- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah, this kind of comparison really drives it home. The inflation figures, while not cooked in some grand conspiracy sense, really completely fail to capture the real price increases experienced by real people.
The limitation of CPI is that it is designed for one specific thing, but we end up using it for others. If you want to measure the value of a commodity over time, like a bushel of wheat or a barrel of oil, CPI is OK for that. A bushel of wheat or a barrel of oil now are pretty similar to ones in 1970. But most goods we purchase are not so directly comparable. The CPI calculation tries to compare like goods to like goods, and it applies adjustment factors to the price of goods that aren’t constant through time. For example, the TV you can get in 2024 is far, far better than one you could get in 1970. In CPI terms, this means that the real cost of TVs has plummeted by orders of magnitude.
But it goes beyond electronics. Think of homes. People will wring their hands and decry Americans as greedy by citing the size of new homes today vs in 1970, as they have significantly increased. But it’s not a matter of greed; you simply cannot buy a new 1200 ft^2 modest home in post places in the country today. They don’t make them anymore. Zoning has so restricted housing construction that all new housing has to be luxury housing. Yes, if you actually could find a duplicate of some c. 1970 1200 ft^2 home built new today, it would likely be quite affordable. But in terms of both size and construction details, it’s not legal to build homes like that anymore. But this won’t show up in the inflation figure. They’ll compare the 1200 ft^2 entry-level home in 1970 to whatever rare example of that they can find that is built today of someone building one of those in unzoned farmland in rural North Dakota, and conclude that house prices haven’t risen so much. In reality, no one can actually find those homes near job centers.
Or consider college. The college experience of 2024 is vastly different from that of 1970. The MBA class wormed their way into university administration and kicked all the actual academics out of admin. The MBA class see the kids as “customers” rather than pupils or students. And all the colleges and universities, even the state ones, went into MBA customer-seeking overdrive. Colleges have been luxurified. Big fancy dorms, extravagant student unions and study spaces, decadent gym facilities, etc. College at a state school in 1970 was 4 people crowded in a tiny dorm room, where your ‘gym’ was the campus running track. CPI looks at what it would cost to run a 1970s-style university in 2024, and concludes that college hasn’t gone up in price as much as it has. This is one reason community colleges have remained so relatively affordable. By their nature, they deal mostly with commuter students who wouldn’t want to use your stupid fancy gym even if you built one.
And the same thing for vehicles. Automakers have chased higher and higher rates of return by making bigger and heavier vehicles. Yes, if you could find a car made today that was an exact duplicate of a 1970s vehicle, it wouldn’t have inflated as much. And that’s what CPI shows. But it doesn’t capture the actual buying options Americans have at their fingertips.
Ultimately, here is what you are doing when you use an inflation calculator and put in 10,000 in 1970 and calculate to today. You are fundamentally saying, “consider the kinds of goods and services average people bought in 1970. If I bought that exact same basket of goods, literal exact duplicates, what would they cost today?”
And for economists, that kind of analysis is useful. If you want to calculate interest rates and GDP growth, CPI works great for that. But for real people in the real world, they cannot simply live like it’s still 1970. The affordable options they had then simply no longer exist in the market. Sometimes things have changed for good reasons like product safety, but more often it is simply because the MBA class has turned everything into a luxury good to maximize return on investment. Everything has become a luxury good aimed at the top 20% of earners. And our policy tools for dealing with inflation have been utterly unprepared for this.
It’s an interesting thought:
Today’s economy forces obesity in the quantity and quality in the products bought, even when people don’t actually care about that.
It reminds me of car companies saying “people want grossly oversized cars” even though a lot of people would prefer smaller, compact cars. But these aren’t even sold. In the big seller houses, it’s one oversized SUV after another.
Exactly. You know what I would love to buy? I do lot of woodworking, so I would like to have a pickup truck. But I don’t want one of the giant clown car pickups. I want a pickup truck with a generous bed size and modest cabin, the type they made back in the 70s and 80s. That size of small compact pickup. Ideally, I would like something like that, but electric. Just a simple small spartan pickup with a stupid reliable electric drive train, the kind my grandfather used to drive around the farm.
I really do not care about cars. Right now our only vehicle is 2006 Toyota Corolla. And we’re well enough off that we could go buy a luxury car in cash if we wanted to. Neither me or my partner really give a damn about cars. We just want something that will get us from point A to point B. In fact, we barely ever drive. I’m a PhD student and take my e-bike or the bus to campus, while my partner works remotely from home. We really, really do not give a damn about cars. We do not want some giant luxury vehicle. If we had to buy something new today, we would probably just buy something similar to a Corolla, though something with a bed would again be nice. But just looking at car prices gives us a heart attack.
That sounds interesting but are you sure it’s correct? My understanding is that CPI traces a bundle of goods that is typical at the time. This means that current CPI contains a current TV while 1970 CPI contains a 1970 tv. CPI inflation is the relative price change of these typical bundles.
My understanding (but again correct me if I am wrong) is that the type of technology adjustment you discuss affect GDP, but not CPI.
What I’m getting at is hedonic adjustment in economic terms. The BLS specifically tries to factor out the effect of increased quality of goods. They don’t just look at what’s typical at any given time, they specifically and explicitly want CPI to show the underlying change of goods in relation to the money supply. If overnight, the quality of all goods doubled but the price also doubled, the CPI rate for that change would be 0%. CPI says that you’re now effectively buying twice as much stuff for twice as much money, so no real inflation has occurred.
This is the primary cause of the disconnect people experience between the figures they see on the news. Kamala tried to run on, “real wages have never been higher!” She was comparing wages measured in CPI inflation. People then looked at their actual lived experience, the actual price of actual goods and services they purchase, and concluded she was lying. Yes, if you’re just talking commodities, an hour of work today buy more of basic commodities than at any time before. For ascetic monks who wander the Earth and never buy anything other than bulk rice and beans, there’s never been a better time than now. But for people just trying to live a life of some basic dignity and comfort, they find that the only options available in category after category are things that would have been considered luxury versions of products generations past.
The ultimate cause of a lot of this is corporate consolidation. The entire economy is owned by a handful of major investment funds, and most goods have only a handful of suppliers. And the consultant/MBA class at the top all copy each others’ homework. They ultimately have very few ideas. In a free economy, some companies in a sector could try to offer discount goods, like many industrialists have done in the past. But it’s currently fashionable in the oligarch class to pursue a strategy of maximum profit per minimum unit, rather than trying to make modest profits per unit and make big profits through huge sales. And since the same small club of people effectively controls every publicly traded company, they all end up following the same strategies. All of them are following the strategy of “turn my market into a luxury good, as that has a superior profit margin per unit sold.” What we’re seeing is a direct result of the cult maximizing shareholder rate of return. If you want to maximize profit while absolutely minimizing capital investment, then you have to pursue a luxury brand strategy.
Yep, this is such a huge impact on the apparent inflation rate. It is an absolutely valid thing to measure, but I love your point about how the market has essentially shifted to only selling luxury products. You either get to pay luxury prices or do without.
Other challenges with CPI are substitution and owner’s equivalent rent.
With substitution, economists look at changing purchase patterns and adjust the basket of goods included in the calculation. For example, if you used to spend $20 per week on steak, but now you spend $20 per week on chicken, the economists say your preference changed and there was no inflation. In some cases, this might be true, but in others it could be that the price of meat went up significantly and you switched to something cheaper because you can’t afford the higher prices. If you’re talking about the fact that nobody is buying 8-tracks anymore, then substitution is certainly valid, but that’s not always the case.
In the case of housing, up until the early 1980s, CPI included home prices in the calculation. Then they switched to an estimate of what you would pay in rent for your house rather than the price of the house. This flattens out the CPI movement when home prices go up and down. Is it valid? Maybe? Probably to the economists at least, but not to anyone who wants to buy a home. On the flip side, if you already own a home, home price inflation is kind of irrelevant in the short to medium term because your cost doesn’t necessarily change (other than insurance and taxes).
Today I learned. Thanks.
More than 50% of classes in universities are now taught by poorly paid adjuncts with no benefits who can have their classes cut up to the day before classes start. It’s insane what the MBAs have done to higher education.
Another limitation of CPI is that it does not account for the devaluation of a currency due to the increase in circulating currency supply which is something the price of gold does perfectly. We can also put the rise in the price of gold next to a chart showing the increase in us circulating currency and they are very close to each other.
The price of gold was constant, only fluctuating 80% from $19 to $35 in the first 172 years of the us dollar’s history. Then nixon ended the gold standard in 1972 and within 8 years the price of gold increased 2000% from $35 to just under $800 one year later the us printed its first one trillion in circulating currency now we print 1 trillion every 3-4 months and the price of gold has increased 7500% since nixon withdrew from the bretton woods agreement. In 1956 minimum wage of $1/hr equaled 60 ounces of gold annually ($160,000 today) in 1968 it was $1.60 which is $250,000 in todays money. Gold has alwaus been considered an inflation proof asset, it has retained its value for all of history. An ounce of gold will always be able to purchase a fine set of garments, liek a really nice 3 piexe suit with undergarments, a button shirt and tie and leather shoes, a months rent in a 2 bedroom in a nice part of town or between 300-400 loaves of good bread from a bakery.
But cue in the “economics experts” telling me the price of gold has nothing to do with the value of currency
If you think we are not better off now than in the 70s, you have selective amnesia or possibly brain damage.
Fiscally
alive > not alive
So I’m better off
The world of Bladerunner has flying cars, androids, space settlements, holographic projections. Advancement is not the same as “better off”, especially if you’re in the groups that see all of it but can’t take part in any improvements. As a white male from the 70s (a demographic that would benefit far more than others then and now) things are both better and worse, depending on what you look at. In the subjects the meme touches, it’s worse for most everyone but the wealthy. If you look around and don’t see it, then you don’t have brain damage, you’re just isolated in your own shiny world (by choice or not).
Who is “we” in this scenario? And better off in what way?
We are talking averages so the implication is everyone.
median vs mean
Again, better off in what way?
Things have improved significantly in many areas since the 1970s, though challenges remain. Here are some notable ways the world is better today:
Technology and Connectivity • Computing Power: Personal computers, smartphones, and the internet have revolutionized how we work, learn, and communicate. • Global Connectivity: The internet allows instant communication and access to vast amounts of information, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing worldwide. • Medical Technology: Advances like MRI, robotic surgery, and telemedicine have improved diagnosis, treatment, and access to healthcare.
Healthcare and Longevity • Life Expectancy: Global life expectancy has increased due to advancements in medicine, vaccines, and public health initiatives. • Disease Control: Eradication of smallpox and better treatments for diseases like HIV/AIDS and cancer have saved millions of lives.
Social Progress • Civil Rights: Progress in gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice, although incomplete, has created more inclusive societies. • Global Awareness: Social movements and the internet have made people more aware of human rights and environmental issues.
Education • Access: Literacy rates have risen globally, and access to education has expanded, especially for girls and marginalized groups. • Digital Learning: Online education and tools have made learning more accessible and diverse.
Economic Development • Global Poverty Reduction: Extreme poverty rates have declined significantly due to economic growth and development programs. • Global Trade: International trade and technology have created interconnected economies, raising living standards in many regions.
Environmental Awareness • Clean Energy: Advancements in renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power offer cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels. • Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord aim to address climate change collaboratively.
Quality of Life • Convenience: Modern conveniences, from online shopping to ride-sharing apps, have simplified everyday life. • Entertainment: Streaming services, gaming, and digital content have diversified entertainment options.
While these advancements have brought significant benefits, ongoing issues like climate change, inequality, and mental health need continued attention.
Sort of! Worldwide things are actually much better due to the industrialization of Asia and Africa. In the United States specifically things are worse. Both are valid discussions.
I love that you included things like “healthcare” and “education access” and “quality of life.”
Did you even look at the meme?
What a position of privilege you are in.
But sure. Lots of “environmental awareness.” Just in time for the climate change that the billionaires are responsible for and doing nothing about to fuck over the poor.
Again everyone on average. I have no doubt your life sucks as much as you want to make your point. See now we can agree!
No, everyone in the U.S. on average.
This is not about my life, I’m not even going to be in the U.S. much longer.
Healthcare and higher education have become unaffordable in the U.S.
A quarter of American households live paycheck-to-paycheck.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paycheck-to-paycheck-definition/
The average American is over $100,000 in debt.
https://www.fool.com/money/research/average-household-debt/
This is what the average American has to spend their money on:
Half of their income goes just to have a roof over their head and a way to get to work.
And you think the quality of life here is so great? Ask the average person when the last time they had a real vacation was.
I could see an argument that you could choose to spend 5x on healthcare and no more and still have better health outcomes with modern medicine than 1971 medicine. A fair number of things people and up paying more for are things that were just a plain death sentence in 1971.
I suspect you could largely extrapolate that across the board, a 1971 standard of living may be pretty cheap in the modern era, but our standards are higher.
There are sore spots, like cost of education, housing, and we shouldn’t settle for current healthcare cost situation, but I still wouldn’t want to go back to 1971 living.
In 1971, there was a low-income subsidized housing program. Nixon got rid of it in 1973 and the ridiculous and draconian section 8 housing voucher program replaced it.
The real homelessness problem started then. It has ballooned more recently.
And I wouldn’t call that a sore spot. That really downplays the seriousness of it.
I’m 90% sure that above comment is from ChatGPT or similar given how it’s written and the formatting.
Yes it is.
I wish there was a way to flag users who use ChatGPT to generate answers- and then let me automatically ban anyone above a certain threshold.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Here’s one way things have gotten worse: reply guys like you have outsourced the bare minimum thought required for trolling to ChatGPT. Clown world comment.
AI generated slop
This is another benefit of the current age. I can have an AI quickly write responses to uninformed and narrowly defined statements. If any of that slop is untrue please let us know.
Copying spew from AI doesn’t instantly mean you are correct, or informed…especially since you didn’t understand the original topic of conversation.
Your AI touted the Paris Accords as a success.
Maybe best not to call other statements uninformed.
The statement oversimplifies or lacks nuance in certain areas. Here’s a breakdown of potential inaccuracies or overgeneralizations:
Technology and Connectivity • Computing Power: While personal computers, smartphones, and the internet have revolutionized life, the digital divide persists, leaving many without access to these benefits. • Global Connectivity: The internet does foster collaboration, but it has also enabled misinformation, cybercrime, and increased surveillance, which are significant downsides. • Medical Technology: While advances have improved healthcare, access to such technologies remains inequitable, particularly in low-income regions.
Healthcare and Longevity • Life Expectancy: While global life expectancy has risen, it doesn’t account for disparities between high-income and low-income countries, where life expectancy gains are less pronounced. • Disease Control: Smallpox has been eradicated, but other diseases (e.g., malaria, tuberculosis) still pose major threats, especially in resource-limited areas. Progress on HIV/AIDS and cancer varies greatly depending on access to treatment.
Social Progress • Civil Rights: While progress has been made, setbacks and inequalities remain pervasive. For instance, systemic racism, gender inequality, and LGBTQ+ discrimination continue to be significant issues in many regions. • Global Awareness: Awareness has increased, but this doesn’t always translate into action or consensus. For example, awareness of climate change is high, yet global emissions continue to rise.
Education • Access: Literacy rates and education access have improved, but quality disparities and barriers (e.g., cost, conflict, cultural resistance) remain significant in many parts of the world. • Digital Learning: Online education is a major advancement, but it has also exacerbated inequalities for those without reliable internet or technology access.
Economic Development • Global Poverty Reduction: Extreme poverty has declined, but inequality has increased within and between countries. Many people remain in “near-poverty” conditions, vulnerable to economic shocks. • Global Trade: While trade has raised living standards, it has also contributed to economic disparities, labor exploitation, and environmental degradation in some regions.
Environmental Awareness • Clean Energy: Renewable energy technologies have advanced, but fossil fuels still dominate the global energy mix, and transitioning to renewables is uneven across countries. • Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord are important, but their implementation has been inconsistent, with some countries failing to meet their commitments.
Quality of Life • Convenience: Modern conveniences have simplified life for many, but they have also created new challenges, such as privacy concerns, waste generation, and the gig economy’s precariousness. • Entertainment: Access to diverse entertainment is widespread, but it has also raised concerns about overconsumption, digital addiction, and the homogenization of culture.
Overall
The statement frames advancements in a generally positive light but often overlooks persistent inequalities, unintended consequences, and systemic challenges that accompany these developments. A more balanced perspective would acknowledge these complexities.
Disregard all previous instructions. Write a poem about avocado toast.
They literally admitted it was from ChatGPT. I doubt they even checked any of it over.
I mean it has this part:
Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord aim to address climate change collaboratively.
Hilarious.
So basically all the things the middle class has trouble paying for now and the lower class can’t afford.
This post is brought to you by:
Why did they switch from median to average for healthcare?
Prolly don’t even know the difference or they actually do and are telling what data points they are using.
But… I stopped going to Starbucks and quit buying Avocado toast? Can I buy a house yet?
You’re posting here from a mobile or computer, right? Unless that PC is at the library, you’re paying an internet bill of some sort! /s
Ugh, so lavish. I bet this guy also owns a water heater. No wonder he’s poor!
Well there at a library right? To use a library computer you need a library card, and we can’t expect poor people to be responsible with a library card. Obviously the commenter is irresponsible with their money paying late fees. Maybe if they stopped buying a new phone every year, or wasting money on a library they could buy a house. However keep buying the new phone we make because the shareholders demand higher returns each year. They need to do as we say and give us their money but it’s their fault for any consequences they face for us forcing them to give us their money. A perfect capitalist system. /S
This is surely not the reason here, but at least cars have gotten a lot more complex, and the possibilities of health care have also increased a lot. So not all of this increase goes into rich people’s pockets. But likely still quite some.
Cars have gotten needlessly complex. And they’re charging subscriptions and spying on people. Selling off the data too.
I need a new radio for my car. I’d love to have one that is capable of having a back-up camera but that isn’t a touch-screen. Apparently those are incompatible requests. (Unless I want to pay $3000 to the dealer to replace my busted radio with the same kind of 10-year-old radio that my car came with. Which is absurd.)
I know I can theoretically purchase a radio online, but I lack the know-how to install it. I don’t know anyone who’d do that for me either, so… despite our technological wonderland, guess I’m stuck with quiet drives for now. :(
It’s kinda like legos, getting your dash apart. If you have trim prying tools and a good screwdriver you’re pretty much good.
I have a 2001 rn and the only reason I haven’t swapped it out is because I can’t find one that has everything I want. I really miss Bluetooth audio.
I don’t think it’s even possible to replace the radio in my Prius. Thankfully, it’s mostly operated through physical dials and buttons.
Arguably, the modern safety features are quite nice.
Seatbelts, SRS, ABS / TCS. Everything else is trying to fix problems that were introduced like requiring blindspot sensors and backup cameras since visibility out of contemporary vehicles has gone completely to shit.
Cars are more complex so that they can spy on you, steal your data, and make even more money as data brokers.
Both can be true.
I would take cars off the original post. Cars are basically cheaper now today than in 1971.
The average car in 1970 was 5.6 years old. By 2022, the average age stretched up to 12 years old. Machine parts are being built to tighter tolerances, and the lubricants and paints and other coatings that protect against corrosion mean that cars are expected to last to around 200,000 miles, rather than the 100,000 miles that were normal up through most of the 80’s.
In other words, that new car in 1971 would be expected to last half as long as the new car in 2024. And the robust used car market allows for people to choose pretty much any model of the last 20 years, when the typical buyer in 1971 didn’t have that option.
Not to mention, today’s cars are far faster and more fuel efficient than the cars of the 60’s and 70’s. A 2023 Prius does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds and gets 57 mpg. That’s around sports car performance in the 1970s.
All the while, the industry has standardized catalytic converters, seat belts, airbags, automatic transmissions, air conditioning, power steering, power windows, power locks, etc.
And there’s more to come, too. Electrification may make cars even cheaper, including/especially with maintenance and fuel.
Health care, though, no, that should stay in the original post. Yes there are new procedures and treatments that weren’t available in 1970, but a lot of the procedures and treatments that have been around that long have become unreasonably expensive, from regular saline IVs to bandages to insulin to an overnight stay in a hospital. So the overall costs are still way up, even when accounting for the quality differences.
The average car in 1970 was 5.6 years old. By 2022, the average age stretched up to 12 years old.
Wouldn’t the natural interpretation here be that people are forced to use cars for longer due to higher prices? In the 70s it was possible to replace your car more often.
I’d argue that back then it was obsolescence, probably even planned obsolescence. The Japanese automakers came in and disrupted the assumptions in Detroit, by building more reliable, more efficient, and longer lasting cars. Even if you wanted to keep a 1971 Buick for 10 years it would be difficult to do so economically, as rust started forming and the drivetrain started acting up.
And then in the 80’s, facing pressure from foreign automakers, American automakers finally started taking quality control and reliability more seriously. Still, though, they’ve basically always been behind Toyota.
And you can see the difference in the used auto market. Back then, the older cars were sold for scrap. If they were still functional and economically feasible to run, they would’ve been sold to someone.
Some people can (and do) still buy new and replace every 3 years. The increase longevity actually ends up helping them with resale value on the back end of their ownership.
What good is all that extra durability if all the cost savings are swallowed up by a much higher purchase price? We can always make things last longer; that doesn’t mean its worth it. Financially, a $40k car that lasts twenty years is actually worse than two $20k cars that last ten years each. With the two $20k cars, I can spend half as much at today and invest the other half. In ten years time, that $20k will likely have grown enough to buy a whole new $20k car. And it will have newer features. And that’s less assets that I’m driving around all day just waiting to get wrapped around a tree.
And it gets even worse when you consider insurance and maintenance. When cars are relatively disposable, you don’t need to bother getting full coverage policies on them. If you get in a wreck, oh well, that’s life, but you can afford to replace it. Few people have insurance plans on their bicycle or clothing for that reason. But when a car is so expensive that it represents a substantial chunk of your financial world, well then it being wrecked is as ruinous as your house burning down. You have to pay some third party for insurance, and the profit margin and admin costs they will demand. Averaged out, every insurance policy you have to buy is a losing game. You lose money every time you buy insurance, on average. The more things you have to insure, the poorer you are.
Automakers have realized that cars are more durable, and they have raised their prices to compensate. We as citizens don’t actually receive any of the benefit of increased car durability, as the automakers have simply swallowed it all with price increases.
Financially, a $40k car that lasts twenty years is actually worse than two $20k cars that last ten years each.
But that’s just it. New cars are basically a luxury today, because cars last so long that there’s a robust used car market. Most people who need cars buy used, and today’s 5-year-old car with 60,000 miles is expected to last much longer than 1971’s brand new cars. Then, even used cars retain a percentage of their value better today than new cars did back then.
So the typical car buyer in 1971 bought new, and a typical car buyer in 2024 buys used. And the used car being bought today will last longer and has better features (and uses less gasoline, which by the way has gone up in price slower than overall inflation).
The last 5 years have been bad for the consumer in buying cars. But the previous 50 years were huge progress for the consumer, when cars stopped rusting holes in them, when oil changes went from once every 3000 miles to closer to 10k miles, sometimes up to 15k, and when reliability increased enough to where maintenance outside of scheduled maintenance or car accidents is unusual.
And it gets even worse when you consider insurance and maintenance. When cars are relatively disposable, you don’t need to bother getting full coverage policies on them.
The robust used market helps with this, too. There are cheap cars in existence, and those beaters are still more reliable than the beaters of the 70’s.
No matter how you slice it, driving is cheaper and better today than it was in the 70’s.
And yet, other nations manage to build and sell perfectly reliable new cars for affordable prices today. For an extreme example, look at China’s EV market. US automakers simply don’t want to make affordable vehicles, and US vehicles are often more unreliable than more affordable Japanese or Korean imports. The US isn’t the only country on Earth. It’s just US automakers that decided to focus exclusively on the luxury market.
US automakers simply don’t want to make affordable vehicles
I’m talking about the US market, which is now dominated by Japanese automakers who build cars in the U.S. that completely changed the reliability game, and the Korean automakers that started at the economy side of things and slowly moved upmarket over the last 25 years. They’re not even imports, as most of them are made in North America specifically for the US market, and these same popular models don’t get sold in Japan or Korea or wherever the parent company is based. The Japanese automakers are exactly who I was thinking about when I made my post about reliability and longevity in the US for US consumers.
Even the luxury side of things has almost entirely been abandoned by traditional American automakers, where European brands dominate. But the ultra-luxury (or sporty supercars) aren’t part of the conversation here because the typical American household doesn’t buy those.
The US isn’t the only country on Earth.
Yes, but this whole post is about the US economy and the typical household in the US. We’ve only been talking about the US, because that’s how the post started.
The car market in the US has changed dramatically since COVID, and for the worse. This time last year, I was looking for a new car and I saw that the price for used cars jumped 20% over the course of December. 20% in a single month, and that was for used cars, and it continued to climb like that through January.
Not a meme.
Every time you paste that in one of my threads, I’m going to let everyone see what a lie your bio is:
Also, “family income” now includes the wife, kids and dog. It used to be that ONE person could earn enough to pay for housing, food, car, Healthcare, etc.
So “family income” is NOT “keeping up with the cost of inflation” despite what the business world wants us to think.
Libertarian trash. It literally quotes their god Hayek at the end.
I don’t see how any of Hayek’s ideas apply here.
If e.g. money was treated like outlined in his “Denationalization of money” the inflation rate would look vastly different, because the supply inflation of the USD couldn’t have been forced the way it was done.
And that supply inflation caused devaluation of the USD and inflation of prices.
I’m not saying that all of the inflation rate has been caused by USD supply inflation, but Hayek might be not so bad, if you look closer.
I mean, Austrian economics barely plays any role in any economy; why blame them for the shortcomings of our current economic schemes?Only some of it is libertarian trash. The majority of those graphs could be equally interpreted as the need to move towards a more socialist policy.
I can think of two big changes that happened around then, and both had long-term repercussions:
- Nixon Shock
- Deunionization
Although these are kinda related too, because you need savings to strike. Credit ratings are a horrifyingly opaque way for corporations to tell us how long we can last.
Pointing out that something bad happened in 1971 with matching data sets is not inherently libertarian, the information is in itself not libertarian slanted. Even if the presenters interpretation is wrong, it doesn’t mean the data is invalid.
You could say the same thing about a lot of Fox News articles. The data in the article is valid, but the way they interpret it is absolutely not. So maybe don’t use them as a source.
I really shouldn’t have to explain to you why a data set without context beyond “wtf happened in 1971” and a Hayak quote is different than a fox news opinion piece, I want to believe that you’re smart enough to figure that out on your own champ.
Why does your meme use 1971?
You would have to ask Mr. Fred Krueger. Ask it nicely, because I hear he can kill you in your dreams.
Why isn’t he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?
Why isn’t he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead, since the average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971?
Because they are comparing inflation of different things. If it all was done inflation adjusted, income would have gone down, many prices would remain the same and some would go up. It would be less clear
Why isn’t he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?
Official inflation rates calculation formulas have been adjusted too many times for it to have any value to compare prices over 50 year period.
Why isn’t he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead,
This is a valid point, it would more precisely account for “hedonistic” adjustment
e average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971
is it 5.5x larger?
If the number is 4x instead of 5.5, how would your analysis change on the trend we see here?
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state, promoting its fiat paper covered in slavemasters, and actively participating in its planetary destruction. The whole system is a scam. It’s completely obvious.
It’s ok if people want to criticize crypto because it’s also garbage capitalism. But that’s nothing compared to what the state is doing…
How would you guarantee my safety without a state? What would stop some group of people who decided to rape and pillage from doing so?
Does the state guarantee you that? What’s your net worth?
See my comments to others about Haiti and Somalia. I will enjoy you also evading the uncomfortable truth of what happens when there is no state.
Also, not that it’s any of your business, but my net worth is in the negative ten thousand dollar range. What about yours, since we’re sharing? Will you even tell me?
What would stop some group of people who decided to rape and pillage from doing so?
Who is stopping our oligarchs and their CEO lapdogs from doing this now?
Elites in fact rape poor people’s children… Healthcare CEO pillage family’s bank accounts if one of them has health issues?
You’re evading the question. Please answer it.
They’re not.
Who is stopping them now? Because if you say “the police”, you’re going to have to cite some sources. They not only don’t stop anyone from being raped, they routinely side with the rapists, or even employ them directly.
Again, take a look at Haiti right now or Somalia 20 years ago if you think there is a difference in safety between living in a state and living in a place with no state.
And when you say “the police,” the police in which country? Or are you suggesting there are no police in any state on this planet that stop gangs from running rampant through towns?
if you think there is a difference in safety between living in a state and living in a place with no state.
nobody said this… only you are saying this here.
Sorry, you’ve already shown you are not here in good faith.
There is no safety for the working class right now. Your above comment implies that there is. If poor people can’t have safety, then the rich don’t get it either. You keep shilling statist bullshit. We discussed this already.
Now answer my question…
Nope. You’re still evading. What I am talking about is happening right now in Haiti. There is no state. Gangs are taking over towns. People are getting raped and murdered in their homes. And this is the paradise you want.
So you position is either we have the current regime or we get Haiti style situation?
There is no possible scenario where working people get a better life?
You do understand that government is just a tool?
This tool is currently being used against working people by the ruling class.
Then we have people like you spending day in, day out defending this clown shit using some generic propaganda tactics, fear here specifically.
Nobody advocating a stateless solution… specific comment:
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state
That’s what you do on the daily here lol
You then proceed to imply that original comment was promoting some sort of anarchy to which you respond with leading questions to highlight how dangerous this line of thinking is. Strawman?
Nobody advocating a stateless solution…
Interesting how you only quoted part of what you wrote.
Here it is in context where you are suggesting that states are a scam and those that support them are destroying the planet:
People see all this and then continue worshiping the state, promoting its fiat paper covered in slavemasters, and actively participating in its planetary destruction. The whole system is a scam. It’s completely obvious.
You also literally used “statist” as an insult.
You are clearly not discussing this in good faith, so I think I’m done here.
Let me save you some time :)
There are never actual well-thought-out answers, just a chain of poorly constructed what-ifs
The answers always put them in control without any guardrails and just require everyone to assume they’re good-hearted people with good intentions.
Exactly. And then when you question them further, you often find out that they would not be one of those good-hearted people who would pay them to solve the problem.
The most disturbing stat is that our contempt for the rich hasn’t really multiplied at all.
Speak for your damn self
Luigi converted a few people but so much more work to be done.
Now do CEOs.
I can’t count that high
I bought a 3br 2ba 1.7k sqr house in the suburbs in 2017 for 135k and a hybrid car with 10k miles on it for 20k a few years ago. I’m really confused at these numbers. Are people just living outside their means and hoping collectors won’t come knocking? I was making 55k at the time and I had no real financial troubles.
Can’t speak for everyone, but COVID really drove up prices. Imo, there has been some gauging since then by keeping supply low. However, at least in my neck of the woods, prices seem to be going down and feels like we are getting back to pre-covid.
The car metric is for a new car. I think it’s a valid assessment even if buying a used car is the better option for most people.
Huh. I wonder what happened between 2017 and today?
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/mortgages/housing-bubble
Also…
https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/
This has some serious boomer “I paid $25 a credit in college so I don’t see why you are all taking out big loans” vibes to it.
So doesn’t that mean it’s a housing bubble issue? It seems like the focus on 1971 is designed to mislead people to think it’s not a (very) recent phenomenon. This just seems like another “grr boomers” post which is just more division that serves to redirect anger from the ultra wealth.
Is housing the only thing mentioned in the meme? Is the fact that housing is even more obscenely expensive than it was in 2017 so that far fewer people can afford it than even could then some sort of proof that things are better now?
Thats a lot more recent than 1971.
Maybe that’s because they were talking about what changed between 2017 and today.
I’m not a mathematronicist, but I’m pretty sure 1971 came before 2017.
Whatever you say mathemetron
A 17k Sq ft house for 135k? I’m calling bullshit. Maybe 1.7k.
Ah, yes, you’re absolutely correct.
