this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
1494 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

6138 readers
1676 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago

Oh oh I got one too. Your McChicken, since 2014 alone, has risen in price 200% from $1 to $2.99. Along with most of their other items. They're artisan dining now, not fast food.

https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/How-Have-McDonalds-Prices-Changed-Since-2014-1392

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

But this guy will make it great again, surely.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

55k sounds really low for a family income. Is that per person?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

Got some news for you…. That’s family.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

The only thing I disagree with in this post is using the average cost of an Ivy League education. If they're comparing averages, either use all higher education or state universities.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

B...b...but you have smart phones!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

The cake is being eaten. They let us eat it and we ate it.

[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But somehow people are mad at queer folks and foreigners instead of the C-suite and their boards.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Libertarian trash. It literally quotes their god Hayek at the end.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Cars have gotten needlessly complex. And they're charging subscriptions and spying on people. Selling off the data too.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Arguably, the modern safety features are quite nice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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. :(

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›