THE NEW YORK TIMES

          HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

By RICHARD D. LYONS

Published: October 30, 1984

THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation’s mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.

But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?

A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.

Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950’s and 1960’s said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.

‘They’ve Gone Far, Too Far’

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ”They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ”Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn’t have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn’t ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.”

Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ”The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.” He said the policies ”were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.”

The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50’s and 60’s had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.

And these leaders were prodded into action by a series of scientific studies in the 1950’s purporting to show that mental illness was far more prevalent than had previously been believed.

Finally, there was a growing economic and political liability faced by state legislators. Enormous amounts of tax revenues were being used to support the state mental hospitals, and the institutions themselves were increasingly thought of as ”snake pits” or facilities that few people wanted.

One of the most influential groups in bringing about the new national policy was the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, an independent body set up by Congress in 1955. One of its two surviving members, Dr. M. Brewster Smith, a University of California psychologist who served as vice president, said the commission took the direction it did because of ”the sort of overselling that happens in almost every interchange between science and government.”

”Extravagant claims were made for the benefits of shifting from state hospitals to community clinics,” Dr. Smith said. ”The professional community made mistakes and was overly optimistic, but the political community wanted to save money.”

‘Tranquilizers Became Panacea’

Charles Schlaifer, a New York advertising executive who served as secretary-treasurer of the group, said he was now disgusted with the advice presented by leading psychiatrists of that day. ”Tranquilizers became the panacea for the mentally ill,” he said. ”The state programs were buying them by the carload, sending the drugged patients back to the community and the psychiatrists never tried to stop this. Local mental health centers were going to be the greatest thing going, but no one wanted to think it through.”

Dr. Bertram S. Brown, a psychiatrist and Federal official who was instrumental in shaping the community center legislation in 1963, agreed that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were to some extent misled by the mental health community and Government bureaucrats.

”The bureaucrat-psychiatrists realized that there was political and financial overpromise,” he said.

Dr. Brown, then an executive of the National Institute of Mental Health and now president of Hahnemann University in Philadelphia, stated candidly in an interview: ”Yes, the doctors were overpromising for the politicians. The doctors did not believe that community care would cure schizophrenia, and we did allow ourselves to be somewhat misrepresented.”

”They ended up with everything but the kitchen sink without the issue of long-term funding being settled,” he said. ”That was the overpromising.”

Dr. Brown said he and the other architects of the community centers legislation believed that while there was a risk of homelessness, that it would not happen if Federal, state, local and private financial support ”was sufficient” to do the job.

Resources Vanished Quickly

The legislation sought to create a nationwide network of locally based mental health centers which, rather than large state hospitals, would be the main source of treatment. The center concept was aided by Federal funds for four and a half years, after which it was hoped that the states and local governments would assume responsibility.

”We knew that there were not enough resources in the community to do the whole job, so that some people would be in the streets facing society head on and questions would be raised about the necessity to send them back to the state hospitals,” Dr. Brown said.

But, he continued, ”It happened much faster than we foresaw.” The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials.

Dr. Brown insists, as do others who were involved in the Congressional legislation to establish community mental health centers, that politicians and health experts were carrying out a public mandate to abolish the abominable conditions of insane asylums. He and others note – and their critics do not disagree – that their motives were not venal and that they were acting humanely.

In restrospect it does seem clear that questions were not asked that might have been asked. In the thousands of pages of testimony before Congressional committees in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, little doubt was expressed about the wisdom of deinstitutionalization. And the development of tranquilizing drugs was regarded as an unqualified ”godsend,” as one of the nation’s leading psychiatrists, Dr. Francis J. Braceland, described it when he testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1963.

Dr. Braceland, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association who is a retired professor of psychiatry at Yale University, still maintains, however, that under the circumstances the widespread prescription of drugs for the mentally ill was and is a wise policy.

”We had no alternative to the use of drugs for schizophrenia and depression,” Dr. Braceland said. ”Before the introduction of drugs like Thorazine we never had drugs that worked. These are wonderful drugs and they kept a lot of people out of the hospitals.”

Testimony to Congress

His point is borne out repeatedly by references in Congressional testimony, such as the following exchange at a House subcommittee hearing between Representative Leo W. O’Brien, Democrat of upstate New York, and Dr. Henry N. Pratt, director of New York Hospital in Manhattan, who appeared on behalf of the American Hospital Association.

Mr. O’Brien: ”Do you know offhand how much New York appropriates annually for its mental hospitals?”

Dr. Pratt: ”It is the vast sum of $400 million to $500 million.”

Mr. O’Brien: ”So you see that, through a real attempt to handle this problem at the community level, the possibility that this dead weight of $400 million to $500 million a year around the necks of the New York State taxpayers might be reduced considerably in the next 15 or 20 years?

Dr. Pratt: ”I do, indeed. Yes, sir.”

He then told the subcommittee that ”striking proof of the advantages of local short-term intensive care of the mentally ill was brought out” in a Missouri study.

Dr. Pratt’s testimony and the Missouri study were repeatedly cited in subsequent Congressional debates on the community centers bill by such politicians as Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota and Representative Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama.

The Missouri study, which compared a group of 412 patients in two intensive treatment centers with patients admitted to five mental hospitals, showed that the average stays for patients in the large hospitals were 237 days longer than for similarly diagnosed patients at the treatment centers.

But Dr. George A. Ulett of St. Louis, the psychiatrist who directed the study as head of Missouri’s Division of Mental Diseases, now says the numbers cited, though correct, were misinterpreted. ”We did have dramatic numbers, but the initial success of the community centers in Missouri hinged on the large numbers of psychiatrists and support personnel who staffed the centers at that time,” Dr. Ulett said.

MORE ARTICLES TO FOLLOW ABOUT HOW THE SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS BEEN PROVEN UNABLE TO CARE FOR OR CONTROL THE MENTALLY ILL.

Christmas – 1965

It was Christmas and cold. Gusty winds blew dry leaves around dusty streets, while grey clouds threatened overhead.  Neighbors had all gotten their Christmas lights up on the edges of roofs. Decorated trees could be seen proudly displayed in front windows.

Ads for every conceivable gift imaginable shouted from television sets, the stores were lit up and decorated. Downtown had the lights up and glitter banners. Everyone was running around madly, getting ready for the Big Day.

In 1965 girls were getting bolder and wearing eye-popping colors on dresses, lipstick and nail polish. Hair styles were Big! with a lot! of hairspray and the woman’s movement was just getting up on wobbly legs.

Seventeen Magazine and the new self-involved women’s magazines were just starting to replace the traditional Woman’s Day and Family Circles that I had been brought up with.

Christmas Eve, my father did the traditional thing which was to get the three of us kids into the car and make a run to the new Mall. We eagerly stuffed our funds into wallets and bags and jumped in the car.

Once at the Mall, my father deposited us and gave us a two-hour window of time. Therefter, we were to meet him at the coffee shop. Released, we ran screaming and yelling through the Mall picking up and discarding junk. The clock was ticking, so decisions had to be made, and things bought. That done, we snuggled our secret purchases close to the chest and hurried back to my dad. We then jumped in the car and went home to furiously wrap.

 

The next morning Christmas dawned, and my brothers and I got up and ran for the tree. After forty minutes of excited ripping and tearing, the floor was covered in brightly colored debris.

We all took a breath and sat back inspecting our stuff.

“Where’s my present?” My mother asked.

Looking wildly around, I started searching in the paper. Panicked, I began to rummage desperately but could find nothing. I looked at my mother, stricken.

“I didn’t get anything?” Her face began to fold into a sob.

My father got up and went to fix himself an early whiskey and soda.

She got up and went back into her bedroom.

“I thought you got her something!” I said viciously to my older brother.

“I thought you did, you idiot!” He hissed back at me.

“Don’t look at me!” the younger one waved his hands in front of himself.

“Aw, shit,” I said to the crumpled paper.

My mother emerged from the back with clothes on. Saying nothing, she went out the front door. Two hours later she returned. She was holding two bottles of new nail polish given to her by a neighbor. One was the new bright pink everyone was crazy about and another in white.

“Someone got me something for Christmas,” she waved the bottles at me and went back to her room again. I was making breakfast and kept my head down. It was a very quiet house that day.

 

The following Christmas season, my mother engaged in very few of her usual, pre-holiday preparations. I’m not sure we even had a tree. Surprisingly, there were no threats, tears, recriminations, nothing, just a sort of deadly purpose.

Instead, she announced two weeks before the event that she would be getting on a plane and going ‘home’ for Christmas. Home was the small Southern where she had been born and raised and where her mother and sisters still lived.

My dad took her to the airport and she was gone. We didn’t hear a word from her until she got back. She was to continue this new ‘tradition’ for about five more years. Our household was remarkably quiet during these times. The tradition only changed when my oldest brother, then in the Air Force, got stationed overseas.  She started a new tradition of visiting him and his family. Seeing her in old photo albums, these looked to be happy trips.

 

Christmas 1985

1985, the Woman’s Movement was in full roar and the sexual revolution had definitely landed. I had a ‘professional’ job, meaning that it had been done by a man previous years. I was flying high with a salary, company car and expense account. Also, yes, can you believe, respect for myself, what I did and respect from others. Alright!

Christmas time, we met at my mother’s new house she had purchased herself. My parents had divorced some years previously. Mother was making her own way in the business world and doing fairly well. The place was a nice ranch in a small town and she had an entire room fixed up for her favorite hobby, sewing.

By this time, Dad was out of the picture except for an occasional dinner, and the two oldest brothers were married and gone. That left me and the youngest brother to do the Christmas thing.

We gathered around the tree and fireplace in the cozy living room and opened presents on Christmas Eve. I had a large box from mom to unwrap. I got the paper off it and pulled the top off to reveal more tissue paper underneath and some darkly glowing fabric. Slowly I pulled out what was a deep, blood red, velvet jacket. It took me a few moments to realize what it was.

“Mom, wasn’t this the jacket you were working on. . .?”

“Yes, yes, it is. You saw it before. But it never fit me right and was too big. So, I made the sleeves into ¾ length and they are so fashionable now. It’s just your size.”

I tried it on once and felt like I was wearing a Hugh Hefner velvet dinner jacket. I could not imagine a single place I could wear such a thing. I folded it back up and plastered a smile on my face.

“Thanks so much, Mom, but it’s really not my style.”

She started prattling on and on about how expensive the fabric was, etc. etc.          I wouldn’t back down, no way I was taking that thing home and then pretend to wear it.

“Maybe you could sell it.”

More babbling on and on. I went and got myself a coke and soon after, found some excuse to leave the festivities early.

That early winter, I waited to see if my mother, sensing my extremely displeasure with the gift, would get me something else. She never did. Apparently, she felt that she had done her duty and Christmas was over.

In the years following, I began to tell my mother and my brother, in broad hints, what I would like to get for Christmas. In looking through old pictures recently, I saw myself with a new vacuum cleaner and a happy face. It was exactly what I wanted.

Mom and Dad are both gone now, and that brother has disappeared from the face of polite company. I am still in touch with my other two brothers, but they have large families and those families come first, especially at Christmas.

 

 Christmas – 2015

On Christmas Day I got a voice mail message from my daughter.

“Mom,” she said in her usual breathless fashion, “I’m at Dad’s and my phone has run out of power. I’m calling on his phone. I’ll try to call you when I get home.”

Later, I called my daughter. She answered. “Yeah, hi. Um, I’m just going out. Talk to you later. Love ya!”

I sat in my living room and stared at my little artificial tree. Decorated with pretty glass bobbles, red and gold snowflakes, there was a beige tea towel tucked around the base to somewhat resemble snow. Yellow snow I thought with a laugh.

Under the tree there was not one single gift. Not even a little one. This marked the first Christmas when I didn’t get a single gift from anyone. Not one.

“Funny,” I remarked to the cat, “how much things change and then stay the same.

His response was to start licking his paw. I sighed and went to get boxes to take down the tree.

 

 

 

 

Cew 2/18

 

 

Whole Language describes a literacy philosophy which emphasizes that children should focus on meaning and strategy instruction. It is often contrasted with phonics-based methods of teaching reading and writing which emphasize instruction for decoding and spelling.

After its introduction by Kenneth Goodman (1963), the Whole Language approach to reading rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major educational paradigm until the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period, educators were highly skeptical of whole language claims. What followed were the “Reading Wars” of the 1980s and 1990s between advocates of phonics and those of Whole Language methodology. Congress commissioned reading expert Marilyn Jager Adams (1994) to write a definitive book on the topic. She determined that phonics was important but suggested that some elements of the whole language approach were helpful.

However, once we get past all the press releases to understand Ken Goodman and the significance of his approach, it is essential to understand where he started, career wise and where his ideas originated from. As a young teacher, Goodman was in a large inner-city school district dealing with poor, low-income students with significantly poor academic skills. His first research had to do with student mis-cues when they were reading and how many mistakes students made per passage, (Goodman, 1967).

Chomsky and Goodman

The whole language approach to phonics grew out of Noam Chomsky’s ideas about language acquisition. In 1967, Ken Goodman had an idea about reading, which he considered similar to Chomsky’s, and he wrote a widely cited article calling reading a “psycholinguistic guessing game”, (Goodman, 1967).

Goodman thought that there are four “cueing systems” for reading, four things that readers have to guess what word comes next:

1. graphophonemic: the shapes of the letters, and the sounds that they evoke.
2. semantic: what word one would expect to occur based on the meaning of the sentence so far.
3. syntactic: what part of speech or word would make sense based on the grammar of the language.
4. pragmatic: what is the function of the text.

Graphophonemic cues are related to the sounds we hear, the alphabet, and the conventions of spelling, punctuation and print. Students who are emerging readers often use these cues. Proficient readers and writers draw on their prior experiences with text and the other cueing systems. Ken Goodman writes that, “The cue systems are used simultaneously and interdependently. …an initial consonant may be all that is needed to identify an element and make possible the prediction of an ensuing sequence or the confirmation of prior predictions,” (Goodman, 1982). He continues with, “Reading requires not so much skills as strategies that make it possible to select the most productive cues.”

The semantic cuing system is the one in which meaning is constructed. “So focused is reading on making sense that the visual input, the perceptions we form, and the syntactic patterns we assign are all directed by our meaning construction,” (Goodman, 1996). The key component of the semantic system is context. A reader must be able to attach meaning to words and have some prior knowledge to use as a context for understanding the word. They must be able to relate the newly learned word to prior knowledge through personal associations with text and the structure of text.(Goodman, K. 1982).

The syntactic system, according to Goodman and Watson, (Goodman, Y. 2005). includes the interrelation of words and sentences within connected text.

The pragmatic system is also involved in the construction of meaning while reading. This brings into play the socio-cultural knowledge of the reader. Yetta Goodman and Dorothy Watson state that, “Language has different meaning depending on the reason for use, the circumstances in which the language is used, and the ideas writers and readers have about the contextual relations with the language users. Language cannot exist outside a sociocultural context, which includes the prior knowledge of the language user,” (Goodman, Y. 2005).

 

Eventually, Goodman formulated a theory that students could learn to read, with comprehension, even with miscues, if they were able to rely on the context of the passage, in whole, to help them understand the meaning of what they were reading. In other words, a reader could link or frog-jump over words he did not know, and by referring to the context of the total passage, would be able to ‘understand’ the meaning of the unknown word. In the end, the reader could understand and comprehend the entire passage.

His Whole Language theory caught fire in the 60’s and 70’s and whole generations of school age children were taught to read with this theoretical approach. It was in the late ‘70’s (about) and early ‘80s and the 90’s that parents and educators became aware of the fact that students were graduating from high school, still unable to read.

What was happening? Back to the drawing board and back to conventional forms of instruction. Further research into the nature of reading and of learning has shown us clearly that young readers have to learn to decode words and language. And, today, teaching colleges are training teachers that the pre-K to 3^rd grade years are all about decoding and decoding skills. Students have to be able to break words apart, put them back together again, construct sentences and ultimately, construct meaning from what they read. Education appears to be back on track.

Alas, poor Ken. Hard times. However, all is not lost and there is light coming from that tunnel. The students Goodman originally worked with were poor readers from poor academic backgrounds. It is highly likely these students were never taught good decoding skills. Here is the important point. Instead of attempting to reverse the clock and go backwards to the 2^nd grade and reteach those skills, he simply skipped over all that decoding stuff and taught students’ techniques to read with their existing skills.

Other teachers at the same time were working with inner-city school kids and learning that if students were simply interested in what they were reading, they would read without being forced to do so, (Fader, 1955), (Krashen, 2012).

The Goodman approach can be resurrected and used today with older students when it is not possible to duplicate the K-3 learning experience. I am speaking of ESL and ELL learners, many of whom don’t come to this country until they are nearly adults.

As high school or especially as college students, ESL’s are required to read substantial amounts of material. This is a struggle for them. Time and time again, while working with ESL students, I have seen them glued to their dictionaries and carefully translating their English texts word by word or phrase by phrase. The length of time this translation process takes is, to putting it mildly, extensive.

So, what can we do to keep the ESL/ELL student even with their peers? Students can be taught the Kenneth Goodman approach to reading, wherein, they construct meaning from the text not by translating word by word but rather by understanding the piece they are reading in context with the whole text.

Currently, I teach my ESL students to keep a word journal and to write down words that they don’t know. However, they are not to stop and look words up in a dictionary unless they feel strongly they cannot understand the passage without help. Then, later, they can go back, look up the word, even write down a definition. Students can leaf through their notebook for a refresher or put the words on 3×5 cards and practice them.

ESL students, need to learn to live with some ambiguity. (This and this can also apply to older native speakers who are struggling with reading.) In their reading, they will not understand every word. They need to learn to read and comprehend to the best of their ability and, well enough to get the class assignment done. As most teachers will tell you, they would rather have a completed student assignment that is somewhat less than an A, than to have no assignment at all.

Unfortunately, students all too often give up and either quit coming to class as they feel too overwhelmed. Reading requirements are a big part of that overwhelm.

In conclusion: ESL students are overly dependent on dictionaries and translation devices to get them through their reading and assignments. The Kenneth Goodman Whole Language approach to reading can be utilized for these students, as well as low-achieving older native speakers. The Whole Language approach can help them get through their reading with sufficient understanding of the material to complete class work. Students can be trained to create word journals and to make a habit of recording words they don’t know, learn the words and thereby, expand their vocabularies.

Constant reading in English and expanding vocabularies combined with listening to spoken English with help these students to eventually become good readers, proficient writers and good communicators.

 

                References

 

Adams, M.M. (1994). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-51076-6.

Fader, D. (5/5/1955). Hooked on Books. Mass Market Paperbacks.

Goodman, K. (1963). A Communicative Theory of the Reading Curriculum. Elementary English, Vol 40:30, Mar. 1963, pp 290-298.

Goodman, K.S, (1967). Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game, Journal of The Reading Specialist, 6 (4), 126-135.

Goodman, Y. (2005). Reading Miscue Inventory. Katonah, NY: Robert C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Goodman, K. (1982). Language and Literacy. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan. ISBN 0-7100-0875-9.

Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading. NH: Heinemann. IBSN 0-435-07200-5.

Krashen, S. (5/5/2012). The Power of Reading, The University of Georgia College of Education, The COE Lecture Series. Retrieved from www.youtube.com. Retrieved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSW7gmvDLag&t=1236s

Whole Language, Wikipedia. Retrieved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language

2/2018 cew – copyright

 

 

 

Friday, I got the last of my 1099 wages statements from my employers for 2017.  I was able to add up all the money I had made in the year.

Halleluiah! I finally earned exactly the same amount I earned in 1992, twenty-six years ago. In 2008, I made the big plunge, left the corporate world forever and went back to school to become a teacher. It has been a bumpy road from time to time, but I will say I do enjoy what I do now much more than then.

So much for the vision of self-fulfillment. I am currently in the same size apartment I was in that year; two bed-room, one bath, car-port, pool-jacuzzi, pets okay. The only difference is that the amount of the rent has gone up 33% in the same period of time. I live in a moderate sized town in Central California; not Manhattan or San Francisco.

I estimate food prices are double what used to be since I am paying $600 to 900 per month for one person while I was paying $400 to $600 for two people.

In the same time period, electricity has increased from $6.57 per kilowatt hours in 1990 to $10.28 kilo hr. in 2016. The increase is 36%. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/.

The price of gasoline has gone up and come down; $1.30 per gallon in 1990 to $2.42 per gallon in 2016. Retrieved fromhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/.

Prices for Water And Sewerage Maintenance, 1990-2017 ($20)

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for water and sewerage maintenance were 254.46% higher in 2017 versus 1990.

http://www.in2013dollars.com/Water-and-sewerage-maintenance/price-inflation/1990.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Prices for Food, 2000-2017 ($20)

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for food were 48.95% higher in 2017 versus 2000. Retrieved from http://www.in2013dollars.com/Food/price-inflation.

 

Wow! You really have to look at the numbers to believe it. I keep wandering around saying “Why am I so broke? Why do I never have any money?” And, I am broke, and I do never have any money. The only break I get from the economy is since I have Medicare for medicals; the program reduces the amount of the bills and how much they pay. As a result, the doctors and hospitals reduce their fees. That’s it. Maybe some reduction in the costs of parks and museums. But, the big-ticket items: food, shelter and transportation – I’m in there with the rest of the rabble. I frequently ask myself, how do people live who have kids and make less money than I do? Basically, they do without is how.

Last thought; because I am in the senior group (sigh) I can easily remember a pack of cigarettes that cost 25 cents, gasoline that was 25 cents a gallon and going to the market and for $20, bringing back 5 bags of groceries. Easily enough to last a week. Today I can spend $20 and come out with two things, literally.

Bottom of Form

U.S. Inflation Rate, 1990-2017 ($100)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, the dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 2.35% per year. Prices in 2017 are 87.3% higher than prices in 1990.

Years with the largest changes in pricing: 1917 (28.65%), 1921 (-24.20%), and 1947 (21.43%). Okay, so maybe it is. But, an increase of 28.65% in inflation in one year. What the heck is going on? Two of the years listed above were war years.

Okay, I’m simple, I don’t get it. I just feel like saying, bring back the old days. Ah, me.

cew