How would you earn a living?

[LizzieMaine]

If you watch the movies of the 30s and 40s, you quickly realize that people - even who had "middle class" jobs (like writers or bank clerks, for example) worried about having enough money for food, budgeted extremely carefully for food, saved up to buy or didn't have a car (and they never had two cars), considered one radio in the house a luxury and didn't take vacations other than by car (and, even then, much more modestly than today).

By 1939, the multiple-radio family was actually quite common. Cheap AC-DC sets were increasingly popular from the mid-thirties forward, and by the end of the decade you could buy one for less than three dollars. It wasn't a *good* radio, but it more than sufficed for the kitchen or the bedroom. These types of radios were very commonly given as Christmas or birthday gifts.

Working-class people didn't get paid vacations in most jobs, unless they belonged to a very strong union. Vacation for them meant taking a Saturday afternoon to go to the beach, if they lived near one. My grandparents never had a vacation, in the modern sense, in their lives, and my grandmother lived her entire seventy years without ever once leaving the state of Maine.

Car ownership depended a lot on where you lived. If you lived in the heart of a major city, you probably *didn't* own a car -- you rode the subway or the trolley or the bus. Owning a car was more than just the cost of the car, it was also the cost of having somewhere to put it. If you lived in a less-congested part of a city -- certain sections of Brooklyn or the northern part of the Bronx, for example -- you were more likely to own a car than if you lived in Manhattan.

Multiple car ownership was more common away from the big cities, and often involved a business vehicle and a personal vehicle. Again looking at my grandparents, who were clearing about $1500 a year from their gas station in the mid-forties, they owned two vehicles --- a used Chevrolet for the household, and a used Ford pickup truck for the business.

It was only the swells who owned two late-model cars -- but cheap used cars were very easy to get until the war came along. In 1939 you could buy a late Model T or an early Model A for $20 or $25 in most any town -- that was about a week's pay for the average blue collar or petty white-collar worker, and "Easy Kredit Terms" were offered by most dealers who just wanted to get the cars off the lot. These cars were not pretty to look at, but they served the purpose of providing transportation for housewives who needed to get around town while their husbands were using the primary household vehicle. This kind of arrangement, again, was more common in small town or rural areas with no public transportation than in cities with good public transportation systems.

The modern essential that was considered least essential by the greatest number of people was the telephone. It was very common for families not to have any phone at all -- around here, well into the seventies there were families in my neighborhood who didn't see the need to have one. Often there'd be one or two locations in a neighborhood with a phone available, and they would serve as a message center for the whole neighborhood. Kids would pick up pocket money acting as message runners -- "Here's a dime/quarter/half a buck, go tell Mrs. McIntyre she's got a phone call."

 

[Fading Fast]

By 1939, the multiple-radio family was actually quite common. Cheap AC-DC sets were increasingly popular from the mid-thirties forward, and by the end of the decade you could buy one for less than three dollars. It wasn't a *good* radio, but it more than sufficed for the kitchen or the bedroom. These types of radios were very commonly given as Christmas or birthday gifts.

Working-class people didn't get paid vacations in most jobs, unless they belonged to a very strong union. Vacation for them meant taking a Saturday afternoon to go to the beach, if they lived near one.

As always, your points are spot on. I did not do a great job in distinguishing decades and items. I believe, when they first came out in the '20s and maybe into the early '30s, they were a "big" purchase, as I've seen it referenced in books and my grandmother used to talk about it being a big deal (but, again, that was probably the '20s in to early '30s).

As opposed to union people, I was trying to highlight that even "middle class" or "white collar" workers - like bank clerks or writers - lived much more modestly then than now. Even somewhat successful writers hardly lived big lives. A friend of my father was a successful mid-level executive in an insurance company in NYC and their home was modest (two bedroom, 1.5 baths), they owned one car and he used to buy a new suit every other year (and those things were all considered very successful for the time - and he was doing a lot better than most in the town my dad grew up in) and took one week off in the summer to take a car trip.

Today, I have a friend who has (what I think) is a similar role in an insurance company and he has a larger home (several bedrooms and bathrooms), several cars, closets stuffed full of clothes and they go skiing on the winter and somewhere else in the summer. Not a criticism, and it is certainly good if people can live better, but my point was that middle class, white-collar people have much, much more today at the same "level" job as they did back in the '20s - '50s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As opposed to union people, I was trying to highlight that even "middle class" or "white collar" workers - like bank clerks or writers - lived much more modestly then than now. Even somewhat successful writers hardly lived big lives.

That's quite true. In the case of radio, that reality led to a strong union movement in the late 1930s. By the forties, both writers and radio actors at the networks and the larger independent stations were organized -- the Radio Writers Guild and the American Federation of Radio Artists came out of this period and pushed a lot of writers and performers up the economic ladder. Descendents of both of these unions are very strong in the industry to this day, and are largely responsible for the prosperity and security enjoyed by their members today.

 

[Fastuni]

Of course the deciding point is whether the quantity of things (often of questionable quality themselves) amount to a higher quality of life. To me it doesn´t.

Many commodities and ¨luxuries¨ have become cheaper, but in the end it is about expectations what amounts to a ¨good or successful life¨ or the material needs of a household.

Is having ¨several bedrooms, bathrooms and cars¨ nescessairy unless one has a big family?

I don´t see an oversized house (relative to the requirements of the inhabitants) with superfluous rooms or a pile of cars and tech-gadgets as a benchmark for a good life. Seems more like a hassle.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well said. I could probably afford a dishwasher, or a flat-screen TV, or a smartphone if I wanted one -- but really, *who needs it?* How would it improve the quality of my life? I have less than a dozen dresses in my closet, all of which I made myself. I can only wear one of them a day, so how would having more improve the quality of my life? I live in a five room house -- and one of those rooms I don't even use. Why would I need something bigger? I went without a raise at work this year so the kids could get one, and I didn't have any problem with that. They need it more than I do.

That's what I mean when I talk about the difference between prewar and postwar attitudes in the US. We've lost our willingness to "make do," and that's the point where our society went wrong. When each of us eats less of the pie, there's more to go around for everybody else.

 

[Fading Fast]

Of course the deciding point is whether the quantity of things (often of questionable quality themselves) amount to a higher quality of life. To me it doesn´t.

Many commodities and ¨luxuries¨ have become cheaper, but in the end it is about expectations what amounts to a ¨good or successful life¨ or the material needs of a household.

Is having ¨several bedrooms, bathrooms and cars¨ nescessairy unless one has a big family?

I don´t see an oversized house (relative to the requirements of the inhabitants) with superfluous rooms or a pile of cars and tech-gadgets as a benchmark for a good life. Seems more like a hassle.

I basically agree with this, with the caveat that it is better that more middle class people don't worry about what most would agree are the basics of life - having enough food or heat in the winter.

It is a separate (and interesting) discussion as to whether or not all the additional stuff we have today makes people happy / represents a better life and, specifically, if expectations don't drive happiness, so that if you are "expected" to have two cars, then you don't feel any happier having two than your parents felt who were "expected" to have one (or none). Many happiness studies show that people derive their satisfaction / happiness from a comparison to their peers and not to an absolute (I have enough of this for me) standard.

But again, it is nice that many in middle class jobs can have more security around the food-shelter-clothing security issue. I grew up understanding those fears, so I have always lived "well below my means" (i.e., most people who have my income would have bought more stuff) because my happiness comes from having a security that my parents didn't and not from comparing myself to my peers. I'm not saying my decision is right for others - everyone is and should be free to choose for themselves - but I am glad that I can be a bit more secure than someone in my position in the 1930s - I don't and never have cared what others have, it just doesn't hit my radar in a comparison way.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Car ownership depended a lot on where you lived. If you lived in the heart of a major city, you probably *didn't* own a car -- you rode the subway or the trolley or the bus. Owning a car was more than just the cost of the car, it was also the cost of having somewhere to put it. If you lived in a less-congested part of a city -- certain sections of Brooklyn or the northern part of the Bronx, for example -- you were more likely to own a car than if you lived in Manhattan.

Funny, but I've known New Yorkers who not only didn't drive but never even learned how to ride a bike simply because they never felt a need to do so thanks to the availability of public transportation.

 

[LizzieMaine]

To go all literary, I think you could sum up the difference in point of view between the prewar and the postwar era as being the difference between Tom Joad and Tom Rath. Mr. Joad was concerned about the well-being of the society he lived in. Mr. Rath was preoccupied only with his own well being.

 

[Edward]

Atticus Finch makes a good point. Some professions would transfer better than others. Stuff like doctors and lawyers would have to unlearn a lot of stuff.

Or "invent" it. Stick the space-time continuum!

That said, binge drinking is a huge issue on campuses and there needs to be something done about it. It is a horrible part of many campus cultures and does a huge disservice to the greater community and the young people directly involved.

To what extent is it the prohibition effect, do you think? Binge drinking is a cultural problem here to an extent, but there's definitely an issue with teenage American kids drinking themselves silly here just because it's an option... If they could legally drink at eighteen over there, do you think it would be a bad? As I say, over here, many still do it, though at least because it's legal it's mostly out in the open and more likely to be in a pub or such where there's more of a chance of them being cut off beofre they need theirf stomach pumped...

On the other hand, all of those forms of action at common law (per Maitland) that some of us had to memorize ad nauseam in First Year might actually have some practical application. And think of all of the great legal minds (Learned Hand, Cardozo, Pound) who were very much alive at the time. Not to mention the ones (like Roger Traynor) who were just starting out and would be so much fun to brainstorm legal theory with. "Re-learning" the law by going back could be a lot of fun-- knowing how so many of the developments in law play out.

Oh, totally. Much easier from the academic perspective, of course.... I'd make sure to write down plenty of "new" ideas that could be cited later on. And hey, who knows... if I wrote them under an alias, maybe ultimately I did come up with them originally anyhow, and just influenced my younger self... timeline becomes circular...

I'm guessing it's actually cheating to say "fortune teller" or "intelligence expert" ... any of us could use what we know of past history in overt ways. We might change the world completely but possibly not for the better!

Jinkies, how funny... we've gotten this far down the thread and not one of us has thought to say "I'd gamble on big sporting events!" Certainly worth giving it a go, providing one could take back the right information... You'd have to be careful, of course, lest you drew too much attention and folks thought you were rigging the games, but a few well placed bets, or even spread bets (assuming they had those back in the day) could certainly supplement a more legitimate income - or perhaps obviate the need for one entirely. Thinknig this through more - would it be possible, assuming a big win, to buy a handful of properties and then generate income as a landlord?

I'd have to do a lot of retraining to my writing talent. Though I started on typewriters without correcting tape I have become a very "back and fill" word processor style of writer ... it's REALLY daunting to remember my Dad plugging out an entire novel, hunt and peck style, with very very few corrections. He did that 3 to 4 times a year. Sheesh!

I never did do any serious typing on a typewriter, though I played on one that belonged to my Aunt when I was a kid. My typing skills, such as they are, are all PC-era. Sometime around the turn of this century I made the jump to writing everything on the computer; in 1998, I wrote my postgraduate dissertation by hand, in six weeks, and then spent two more typing it into Word... Funny how that sort of standard has changed in a relatively small space of time. The undergraduate kids I teach often never have to hand in anything handwritten rom the arrive at university until they leave, with the exception of exam scripts. Chances are that's the last thing many of them ever will handwrite, aside from greetings cards and shopping lists. The next evolutionary step - already happening in the US - is them typing theirf exams on computer (can't come soon enough for me; it'll make marking so much easier).

On the OTHER HAND, if I could jump a movie studio fence and bamboozle someone into letting me show my stuff I could probably do pretty well (though it was harder then than now to get someone to prove your way into that business).

You know, if I thuoght I could get a break into acting, I'd totally go for it. Maybe if I woke up in 1946, I'd even give it a go long before I tried anything else. I was never a romantic lead... I mean, I had the capability, but they're not the roles that captured my interest. I always wanted to be the character actor that comes in for a half dozen cameos and steals the scene, or the villain. Played both a number of times, always loved it. If I could get a break, the salaried studio system back in the day might not have offered the riches today's A list can command, but on the flipside it was a reliable salary and they seemed to do ok. TBH, if I was guaranteed the wage I'm on now as an actor, I'd jump on it today without a second thought. I love my current job, but I also know I'd love acting more... A steady income at my current level would do me just fine: if I'd wanted more money, I could have gone into legal practice with a City firm and been on four or five times what I currently earn by now, but I'd have been miserable, so... [huh]

Funny, but I've known New Yorkers who not only didn't drive but never even learned how to ride a bike simply because they never felt a need to do so thanks to the availability of public transportation.

Similar here in London (though I think most here who choose not to cycle, it's more because it's simply not safe on London streets, despite our current mayor trying to make it so by the power of simply claiming otherwise). The last I heard, London still had the lowest rate of car ownership per head of population of any major city in Europe, which is pretty impressive. Of course it's because of the transport network. We all moan about it and it's not perfect, but really it's fabulous compared to many other places. Back in the old country, I got my driving licence because there are lartge tracts of the island which simply cannot be reached by public transport, and what service there is, is often very limited. Much improved since I left, but still limited - far from the 24/7 on my doorstep that I enjoy in London. I hated driving: it was a necessary evil. If ever I was rich enough to have the big house in London and a holiday cottage in Rye, of course I'd have a Morgan and a Royal Enfield in the garage down there. Until then, however, a carf is a moneypit I can well live without!

 

[HudsonHawk]

To go all literary, I think you could sum up the difference in point of view between the prewar and the postwar era as being the difference between Tom Joad and Tom Rath. Mr. Joad was concerned about the well-being of the society he lived in. Mr. Rath was preoccupied only with his own well being.

I don't think it's entirely true that people today only care about themselves, or that they don't care about the well-being of society. But I think people have become complacent with this attitude of "it'll all work itself out." It only works when people make it work. We've forgotten our individual roles in that process.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Jinkies, how funny... we've gotten this far down the thread and not one of us has thought to say "I'd gamble on big sporting events!"

I'd like to chalk that up to folks sticking with the spirit of the exercise, which is to think about whether your skills are strictly modern or would they translate to previous times. It's kind like the "what would you miss..." threads. The point is not to say you wife and kids.

 

[filfoster]

Originally Posted by Edward

Jinkies, how funny... we've gotten this far down the thread and not one of us has thought to say "I'd gamble on big sporting events!"

Make sure you get an introduction to that Arnold Rothstein fellow...

 

[Stanley Doble]

Speaking of gambling, there was a type of betting in the Golden Era that was fairly common to those "in the know", the wide awake boys and professional gamblers.

It was called insured betting or getting a middle and it worked like this. The gambler would have to phone or visit different bookies in different towns or neighborhoods, and take advantage of a difference in odds or prices.

If points were involved the worst that would happen is the bettor would lose one bet and win the other, breaking even. Other times he would win both sides.

Or, if it was a matter of odds, he could have the odds in his favor either way.

In those days gambling was illegal and it was difficult and expensive for a bookie to lay off a big bet. So they adjusted their lines until their customers bet equal amounts on both sides.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, the big problem with trying to work an angle with the gamblers of the time was that if they thought you were pulling an angle, there's a good chance you'd end up in an alley somewhere with your throat cut. Even the small-time operators didn't like to be crossed.

 

[Fading Fast]

My dad was a bookie for many years and while there were many bookies that operated as Lizzie said, there were many, small-time, local ones, like my dad, who never used muscle or anything like that but controlled their business by vetting their customers. In an odd way, the "your word is your bond" rule is how he ran his business and how he chose his customers (and how they chose him). In an illegal business, force is one way, convention / tribal integrity within a close community is another and he used the latter.

And he taught me all about laying off odds in other cities. Local newspapers that printed odds in the '70s, would have those odds skewed to the home team. So, when the Giants played the Eagles, in the NYC papers the Giants might be giving 3.5 points; whereas, in the Philly papers the Giants would only be giving 3 or 2.5 point. Also, as Stanley Doble points out, balancing the book was the goal - and bookies shifted their odds to do that - but having your book truly balanced was a rare occurrence as local teams always saw the big flow (as did favorites in general).

Absolutely fascinating period that taught me more about human nature and how the world works than I ever learned in school.

 

[Harp]

I would not change a thing......Active Duty Army.....just like the boys in "From Here To Eternity". However two caveats; we don't seem to have as much fun now as Sinatra and the gang had in pre-WW2 Hawaii so I would look forward to that aspect.

11Bravo Schofield Barracks was/is good duty but you still have to soldier.
After the Army cut me loose I found a studio apartment in Honolulu's Makiki Heights and chased wahinies and waves at Kaneohe beach.
Being a surfer beach bum buck ass private is a much more enjoyable profession, but a man has to follow his own star. [angel]

 

[HudsonHawk]

In those days gambling was illegal and it was difficult and expensive for a bookie to lay off a big bet. So they adjusted their lines until their customers bet equal amounts on both sides.

That's still what they do. Spreads and odds exist to get equal betting on both sides. If Team A is a 20-point favorite, that doesn't mean the oddsmaker thinks Team A will win by 20-points, or that they'll win at all. Its means most people are betting on them to win, and they need to get people to bet on the underdog.

 

[MikeKardec]

Everybody wasn't rich back then. It might be on borrowed money, it might be a house of cards, but many (not all) people who have regular jobs today live a very nice lifestyle - homes, multiple cars, vacations, closets stuffed with clothes, electronic this and that. That just wan't the case back then.

So right, we have many wonderfully creative "financial products" that may occasionally cause trouble but also create an incredibly democratic economic environment with many options unavailable to people in earlier times. If a loan wasn't extended through family or an association or friend of some sort say a Rotary or Masonic Lodge member it wasn't going to happen. Yes, people take it too far with leased homes and cars and appliances and everything else. It's crazy how much money in interest they waste but modern credit has started a lot of businesses and saved a few lives.

Growing up in a "creative" family we virtually never spent money that wasn't in the bank (I still do not). Not only couldn't you get credit without a formal job in the 1960s (even if your income was both steady and healthy) but that credit could kill you if the steady and healthy gave out. Just as it can today! Many of my friend's families worked in the entertainment business and they had to live the same way ... if you didn't have at LEAST 3 months pay saved up at all times you were taking a big risk. The insane taxes back then could wipe you out too, planning was everything!

Until Dad had been one of the best selling writers in the US for a decade we only had one car, one TV (and that only after 1969) and one phone line. We lived well enough but publishers paid very little and our finances came nearly exclusively from paperbacks which too often meant a single digit percentage of the 25 cent cover price rather than a higher percentage of several bucks for a hardcover.

These days people expect that if you are an artistic celebrity you must be making star athlete money. That's only true in certain fields and it was really, really, rare in the past.

 

[Stanley Doble]

So fading, what would a Golden Era neighborhood bookie do if he had a cash customer who placed large bets of exactly the type he needed to balance his books?

 

[Fading Fast]

So fading, what would a Golden Era neighborhood bookie do if he had a cash customer who placed large bets of exactly the type he needed to balance his books?

Hi, I'm confused as your question seems to say what would a bookie do if he got a bet that balanced his book - that is the exact type of customer one would want, it just rarely happened.

Even today, in the legal Vegas sports books, they are rarely balanced based on what I've read and can intuit (they took a big hit on the Superbowl I believe because they couldn't balance their books - too much money came in late on the Seahawks).