The Summer of ‘69 vs. the Summer of ‘09
May 22, 2009
Much has changed since the legendary summer of 1969, both socially and economically. To analyze the variance in purchasing power between then and now, we have compared a number of popular consumer products by price that are still relevant today. The figures from 1969 have been adjusted for inflation to give us a better idea of what the actual cost of each item would be in today’s economy. Given the bleak financial outlook which faces us this coming summer, it does us all a bit of good to look back with nostalgia on a time of blissful optimism and free love.
Note: Prices from 1969 are inflation-adjusted!
$325 an ounce? Sometimes I love Canada.
Comment by Young — May 22, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Not enough Bryan Adams
Comment by Yungstarr — May 22, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Dude, gas was not $2.07 a gallon in 1969. In fact, pumps of that time were analog and did not even register above $1. The average cost of a gallon of gas in 1969 was roughly 39 cents!
RT
http://www.whos-watching.se.tc
Comment by John Davis — May 22, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Way off. Gas in 1969 averaged 39 cents per gallon.
Comment by Jackie GoBackie — May 22, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Are you saying a gallon of gas cost $2.03 in 1969??
Comment by Dbax — May 22, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
You have left out the elephant in the room: cost of housing [per sqft].
Comment by dot — May 22, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Not sure where the hell your from but those prices are from 2000 not 2009.
Comment by Casey Wells — May 22, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Pot does not cost $325 an ounce. If it did I would not smoke it everyday. Do some real research and stop getting ripped off.
Comment by Anonymous — May 22, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
who pays $325 for an ounce of the good grass?
seriously, you’re paying way too much
Comment by Anonymous — May 22, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
I don’t know about some of those 1969 prices, but some of them are way off. That’s the government for you. I bought the Abbey Road album at J.C. Penny’s In 1971 and paid $7.99 and that was full price. the Daily paper was .10 cents and Sunday was a quarter. A cup of coffee was a dime, in 1969 at most diners maybe a quarter at denny’s.I don’t know what weed was, because I didn’t smoke it in 1969, but it was a 1/3 that in 1976 for good domestic, an ounce of Colombian in 1976 was $140.
Comment by Mike B — May 22, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Who the hell pays $325 for an ounce of buds?
Comment by Squish — May 22, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I don’t know about these prices.
Comment by Nathan — May 22, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Ok, in the mid 70’s we could get an ounce of pot for $40, a gallon of gas for about $0.65/gallon (maybe a bit more), a record album for somewhere between $5 and $8. This is totally in error.
Comment by Ken — May 22, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
uhm, i don’t mean to be one of those sticklers for detail. This is a very cool and relative post, but the Summer of Love was actually 1967. Sorry. No offense intended.
Comment by stickmansix — May 22, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Some of these prices are definitely wrong. Gas was NOT 2+ dollars a gallon 69. A cup of coffee was 50 cents or less. Otherwise, very interesting.
Comment by Chris Curtis — May 22, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Hey, I was there and you are way off. Albums were around $3.50; concerts were $6.00; shirts aroun $3.00; Levis $5.50; coffee $0.25 cents; Vw van $1,800.00; Gas $0.36 cents. Idiot!
Comment by I Was There — May 22, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
$325 for a oz of weed??? Where tha fuck do you live?! Try $200/oz of purple kush. You’re getting grifted brotha.
Comment by Vancity Boi — May 22, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
$140 for an ounce of marijuana?! Either someone’s lying to you or you got royally screwed.
In the LA area, it was $10 for a lid, sometimes $20 if it was really good stuff. $140 would have bought a whole key in ‘69. But if you were really smart, you had a plant growing in the back yard or on the window sill. Properly tended, you could keep yourself stoned all year.
But nobody I know ever paid for it, we all just shared. The only people paying for it were the 30-somethings in the offices who liked to pretend they were cool.
Comment by peskydang — May 22, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Record album 17.43 in 1969? Say what? LOL! Try $5.00.
Where do you get these prices for 1969? How old are you? LOL!
Comment by 2112 — May 22, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Sorry man… You got your numbers wrong.
Pot 15.00 per OZ
GAS 0.35 per Gal
Les Paul 700.00
Comment by Worthlessinfo — May 22, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
This chart is ridiculous! Nobody paid $17.43 for an LP in 1969, nor $2.03 for a gallon of gas. Where did you get these figures?
Comment by JR — May 22, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
The “Summer of Love” refers to the summer of 1967, not the summer of 1969 - thats a Bryan Adams song.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love
Comment by Seth Brundle — May 22, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
300+ for an ounce? you’re kidding me…
Comment by lol — May 22, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Guys, those are inflation-adjusted numbers. Guess we should have made that a bit more obvious so everyone doesn’t freak out. Also, price for marijuana is base on third-party official source. We’re also aware that historically the term “The Summer of Love” was for the movement that started in 1967, but regardless it made an impact for the late 60s. Plus, it’s more fun comparing 40 years apart than say… 42 years. Lastly, the few comments on Bryan Adams shows that its easy to recognize where Summer of Love ‘69 is from!
Comment by BillShrink Guy — May 22, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Are people really having that big of an issue with the phrase “inflation-adjusted” here?
Comment by Aaron — May 22, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Wow, people really need to do a better job of “reading” the damn piece before bashing it. All numbers are inflation adjusted as clearly mentioned at the top of the piece. Jeez.
Comment by Adam Tuttle — May 22, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
INFLATION ADJUSTED PRICES.
LEARN TO READ.
Comment by YargleBlargle — May 22, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Are you people stupid? Did you read the text at the top of the chart? Jesus, you’re the same people that start taking a test without reading the instructions at the top and do it all wrong.
Inflation adjusted prices.
Relative change.
Of course gas didn’t cost $2 in 1969. The author is showing us how much gas would be in 1969 with inflation adjusted prices.
The graph is basically trying to show us that sh*t costs too much these days in comparison.
Comment by Common Sense — May 22, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Im apparently the only person who understans inflation adjusted prices. It was made quite clear, at the top of the graphic. I will split hairs about the price of pot. Try more around $120.
Comment by Brian — May 22, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Just FYI, I added in the bold NOTE before the graphics after the comments came storming in. As mentioned, we probably could have highlight the other one within the graphics but didn’t think it was an issue or people would have recognized it right away, our bad?
Comment by BillShrink Guy — May 22, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Hi I am Joe Commenter and I don’t know how to read and so I fly off the handle on the internet and comment before reading intro paragraphs that include relevant details that help average people understand what they are looking at.
Comment by Think Before You Comment — May 22, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
wow i cant believe nobody here even took the time to read the article that clearly stated those ‘69 prices are adjusted for inflation, and then they start bitching about error!?!? please in the future just try to know what you are whining about before being assholes about someone elses work. Those prices are totally realistic in comparision to today’s economy, but i was really surprised to see that newspaper are cheaper now then at the time. Good job on that chart.
Comment by Cantbelieveit — May 22, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
uh i think some of these prices are wrong… $325/ ounce is just criminal… maybe dank i guess
Comment by coryyyyy — May 22, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
WRONG! Weed was $10 an ounce in 1969. Gas was 29 cents a gallon and you got a set of glasses, full service for the price with a fill up. A cup of coffee was maybe 25 cents and when I left San Diego moving to Northern California in 1971 a VW bug was $7,999.00. That was the sign I saw as I was driving north out of San Diego at the dealer.
Levi 501’s were 5.99 and the cost to the company selling them was $3.33. The San Diego Union Tribune was 25 cents as well as the price of bus fare was 25 cents.
Converse All Stars were not $46.00 dollars. I can’t put an exact dollar figure on it but it was no where near that price.
Inflation adjusted price? Your results are misleading at best as a teenager, I could not have afforded a relative $325 for a bag of weed.
Comment by Oscar — May 22, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Thank you Aaron! I also noticed the numbers seemed off, until I noticed the bold print that stated, “Prices from 1969 are inflation-adjusted!”
Comment by Chris — May 22, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
So for anyone who is commenting on the price of Weed, I would love to know where you get yours, the cheapest OZ you can get around here is 350+, thats in Colorado…
Comment by Rabbit — May 22, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
As you can see everybody is freaking out about the prices for ‘69 being over the top is because they’re all stoned! Wake up! Inflation adjusted is how much the product would cost today. BTW back in the early ’90s 300 Bucks for an Oz was a deal- Anyone remember the drought of 91&92 when nobody could get weed?
Comment by ex-stoner — May 22, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
There’s the high school Economics requirement working for you!
Comment by Hung — May 22, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
It was the summer of 69!
Comment by Anonymous — May 22, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
BillShrink Guy is right… you guys can’t read. Don’t skip over the words and jump to the pictures… this isn’t playboy.
Comment by Aaron — May 22, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
It’s kind of funny that those missing that the prices were inflation adjusted picked up on the price of gas, but no one commented that the price of VW bus would have bought a house if those were 1969 dollars. The price of a TV would have been nearly the average US salary if those were 1969 dollars.
Comment by WattsTheDeal — May 22, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
I never post comments to blog articles, but this one is just too funny!! Everyone wants to be a critic to everyone else…
First 20 comments are yelling about how the prices are wrong and how stupid the author is. Then you make it clear its inflation adjusted.
Next bunch of comments are all telling the first group how stupid they are for not understanding the concept of inflation adjusted numbers. Then you have to make it clear to the 2nd group that the 1st group didn’t have the bold “inflation adjusted numbers” tag in the graphic initially.
… and now you have me - the 3rd group - telling the 2nd group that they are stupid for telling the 1st group that they are stupid for telling the author that he is stupid.
Ah, the internet at its finest!
Comment by Paul — May 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Of course gas wasn’t that expensive, and neither were albums.
THE ARTHUR WAS SHOWING WHAT THE PRICE WOULD BE TODAY FACTORING INFLATION.
Everyone understand?
Comment by Dana — May 22, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
People don’t know the meaning of inflation adjusted prices…. Just goes to show you how stupid people really are.
Comment by Kris — May 22, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Everyone who keeps saying that the prices are wrong needs to up their reading comprehension.
It says “inflation adjusted prices”. That means it is comparing the relative cost of items now and then, not the actual prices.
Comment by read the info — May 22, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Wow…where the hell was gas 2 dollars in ‘69? Chuck Taylors were less than 20 bucks, you could buy a VW Bus brand new for less than 8 grand, a standard Gibson Les Paul was around $600 or less, and a 3 day ticket for woodstock was 24 bucks. Great idea, horrible research.
Comment by Shelby — May 22, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
No, it’s not your bad. Some people just don’t know how to read.
Comment by Art Reid — May 22, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Just goes to show that Americans need “Hooked on Mathematics” as well as “Hooked on Phonics”. You guys should not have given those tools the pleasure of an answer.
Comment by Rick — May 22, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
$325 a oz for weed is highway robbery… if you are paying more then $200 you are getting ripped off.
Comment by Ca1v1n — May 22, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
apparently, I was reading the comments and its pretty interesting how everyone can’t comprehend inflation-adjusted prices lol.
Comment by david — May 22, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Read the title block: Prices are Adjusted for Inflation!
Comment by Wes — May 22, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Yeah you’ll be lucky if anybody even read your post David if they didn’t even read the opening paragraph.
Comment by Tom — May 22, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
It would cool to see a computer comparison-personal PC’s hadn’t happened yet but say…servers or hard drive storage…for commercial,military or research facilities…or even electronic equipment like stereo receivers..the adjusted margin would be interesting…
Comment by gestault — May 22, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Ok, dude… If you pay $200 for an ounce of weed it is probably dirt weed. That price is very accurate for an ounce of “CHRONIC”…. HELLLLLOOOOOO Snoop Dogg? anybody? “No stems no seeds no sticks, some of that real sticky icky icky”
Comment by JohnInCA — May 22, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Wait, so these prices ARE inflation-adjusted or AREN’T inflation-ajusted? ;) (i keed, i keed)
Comment by J. Money — May 22, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Uh….People, listen.
Prices are “inflation-adjusted”.
That means that all these things went up in actual cost RELATIVE to inflation. Just imaging that you were making the same dollar amount then as you are now when you look at the 1969 prices.
Comment by Josh — May 22, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
in boston and NYC your looking at 200-240 for a z of midz (thats a good deal) and 400+ if your getting trainwreck or northern lights. slices go for 80 so you make that cash back.
Comment by luke — May 22, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Inflation Adjusted? Everyone knows inflation is a result of fiat based currency systems, kinda makes this whole thing an exercise in stupidity. Or rather points out how stupid we all are for allowing it to happen, because while all this is going on, and you and I are spending more for the same crap, someone else is getting rich because of it.
Comment by WOLFENRAIDER — May 22, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
It’s funny that ONLY after the green posts do people start mocking the early posters for not noticing the design intent.
Guess you too needed it spelled out for you then?
Comment by anon — May 22, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
INFLATION ADJUSTED, PEOPLE
Comment by neil — May 22, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
wtf 325 for an ounce, wow i feel bad for anyone paying those prices, that’s almost double canada lol
Comment by sgt pepper — May 22, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
I can’t believe this display of stupidity. Let’s settle this right here.
1) INFLATION ADJUSTED
2) 325 PER OUNCE FOR THE GOOD STUFF. ENJOY YOUR SCHWAG
Props to the burnt out old timer who combined the price of weed argument with a complete inflation adjustment fail: “what do you mean weed cost 140 back in the day??!”
Comment by Anonymous — May 22, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
apparently you were reading the comments? if you’re not sure try reading them again and wait for that feeling of deja vu.
Comment by ed — May 22, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Note: Prices from 1969 are inflation-adjusted!
^^^^^^^^^
READ.
And Ganja now and in the NW has gone from like 240 an O to 320+ in the last six months
Comment by T. Rei — May 22, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
Don’t lose sight of the big picture here folks. Entertaining nevertheless.
Comment by JayPee — May 23, 2009 @ 12:12 am
Agreed David.
Hello people, can you read??
“The figures from 1969 have been adjusted for inflation to give us a better idea of what the actual cost of each item would be in today’s economy.”
I would like to see the literacy difference between ‘69 and ‘09. From most of these comments I’m sure it would be interesting.
Comment by James — May 23, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Why do people feel the need to troll websites, what what’s worse is you look like a fool doing it because you didn’t even read anything you just went strait to the chart.
In my opinion it is stupid to argue over the price of weed. An once in one state (or even town) will vary from the next. There are also tons of different types of weed, obviously no one would ever pay $325 for an once of mids or bushweed, but I think for some dank hydro grown heddies it’s not as outrageous.
Interesting article.
Comment by Tom — May 23, 2009 @ 12:46 am
you might want to add the price of sewer cleaning.
Then $300
Now $49.95
Comment by Frank — May 23, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Ahhh, I love all the pot references on a government site. Awesome.
@Paul…. you nailed it, hella funny!
Comment by seedsplitter — May 23, 2009 @ 1:18 am
*sigh*
“Note: Prices from 1969 are inflation-adjusted!”
I hope this explains the price discrepancies…
Comment by Worldweaver — May 23, 2009 @ 1:54 am
some of the comments above just crack me up
wow, amazing how >60% of the ppl here comment on the weed prices alone…
Comment by bob the builder — May 23, 2009 @ 2:10 am
ドル換算わけワカメちゃん。
Comment by 俊君 — May 23, 2009 @ 2:13 am
For the pot prize nazis in the room, I suspect the $325 is referring to hydroponically gown “dank”, not Mexican brick weed. In somewhere like the mid-west US where you don’t have access to medicinal sources, it the price can be very high indeed. Even in say, San Francisco, a “legitimate” OZ of the best quality medical buds gets up to around $300.
The key points being 1) there is a wide variety of quality and pricing for illegal substances. 2) the weed back in the 60s was mostly crap, far less strong than what is available today.
Comment by Disco — May 23, 2009 @ 2:15 am
Asides from some music and a television, 69 rocked - you don’t need to compare them this way to know that.
Comment by TELEvision SPY — May 23, 2009 @ 4:03 am
Stoopid commints shud knot bee posteded.
Sheesh.
Comment by bogginator — May 23, 2009 @ 4:31 am
Note: Prices from 1969 are inflation-adjusted!
learn to read! before u start whining about what prices were in 1969.
and if u do not know what inflation is then back to school maybe!
Comment by Maksim — May 23, 2009 @ 5:00 am
Is there a correlation between the people who really know a lot about the price of weed and the ones who don’t understand n the least what”adjusted for inflation” means? Pass me that bong!
Comment by Wind2Energy — May 23, 2009 @ 5:45 am
325 isnt highway robbery if its good, so keep smoking your schwag
Comment by Luigi — May 23, 2009 @ 6:14 am
@Dana
Who’s this Arthur then?
Comment by Anonymous — May 23, 2009 @ 6:41 am
This is why America is economically screwed. More than half of the people commenting on this article didn’t read the fine print and don’t understand the basic of adjustment for inflation.
One intelligent comment mentioned housing. I did the research on this awhile ago (it’s on my blog somewhere) and the number sucks. I think housing costs have gone up 1700%! health care has gone up hundreds of percent as well. Two points on this though:
The average home size in 1969 was around 1000sq ft, it’s now almost 3000sq ft. Americans want bigger!
Health care wasn’t covered by most employers in the 60s, now that it is, costs have gone up tremendously.
One comment on car costs: VW has gotten to be pricey vehicles. Average car costs actually haven’t gone up that much. It’s really housing and healthcare costs that have exploded. Not to mention costs that didn’t exist in 1969: cable, Internet, computers, cell phones, etc.
Comment by Michael — May 23, 2009 @ 7:01 am
im from new zealand, and all these prices on here seem reasonable (if you know what inflation-adjusted prices are)
and yeah, the average oz of pot in new zealand is between $250 and $330
Comment by vinny gee — May 23, 2009 @ 7:28 am
of course gas wasnt $2.03in 1969 that is adjusting for inflation, if you took the value of the todays dollar and were to live back then with your current wages, you see people made less money back then but things were also cheaper, now we make more money and things are more expensive… thats what this article is showing!
Comment by Paranimal — May 23, 2009 @ 7:39 am
About 800,000 yen prices at the time of the beginning to sell of the refrigerator in Japan were ($ 8,000), but can buy what do not need to cost 100,000 ($ 1,000) now either.
Comment by kok — May 23, 2009 @ 8:19 am
He clearly says at the beginning that these 1969 prices are calculated with inflation considered. So the coffee that was a dime in 1969 was actually probably pretty close to $1.16 if you consider inflation.
Learn some economics.
Comment by mikey g — May 23, 2009 @ 9:10 am
These comments make me sad. Regardless of bold letters or not, nearly everyone in the first group skipped reading most important parts… shows how stupid people are.
Comment by Anony — May 23, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
What the hell is wrong with you people?
The prices at 1969 are NOT actual prices, they are adjusted for inflation with CPI and 1969 not being a CPI of 1!
If it is not 1, it is not true!
It is a freaking ratio.
Why does almost everyone here fail at reading a graph?
Comment by Douglas — May 23, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
I’m assuming the all the prices are inflation adjusted guys. Gas was not $2.03 in 1969.
Comment by Big CR — May 23, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
It is apparent we live in a nation of illiterate potheads who smoke cheap weed. The commentators who actually remember the prices back in ‘69 probably smoked too much weed sprayed with paraquat and laced with PCP.
The information needed to interpret the graphic is is right there on the artwork, you boneheads.
Comment by fbg — May 23, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Boy there are some really slow people around here… Bill Shrink Guy you are going to have to dumb down your future articles so that these morons get it. By the way guys. It kind of shows that some stuff is more some stuff is less. I took this as a things are not so bad and the good old days are often not as good as they are remembered article.
Comment by Jason — May 23, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Look, you all missing a point … those INFLATION ADJUSTED prices … NOT actual prices from 1969. They have ADJUSTED it to today’s dollar value based on the INFLATION, Get it?! … Duh! … lol Pot heads =)
Comment by Aleksey — May 23, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
I really can’t comment on this because I’d only be commenting on how dumb people are, as opposed to how this rather simple article was misconstrued by all the people who can’t read. All who complained about the 1969 prices didn’t bother to READ the introductory statements. On top of that, you didn’t read the statements which corrected the previous people who bitched. Its not like this is an article from NYT or Scientific American. Or even at the top of the price list, yet again the explanation that this is a price-adjusted-for-inflation comparison.
Comment by Lev — May 24, 2009 @ 12:55 am
I think the point on the price is now clearly across, so it isn’t necessary to leave comments reminding people that prices are inflation adjusted anymore…
Comment by BillShrink Guy — May 24, 2009 @ 3:05 am
I like the concept of this article, but I think it might be prudent to point out the apples to oranges comparison that are inevitable in such a comparison.
The TV comparison for example - a 24 inch color television was considered large in 1969, it had mono sound and no remote control. The picture was fuzzy, required a rooftop antenae (an additional cost) and typically received only 3-9 channels of over the air programming. You can no longer buy such a TV, so the model you are using for comparison is likely larger - in the 36-48 inch range, higher resolution -high definition, stereo, cable ready, using LCD technology that will not wear out for years. So while the price of a TV has decreased, the actual value has increased.
Cannabis has likewise enjoyed an increase in quality, and is extremely variable in price, ranging from free to those who grow or are close friends with growers, to what the market will bear for those who strive for the finest cannabis available. It is like comparing the price of wines, some people enjoy bottling their own product and with care and knowledge produce an excellent vintage, while others must possess the rarest and most exotic commercial vintages, which have an enomorous margin of profit.
Variables like these make it difficult to assess whether our dollar has become less valuable over time, which is nominally considered fact by economist, hence the “future value of money” equation.
Though you present an interesting topic, I say it can be enhanced by detailing what the features of the products in both eras were/are so that the reader can realize exactly how much more or less their dollar buys. Perhaps a followup is in order, as it seems you have struck a nerve by the number of shrill comments posted here.
Comment by Julian Phryes — May 24, 2009 @ 9:58 am
I thought astrology really caught on nationwide in the late 1960’s, but I could be wrong, otherwise more folks would catch on that this month we are in a Mercury Retrograde period:
* Communications go awry - phone calls, letters, emails, faxes, conversations are delayed, misinterpreted, blocked. Recheck everything like appointment times, spelling, wording, the words you say.
* Expect problems with messages, books, letters, magazines, documents, neighbors and the near environment.
Sounds like this post and its replied to a Tee.
(and I stopped smoking dope back in 1985)
Comment by readercom — May 24, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Remind me not to go shooting with some of you guys, hell hunting would be out of the question.
Comment by ljotucson — May 25, 2009 @ 7:09 am
I’m assuming the all the prices are inflation adjusted guys. Gas was not $2.03 in 1969.
Comment by PB — May 27, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Has anyone pointed out yet the 1969 prices are inflation adjusted? Oh yeah and my pot costs way less than $325 and ounce.
Comment by Peter — May 27, 2009 @ 6:26 am
I think it’s funny that everyone is making a big deal about people not reading the part about the prices being inflation adjusted, and not reading everything before they comment. You are making yourselves look like idiots. You have clearly not read the comment where the author of the artical says, they did not add that the prices were inflation adjusted until they saw that everyone was commenting about the prices. So inconclusion, I think all of you need to jump down off your high horses, apologize to all the people you wrongly accused of bing dumbasses, and realize that you are the dumbasses. Thank you for your time.
Comment by yourmom — May 27, 2009 @ 9:08 am
This may not be the most popular topic for the crowd reading this article, but is anyone willing to look at the earning power we have now, not to mention the increase in the standard of living that’s taken place over the last 40 years? Consider the sheer amount of creature comforts we have. Consider the availability of what were considered luxury items in the late 1960’s, or ones that didn’t even exist. Yes, there is an economy in peril. But doesn’t that inspire some people to improvise, or dig in and worker harder and smarter to make it?
Comment by Larry Hochman — May 27, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
This is a perfect example of why our country is screwed. No one reads the article correctly and the idiots taking the time to comment don’t even bother looking to see if someone has already made their point. This comment log is a case-study on the selfish blow-hard direction that our country is headed in. Oh my God, I’m part of it now. I suck too.
Comment by DS — May 27, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Do people who comment actually read the note that all 1969 prices are inflation adjusted and that it says it is comparing the real value of goods???
I guess they didn’t listen in econ class
Morons
Comment by Bill — May 27, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
I had to laugh when I read Paul’s comment, May 22
“I never post comments to blog articles, but this one is just too funny!! Everyone wants to be a critic to everyone else…
First 20 comments are yelling about how the prices are wrong and how stupid the author is. Then you make it clear its inflation adjusted.
Next bunch of comments are all telling the first group how stupid they are for not understanding the concept of inflation adjusted numbers. Then you have to make it clear to the 2nd group that the 1st group didn’t have the bold “inflation adjusted numbers” tag in the graphic initially.
… and now you have me - the 3rd group - telling the 2nd group that they are stupid for telling the 1st group that they are stupid for telling the author that he is stupid.
Ah, the internet at its finest!”
Really, I’d been thinking exactly the same thing, though I wasn’t as clever as Paul to think of the third group of people…
What is it about the Internet that makes everyone go bonkers over saying their opinions?
Comment by Anonymous — May 27, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
All you people are Dolts. Read the headline it specifically says INFLATION ADJUSTED prices. And an ounce of dank(this means dank) does cost, in fact, around $325.
Comment by Duh — May 28, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Folks, not that the ‘69 prices are ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. This means that as the actual purchasing power of a dollar diminishes over time, the Purchasing power of the dollar in a previous period is ramped up when expressed in terms of today’s dollar.
Comment by Ray Fafa — May 29, 2009 @ 8:21 am
I was a little confused too until I saw that prices were Adjusted for Inflation. It would be great to also see the actual ‘69 prices. It would make a nice comparison.
Comment by brooos — May 30, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
judging by the MASSIVE amount of discontent with the information i’d say that this guy is WAY wrong an some of the stuff… ok maybe alot of stuff
Comment by albinodragon91 — June 1, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
I find it funny that most of the people on the board that are talking about the marijuana prices are the same people that can’t figure out what “adjusted for inflation” means.
Comment by Rhawk187 — June 11, 2009 @ 8:25 am
It’s sad the “microwave generation” can’t even motivate themselves enough to read a few sentences to understand the information presented in a picture. Sure, a microwave can cook your meal in half the time; but the internet — wonderful tool that it is — won’t make you comprehend in half the time.
Unfortunately, intelligence cannot be adjusted for inflation.
Comment by moog — June 11, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“I find it funny that most of the people on the board that are talking about the marijuana prices are the same people that can’t figure out what “adjusted for inflation” means.”
Amen! QFT.
Comment by Andy — June 11, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Also need a hedonic adjustment for changes in quality - the VW Routan has near 200 hp, while the late 60’s models had about 70 hp. I suspect the Routan can actually haul the load that will fit into it as opposed to staggering down the road. (always kind of liked a friends 72 van)
Comment by rmark — June 12, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
You drug-addict Americans relish in talk of your pot habit. Thanks to you we suffer narco-violence in Mexico. And don’t give me that “we grow our own in California and B.C. and it’s better” b.s. True, but you still are a bunch of hypocritical drug-addicts.
Comment by Andreas — June 15, 2009 @ 7:36 am
Your Les Paul is misleading as it is an investment instrument. My first real(student)six string cost a whole weeks wages for my dad back in ‘69. These days you could pick up ten of them for the average weekly wage and they would be much better quality too.
All the best!
Comment by Lisa — June 19, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Brilliant!
You probably would have only had 5 comments on this if the post was originally clear. Each step of improvements created a new flow of comments, and thus grows the popularity of this post.
Keep it up, make some changes, switch some numbers around. This post has some serious potential at having a never ending comment thread.
Comment by Rob Kohr — June 22, 2009 @ 10:50 am
For those of you who missed the inflation-adjusted note:
“A life of reaction is a life of slavery, intellectually and spiritually…” - Rita Mae Brown
[/franklincovey'd]
Comment by Vinsanity — July 9, 2009 @ 7:48 am
TO all those idiots talking about the price being different back then than what it said of course it is. it says “inflation adjusted” that means it takes the price back then and then adds the inflation since then to comapre the prices. gas might have been way under a dollar back then but with inflation it costs just over 2. learn to read then learn economics so you understand what its saying
Comment by Kevin — July 9, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
I read all the posts because I can’t sleep…it’s hobby, I suppose, to read threads comprised mostly of ignorant bullish people that feel empowered by the anonymity of the internet. This was simultaneously the most entertaining and sad example I’ve come across. Thanks to the few people that had something constructive to say about quality differences in the “products of then” versus the “products of now”. Thanks BillShrink for trying to illustrate some simple comparisons that could have excited reasoned and thoughtful comments if it weren’t for the clutter.
“Elaine, do women know about shrinkage?”
Comment by Insomniac — July 25, 2009 @ 3:47 am
I never post on blog entries, but I wanted to point something out. Firstly, nice post.
Secondly, the people pointing out that others don’t read ‘ned 2 lern 2 spel’, hypocritical much?
First half of comments: wrong prices
Second half: ‘omg you idiot read the header’
And yet, after not a soul posted anymore about the prices, tons of posts telling them to read, I think they got it the first time.
Noob.
Comment by Keith — August 21, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Lol Keith, you’re exactly right. Seems like the first half looked at the picture without reading and the second half posted without reading the comments.
Comment by Alex — August 22, 2009 @ 8:20 am
it does totally say, inflation adjusted, maybe you all should smoke less cheap grass and take some science classes or something to expand your mind.
Comment by Mike — August 27, 2009 @ 1:00 am
It seems like most of the commentators were high during reading comprehension class! It plainly states in very large letters that the 1969 prices were adjusted for inflation. If you cannot read you should not comment! The world is full of idiots that think they know something and they can’t even read what is right there! Go smoke some more cheap weed and get a job at McDonalds where you do not have to read, just follow the pictures. If you commented on the price of gas being wrong in 1969 you are a total and complete retard.
Comment by I CAN READ! — October 1, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Amazing. Great post, but it all of a sudden turned into a social commentary on the complete idiocy of some people. Even if there was not any explicit note that they were adjusted for inflation, one could likely take that it would be implied. Most people with any elementary concept of common sense would understand that a cup of coffee did not cost anything close to a dollar in the 60s, etc.
Second, it futile for us to complain about this, because most of the people who posted the nonsense would never visit this post again to see the comments that point out the idiocy.
Comment by Mike2 — October 18, 2009 @ 6:53 pm