4 ms·

I'm simply presenting a thought experiment, not an actual choice. The thought experiment demonstrates that purchasing power has increased from 1970 to 2016 (at

by Pyxl101 11y ago

I'm simply presenting a thought experiment, not an actual choice. The thought experiment demonstrates that purchasing power has increased from 1970 to 2016 (at least, if you prefer 2016 wages and products to 1970 wages and products). If you'd like to argue that "purchasing power should have increased more if it wasn't for XYZ..." then that's fine, but it's separate from the point that I was debunking: > but the purchasing power of that nominal wage has gone down faster than the increase If one prefers 2016 products at 2016 wages, then purchasing power has increased. Since real wages have stayed constant, we're basically just talking about 1970 products vs. 2016 (and 2016 products are much better, cheaper, etc)

dnautics 11y ago
Sure, I agree that the products in my life seem better than the products I would have had in the 70s. I am just wary of this argument because it becomes an argument for substitution (which is one way that government fudges the effect of inflation on the poor)... There are also a lot of things you aren't taking into account. In 2016, your phone costs $100 and has to be replaced every two years. Your phone in the 70s might probably still work today (I think most PBXs still support rotary). Has the improvement in quality of life tracked this increased cost?
makomk 11y ago
Sure, purchasing power has increased massively for fancy new 2016 products like cellphones, TVs and gadgets. Unfortunately it's also plummeted for old-fashioned 1970s-esque products like food, fuel to go to work, and a roof over your head and even though it's 2016 people still need those products. Having a 42" television for a price that would have seemed astonishing a few years ago is little help if you can't feed your family and can barely pay the rent.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Not true for food or energy, hard to find (imputed) rent vs income. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/your-grandparents-spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/you... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10891 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10891
  - collyw 11y ago
    In the 70's a family with only one breadwinner earned enough to pay for a mortgage as well as all the other food and energy.

by Pyxl101 11y ago

dnautics 11y ago

Sure, I agree that the products in my life seem better than the products I would have had in the 70s. I am just wary of this argument because it becomes an argument for substitution (which is one way that government fudges the effect of inflation on the poor)... There are also a lot of things you aren't taking into account. In 2016, your phone costs $100 and has to be replaced every two years. Your phone in the 70s might probably still work today (I think most PBXs still support rotary). Has the improvement in quality of life tracked this increased cost?

makomk 11y ago

Sure, purchasing power has increased massively for fancy new 2016 products like cellphones, TVs and gadgets. Unfortunately it's also plummeted for old-fashioned 1970s-esque products like food, fuel to go to work, and a roof over your head and even though it's 2016 people still need those products. Having a 42" television for a price that would have seemed astonishing a few years ago is little help if you can't feed your family and can barely pay the rent.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Not true for food or energy, hard to find (imputed) rent vs income. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/your-grandparents-spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/you... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10891 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10891
- collyw 11y ago
  In the 70's a family with only one breadwinner earned enough to pay for a mortgage as well as all the other food and energy.