MovieChat Forums > A Raisin in the Sun (1961) Discussion > Could someone explain the Younger's econ...

Could someone explain the Younger's economic situation?


Grandma had been working all her life, and had just retired at the start of the movie/play. Ruth was working her a$$ off, both in people's homes, and doing laundry and ironing. Walter's got a steady job as a chauffeur that he's had for 5 years. Up until just a few months before the start, there was a fourth income coming in from the grandfather.

That family has lived in that apartment continuously for 40 years. It was a sh!thole, as we all saw. There had to be some kind of rent controls in place, such that the rent could only rise by a fixed percentage each year. Whatever the rent was, it had to be significantly less than the $125 per month note that Ruth talks about at the end.

Let's say it's $100 a month, which I doubt. That's $1200 a year. Let's say each of those four incomes was just $2000 a year, which is incredibly low. It's incredibly low when you consider that Ralph Kramden from The Honeymooners was living in an equally bad sh!thole, and they said on the show that he was earning sixty-two dollars a week in 1956, which is $3224 per year. The four incomes from the Youngers works out to be $8000 a year, worth about $64,000 today. Less $1200 for rent, leaving $6800.

Where are all four of those incomes going? Yes, a certain amount was going to send Beneatha to college, but that would eat up one income, at most. And if it were a city college, in the early sixties, tuition would have been free, or practically free.

Beneatha was 20. Just 2 years earlier, she wasn't even going to school, so whatever college expense there was didn't even exist. They had four incomes coming in, yet they were living hand to mouth - Ruth couldn't even afford the 50 cents that Travis needed for school. Where did all that money go?




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[deleted]

And how does their race affect the math of the situation?




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

You know, you ask some really good question. I've also questioned this, myself. Like, was it that bad that a 3 or 4 income family had to live in such squallier. I mean, the apt was a two bedroom, no halls, no private bathroom, roach infested, rat hole. I know that the rent couldn't have been anymore than about 25 or 30 dollars a month at the most. I know that had to buy food and pay the electric bill but they didn't even have a tv. Where else was the money going. Like you said, tuition wasn't that much. They should have been able to save enough money to move out of there so why did they have to wait for someone to die to have enough money to move out? Having to share my home with roaches and share the bathroom with my neighbors would have easily been enough incentive to get me out of there. I also wonder, who keeps the bathroom clean? That's disgusting.

I woke up this way...

reply

I don't know. Tempting, but in the late 50s minimum wage was a buck an hour and these were poor folk making no more than that and probably underemployed. Then there was about 20% taken out in taxes. So, assuming you do work 40 hours a week (unlikely) you keep $30 a week of a $40 a week salary. Then you have household expenses: rent (maybe $64 a month to split 4 ways means you keep $26 of that salary) and utils ($4 to split and you are down to $25 a week) food, clothing, doctor bills, charity to the church, public transportation, education, christmas and birthday gifts, and entertainment (movies, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling). I don't think there was any opportunity to save at all.

reply