Stuart wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

What is HRA and what is 5/-??

I don't know HRA, but 5/- is our old currency, what used to be called
"five shillings". Now 25p, but in those days it was a lot of money!
Maybe the equivalent of £50 or thereabouts.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

In message , Mrs Redboots
writes

Stuart wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

What is HRA and what is 5/-??

I don't know HRA, but 5/- is our old currency, what used to be called
"five shillings". Now 25p, but in those days it was a lot of money!
Maybe the equivalent of £50 or thereabouts.

Not that much! 5 shillings in 1930 was worth about 12 pounds today - so
not bad for a short flight.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

In message , Mrs
Redboots writes

Stuart wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

What is HRA and what is 5/-??

I don't know HRA, but 5/- is our old currency, what used to be called
"five shillings". Now 25p, but in those days it was a lot of money!
Maybe the equivalent of £50 or thereabouts.

Not that much! 5 shillings in 1930 was worth about 12 pounds today -
so not bad for a short flight.

As little as that? Hmm..... you could support a family on £300 a year,
back then, and now you would want, what, a minimum of £20,000. Okay
some things (notably communications) are infinitely cheaper now than
they were then, but if you express 5 shillings as a fraction of the
annual salary, it would be more like £2,400 of today's money.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

In article , Mrs Redboots
wrote:
Not that much! 5 shillings in 1930 was worth about 12 pounds
today - so not bad for a short flight.

As little as that? Hmm..... you could support a family on
£300 a year, back then, and now you would want, what, a
minimum of £20,000. Okay some things (notably communications)
are infinitely cheaper now than they were then, but if you
express 5 shillings as a fraction of the annual salary,
it would be more like £2,400 of today's money.

Uh? 5/- is 1/1200 of £300. So today's equivalent would be 1/1200
of £20K = £16.67 surely?

--
Tony Bryer

Tony Bryer wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

In article , Mrs Redboots
wrote:
Not that much! 5 shillings in 1930 was worth about 12 pounds
today - so not bad for a short flight.

As little as that? Hmm..... you could support a family on
£300 a year, back then, and now you would want, what, a
minimum of £20,000. Okay some things (notably communications)
are infinitely cheaper now than they were then, but if you
express 5 shillings as a fraction of the annual salary,
it would be more like £2,400 of today's money.

Uh? 5/- is 1/1200 of £300. So today's equivalent would be 1/1200
of £20K = £16.67 surely?

Probably, probably..... never very good at maths, I wasn't.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Stuart wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

What is HRA and what is 5/-??

I don't know HRA, but 5/- is our old currency, what used to be called
"five shillings". Now 25p, but in those days it was a lot of money!
Maybe the equivalent of £50 or thereabouts.

Back in the 1950s, 5/- was about 25% above the hourly rate for labourers, so
today's equivalent would be the minimum wage of £4.90 per hour+25%, say
£6.12. That's a factor of about 24 to 1.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In message , at 17:58:22 on Mon, 1
Nov 2004, Terry Harper remarked:
Back in the 1950s, 5/- was about 25% above the hourly rate for labourers, so
today's equivalent would be the minimum wage of £4.90 per hour+25%, say
£6.12. That's a factor of about 24 to 1.

Whereas the £300 vs £20,000 is 67:1

Perhaps the £300 was a little on the low side - being £1.50 an hour or 3
shillings and nine pence an hour.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

In message , at 17:58:22 on
Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Terry Harper
remarked:
Back in the 1950s, 5/- was about 25% above the hourly rate for labourers, so
today's equivalent would be the minimum wage of £4.90 per hour+25%, say
£6.12. That's a factor of about 24 to 1.

Whereas the £300 vs £20,000 is 67:1

Perhaps the £300 was a little on the low side - being £1.50 an hour or 3
shillings and nine pence an hour.

I was basing that on "Murder must Advertise", which I happen to be
re-reading, where a senior copywriter in an advertising agency was
earning £6.00 per week - I beg his pardon, £6/0/0, or £312 a year. And
Lord Peter Wimsey, if you recall, learning the trade, only made £4/0/0 a
week, or £208. Yet this wasn't considered particularly low....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

In article ,
(Mrs Redboots) wrote:

I was basing that on "Murder must Advertise", which I happen to be
re-reading, where a senior copywriter in an advertising agency was
earning £6.00 per week - I beg his pardon, £6/0/0, or £312 a year. And
Lord Peter Wimsey, if you recall, learning the trade, only made £4/0/0 a
week, or £208. Yet this wasn't considered particularly low....

£6/-/- and £4/-/- please. No noughts in £sd.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Mrs Redboots) wrote:

I was basing that on "Murder must Advertise", which I happen to be
re-reading, where a senior copywriter in an advertising agency was
earning £6.00 per week - I beg his pardon, £6/0/0, or £312 a year.
And Lord Peter Wimsey, if you recall, learning the trade, only
made £4/0/0 a week, or £208. Yet this wasn't considered
particularly low....

£6/-/- and £4/-/- please. No noughts in £sd.

IIRC it was acceptable to write £6 0s 0d, but not £6/0/0.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)