$200

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:21 pm

How much would $200 (Lizzie's allowance) be in today's world?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:32 pm

The best I could do with a quick search is $3976.45 in 2003 dollars.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:36 pm

So, Lizzie had roughly about 77 dollars a week to spend on herself if she lived in 2003.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:44 pm

That's right, but don't forget, she was expected to make her bed and keep her room clean!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:46 pm

If my father was a millionaire according to 2003 standards, doesn't 77 dollars seem a bit chintzy?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:53 pm

You're probably right, but Lizzie didn't have an automobile to support or other current necessities. What would women have spent 77 dollars per week on at that time?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:57 pm

Well, if we're looking at $77 in 2003, how far would it go in buying shoes, stockings, underthings, dress material, etc.? Not very far. Not to mention, poison.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:28 pm

I would have to agree that Andrew was a bit skimpy with allowances if you don't think 77 dollars per week would go very far. But, that was Andrew! That's likely a part of how he became wealthy in the first place.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:16 pm

Lizzie didn't have to buy food, or any of the other necessities for a household. All of her money was spent on herself. We can't compare $77 dollars in 2003 with what it could buy in 1896 because things were so much cheaper then. The same amount of money would buy twice, maybe three times, what it does today. $77 could maybe buy one outfit of clothes and shoes in today's money. If dress material was 12 cents a yard, even at 8 yards that's only 96 cents. I'm sure that at the time stockings were pretty cheap. I think Lizzie actually had it pretty good. Andrew gave her the half house, and then bought it back from her. She also collected the rents on this property for a few years. Don't forget her all expense paid trip to Europe. I'd say Lizzie had it pretty easy considering she didn't have to lift a finger to do anything.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:56 pm

I'm guessing that having a dress made might have been a big ticket item for Lizzie. Maybe a valid comparison would be the prices of dress material then and now? Or is it cheaper to just buy the dress ready-made? A new outfit every week isn't the worst thing that could happen to someone without any real responsibilities.

I should have been referring to four dollars per week with respect to Lizzie in 1892, not 77 dollars! I'm stuck thinking in today's terms, I guess.

From Andrew's perspective, he was probably giving Emma a like amount as mad money. And getting nothing in return! Horrors!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:19 am

Lizzie only had to spend on herself. I mean the food rent etc. were already paid for. So she only had to buy the things she wanted, and tithe to the church, which 10% of 77 dollars would have been about 7 dollars and 70 cents.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:15 am

She wasn't getting $77 back then- the $77 is what the money she was getting would be worth today. She was only getting about $4.00 a week back in 1892.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:42 am

Angel @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:46 pm wrote:If my father was a millionaire according to 2003 standards, doesn't 77 dollars seem a bit chintzy?

It might have been chintzy, you have to remember that back then, things didn't cost so much. I mean, a yard of cloth was about 25 cents.so, she was probably able to buy alot of stuff with that chintzy $77. lol!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:32 am

Angel @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:15 am wrote:She wasn't getting $77 back then- the $77 is what the money she was getting would be worth today. She was only getting about $4.00 a week back in 1892.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:42 am

Allen had a good point, Lizzie's four dollars might have bought a couple of new outfits each week, allowing that the seamstress would have to be paid. The correspondent seventy-seven dollars might only buy one outfit currently.

If we can round the 77 dollars up to 80 dollars (inflation from 2003->2007, if we're not there now, we will be shortly!), we can simply multiply 1892 prices by 20 to arrive at current prices in order to make a comparison.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:22 am

Maybe Andrew paid for the dresses, as part of being an essential expense. That was interesting, Snookums - I hadn't thought of Lizzie tithing to the church. But if Abby and Andrew went to the same church, and I always get the church stuff mixed up, I'd think Andrew would do the tithing.

Ooh, how do we know Lizzie's Grand Tour was paid for by her father? I didn't know that. In the movie (and a lot of the script was based on real conversation/testimony) Abby says that Lizzie spent all of her (Lizzie's) savings and "Half of Emma's to boot" for the trip. I read that Andrew sent Lizzie some money when she was in Europe because she ran out and he gave her some trans-Atlantic stern words.

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:06 pm

Oh that is funny --- has there been a child who hasn't asked dad to wire some money? lol

I know that the $4/$77 would have been a nice allotment, though I can see why Lizzie felt it wasn't. Her father had so much money that her weekly allotment must have seemed a miserly pittance... even though it would have been more than some earned a week and she got it gratis.

You can't live on the hill on $4 a week, after all.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:39 am

I've been wondering lately- did Lizzie really need that much?
I mean, did she feel like she needed a lot more of everything?
Or just the right amount of everything?

I was swimming today and looking at my thin gold bracelet. It's simple yet elegent. Didn't cost a lot. I'm close in birthday to Lizzie. I like to have enough but I don't need more, if you get what I mean.

Did Lizzie, really?

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:18 am

I am sure Lizzie didn't need that much... but she wanted it -- and more. I sometimes think Lizzie was both resentful and ungrateful... although, to be fair, I can understand both sentiments (living in a house with no decent plumbing isn't pretty).

I believe that Lizzie was resentful (that her father could have nicer furnishings, etc) and ungrateful (for what she did have-- after all, she had to know what poverty looked like). Children of wealthy parents many times believe (a) that the wealth is rather easily-made and (b) that it is endless. With those 2 ideas, if she had them, it would be very easy to feel slighted at a mere $4.

(I don't mean that Lizzie felt her father made money without working... but, maybe, that it was his choice to do what he did and, therefore, not really a hardship... I hope that makes sense)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:40 am

That's a good question, Kat, whether Lizzie was given to excess. I don't get the idea that she was, she seemed to desire living at a level which her wealth would support. This was a break from Andrew's style of avoiding what he saw as luxuries altogether in order to increase his net worth. I think Emma tended to follow Andrew's lead more than Lizzie did, but even Emma wanted to improve her situation. Take Maplecroft as an example, while it was a big improvement over Second Street, it probably wasn't the biggest, fanciest house in town.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

$200

$200

$200

Lizzie's money

want (vs) need