I was really curious to know the amounts of money the author was talking about in 2010 terms.
His annual income was $1980 + $168.75 = $2148.75, which was 6% of "what I earned in my prime..."
So, 100 / 6 * 2148.75 = $35,812.5 annual income
The article was written in either 1977 or 1969 (see comment by sorbus), so let's guess his highest salary was earned in either 1965 or 1975.
Using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), income during his prime in 2010 dollars was somewhere between $145,321.53 (1975) and $248,199.95 (1965)
Depending on when he wrote this article, his retirement income was somewhere between $7,740.89 (1977) and $12,781.96 (1969)
Long story short, the author took a 95% hit to his income in "retirement" (~$200k -> ~$10k in 2010 dollars)
You read that his retirement left him with 94% of his old income... then you did some loose maths to inflate the two amounts to today's money... then you wrote a conclusion to your comment saying that he took a hit of 95%. Errr, what?
Thanks for giving a rough idea of what his money was in modern terms, but your "long story short" was actually a longer version of what he had already said, and somehow less accurate.
His annual income was $1980 + $168.75 = $2148.75, which was 6% of "what I earned in my prime..."
So, 100 / 6 * 2148.75 = $35,812.5 annual income
The article was written in either 1977 or 1969 (see comment by sorbus), so let's guess his highest salary was earned in either 1965 or 1975.
Using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), income during his prime in 2010 dollars was somewhere between $145,321.53 (1975) and $248,199.95 (1965)
Depending on when he wrote this article, his retirement income was somewhere between $7,740.89 (1977) and $12,781.96 (1969)
Long story short, the author took a 95% hit to his income in "retirement" (~$200k -> ~$10k in 2010 dollars)