What My Life Would Have Cost in 1950

Author Bennett Kleinman
January 26, 2026

Love it?

In 1950, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar was more than 13 times greater than it is today, meaning your money went much further, at least when it came to certain expenses. For instance, the average cost of a brand-new Chevrolet sedan was just $1,450 that year, the equivalent of around $19,416 today when adjusted for inflation. The median price for a single-family home, meanwhile, was only $7,354, or around $98,474 in today’s money. (If only!)

That said, salaries were lower in the mid-20th century as well. The median salary was $3,135 (around $41,979 in today’s dollars) for white working individuals and $1,569 (around $21,009 today) for people of color — a discrepancy caused by the discriminatory hiring practices of the time. That’s compared to a nationwide median annual salary of $63,128 today.

But even accounting for the lower household income in 1950, the relative purchasing power was greater at the onset of the ’50s than it is today. For instance, it took about 2.5 years’ worth of paychecks for a person earning the average salary for white workers in 1950 to afford a new home, while the median cost of a new home today is nearly six times the average salary. 

It’s a refrain you hear a lot — life used to be much more affordable. Which got me wondering: What would my own lifestyle have cost if I lived in 1950? Would my monthly bills as a New York City resident be substantially easier to manage? 

To investigate, I took a look at the cost of housing, food, and even Yankees tickets in 1950 and input the values into inflation calculators from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, taking the rough average of values from the start and end of the year 1950. Here’s what I found.

Credit: FPG/ Archive Photos via Getty Images 

Monthly Rent

According to housing data from the 1950 U.S. census, the average rent of an apartment in New York City that year was $49 per month (around $656 in today’s dollars). Unsurprisingly, rents were higher in Manhattan — the borough I live in — at $56 per month (equal to around $752 today). Rents on my exact block in the Murray Hill neighborhood were higher still, coming in at $88 per month (around $1,181 adjusted for inflation). 

Much to my chagrin, this is a far cry from what I’m paying monthly today. Let’s put it this way: While someone living in my building earning the median salary (for white workers) in 1950 would’ve put roughly a third of their annual pay toward rent, the percentage in my own case hovers closer to half.

It’s also worth noting that housing costs in 1950 varied substantially throughout Manhattan, depending on the neighborhood. Rents dipped as low as $14 per month (equal to around $192 today) in the city’s Two Bridges neighborhood — an area next to the Brooklyn Bridge that has no personal residences today. On the other end of the spectrum, the block between 58th and 59th streets along the East River was among the most expensive in the entire city, where average rents totalled $384 per month (around $5,144 adjusted). 

What Did People Keep in Their Medicine Cabinets in the 1950s?

Author Nicole Villeneuve
January 22, 2026

Love it?

In the mid-20th century, the medicine cabinet was a fixture of many homes. Open one and you’d likely find a thermometer, a box of bandages, maybe a tin of aspirin — basics we still recognize today. But alongside those common essentials were remedies that didn’t just look different from modern products — they were also built on ideas modern medicine has long since abandoned.

These old-school treatments reflected the medical knowledge of the era, when the risks of certain heavy metals, narcotics, and chemicals weren’t fully understood. Here are six things people regularly stocked in their medicine cabinets in the 1950s that you rarely see anymore.

Credit: Emanuela/ Adobe Stock 

Mercurochrome

For many families in the 1950s, a flash of bright red wasn’t just a sign of a scrape or cut — it was also the remedy. Products such as Mercurochrome and Merthiolate were staples in medicine cabinets, used for disinfecting skinned knees and elbows or a knick from a kitchen knife. They came in glass bottles that showed off their unmistakable bright red-orange color. A streak of the liquid, applied to the skin with a glass dobber, meant your mishap was on the way to healing. 

Mercurochrome was first developed in the early 20th century, and as the name implies, it relied on mercury compounds to stop the spread of bacteria and help prevent infection. The dangers of mercury poisoning are well known today, but for much of the 20th century, mercury was widely used in medical treatments. Mercurochrome stayed on shelves (and as an add-on in products such as pretreated bandages) as late as 1998, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration withdrew its approval of the product’s ingredients, and it was removed from the market.

What Exactly Is Feudalism?

Author Bess Lovejoy
January 22, 2026

Love it?

The concept of feudalism is probably a familiar one if you’ve encountered a medieval fantasy epic: Picture a stone castle overlooking fields of peasants tilling the soil while armored knights ride out at dawn. But what does the term actually mean, and how did feudalism work in practice? 

Feudalism is a term used to describe how power, land, and obligation were organized in much of medieval Europe. At its core, it refers to a system in which land was the main source of wealth and political authority, and control of that land was tied to personal relationships of loyalty and service.

In this arrangement, a monarch was considered the ultimate owner of all the land in their kingdom. The ruler granted large estates, called fiefdoms, to nobles in exchange for allegiance and military support. Those nobles could then distribute portions of their land to lesser nobles (such as knights), creating a layered hierarchy of obligation known as vassalage.

At the bottom of this structure were peasants and serfs, who worked the land and provided labor or goods in return for protection and the right to live on the estate. Power was exercised largely at the local level, rather than through a strong centralized government. For instance, a king might grant land to a duke, the duke to a knight, and the knight would then draw income and labor from the peasants who worked that land, creating a chain of obligation that ran downward while authority flowed upward. 

Credit: Hulton Archive via Getty Images 

It Started With the Fall of Rome

Europe’s feudal structure developed gradually in the centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire around 476 CE. As Roman authority weakened, Western Europe experienced political fragmentation and repeated invasions by Germanic peoples, whose social structures emphasized personal loyalty to a leader rather than obedience to the laws of a centralized state.

Over time, Roman legal traditions blended with Germanic customs centered on allegiance and service. In an era marked by resource insecurity, warfare, and limited state power, people increasingly turned to powerful local lords for protection. In return, they offered these lords labor, military service, or political loyalty, reinforcing the link between landholding and authority.

Who Is Sadie Hawkins — And Why Is a Dance Named After Her?

Author Kristina Wright
January 22, 2026

Love it?

The Sadie Hawkins dance is a familiar tradition to most Americans, best known for the custom of girls asking boys to the dance instead of the other way around. In a world where women run businesses, lead governments, and head nearly half of U.S. households, setting aside one special night for girls to take the lead can feel unnecessary and outdated. Still, the story behind Sadie Hawkins herself offers a fascinating window into Depression-era America and the surprising ways popular culture can shape real-life traditions for generations.

Mind you, Sadie Hawkins wasn’t a real person. She was a comic-strip creation dreamed up in the late 1930s by cartoonist Al Capp for his wildly popular comic Li’l Abner. At its peak, Li’l Abner ran in 900 newspapers in the U.S., and it remained in print until 1977. Set in the rural town of Dogpatch, Kentucky, the strip was filled with broad satire and a large cast of quirky, unforgettable characters. Among them were the handsome and gullible Li’l Abner Yokum, his eternally patient sweetheart Daisy Mae Scragg, the perpetually unlucky Joe Btfsplk, and the scheming industrialist General Bullmoose. But Sadie Hawkins proved to be the character whose antics took her from the comics page into real-life.

Credit: LMPC via Getty Images 

Sadie Hawkins Day

Sadie Hawkins first appeared in Li’l Abner on November 15, 1937, initially as a secondary character. She was introduced as the “homeliest gal in all them hills,” an intentionally exaggerated description that played on the intense social pressure for women to marry young. Her father, Mayor Hekzebiah Hawkins, was distressed that Sadie had reached the age of 35 without a husband, a situation he viewed as both humiliating and urgently in need of correction.

To solve the problem, he invented Sadie Hawkins Day, a new local holiday with a peculiar edict. All eligible bachelors were required to run through Dogpatch while Sadie — who was an excellent runner — chased them. According to the rules, any man Sadie managed to catch before sundown was obligated to marry her. 

The sight of panicked men sprinting to avoid matrimony while Sadie pursued them delighted readers. Sadie caught — and married — John Jonston, but what began as a one-off gag quickly became one of Li’l Abner’s most memorable storylines, with Capp featuring a new Sadie Hawkins Day race every year until 1952, when Daisy Mae finally caught her beau, Li’l Abner.

The Most Popular Dances in the 1800s

Author Tony Dunnell
January 22, 2026

Love it?

The American dance floor in the 19th century was a very different place than it is today — a far cry from TikTok dance challenges, flash mobs, and K-Pop-inspired choreography. It was a world in which European waltzes scandalized conservative society, Bohemian polkas spread like wildfire, and African American dances transformed the cultural landscape. 

The 1800s were a century of great cultural exchange, both internationally and domestically. Dances traveled across oceans and crossed social boundaries, becoming more than just entertainment (or elaborate courtship rituals). Rather, they were social phenomena that reflected America’s cultural evolution. Here’s a fleet-footed look at five of the most popular dance movements that shaped America in the 1800s.

Credit: duncan1890/ DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images 

The Waltz

The waltz arrived in the U.S. from Europe, bringing with it a wave of controversy. Prior to the waltz, most Americans — at least in high society — danced around each other without any real contact. The waltz was the first “closed” dance in which partners actually held each other — arm in arm, face to face, with their bodies close together. 

In both Europe and the U.S., critics were aghast when the waltz first came on the scene, and they were swift to warn about what they saw as the dance’s sinful nature. The Gentleman and Lady’s Book of Politeness, published in Massachusetts in 1833, advised, “The waltz is a dance of quite too loose a character, and unmarried ladies should refrain from it in public and private.” 

The criticism was all too little, too late, however. The waltz quickly revolutionized partner dancing by allowing couples to spin continuously around the dance floor in three-quarter time. Like many scandalous fads that once were thought to threaten the soul of the nation, it eventually became entirely acceptable. By the mid-19th century, the waltz was one of the most popular dances in America, helping to make physical closeness between dancing partners not just permitted but — as shocking as it may seem — even expected on the dance floor.

7 Everyday Office Items You Never See Anymore

Author Nicole Villeneuve
January 14, 2026

Love it?

American office life once looked very different than it does today. Through clouds of cigarette smoke, you’d see lines of desks in open-area bullpens or, starting in the late 1960s, separated by cubicles. It was common to find typewriters and many other analog gadgets on desktops through much of the 20th century before bulky early computers took over in the 1990s. 

Technology, of course, continued to advance, and as office work itself became faster, more specialized, and increasingly online, many formerly essential workplace objects faded into obscurity. Here are seven once-common office fixtures that have all but vanished with time.

Credit: Brett/ Adobe Stock 

Rolodexes

Before contact information lived in the cloud, it was kept in a Rolodex. Patented in 1956 by the New York office supply company Zephyr American, the Rolodex took its name from a simple idea: a rolling index of contacts. A small wheel mounted on a rotating base held index cards that kept names, numbers, and notes accessible and easy to update with the turn of the knob. Simple, yes — and also one of the most iconic office supplies of all time.

By the 1960s and ’70s, Rolodexes were standard issue on desks in sales offices, C-suites, and newsrooms. A well-used Rolodex was highly valuable; it signaled a robust professional network that was carefully built and maintained over many years. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, lawsuits were even filed over employees copying or taking Rolodexes upon leaving a company. 

As computers (and eventually smartphones) took hold, the Rolodex’s role faded, but the item never entirely went away. Today, the term “Rolodex” remains shorthand for a person’s collection of contacts, and as recently as 2013, Newell Brands, which manufactures Rolodexes, claims that consumer demand has remained high.

What Was Stonehenge’s Actual Purpose?

Author Tony Dunnell
January 13, 2026

Love it?

For thousands of years, Stonehenge has stood on England’s Salisbury Plain, shrouded in mist and mystery, its massive stones arranged in circles that continue to puzzle archaeologists and visitors alike. Built around 4,500 years ago — around the same time as the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt — this historic monument has inspired many theories as to its purpose. Was it an ancient observatory? A burial ground? Or something else entirely? 

As Stonehenge was built by a Neolithic culture that left no written records, little is known for sure about its origins. The first significant surveys and excavations of the monument were made by English antiquarians John Aubrey and William Stukeley in the late 1600s, and it was they who first suggested the Druids as the most likely engineers — a myth that stuck (and is widely repeated even today), despite Stonehenge predating the Druids by more than a thousand years. People have studied the site ever since and further discoveries are still being made, expanding our knowledge regarding who exactly may have built Stonehenge and why. And recent research suggests its purpose was more complex than anyone imagined. 

Credit: robertharding/ Alamy Stock Photo 

An Astronomical Calendar

The idea of Stonehenge as an astronomical observatory has been around for a long time. As far back as the late 18th century, the antiquarian and polymath James Douglas concluded that the monument must have been an ancient solar temple due to its alignment with the midsummer sunrise. The theory of Stonehenge as some kind of Neolithic calendar gained traction from there, prompting many similar studies, including research in the 1960s when computers were used to make more precise calculations. 

Archaeological studies have proved that solstitial alignment was almost certainly a consideration of the people who built Stonehenge. It appears, however, that marking the summer solstice was not the priority. Due to the form and layout of Stonehenge, many archaeologists now believe that midwinter was the more important marker — which makes sense given that winter was the most challenging time of year for ancient agricultural communities.

Why Do We Dial 911 for Emergencies?

Author Tony Dunnell
January 13, 2026

Love it?

When Americans find themselves faced with an emergency situation, they instinctively reach for their phones to dial 911. These three digits are ingrained in the collective consciousness. Even toddlers know the number — take, for example, the case of little A.J. Hayes, a 3-year-old who made a lifesaving 911 call after his father accidentally stabbed himself with a chisel. Today, it’s hard to imagine any other number being used in times of crisis. 

But not all that long ago, no universal emergency number existed in the United States. Instead, people had to call their local police station or fire department directly, sometimes desperately fumbling through phone books to find the correct number. It wasn’t until the 1960s that 911 was created, revolutionizing emergency response in the country. But why were these three particular numbers chosen? 

Credit: George Konig/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images 

A Nationwide Emergency Number 

Up until the mid-20th century, there were two main ways Americans could get in touch with emergency services: by calling their local fire department or police precinct directly, or by pressing “0” for the operator. Both options were time-consuming, confusing, and unreliable. People were often unsure where exactly to call, and there was no guarantee that a police station would actually pick up. 

In 1957, the National Association of Fire Chiefs recommended that a single set of numbers be used for reporting fires, as precious seconds — if not minutes — were being lost when panicked citizens struggled to find the right number. Then, in 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, established by President Lyndon B. Johnson, recommended the creation of a nationwide number for reporting emergencies. After all, the United Kingdom had been using its universal emergency number, 999, since 1937 (it was the first country in the world to roll out such a system)— so, why wouldn’t America do the same? 

7 ‘Historical’ Movies That Got It Wrong

Author Michael Nordine
January 13, 2026

Love it?

Depending on whom you ask, historical accuracy isn’t always necessary when it comes to making a good historical movie. Some filmmakers consider it important, but not as important as telling a compelling story; others dismiss the notion entirely. The movies on this list belong in the latter category and have been widely criticized by historians as a result — though many of them proved quite popular with audiences despite (or perhaps because of) their deviations from the historical record.

Credit: PictureLux / The Hollywood Archive/ Alamy Stock Photo 

300 (2007)

At its core, 300 is based on the genuinely amazing true story of roughly 7,000 Greek warriors (including 300 Spartans) holding off somewhere between 70,000 and 300,000 Persian soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae. Given that it’s a Zack Snyder adaptation of a graphic novel by Sin City author Frank Miller, however, the verisimilitude ends there. Not that 300, with its mythical creatures and saturated color palette, was ever pretending to be the least bit realistic. So deeply silly that it can’t help being a bit charming here and there, the movie spawned a less successful sequel and at least one memorable scene that was quoted endlessly throughout the rest of 2007 and beyond.

What Were Wild West Saloons Really Like?

Author Timothy Ott
January 8, 2026

Love it?

Anyone who’s frequented the movies or spent time in front of a TV over the past 70 years probably has a deeply embedded idea of what the inside of a typical Wild West saloon looked like. After all, it’s a setting where countless swaggering sheriffs and perhaps an antihero with no name have breezed through swinging doors to encounter shifty-looking cowboys playing cards and a piano player banging out a jaunty tune from the corner before the place inevitably gets upended by a shootout or furniture-smashing brawl.

Of course, Hollywood is notorious for playing up dramatic elements over an adherence to historical accuracy, as well as for rehashing popular ideas to the point where certain characters and outcomes become tropes. So how valid is this media-driven conception of the Old West watering hole?

Credit: Buyenlarge/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images 

Early Saloons Were Bare-Bones Establishments

As detailed in Richard Erdoes’ Saloons of the Old West, American saloons first came into existence when pioneers began pushing westward in greater numbers in the early 19th century, and they weren’t even commonly known by the term “saloon” until the 1840s.

Like the dwellings in many of the early U.S. settlements, the first saloons provided the barest of essentials for those who were temporarily looking to forget the hardships of their rugged lives on the frontier. Many were simply a tent or a lean-to erected over a barrel of whiskey, with perhaps boards laid across empty barrels to serve as tables.

As a settlement became more established, its saloons went from temporary setups to more permanent structures built from local materials. Many were made of wood, while those in areas with scarce timber were built from sod or stone.