Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)

[James L Wolf <jwol@xxxxxxx>]

There have been some pie-charts put out there showing how much of your
$18.99 per CD supposedly goes to whom. Is there any information that
would show how income from sale of 78's was distributed? In real terms,
I would guess that CDs are cheaper to produce than 78s were because of
increased efficiency (and centralization) of methods of production and
distribution, what with global capitalism and all, and that a higher
proportion of CD revenue is profit. In any case, it would be neat to see
some good data on the changes.

James

>>> mrichter@xxxxxxx 3/18/2004 4:33:54 PM >>>
At 01:17 PM 3/18/2004 -0500, Art Shifrin wrote:
>Based on housing prices here in NYC, a late 30's early 40's record
buyer of
>top line merchandise paid disproportionately much more than we do now.
 Our
>house was built in 1940.  Absurdly,  resale value of houses here in
Fresh
>Meadows are now 70 times that of when they were sold new.

Housing involves supply/demand factors which make it a poor guide for
effects of inflation.

>A much less  extreme comparitive (and less localized) basis is first
class
>domestic mail: 3 cents in 1940, 37 cents now.

That's a more reasonable yardstick and is consistent with the price of
a
loaf of bread, for example.

>So I assume that the REAL inflation factor is somewhere between 12 and
70,
>and that means that even budget 78s at the time the film was made
were
>expensive.

According to
 >
http://www.newsengin.com/neFreeTools.nsf/083c35bcd0562e26862565af0057ad64/15c3b459caca08b285256d4c0001e6f2?OpenDocument


   http://tinyurl.com/239ze

One dollar in 1940 (New York and environs) was equivalent to $13.44
there
in 2003.

One way to look at this is that the kids complain about the CDs
published
with only one or two tracks worth hearing. Since two sides would have
cost
about $1 in 1940 - hmmm, not much has changed. <G>


Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/