, and apparently that house help was worth way more than a car for them.

When I lived abroad in a lower CoL country, I rarely cooked just because I could eat out very cheaply and relatively healthily.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#64

Post by weird-eye-issue »

tomrod wrote: post #55
joe_the_user wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a fellow American friend who lived in Bali for a year in the mid-70s. When he arrived, he shopped for his own food and cooked it. But he found that, since the merchants charged people by their social class, he could hire a housekeeper and have them buy and cook his food for the same price as buying his own found. And people expect him to do this.

Philippines as well. If you don't speak the language you are paying a premium for food, travel, communications, and potentially rent.

In Thailand I can say this isn't the case

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#65

Post by amscanne »

notfbi wrote: post #51

" The couple’s annual income was around around £700 ($50,000 in today’s dollars)—£500 ($36,000) from his salary and another £200 ($14,000) in passive income. They rented a fourth-floor walk-up apartment in London with four bedrooms, two sitting rooms, and a “nice outlook on green.” The rent was £90 for a year ($530 per month in today’s dollars). To keep it tidy, they hired a live-in maid for £36 ($2,600) per year, wh…

They didn’t suggest that, it said:

> Still, Christie didn’t consider herself wealthy

Almost no one considers themselves wealthy. Even people that are very well-off typically consider themselves some variation of middle class, because they can so obviously and clearly see the next rung up the ladder, and how they are not on it. This point is made perfectly by her quote about how only the rich have cars.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#66

Post by [deleted] »

mannerheim wrote: post #53
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this is surprisingly common especially with older couples. People like to have their own space and when you get older comfort is more important because your body isn't what it used to be. Snoring, keeping separate hours, stealing blankets, freezing feet, etc. It all adds up. People don't need to sleep all night together to be a couple or to have sex. If anything, its kinda weird we are expected to share a bed…

While apartments have gotten smaller over the past decade (and I can't find anything on apartment sizes in decades past), only about 20% of Americans live in apartments, and houses are way bigger than they used to be. > In 1950, the year Time magazine estimated that Levitt and Sons built one out of every eight houses in the United States, the average size of a newly built single-family home was 983 square feet — slig…

[deleted]

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#67

Post by manquer »

beerandt wrote: post #57
manquer wrote: post #22

Housing cost being not too far from 100 years back seems suspect even inflation/per capita wealth adjusted. Increasing urbanization in cites and sheer population growth would have increased housing costs whichever way it is measured (ownership /rental/median /average) over 50-100 year period.

Construction methods and materials have significantly reduced the amount of required labor and the cost of materials over that time period. And commuting/ communications is easier which increases supply of land/space, and reduces relative demand within cities.

Building to code today is lot more expensive than building 100 years back.

Labour was a lot cheaper at that time, which was the point of the post ? She could afford two servants but not other things .

Commuting was not a problem then most people lived and worked in rural parts of the country.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#70

Post by jandrese »

jacknews wrote: post #49

The point is how much money does it take today to have the equivalent wealth status in society as Christie. It is almost certainly far more than $50,000, which is a tradesman's salary these days. So, irrespective of what that money now buys, the true inflation figure (how much does it cost to live at a certain level in society) is far greater than the official figure.

It is hard to compare because Agatha Christie didn't have an internet bill to pay, but also didn't have access to a huge chunk of the world's knowledge at her fingertips. This goes for a lot of things. Her healthcare would have been much less expensive than modern care, even adjusting for inflation, but she would also be more likely to die of disease or injury.
Post reply on HN