The Amygdala, Economics, and What I Would Do To Julie Andrews

Today I read an article on one of my feeds that sparked off an actual thought process, for once. (Please note that I don't normally think about things. Most of my friends can attest that I just usually make up my mind about a subject based on conjecture, prejudice, and what the guy I talked to at the bar said.) Instead of working this morning, I was reading my news feeds and came across a Readers'-Digestion (© , me. Just now) on /. (slahdot) about how movie/music pirates are not parasites, dragging down the aforementioned industries. A decent analysis of the German original can be found on  geek.com. Please read it and come back. I'll wait here.....


Back?


Awesome.


Essentially, the matter of the piece suggests that pirates spend WAY more than "honest people", per capita.


However, that's not the interesting thing. What got my poor synapses all angried up was in two parts

1. They're union and I was thinking while drinking coffee, technically a coffee break. My amygdala filed a grievance. (Neuroanatomical jokes? In my blog? It's more common that you think)(I'll explain it for a dollar)(Hint: it's not a pun)
2. Money - The other day, I spent about  39.2 BILLION dollars to watch a movie, "Thor" (Sweet god, it was terrible)(not the point. Sorry, ADD totally kicks my ass) later that week, my dad mentioned that the first time he came to the US (1965) a movie cost 25¢.

TWENTY FIVE FUCKING CENTS?!?! Yup. OK. so that's in "nominal monies" (not adjusted). A 1965 dollar would be $7.02 today. So...um...7 x .25  would be.... um..... carry the two... hold on... I got this.... um.... a buck seventy-five. 


Therefore, we can extrapolate that the price of a movie, adjusted to the value of the dollar today, is right about six times more. Now I'm no economist (see previous post), but Jesus in a Jeep....that's more. (again, I should qualify my previous statement: I am no economist AND I'm a little daft; so when I say "more" it could, in fact, be a LOT more. A professional would have to weigh in, to be sure)


Let's look at that as a percentage of income.


Average income throughout the 60s, per the US Census Bureau: $4,800 Source HERE


Adjusted for 2011 money - $33,700 (about) 


SO as a percentage of income, a movie in 1965 would be: 0.00005% (note the four zeros.)


Today's average income: ($61,521 2008 census, so let's say 62000) $62,000
Movie ticket two weeks ago: $10.50. 
Percentage of Income = 0.00017 -ish percent. (one less zero)


So from THIS we can extrapolate that a movie is three-ish times the financial burden it was 45 years ago.(all figures do not include popcorn. Again, people NOT an economist. And I don't like popcorn).


What do we get for thrice the cheddar? That's too subjective to get into, so I will!


not
a
damn
thing.


I picked 1965 for a couple reasons:

1. I have both documented AND anecdotal evidence of the prices. (My pop, remember?)
2. My favorite American car is the 1965 Lincoln Continental. It's bitchin'
3. SOUND OF FUCKING MUSIC ANYONE?!?!? 

<lascivious aside, avert your eyes> OH Julie Andrews, with that smoking hot baby-dyke haircut and the pinafore, the things I would do to you are.......horrible and wonderful and illegal in most western countries. Your sweet, sweet body pressed against mine and the fields would be alive with the sounds of gettin' it ON </lascivious aside> (sorry, sorry. This happens to me whenever I mention.....her. My honey is coming to terms with it.)

also, "Thunderball" happened. I love that movie. 

I grow bored, more later.