$33,000 a year? In 1979?


Wow, that's pretty low, especially considering his level of responsibility, that he's been working there for a lot of years, and that he was on track to make partner. I mean, jeez, Don Draper's crew was practically making that much back in the 60s, before inflation set in. How could you ever afford a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper East Side in 1979 on that salary?

And how the hell could she go from being completely out of the job market for 8 years to making $31,000 a year, almost as much as him?




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

reply

But remember that money was worth a lot more back then.
In today's dollar, that's he equivalent of around $70,000 a year or more. Respectable.

I've heard of people 'getting lucky' finding a job like that. There's many factors involved, but luck is definitely one of them!



I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

About $110,000 a year in 2015 dollars. And I think this was before the cost of living became ridiculously high in NYC. Plus it was a 2 bedroom apartment he rented, not owned, and he didn't own a car.

reply

Inflation aide, It doesn't look unrealistic. You could rent a 2 bedroom apt in NYC for less than 1K a mo. in 1979. I can compare it to Boston in 1979 (2nd-3rd after NYC) where a 2 bedroom in the nice part of Boston was about 400.00. At 33K income a year, he is earning approx, 700.00 per week .

Out of curiosity, I found this: unbelievable. (If only I had acted on it then)

70s
Average Rent: $335
$50 in 1940 Is Now: $115 to $140
In the Village, less than $150 would be more than enough for a shared apartment. Every week, dozens of apartment shares were advertised. In May 1972, a young person could share a brownstone garden apartment on Grove Street for just $100 or an Upper East Side apartment for $135. That same price could also rent an efficiency in Downtown Brooklyn or any number of apartments in the Lower East Side. On the higher end, a two-bedroom brownstone apartment on Prospect Park was listed for $315, while townhouse units on the Upper West Side started at $425.

[June 1982 ads]

1980s
Average Rent: $1,700
$50 in 1940 Is Now: $250 to $310
Average rents may have been pretty high, but crime rates were high and many parts of New York were more than gritty. As such, there were a lot of cheap places to live, especially Downtown and in Brooklyn. The Lower East Side offered a lot of options for the $300 price range; June 1982 ads show a Ludlow Street studio and a two-room East 2nd Street apartment (in a "well kept locked building") both for $275. For a real bargain, one could rent a four-room unit at 332 East 4th Street for $295. Across the river, a "charm 4 rms" on a "beaut blk" near BAM was listed for $325, while units in a Williamsburg walk-up were asking $275 to $32

reply

I was getting ready to say the same thing. It wasn't until a handful of years later, in the 80's, that rents shot through the roof, making life in Manhattan too expensive for the middle class and near-upper middle class.

reply

Critic John Simon, who largely gave Kramer vs. Kramer a positive review, felt that the figures seemed ridiculously low even for '79 and that they had apparently not been adjusted for inflation from the novel which had come out a few years earlier.

reply

and conversely, $15.000 for a custody lawyer seemed extremely excessive for 1979, that was half Ted's salary for goodness sake!

I hope he didn't have to pay Joanna alimony in addition to all of this.

reply

I also thought about Ted having to pay half a year's salary for legal representation.

All in all, probably the lawyer put what, a month's work total into it?

reply

Yes, this aspect bothers me. By todays inflation adjustment, the amount of $15,000 1979 converts to approx $50,000.00 today. I wonder if the amount was exaggerated on purpose, to get a point across how costly custody proceedings can be. What if Ted didn't have $15,000.00, he would have been screwed? Perhaps in hindsight though this might have worked better, because a narcissistic b!tch like Joanna would have decided that Ted could have Billy after all, because Billy would have still been a hindrance to her. She only wanted to see if she could get what she wanted and win.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. πŸͺ

reply

[deleted]

Oh look, another genuine troll who is full of scorn, contempt and denial, because they can't deal with their own latent homosexuality. We all know you like to take it up the poop chute and stalk posters you sexually desire. Hasn't your anal g spot been given much of a massage lately, or only with your own girlfriends strap on; but that's not like the real thing now is it?

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. πŸͺ

reply

hehe you've already admitted to being gay and I'm genuinely curious about whether you still take it up the poop chute. Inquiring minds want to know.

reply

are you black, by the way? Just something I sensed about you. πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

You seem fixated on anuses, which is interesting. Yet, you're the aimless type who assumes all homosexuals perform anal sex, even though you participate in the same thing with whatever desperate female you can pick up at 2Am last call.

reply

[deleted]

And your ass was built for taking a big thick black d!ck.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. πŸͺ

reply

I'm sure you fantasize about my ass quite a lot.

reply

You don't have an inquiring mind, just a narcissistic sociopathic one. Your obsession with poop chutes is very disconcerting. In your case, it's hard to tell which end the real sh!t comes out, because you talk it just as well as you crap it. πŸ’©

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. πŸͺ

reply

How do you know how well I crap?

reply