Here how much life cost in 1995 compared to 2025

You'll be marking the astonishing milestone of your thirtieth birthday this year.

This may make you feel quite old, but it may also prompt you to reflect on just how much the world has changed since then.

We still have all the receipts for bills we paid back in the 1990s.

page My90sthings.

How expensive were some of your favourite foods, drinks and treats back in the mid-1990s compared to today?

Take a step back thirty years, while gloomily surveying the contents of your 2025 wallet...

*No translation or paraphrasing is necessary, as the request is a single word with no provided text to work with.*

How much is a pint of milk? It might have been a well-known celebrity interview question back in the 1990s, but at that time it wasn't remotely expensive to get hold of some milk for your cup of tea.

In 1995, the average cost of a pint was about 36p, which meant you could get two for just over 70p. Enough to keep your hot drinks topped up for days.

Nowadays, however, a pint of reduced-fat milk has more than doubled in price and costs around 85p at Sainsbury’s. If you go to Waitrose, you'll even have less change from a pound coin, as it will cost 95p.

A pint of beer

Moving on from a pint of milk, we shift to a pint of something more robust. Visiting the local pub remains as much of a beloved custom in the UK in 2025 as it was in 1995, but at the time, it would have been a much more affordable option.

Thirty years ago, a pint of beer cost on average £1.68. As of November 2024, the Office for National Statistics reveals that the average price of a pint today is approximately £4.81.

This, of course, depends on where you are in the UK. This Is Money reported last year that Gloucester is the cheapest place in the country to enjoy a pint, at a cost of around £3.61 – while in London your after-work tipple could cost you as much as £6.75.

3. A cinema ticket

Going to the cinema was a pretty big deal in 1995, and with such films as Toy Story, Jumanji, and Die Hard With A Vengeance available to watch, it's not hard to see why.

But how much would it have cost you to go and watch all those films at your local theatre instead of waiting for them to be released on DVD?

Well, way back in 1995, you could pay just £3.48 for the chance to watch Buzz Lightyear having a blast onscreen. Nowadays? According to the UK Cinema Association, the average price of a trip to the cinema in the UK is currently £7.92. Again, it's all about where you are in the country - but you could be paying as much as £20 for a ticket at a London cinema - even one in Selfridges.

4. A Mars bar

So you've bought your milk, you've had your pint, you've stopped by the cinema to catch a film and now you pick up a Mars bar to munch on your way home. How much is it costing you? Well, if you'd done this back in 1995, you could have expected to pay just 25p for the pleasure of enjoying the chocolate bar.

These days, if you buy a Mars bar at Tesco, you'll be paying a substantial 85p for just one bar, and even higher in other stores, such as Waitrose, where it costs £1. That's a lot of money for a Mars bar.

5. A dozen eggs

As the old saying goes, you can´t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs – and if you buy a dozen, you´ll end up with a jumbo omelette. But just how much would that huge breakfast have cost you a few decades back?

You could buy a box of 12 for a low – or fairly meagre – 63p. Nowadays? A pack of medium free-range eggs from Tesco will cost you £2.65, and if you want large eggs it’ll set you back an even more expensive £3.15. So much for that affordable weekend brunch.

6. A litre of petrol (no change, as "a litre of petrol" is a straightforward phrase already in UK English)

If you regularly use a car, it's likely you're moaning about fuel costs. In 1995, a litre of petrol was a modest 53p.

According to RAC Fuel Watch, the average cost per litre in the UK is approximately £1.36 for unleaded petrol and £1.41 for diesel. Although these prices are lower than what they were a couple of years ago, refuelling still proves to be a rather expensive proposition.

There's no text provided for me to paraphrase. Please provide the text and I'll be happy to assist.

Hands up everyone who'd love to go and watch every Manchester United home match of the season? Not a single person? Well, if you do want to do that, the easiest way to do so is to invest in a season ticket, of course.

If you were going to Old Trafford in 1995 and wanted to show your support for the title-winning Red Devils, how much would it have cost you? You'd have had to pay £228 for that privilege. Nowadays, Ticket Compare found that the cheapest Manchester United season ticket costs £579 – more than double what you had to pay thirty years ago to see a team not as strong as they were back then. It's still relatively affordable compared to Arsenal, whose cheapest season ticket costs a whopping £1,073.

8. A Pot Noodle

Who doesn't indulge in a Pot Noodle occasionally? In 1995, a Pot Noodle was priced at approximately 67p. Today, you can expect to pay around £1.10 for a standard chicken and mushroom flavour Pot Noodle at both Tesco and Asda.

Prices can fluctuate, but retailers occasionally have promotions that bring the cost as low as it was in 1995, giving you the chance to recapture the feeling of those bygone times.

9. A load of bread

Alright, so you're not in the mood for a Pot Noodle, how about grabbing a sandwich or a slice of toast when you come in from that late night out? At that point, a bread loaf was actually relatively cheap at around 53p on average.

Notably, there is one area where you could potentially end up saving money compared to 1995, depending on which loaf you buy. Tesco's cheapest loaf - HW Nevil's white bread - currently costs 47p, while Sainsbury's equivalent Stanford Street loaf is 50p.

If you fancy something more upmarket than a plain white sandwich loaf, be prepared to pay extra. Tesco's standard white bread costs 74p, while a Warburton's toastie loaf comes in at £1. If you're eyeing up a sourdough loaf, you might need to mortgage your house.

10. Sony PlayStation

Right, so we understand that the 90s might not have had all the modern technology we're used to today - just imagine, for instance, living in a decade when mobile phones were only used for making phone calls. But one major thing that did emerge to take our minds off things last decade was the Sony PlayStation.

The original PlayStation was first released in Japan in 1994 and arrived in Europe in September 1995, with a price tag of around £200. Fast forward to the present day, when you can expect to pay anywhere from £390 to under £500 for a brand new PS5, depending on the model and whether it comes with any games.

11. Fish and chips

Ah, fish and chips. No matter where you reside in the country, you can't help but come across this quintessentially British favourite. My 90s things reckons a takeaway service on a Friday evening would have cost you a mere £1.68 in 1995. Fast forward thirty years and, according to the Office for National Statistics, the average price of your fish supper in 2024 was approximately £9.88.

In some areas, the price can be even higher. For instance, well-known fish and chip shops like Poppies in London charge £22.95 for a large cod or haddock with chips. We cannot verify the prices at every chip shop nationwide, but it is clear that the cost differs depending on where you are. You should expect to pay considerably more than £1.68.

12. A house

With so many people finding it tough to get onto the property ladder these days, it's reasonable to say that the cost of owning a home has risen dramatically over the past few decades – but what did it cost back in 1995? Well, you could have purchased your own home for an average price of £55,762, which may seem like a reasonable price, but it's also worth noting that the average wage was lower, so owning a property wasn't within everyone's reach even back then.

Now? Zoopla stated in November that the average price of a home in the UK is £267,500 – and obviously, it's subject to what kind of property you purchase and where you reside. Zoopla also disclosed that the average property price in London is a genuinely astronomic £537,500. Ouch.

What was the mean salary in 1995?

So, you're probably still trying to digest the costs from 1995 and might be pinching yourself, hoping the Mars bar prices were about to fall. But, if you look back, how much was the average weekly wage in 1995?

A full-time male worker aged 30-39 would typically earn around £389.70 per week, whereas a full-time female worker of the same age would typically earn approximately £306.50 per week, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.

By 2024, the typical weekly earnings in the UK stood at around £728. It's worth bearing in mind that, despite prices being lower, the amount we had to spend on them was significantly less.

Do you have a story to share?

.

Sign up to Hello News's The Slice newsletter for your guide to what's happening in London, with trusted reviews, deals and competitions.

Read More

How much would a Stocks & Shares ISA investor need for a £3,000 monthly second income?

With a tax-efficient Individual Savings Account (ISA), anyone can effectively boost their chances of generating a substantial second income in retirement.

Here's one way a person can try and build a £3,000 passive income with tax-free Individual Savings Account (ISA) investments.

Please be aware that tax implications will depend on the specific circumstances of each individual or business. The guidance in this article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute professional tax advice. It is the responsibility of readers to conduct their own research and to consult with a qualified professional before making any investment or financial decisions.

Think carefully

To begin with, there's no standard formula for investing or saving. We all have our own distinct short- and long-term investment objectives, alongside differing attitudes towards risk and personal financial situations.

For that reason, some clear rules pertaining to investing are worth heeding.

Saving mainly in Cash ISAs is unlikely to earn a comfortable retirement income for most of us. In simple terms, while our money may be secure in such an account, the returns we can expect are likely to be insufficient, given most people's financial situations.

Targeting an annual income of £36,000

Let's say an investor has £514 available each month. This is the average sum that Britons currently save or invest, according to the financial services provider Shepherd's Friendly.

They would, after 30 years, be sitting on £356,741 in their account. Based on a 4% annual withdrawal rate, that would leave them with an income of £14,270, which amounts to £1,189 a month.

As mentioned, such income is assured and secure. Nevertheless, even with the State Pension included, this individual is unlikely to have the £43,100 that the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) states individuals require to live comfortably in retirement.

or thereabouts by the time they retire.

Based on the same 4% drawdown rate, this £900k balance would provide an average monthly income of £36,000. With the state pension included, the PLSA target of £43,100 could be quite achievable.

.

Investing in funds

That 8.8% return is achievable, in my opinion, based on the proven long-term track record of UK and US shares.

have achieved average returns of 7% and 11% each year. If this trend continues – and, unlike a Cash ISA, this is not a guaranteed outcome – the £514 invested equally between a tracker fund for each index would generate around £3,000 a month in extra income.

This is one such fund that investors can consider today.

At an ongoing charge of 0.07%, it is the cheapest S&P-based ETF currently available in the UK. When combined with a Stocks and Shares ISA, it could save investors a substantial amount of money by eliminating unnecessary fees and taxes.

Investing in any fund is, of course, more precarious than keeping cash. However, by putting your money into 500 different business ventures, you can diversify your investments and potentially earn superior returns while spreading risk.

In this scenario, people lower their chances of experiencing a decline in investment value by diversifying their portfolio across a wide range of companies operating in various sectors and locations. It's worth noting that even with this diversified approach, an investment fund may still decrease in value when the economy is experiencing difficulties. However, owning such a fund can reduce the risk of sudden and extreme fluctuations, potentially leading to a consistently stable return over a more extended period.

It's why I hold a UK equivalent, such as a FTSE 100 fund, in my own Individual Savings Account.

.

More reading

• Will there be a stock market crash and what action should I take now?

us better investors.

Read More

Pound slides to fresh 14-month low as stocks fall; rise in UK borrowing costs reverses – as it happened

LIVE – Updated at 15:15

Read More

Men exhibit stronger sunk cost bias than women when mating motives are activated

It appears surprisingly, this impact isn't confined to romantic situations, and it also applies to how people behave when making purchasing decisions, indicating that fundamental evolutionary impulses can whimsically influence behaviour across various settings.

The sunk cost fallacy refers to the inclination to stick with a decision or investment because of the resources already put into it, even though it would be more sensible to cut losses when it's no longer in your favour. For instance, a person might carry on watching a film they're not enjoying simply because they've invested 60 minutes of their time. It is commonly seen as illogical because the cash and effort already committed (the "sunk costs") can't be got back, and choices should typically be guided by future outcomes rather than past spend.

Conventionally, explanations for this bias have centred on psychological and cognitive factors, such as the wish to avoid waste, fear of regret, or a requirement to justify earlier decisions. Nevertheless, some researchers propose that sunk cost bias may not always be unreasonable. From an evolutionary standpoint, committing to an investment might have been advantageous in contexts such as securing a mate and survival, where persistence and resource commitment indicated fitness and reliability to potential partners or guaranteed access to essential resources.

This evolutionary perspective is behind the purpose of the study. The researchers suggested that sunk cost bias might help in relationships, particularly in the case of men, who in the past have used aggressive and resource-demanding approaches to secure partners. They proposed that the driving force behind securing a partner could trigger an implemental mindset, a focus on achieving specific goals, that would increase the likelihood of sticking with prior investments, even in unrelated areas, like consumer behaviour.

To find out how mating motives impact the sunk cost bias, the researchers carried out one field study and seven laboratory experiments, six of which were registered in advance to provide clarity.

Researchers initially investigated any differences between men and women in regard to their vulnerability to sunk cost bias when it comes to matters of the heart. They enlisted the participation of 220 individuals, including 114 women, who were primarily aged 30.7 years on average, through a Chinese online survey platform. The participants were randomly divided into two distinct groups: one belonging to a romantic relationship scenario and the other to a consumption decision scenario.

In the romantic scenario, those taking part imagined they had spent over a month getting to know a potential dating partner through chat, had sent each other virtual gifts, and had organised to meet in person. Just before meeting face-to-face, they found out about a more attractive and a better-suited potential partner. They were then faced with the decision of whether to stick with their original partner or meet the new one instead.

The objective was to determine whether males tend to display a stronger sunk cost bias when it comes to romantic choices, but not when making consumer decisions. This design took account of possible confounding factors, such as perceived moral issues, which were assessed using ratings provided by the participants. This study found that men were more inclined than women to stick with a decision they had made, even if it seemed wise to change their mind, in a romantic scenario, laying the groundwork for further research.

Expanding on Study 1, the researchers investigated whether exposure to mating cues affected the tendency to persevere with a poor decision due to a sunk cost in unrelated areas, such as investments and spending choices. The study involved 231 heterosexual participants (150 women) with an average age of 25.3 years, recruited from the United States via a platform called Prolific.

Participants were randomly placed into one of two groups: a mating cue group or a control group. In the mating cue group, people judged how attractive they found images of potential dates and were asked to imagine going on a romantic date with someone they found appealing. In the control group, participants evaluated pictures of flats and were asked to imagine discussing renting the property with the landlord.

Afterwards, participants were asked to make decisions in two scenarios. In the investment scenario, they had to decide whether to continue funding a plane project that was mostly built but was now outperformed by a better alternative. In the consumption scenario, they decided between a concert for which they had a £100 ticket or a preferred concert with a £50 ticket. Mating cues significantly increased the 'sunk cost' bias among men in both scenarios, but had no impact on women, reinforcing the role of personal motives.

The researchers set up Studies 3a and 3b to establish a distinction between sunk cost bias, related to previous expenditure, and status quo bias, which is not. Study 3a involved 420 Chinese university students (233 women, with an average age of 23.1 years), recruited through a survey platform. Study 3b involved 561 participants (301 women, with an average age of 31.1 years) from the online platform Credamo.

In Study 3a, participants engaged in a task to gain a chance of winning a lottery (prior investment situation) or were provided with the lottery without their previous contributions (no prior investment situation). The attraction indicators were manipulated in the same way as in Study 2. Participants then decided whether to switch to a lottery with better odds. The research found that men’s sunk cost bias was higher in the prior investment situation when they were exposed to attraction cues, whereas no such influence was detected in the no-investment situation.

Study 3b utilised a restaurant booking scenario. In the preceding investment condition, participants had made a deposit; in the no-investment condition, they had made a free booking. As in Study 3a, displaying mating cues increased sunk cost bias in men in the prior investment condition but had no effect in the no-investment condition, thereby supporting the differentiation between sunk cost and status quo biases.

To investigate the underlying mechanism behind mating cues and sunk cost bias, the researchers conducted Studies 4a and 4b. They recruited 539 members (301 of whom were female, with an average age of 30.5 years) and 551 participants (302 of whom were female, with an average age of 30.6 years), respectively, through Credamo.

In Study 4a, participants described an upcoming activity they were planning to undertake and went through a mating cue manipulation, similar to previous studies. A mindset favouring implementation was measured with questions asking about participants' concern with detailed planning actions. The findings indicated that the presentation of mating cues strengthened a behaviour-focused mindset in men but had no such effect in women.

In Study 4b, participants' implemental mindset was manipulated. Those in the strengthened condition worked out steps to overcome a hypothetical problem, whilst those in the control condition simply described the problem. All participants then made a sunk cost decision about whether to continue a plane project. The findings revealed that an implemental mindset enhanced sunk cost bias for both men and women, demonstrating its role as a key factor.

Study 5 employed a process-by-moderation approach to verify the role of an implemental mentality in correlating mating cues and sunk cost bias. The sample comprised 572 individuals (305 females, with an average age of 31.8 years), recruited from the Sojump platform. Participants were presented with mating or control cues and then undertook an activity to alter their implemental mindset (for instance, selecting between two laptops, thereby stimulating goal-directed thinking).

People then made a decision to carry on watching a dull film after investing an hour. In a special test group, hints about interacting with a partner increased men's tendency to insist on continuing with something. However, in a separate test group where people were more focused on making things happen, the hints about a partner had no influence, as all participants seemed to be more willing to persist with the film. This outcome verified that being focused on making things happen made people more likely to do so.

The final study applied these findings in a real-world setting. The researchers collaborated with a university café, recruiting 240 Chinese students (120 females) over seven days. Participants were offered paid loyalty cards (5 RMB) with a 20% discount on coffee for two weeks. The cards featured either a romantic design (mating cue) or a neutral design (control).

The researchers monitored the use of these subscription cards and also conducted follow-up surveys to gauge participants' motivations and actions. The data showed that men who were shown romantic cards made use of their memberships more regularly, displaying a stronger tendency to persist with their investments in certain situations. In contrast, it seemed that the romantic design had no notable impact on women's behaviour, indicating distinct effects of mating motivations on investment persistence for both genders.

Together, the findings provide evidence that mating desires can have a significant impact on decision-making by activating a goal-oriented mindset, particularly among men. This mindset drives a stronger commitment to existing investments, manifesting as an irrational attachment to previous outlays, even in situations unrelated to mating.

The research points out key differences between men and women, which are rooted in how they've evolved to look for partners. Men are more likely to keep after what they want when they notice something they're interested in. These kinds of trends are not just limited to relationships - they can also be seen in the way people make choices about what to buy.

These discoveries also have significant implications for marketing and consumer behaviour, according to the researchers. For example, marketers could utilise romantic cues to enhance men's commitment to loyalty schemes or products requiring up-front investments. Nevertheless, the researchers go on to caution policymakers and consumers to be mindful of how such tactics might take advantage of psychological biases, leading to irrational financial decisions.

This paper was authored by Rui Chen, Hao Sun, Zhaoyang Guo and Haipeng (Allan) Chen.

Read More